We’re exercising our freedom and taking off the 3rd to celebrate the 4th. See you Monday!Hide

markzip’s Techdirt Profile

markzip

About markzip




markzip’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 14th, 2014 @ 4:30pm

    Tracking and advertising

    I suspect that the very biggest reason that the Times has not gotten there yet is revealed in this section:


    The Challenges

    To successfully move to HTTPS, all requests to page assets need to be made over a secure channel. It’s a daunting challenge, and there are a lot of moving parts. We have to consider resources that are currently being loaded from insecure domains — everything from JavaScript to advertisement assets.

    If the assets for an advertisement aren’t able to serve over an HTTPS channel, the advertisement will probably not display on the page, directly affecting revenue. It can be difficult to determine if each advertisement will load over HTTPS. Considering the importance of advertisements, this is very likely to be a significant hurdle to many media organizations’ implementation of HTTPS. While some advertising platforms, including Google’s DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), do support HTTPS loading, there are still a number of ad networks that may not be HTTPS-compatible.


    That particular NY Times article has references to (at minimum) the following third-party resources:
    Dynamic Yield, Google Analytics, New Relic, Web Trends, Adobe Typekit, Scorecard Research, Revsci, Chartbeat.

    Mike, can you tell us how difficult it was for you guys to go HTTPS? This very TechDirt article is pulling even more third party resources: Bizo, ChartBeat, DoubleClick, Facebook Connect, Flattr, Google Analytics, Google+ Platform, Gravatar, Quantcast, Reddit, Scorecard Research, Twitter Button, Akamai (not sure that counts), Google APIs, Google Tag Services. And possibly others I cannot see.

    Just how much of a challenge is it?

  • Jul 11th, 2012 @ 8:59pm

    Sounds the old days of the record biz

    This reminds me of record pressing plants of old.

    Record industry old-timers I know have told me lurid tales of "the front door" and "the back door" of pressing plants.

    The people who ran the plant would press a certain number of records and send them out "the front door" to be counted by the client/artist. A whole 'nother number went out "the back door" to be sold off the books, with the artists seeing nothing on the books. In extreme cases, it was a the record company itself selling off the books.

  • Nov 29th, 2011 @ 4:18pm

    UPDATE: He has a "clarifying" post up

    A subsequent post entitled "Let's Mke Things Sparklingly clear" contains the following rather wonderful paragraph:


    If you should still want the component items in the above mentioned elaborate hoax, they will be available separately at a more affordable price in the New Year, unless you are one of those pirates who imagines they are evangelists or that other peoples rights absolve their own thievery, in which case this is between you and your dim conscience.
    \
    So that's his record company AND the pirates told, then.

  • Nov 16th, 2011 @ 5:44pm

    I wrote my Senator about SOPA and this is what he said:

    Sen. Schumer (D NY) wrote back to me on November 2:


    Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx

    Thank you for your contacting me in opposition to S.968, the PROTECT IP Act. Like you, I believe that consumers should have access to a vibrant and innovative online community to discuss their ideas and opinions. At the same time, we must not let the internet become a haven for intellectual property thieves.

    The threat to intellectual property owners over the internet is clear. Every year, the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that copyright theft costs our nation about $58 billion in lost output, 373,375 in lost jobs, and $16 billion in lost employee earnings. These numbers present an unacceptable burden to US businesses. In addition, companies may be less likely to innovate because their products may be stolen by intellectual property pirates, creating a drag on the US economy.

    The PROTECT IP Act addresses the problem of intellectual property theft online, but it also contains important due process protections to ensure that legal activity over the internet is not disrupted. As you may know, the PROTECT IP Act would allow the Department of Justice to file a claim against a website that 1) has no significant purpose other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement, circumventing technology controlling access to copyrighted works, or selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services; or (2) is designed, operated, or marketed and used to engage in such activities. A judge would have to find that a website is intentionally violating intellectual property rights of an American entity before he could issue an order against that site. I believe PROTECT IP Act would provide law enforcement and intellectual property holders additional tools to protect American intellectual property from websites while still ensuring the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and due process. The PROTECT IP Act currently is awaiting action on the floor of the Senate, and I will continue to monitor this bill as it moves through the Senate.

    Thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.


    Sincerely,

    Charles E. Schumer
    United States Senator



    Interestingly, this is the exact same boilerplate I got when I wrote about PROTECT IP at the end of August. It appears that he is so bought and paid for that he is not even bothering to update his responses.

    My other senator (Kirsten E. Gillibrand D, NY) said thanks for the contact but did not even send a boilerplate response. My Representative (Hinchey, NY 22) has not responded in any way to my contact, although as I recall he has had a pretty decent record on 'net affairs.