Slashdot Mirror

Defective By Design

and

Copyrights Must Expire

and

Copyright Timeline

Just to give you a start...

They've also regurgitated this crap before years ago: https://www.publicknowledge.or...

The problem is that this is not about the law, it's about judiciary doing whatever they want (and maybe not understanding the meaning of the law).

The law is pretty clear for us:
CHAPTER III PROVISION OF CONNECTION AND INTERNET APPLICATIONS
Section I
Of the Network Neutrality

Art. 9 - The party responsible for the transmission, switching ou routing has the duty to process, on an isonomic basis, any data packages, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application.
(...)
Paragraph 3 - When providing Internet connectivity, free or at a cost, as well as, in the transmission, switching or routing, it is prohibited to block, monitor, filter or analyze the content of data packets, in compliance with this article.

The judge ordered the internet providers to block Whatsapp, witch is only possible through violation of the law (and not for Whatsapp to stop working, that order would actually be legal).

The other time this illegal order was given, a higher court overruled it based on public interest, not on net neutrality grounds. I bet the same will happen again. Judges are routinely stepping over the law in Brazil, they like to have that power.
I cannot sue the judge for violating my rights, I can sue the government. If I sue, a judge will evaluate my damages (and he/she will say it was nothing if there were no lost businesses), and order the state to compensate me with our tax money, carefully so that I don't have "illicit enrichment".
I work in the judiciary, and I talked to my judge about the subject the other time this shit happened. Legally that's our situation down here. He clearly though the order was abusive the other time, but also based on public interest. It was a little hard to explain to him the meaning of net neutrality and the above article in our law.

Quoting a small snippet from a larger work with attribution in the USA is generally fair use. But in any case, how can the Free Software Foundation claim that code that links to GPL libraries even *dynamically* is a derived work if APIs are not copyrightable? As much as I am against excessive copyright, people can't have it both ways.

Others disagree though, although I think they are probably wrong (but its up to the courts etc...):
https://www.publicknowledge.or...
"There's a dangerous meme going around that if Oracle loses its novel copyright claims against Google that suddenly the GPL will become unenforceable. This idea hinges on a misunderstanding about the difference between linking to a code library and merely using an API. ... Florian Mueller, who provides indispensable analysis of various intellectual property issues in the mobile industry, believes that whether an API is copyrightable can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. He is certainly right that the overall design of a system of APIs can show "creativity," in the same sense that a brilliant mechanical invention is creative. But that does not mean that copyright is the proper way to protect that creativity, if at all. Copyright extends only to "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression," and a system of API calls does not meet that test. It is not a "fixed" work in the same way that an actual computer program is. I will not address whether a system of APIs is patentable, but certainly the creativity that a well-designed API scheme might show is closer to the creativity that a concise mathematical statement (not patentable) or a new design for an engine (patentable) might show. In any event, simply because something is "creative" in some sense does not mean that it deserves legal protection, unless it can be shown that some desired level of creativity would not happen without such protection. I do not see any evidence that the dynamic and innovative software industry requires copyright protection for APIs to maintain its current high level of creativity. ..."

Some people also suggest the dynamic linking issue for the GPL would not hold up in the Supreme Court...

To add to the confusion, from Richard Stallman:
http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/...
"Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always
makes a derivative work.
That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
with substantial bodies) to do that."

How can he say that and still argue that dynamic linking to a GPL's library makes something fall under the GPL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
"This key dispute is whether or not non-GPL software can legally statically link or dynamically link to GPL libraries. Different opinions exist on this issue. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of code under the GPL must themselves be under the GPL. Ambiguity arises with regards to using GPL libraries, and bundling GPL software into a larger package (perhaps mixed into a binary via static linking). This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works. The following points of view exist: ... The Free Software Foundation (which holds the copyright of several notable GPL-licensed software products and of the license text itself) asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically linked library is indeed a derivative work. ..."

So, while they are at it, why not get the Supreme Court to rule on that dy

There is some place for secrecy in negotiation. If our negotiators are trying to get the best deal for us, they don't want to reveal what concessions they are willing to make until they have a sense of the concessions other parties are willing to make.

