The article is behind a paywall. If you click directly above you will get the first paragraph and an invitation to sign in or sign up.
If, however, you go to news.google.com, type "The Encryption Farce" into the search bar, and click on the story link from there, it will work fine. (Note: it's the same link, but the referrer page of google news will get you in).
I know, we're having fun laughing at Donald Trump's incredibly wee wee-wee. The legal aspects, however, interest me more than another man's schlong*.
17USC512 does not have a "notice of takedown", merely a "notice of claimed infringement". Content providers have only the incentive of NOT-removing their "safe-harbor" if they take appropriate responses, of which taking content down is merely one of several options.
However, if you followed the Viacom v Youtube case you're aware that those "safe-harbor" provisions don't allow you to early remove a case (ala a motion for summary judgement, or as you'd see in a SLAPP cas) but rather must be litigated to its eventual conclusion/settlement.
The DMCA safe-harbor is a joke. It's not a funny one either. Most ISPs with half a brain disregard any of the process OR fall on the other side of taking down everything (e.g. youtube). Either way, if someone is determined to file suit, they will. What you do in response to the "notice of claimed infringement" is almost irrelevant.
* Mike Masnick used it because Donald Trump uses it, so I used it in the same context. Also it's a perfectly fine word to describe OTHER people's private parts because "schlong" includes "long" but Donald's would be "schshort."
Ultralight aircraft as per 14CFR103 do not require a pilot to be certificated. However, there are other restrictions that make most ultralights not actually be able to fly under that part of the regulations. Pilots therefore do have to be certificated, hold a medical certificate as well, and do biennial flight reviews. http://www.usua.org/faq.htm
Specifically in this case, a "Jetpack" doesn't fit the definition of 14CFR103.1(4) by having a stall speed in excess of the allowed maximum of 24 knots. In layman's terms that means "Hey if the jetpack stopped producing thrust, how fast do you glide to keep from plopping into the ground." This is directly related to wing size and even wingsuit flyers have a stall speed in excess of twice that.
So forget about the 5gal fuel limit ... jetpacks will not be flown as ultralights...
Politics: Personal flying devices have been a dream of lots of people. Don't worry, neither law-enforcement nor the insurance lobby will ever let that be something you can do. There's not going to be any way to "enforce the laws" with that many people able to operate; the insurance companies would hate the unending liability; neither side will allow this to be made lawful.
The next time someone says "personal flying machine" or "flying car" "without needing a license" you can just smile and nod because that's not happening ever.
Ehud Gavron FAA Commercial Pilot - Helicopter Tucson AZ US
John85851 wrote: > In other words, this is another $47,000 spent to make it look like the TSA is "doing something".
Absolutely. All this talk of math is missing the forest for the trees.
The TSA's job is to prevent hazardous materials and dangerous people from crossing into the sterile area of a public airport. All the rest of this discussion is about a trivial piece of waving shiny object with an arrow on it which is all just a part of The Security Theater.
It's not really important whether it's truly random. As Whatever pointed out "A true randomizer (and not one that can be predicted)" is what's important. For being unpredictable the stock random functions are important enough.
We're very proud of the "American tradition" that our free-market economy, supply-and-demand, and market-driven focus allows "greater freedoms."
Of course ignoring tariffs*, trade-agreements, credit-exchanges, and other regulatory mechanisms that entirely make the above false, we get to the crux of the thing.
We love it when we can get a great deal on a new car because we did our homework. We love it when we find a great special at Macy's on that crystal photo frame we just didn't get as a gift at wedding number one. We love it when we can get five limes for a dollar instead of three.
On the flip side we're proud when we sold our used VW Bug for a few thousands of dollars over the estimated price. We love seeing that Blac Chyna will likely get one million dollars for "starring" in a KUWTK episode. We love it if our worthless script for "Time Tunnel 1980" (starring Barry Van Dyke and Kent McCord) is purchased for a million dollars.
So we love getting something for less than what it's worth. We love selling something for more than what it's worth.
This thing isn't a failure on IBM's part. IBM did their shareholders proud by collecting an amazing ("tragicomical"?) amount of money for a one-line app any schoolkid can code in under a minute. That someone put a graphical user interface (GUI) on it that's a big arrow, and someone else made it "tamper-proof"* is awesome.
What IS the problem is that our government -- which is supposed to have accountability and checks and balances -- not only happily approved this whole mess, but then tries to explain it's not as bad as we think it is.
So good on IBM and its shareholders for maintaining a profit margin on every app. Bad on the TSA for this. You can, however, consider that after fondling children, searching baby diapers, making people take out colostomy bags and various other things, having a mother drink her own breast milk, and holding travelers hostage for 15 years... this isn't even sweet icing on that cake.
* Those blue regulation "genital fondling" gloves mean they can't hack anything. They don't trigger a response from capacitative-touch screens.
Here's what I said: Hello. The DMCA notice process is heavily abused both to silence criticism and censor speech and in blatant disregard for the actual Act itself and requirements for verification of proper content "ownership", lack of license or right to use (including fair use), and oftentimes no validity to the requested takedown target.