The problem is that, at least in the US, the trade negotiating agency has its priorities set by a limited number of industry advisory groups, and these groups are not representative of US interests. The composition of the groups is about 20 years behind the times, so as a result you have a trade agency pushing for copyright restrictions without thinking about how they will affect the technology industry.

The trade agency also expends a disproportionate amount of bargaining capital on intellectual property, thus reducing what it is able to accomplish in other areas, such as labor and environmental standards.

Finally, the trade agency writes its own interpretation of US law into free trade agreements. It's usually pretty close to what US law actually says, but sometimes it misinterprets it, or US law changes and the FTA text ends up saying something completely different.

Not every ISP is comcast.

No, they are not. Do you think it's any different with Verizon, CenturyLink, or any other regional or national ISP? Every one of them has received the tax breaks that started with the Telecom Act of 1996, and instead of using that additional money to build infrastructure as mandated in the law, have generally used it to line the pockets of they executives with cash.

I'm not really convinced that the internet will end without net neutrality. It could potentially make a few things inconvenient, but I'm not convinced that we need to get out our pitchforks and torches over it.

This is the beginning of turning the internet into Cable TV 2.0. In a few years you will be buying an internet plan based on whether you get high speed access to Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, or whatever hot new web service shows up. You want to use "old school" internet tools that run on ports other than 80, 443, 25, 465/587? That'll be extra, or maybe you'll have to get the "Business" package.

it only ever takes actions towards ending it

I'm no Obama fan, nor did I vote for him, but for the first few years of his presidency, he seemed to be trying to get the FCC to enforce net neutrality. This was met with resistance from every major national ISP. Some examples include Verizon arguing that "it had a first amendment right to block content on its network." and "like a newspaper, it provides you with news but has a right to cover whatever it wants and say whatever it wants." Another would be Comcast suing the FCC to overturn the FCC order censuring Comcast from interfering with subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software

The part of the 1996 Telecom Act that excludes ISPs from being covered under common carrier rules would seem to support this. I think amending the law to remove this restriction would then give the FCC more legal ability to actually implement some form of net neutrality, and keep us from having to "get out our pitchforks and torches over it."

Here's a link with a picture.

http://publicknowledge.org/node/7623

adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Seriously?

Of course, her quote is serious. Apparently, she's even able to predict the future (you do not want to mess with such a person, I can tell you that much).

The story hasn't even appeared in the Wall Street Journal yet, so it isn't even public knowledge yet. And yet, she seems to know all about what the Wall Street Journal is about to print before it prints it.

April 30, 2013
The Wall Street Journal and other sources are reporting that the President will nominate Tom Wheeler, Managing Director of Core Capital Partners, to replace outgoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Perhaps her blog should just be renamed InsiderKnowledge.org instead, or ControllingTheNarrative.com. It's a well known PR techniques to try to control the narrative of a story before the news in question is actually given out to anyone else. This way, the breadcrumbs they lay out for others to find can be gobbled up by the journalists on tight deadlines who are eager to find relevant quotes for their articles.

There are many organisations already working on behalf of ordinary people in cases such as this...the summary already has highlighted one such in the most excellent EFF but there are a number of others who are charitable donation funded and the like so negating your belief that huge wealth is needed to have voices on our side in this, and other, conflicts with the corporations who seek to enrich themselves by removal of our freedoms and liberties. I'll offer a small selection of such organisations below: https://www.eff.org/ http://ffii.org/ http://www.publicknowledge.org/ http://keionline.org/ http://infojustice.org/category/trade-agreements/ http://www.article19.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.edri.org/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ The last link is to Professor Michael Geist a prominent a noteworthy intellectual and activist in the field. All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

He doesn't need to prove anything that is not already on the press. It is obvious what MPAA and its lobbyists have been doing:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

http://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-advises-movie-lobby-stop-threaten

I have a bad feeling that something worse is waiting for us down the line...

With good reason.

And it's closer than you think.
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Tell the President how you feel about it.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/Tell-White-House-Ensure-OpennessTPP-IP-Chapter

The behind-the-scenes "thing" that they're hiding is the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement)

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Read and be informed!!!!!!!!

Tell President Obama to stop the TPP Here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/Tell-White-House-Ensure-OpennessTPP-IP-Chapter

Netflix cannot comply with the ADA in this case, because doing so would create a derivative work of the original, without the permission of the copyright holder.