These create a chilling effect and are most often not challenged because of the potential liability of the challenger to statutory damages and the fight against a mega-corporation (or a shameless organization representing them like the RIAA or MPAA).
Our Constitutional rights are first and foremost protective of our freedom of speech and expression. The use of DMCA notices to take down content that people find objectionable, competitive, or otherwise take down for other censorious reasons violates our rights under the First Amendment. That in itself should lead to a change in the "burden" that someone sending such a notice has, and someone acting based on such a notice would have.
The lack of fact-checking, oftentimes issuing notice to content entirely unrelated to the sender's own copyrights, a lack of ability to punish those who regularly abuse this process, and no penalty to repeat offenders all contribute to a broken process.
HOW TO FIX THE DMCA NOTICE PROCESS: 1. Because aspects of copyright law (such as fair use and other exemptions) require a human being to verify the use to see if it's a violation of the Copyright, require a human to verify and swear under oath to its authenticity. Today's automated bots send out a fake electronically "signed" document that has no force of oath. 2. Someone who knowingly sends a notice for content for which either a. they do not have the copyright or copyright holder's permission in writing to represent them and their rights b. is not infringing (either through fair use or other reasons) c. does so more than once in 30 days will have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for 90 days. 3. Someone who uses the DMCA notice process to censor speech shall have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for one year. 4. People would be allowed to challenge and contest the DMCA notice without subjecting themselves to any additional liability.
ADDITIONALLY: 5. There is no requirement that anyone ever "take down" content. The only requirement is that when served a Notice the party will evaluate it and take the appropriate action --as they see fit-- not the DMCA notice maker. 6. There is no requirement that once something is removed anyone must look for other similar data and impact it as well. 7. There is no requirement that once something is removed it must "stay down".
The Internet is a great medium for the people of the world to share information. The United States not only pioneered the Internet technology but contributes heavily to Internet culture. Our emphasis on freedom of speech that is Constitutionally guaranteed sets us aside from foreign regimes that shutter their people's access (China) or prevent them from using social media (Turkey) or punishes them harshly for downloading songs (Iran). It's time we took our antiquated idea of allowing a few censorious DMCA thugs to take down content without human review.
The FBI has pretended its mission includes fighting terrorism, and Techdirt has covered this. Now it pretends its mission is to break into iphones.
In reality the FBI was formed to solve crimes. This crime is solved. Syed Farook (or as previous commenter would rather he be called "San Bernardino Shooter McGavin or Whatever) is dead. He and his ugly-ass wife* killed a bunch of people and then they died. This crime is solved.
The crime (manslaughter) was committed in California, hatched in California, done by Californians, and ended in California. Other than watching a bunch of movies where the FBI comes in and "declares" they're in charge much to the lack of delight of the immediate law-enforcement agency I don't see where HERE the FBI has *ANY* jurisdiction.
I think the FBI stepped over its own dick in the worst possible way in three separate methods - they didn't have jurisdiction - they tried to make this the raison d'etre for Apple to OBEY YOUR GOVERNMENT MASTERS - they committed perjury, lying to the Court about there being no other methods and them having consulted everyone about unlocking the iphone.
Linkies to previous TD stories about the FBI's mission-motto creep, Edward Snowden's tweets about perjury, various experts opining on the iphone, and analysis about the AWA left out because if you read TD and its comments you know how to read those on your own.
Sorry, FBI, you're useless and obsolete. Better mission-creep your motto to something you're good at doing. Right now that doesn't include law enforcement, investigation, terrorism, using obsolete arcane laws, or parading about your knowledge (or ignorance).
* Total opinion here, but they're dead, so not only can I not be sued for slander but there's nobody with standing anyway :)
"Mike Masnick... make an achievement... before you come blabbing and running your lips..."
Actually THIS IS Mike Masnick's website. He didn't COME blabbing and running his lips. YOU came to HIS website blabbing and running your lips.*
Ehud * In modern English the words you meant to use were blabbering and running your mouth off. Of course to expect literacy from a hater that tells a website owner off while drowing in invisible irony is an exercise in futility.
Raise your hand if the way you judge reality is by how many people raise their hand. Popularity contests are awesome for high-school cheerleader but not so much for news.
> Windows the most ubiquitous desktop OS
You made that criteria up. Now go read up like someone who is responding to a previous posting and see that wasn't the criteria at all. Good boy.
Microsoft wrote crap. The fact that they sold it to everybody (and his dog) is good salesmanship but it doesn't make the crap any more eadible. Amiga and Mac had better OSs and they didn't sell so well at all. Still better mousetrap.
> Was betamax[sic] also more successful Again if you define success to having the better mousetrap then sure. If you define it as taking the market and running away with it [see various international lawsuits against Microsoft for unlawful behavior] then yeah that too.
That wasn't the point. The point was that looking at Microsoft was a bad choice. It still is.