Closed Captioning in the states was launched in 1980 with a set-top box distributed through the Sears, Roebuck catalog. The integrated decoder for analog receivers became mandatory on all sets sold or manufactured after July 1, 1993,

Closed Captioning is 32 years old, people, and a striking example of how technology can enlarge and enrich the life of the disabled. Thirty years ago my father needed this tech, thirty years on, we both need this tech. It is only the geek that never ages.

In our reply comments, PK explained why captioning a video is a ''fair use'' that does not qualify as copyright infringement under section 107 of the Copyright Act. Section 107 lists four factors that go into a fair use analysis, three of which favor captioning as a fair use. The nature of the copyrighted work (here, video programming) is probably highly creative, and so it enjoys a fair amount of copyright protection. However, captioning is a non-commercial use that is simply intended to make the programming accessible to individuals with disabilities, and to legally comply with the CVAA. Captioning uses as little of the copyrighted work as possible because it only conveys exactly what a person with a hearing disability would need to understand the video: the words being spoken. Finally, captioning actually has a positive effect upon the market value of the work for the copyright owner. When more people can access the programming, the audience for the video programming will grow. This is a perfect example of how the fair use doctrine serves the overall goal of copyright law: promoting the progress of art and knowledge.

Even if captioning infringed copyright, the CVAA explicitly orders the FCC to âoerevise its regulations to require the provision of closed captioning on video programming delivered using Internet protocol....â If captioning does indeed violate copyright, then the FCC has statutory authority to create a limited exception to copyright protection for the purposes of implementing the CVAA. Copyright law is not a shield against all other legal obligations. The FCC has even reached this conclusion before, when it required cable companies to make copyright-protected programming available to competitors under the program access rules.

Copyright Does Not Trump Disability Rights Law

The most striking and bizarre aspect of the thing is to see the geek stand in lock-step with the corporate giants who have framed this debate in terms of SOPA.

If Google does not require that license to your content, then how in gods name will they do simple things like display thumbnail previews of documents, which by NECESSITY is a derrivitive work? If anything, the fact that Microsoft and Dropbox *does not* have this in their agreement basically means they are violating their agreement constantly, just no one is calling them on it.

No. Thumbnails are not copyright infringement. That's been litigated and won. By Google. So they know better.

The timing on this is WAAAY too coincidental...that's because the studios rolled this out now so that they could tell the Librarian of Congress that there exists a commercial ability to rip DVDs to digital files for use in the iOS infrastructure and therefore Exemption Class 10 and the position of Public Knowledge is unnecessary. Read the comments and replies, you'll see.

Which makes this all the more insidious. They could have rolled this AGES ago, but they're doing it now to stop American consumers from exercising their Free Use rights for another 3 years...during which, I'm sure, there will be another shift in their business strategy that they will take advantage of to bilk consumers. Ironically, the reason they gave during the arguing of the DMCA for this provision was NOT anti-consumer; instead it was compliance with licensing of hardware manufacturers. How thin that veil was! Because now they're back transparently arguing against the consumer. This needs to stop NOW! The studios stood by and watched the revolution; their loss. Consumers have hundreds/thousands of dollars of DVDs and Blu-rays and capable hardware to do the conversions at their fingertips, just as with CDs and iTunes. Exempt the DMCA and give us the ability to exercise our rights without being labeled "pirates".

Microsoft is way ahead of you: the Xbox360 already authenticates peripherals and they've used the DMCA to try to prevent a competitor (Datel) from producing memory cards that work around the scheme.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/microsoft-argues-third-party-peripherals-are-

Who has written the book or article that works out how American patent and copyright law can be brought back to benefiting the people?

One critic a few years ago said that we are living with a "Pre VCR Law in a digital You-Tube age."

So the question I have is, what political group or thinker has a draft of a better more citizen favourable patent and copyright law? Who understands how to get enough elected politicians all moving on patent and copyright law reform?

I think to myself, in the '80's Ralph Nader was talking about problems with American corporate power. And in this current Presidential campaign, Ron Paul simply has a broad brush attack against our law culture and he doesn't speak specifically about patent and copyright reform.

Business method patents, Java litigation, patent notices on websites, $1500 dollar per song penalties, and this sucking film of illegality about every kind of digital device re-purposing really does add up to a pattern of exploitation. All this legal brutality resembles the English trying to prohibit the export of textile and steam engine technology in the 1700's.

Quote from http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1244

Collapse like the fashion industry? :-)
"The Fashion Industry's Piracy Paradox"
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/597
"The typical explanation for intellectual property law goes something like this: Creating new books, films, drugs, songs, etc. is expensive, but once the nifty new thing is produced, copying is cheap (or, in the case of copying done over the Internet, free). Unrestrained copying robs creators of the means to profit from their works -- the copyist can always outcompete the originator. So we need IP protections to make sure that the original author or inventor has control over copying. This way, authors and inventors will be properly motivated to create.
That's a sensible theory, but it doesn't always translate in the real world. Consider the fashion industry, a creative industry larger by far than the film, recorded music and book publishing industries. The logos and labels that adorn apparel and accessories are protected by trademark law. But the designs of the garments themselves - the cut of a sleeve, the fit of a bodice - are not. Copyright law does not cover most fashion designs because clothing is a "useful article", a class of items that falls in the jurisdiction of patents and not copyrights. But patent law is almost irrelevant to fashion designs, both because the patent standard of "novelty" cannot be met by most designs, and for the practical reason that the patent application process proceeds too slowly to be meaningful for most fashion designs, which live a brief commercial life and then disappear.
So current U.S. IP law does little to protect fashion designs, and yet the fashion industry is doing quite well, thank you. How can that be? Take a look again at the typical explanation for IP law that I set out in the first paragraph of this post. Anyone who shops - even us men - cannot help but notice that there is lots of copying (aka, "piracy") of fashion designs. And yet the stores are full of innovative new designs every season. We have a puzzle. ...
So what does this matter? Well, if the law prohibited fashion design copying, then the fashion industry would have a much harder time creating and responding to trends. U.S. copyright law prohibits not only verbatim copies, but also any work that is "substantially similar" to a preexisting copyrighted work. So if copyright law were extended to fashion designs, the unique innovation culture of the fashion world might come under intense legal scrutiny. Designers will give way to lawyers, as every season's new collection is carefully examined for potential legal liability. Young and unknown designers will be worst off, as they will not be able to afford the lawyers' fees that will be part of the new price of admission to the industry. And an industry that has been a thriving locus of both unbridled creativity and profit may suffer. ..."

So, let's talk about how can anyone make a sofwtare project or innovative hardware device when they have to learn about and negotiate 250,000 patents, any single one of which can lead to an injunction to stop production? It's just absurd.

A related satire I write from almost ten years ago that is sadly more true everyday:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
"My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all f

Have you TRIED any other search engine? These guys have been working hard to claw a 0.1% from Google. And along the way they have actually managed to produce some pretty nifty search algorithms. I have stopped using Google for 2 years now and have seldom been let down by my new search engine.

Naming your new one would have been useful, especially if its so great. By not naming it I just assume you are a an anti-google troll. Sorry if that is wrong but we all know there is an anti google campaign paid for by AT&T and MS.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2741
http://techrights.org/2009/06/15/microsofts-whisper-campaign-goog/
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-an-anti-google-whisper-campaign-looks-like-2009-6

Public Knowledge just did a nice report about the coming collision of intellectual property expectations and 3D printing/CNC: It Will Be Awesome If They Don't Screw It Up .

I've seen these inexpensive little machines, and I think they're too persnickety for real use: sure, you can get decent models out of them sometimes, but it takes skill and luck and persistence. But their bigger buddies can make some really nice stuff: solid, clean surface finish, etc. I'm just waiting for someone to start a chain of 3D printing shops where you can bring your CAD design in the morning and come back in the afternoon to pick up a copy--just like the copy shops that started springing up in the 1970's after photocopiers got cheap enough.

Public Knowledge just did a nice report about the coming collision of intellectual property expectations and 3D printing/CNC: It Will Be Awesome If They Don't Screw It Up .

I've seen these inexpensive little machines, and I think they're too persnickety for real use: sure, you can get decent models out of them sometimes, but it takes skill and luck and persistence. But their bigger buddies can make some really nice stuff: solid, clean surface finish, etc. I'm just waiting for someone to start a chain of 3D printing shops where you can bring your CAD design in the morning and come back in the afternoon to pick up a copy--just like the copy shops that started springing up in the 1970's after photocopiers got cheap enough.

I don't understand where all the hate is coming from.

Because their EULA states that you didn't purchase the game, and they retain 100% ownership of it (as well as specifying what you are allowed to do with it) while it is installed on your system. The SC2 EULA is extremely bad when it comes to my rights as a consumer. Their claim of copyright infringement stems from that because the "illegal copy" is the game running in RAM.

I'm all for Blizzard policing its network from cheaters, zeroing achievement scores from glitching, etc. The second they start dictating what I can and cannot do with my purchased software on my own system, and litigating against me as a result, they crossed the line.

Here's some reading about how Blizzard's EULA works.

Here's a form and a prefilled letter to send to your congressmen: http://www.publicknowledge.org/alertfax/3299

I thought it was so that Blizzard could get in on the Starcraft tournament action:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/3171

I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.

It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM is a copyright violation.

Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?

You are correct that they argued about a local copy of the client, however you fail to acknowledge that Count I is "Tortious Interference With Contract"

It is not the ONLY thing that they argued. As for their copyright argument, they asserted that Glider produces an unauthorized copy of the program into memory in order to disable and/or defeat Warden. Such a copy they argue is not authorized.

It's difficult for MDY to argue that making their altered copy of the program is necessary for play... especially when such play is directly a violation of the contract to play said game.

I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.

It might have been reasonable if they'd argued that, but they didn't. Their case is entirely about your local copy of the client. They have argued (successfully) that if you do not follow their license terms then the act of copying it to RAM is a copyright violation.

Perhaps we could stick to discussing what they have argued, not what they haven't?

First off, fashion occupies a unique niche in culture and purchasing decisions. As noted http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/597on a relevent blog "The fashion industry profits by setting trends in clothing, and then inducing consumers to follow those trends. This process leads us to treat clothing as a status-conferring good to be replaced once the fashion changes, rather than as a durable good to be replaced only when all the buttons fall off. Trend-driven consumption is good for the fashion industry, because it sells more clothing. " That nature is hardly applicable to software, literature, film, or design.

The New York times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04fashion.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=allran a story that included this telling quote, "“If I see something on Style.com, all I have to do is e-mail the picture to my factory and say, ‘I want something similar, or a silhouette made just like this,’ ” Ms. Anand said. The factory, in Jaipur, India, can deliver stores a knockoff months before the designer version."

An NPR story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1434815noted that "it's expensive and risky to actually create new designs. It's cheaper and easier to simply knock off successful ones."

The entire point of IP is to encourage social and cultural development through the protection of initial investment. The fashion industry demonstrates what happens when IP is weakened or non-existant - a disincentive to create and develop and a thriving copy-culture.

This is what happens when people who aren't competent in a field start dictating the activities in it.

No, they talk to people who are experts, if not gurus, in the field.

Yes. And I'm sure they are all well educated on the subject to form opinions and make crucial decisions just by talking to experts, while making sure whatever happens is in the best interest of the American people.

Much like how Ted Stevens was on net neutrality and how the internet works in general. No?

They are definitely not twiddling their thumbs and surfing porn all day.

</sarcasm>

I recently found an interesting article on SMS pricing.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2864

Short version of the link: SMS messages are not a "Title II Telecom Service" like phone calls and so are exempt from a lot of pricing regulations. Price fixing would still be illegal though, and the DOJ did an investigation, but dropped it. Even though the carriers increase rates in lockstep I am sure it is very hard to prove that shenanigans are happening.

This is anything but an unrelated "business opportunity".
Google owns huge datacenters. Google has been known to purchase gobs of dark fibre, at this point I imagine they might very well have sufficient connectivity between their datacenters to sustain operations. Throw in their own little grid (a bunch of thorium reactors, perhaps?) and, given enough thorium, they become self-sufficient. Throw in some wireless connectivity with base stations (remember the 700 MHz spectrum auction? Remember Google's bid?) linked to their fibre network and powered through their grid and you get a self-sustaining ad distribution network that'll reach the whole U.S. without needing any partners.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will "don't be evil" cancel that?

Their president has said, "Nothing in the outline presented this morning would increase competition. Reforming universal service and supporting municipal networks are worthwhile goals, but they would do nothing to reverse the slide caused by eight years of misbegotten telecommunications policies that have crippled most meaningful broadband competition for consumers. There was no discussion of opening telecommunications networks to competitors. There was no discussion of structural separations of carriers into wholesale and retail components. These are the factors that Harvard’s Berkman Center told the FCC in a study a mere two months ago were the reasons other countries have surpassed ours – they are using policies we discarded."

cheers,
A. Tapir

@publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap, here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT_SV8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w
and an issue section with several articles, http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc

They have been getting input from a good, broad selection of people? The corporate interests listed have legitimate interests, whether we like them or not. Others, such as the three representatives from Public Knowledge, are EXACTLY who I would want representing various other interests.

See This discussion

yet it's going to this political bullshit (like the "traffic monitoring" provisions snuck into the stimulus bill here in the States).

Just to clarify the filtering provisions were left out of the bill.

yet it's going to this political bullshit (like the "traffic monitoring" provisions snuck into the stimulus bill here in the States).

Just to clarify the filtering provisions were left out of the bill.

The Democrats are in the **AA's pockets even more than the Republicans, hell VP Biden might might as well be on the payroll. I don't think we'll see any change here (have you seen the content filtering part in the broadband stimulus bill? Luckily, it didn't make it in, but I think it's a sign of things to come.

oh wait, http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2236292/stimulus-bill-nixed-net

Feinstein just introduced this amendment, http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/GRA09175_xml.pdf into the stimulus bill.

guess it's not going to be so illegal after all.

Why do they hate us so much?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, once they finally opened (On another day) if you wanted to buy some meth, all you needed to do is go to the first parking spot on the left (when facing the building.) (this was the FLORIN RD. dmv) But I have used other DMV's and this nonsense about blagh 30 min is pure crap. Try the fucking DMV on Broadway in Sacramento, a three ring circus.

Hope you sprayed with deodorant you stinky motherfucker!

Bring your own lunch!

Think I am kidding?

Search google for california dmv shut down

Get back to me when you figure out that fast tracked legislation by Feinstein to make your ISP more expensive, and snoop on all the rest of your traffic.

Na fuck the government running broadband, in any way or form. You want your voice silenced. Jump in for the slaughter.

You'd be better off turning your fucking TV set off and learning some real news. Then maybe you wouldn't pop off with the mouth like that.

It's stupid shit like this that has us stuck with these fucking electronic vote tabulation devices--which are the reason for ALL our problems right now.

We don't want government in our fucking communications. Otherwise you get bitches like Feinstein who don't know TCPIP or how to operate an ISP or legal uses of copyright media, trying to Fast Track her fucked up plan over and over until it gets through.

But don't just take my word, read up some,
and go Write the Bitch and tell her why you know she's wrong.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1984

This is one of the core contentions of Blizzard, that you are 'leasing' their software and not purchasing it. Unfortunately, even though IANAL, I find it hard to disagree with the amicus brief that was filed during the case. Personally I'd love to know what was on the judge's mind to get him to interpret as he did with such a heavy precedent out of his favor.

The broadcast flag only applies to OVER-THE-AIR ATSC broadcasts.

Says who?

According to Wikipedia:

A broadcast flag is a set of status bits (or a "flag") sent in the data stream of a digital television program that indicates whether or not the data stream can be recorded, or if there are any restrictions on recorded content.

There's nothing distinguishing about ATSC that make the broadcast flag only apply to it, or to only OTA broadcasts. The broadcast flag is an explicit part of the ATSC standard, but that doesn't mean it can't be used in QAM and other broadcasts (because it's plainly happening).

Unlike the ATSC standards where the limit of DRM is the broadcast flag (which IS dead and buried),

According to Public Knowledge:

Is the broadcast flag dead?
Not by a long shot. Although we won a major victory when we had the FCC's order mandating the broadcast flag overturned, similar ideas keep popping up. The content industry has gone to Congress to ask it to implement a broadcast flag. Broadcast flags have also been proposed for terrestrial radio, and content owners have tried to use a the Copyright Office's skewed royalty-setting proceedings to force webcasters to implement other kinds of DRM.

Trying to claim that the "broadcast flag" isn't really a broadcast flag when it's not in an ATSC or OTA stream is disingenuous at best, and probably better called "disinformation". It's the same technology used for the same nefarious purpose by the same people that came up with it.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1767

Assuming $50/month and a 250GB cap, that's a minumum usage rate of $0.20/GB if you use all 250GB every month. The $/GB goes up higher the less you use the network.

Think of it as metered usage with a $50 cap on the bill and a data limit that you didn't agree to.

To me that's worth some additional Comcast bashing.

I suspect this boils down to the cable co's chaffing at paying the monopoly telco's for their network access and they're trying to find ways to pass more of those costs down to you, the customer. (Without you, the customer, taking your business elsewhere as a result.)

When you consider how much dark fiber (particularly, see Butters' Law) is in the ground as well as Comcast's claims (p. 24, citation 83) that last-mile bandwidth cost is not the issue, the whole bandwidth situation for consumers here in the US is absurd.

-Matt

It's unfortunate that the "series of tubes" phrase is what everybody pounced on. Network connections have been referred to as "pipes" for years; it's a useful metaphor.

The trouble is, Stevens didn't use the metaphor correctly. I was going to post a reply essentially agreeing with you about the "series of tubes" thing, but then I actually listened to the rest of what he said, and it quickly became clear that he really doesn't understand what he's talking about, but he can make it sound like he is fighting for rights of the average consumer while advocating a policy of laissez-faire.

Some of the juicier bits:

And what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10:00 in the morning on Friday; I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things that are going on the Internet commercially! [...]

And here we have this one situation where enormous entities want to use the Internet for their purpose, to save money doing what they're doing now. They use FedEx, they use delivery services, they use the mail, they deliver in other ways, but they want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet, and again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on - it's not a big truck, it's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled, and if they're filled, when you put your message in it gets in line; it's gonna be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material - enormous amounts of material. [...]

Maybe there is a place for a commercial net. But it's not using what the consumers use everyday. It's not using the messaging service that I think is essential, I think, to small business, it's essential to our operation of families - the whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there's something that's been done that really is a violation of Net Neutrality that is you and me.

Stevens is saying that commercial use of the Internet (to do things like offer video streaming to paying customers) is clogging up the Internet, causing the rest of us (individuals, families, small businesses) who rely on the Internet for communication to have our e-mail delayed just like his was, and that maybe the companies who want to offer these kinds of services should go build their own network and leave ours alone. After all, the Department of Defense has its own network - why? Because they can't afford to rely on the same Internet the rest of us use, in case it should be clogged up by whatever it is that big corporations our polluting the Internet with.

So what's the solution to this? The solution is to not pass legislation to require Network Neutrality, because there haven't been any actual violations of Network Neutrality yet - or rather, there haven't been any that directly affect "you and me". Instead, we should say "no" to the greedy corporations that support NN, and revisit the issue if not having NN starts causing problems that Stevens can actually understand.

Unbelievable.

I want this man out of my Senate. I wish he could be kicked out for this, but if he loses his seat for lying about the bribes he's been taking instead, I guess that will have to do.

It isn't the "series of tubes" bit that most people are up about (I think it's a fairly decent metaphor given that it was made up on the fly.), it's the rest of the 10 and some minute speech that shows he has no bloody clue.

Have a listen to the entire thing here if you like and form your own opinion.

Without releasing any information what soever, the g8 has fat tracked this abomination.

Oh surprise surprise, I give up. I simply refuse to respect US law anymore. I'll speed whenever the hell I want, steal whatever the hell I want, and if asked, i'll tell them where the fuck to stick it.

These new HD stations are being broadcast right now. I live in fly-over country in Wichita,KS and we have about 10 up and going. So I would think those of you in the Big cities would have many more. They are just a subset of the existing channel. They are just being broadcast on a digital signal. They are FREE and use advert. as current ones do. Just be careful of the new ACTA internaional treaty http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1656 since the Sony's of the world want to shut down the ANALOG plugs on the back of your receivers so you cant even record ANYTHING even in Analog.

For those of you not wanting to endure E-Weak's spam, a better summary can be found here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/707 This group of scam artists has been around the wireless industry for ages, and what a great way to steal. Take something the government already owns and sell it back to them. What will they think of next?