Finland: Open WiFi Access Point Owner Not Liable For Infringement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finland: Open WiFi Access Point Owner Not Liable For Infringement

Posted by Unknown on Monday May 14, 2012 @04:03PM from the pirating-play-goers dept.

New submitter mjrauhal writes "In Finland, the operator of an open WiFi access point was found not guilty for copyright infringement allegedly committed over said access point. The operation of such access points would have become legally risky were this decided otherwise. Appeal by the Finnish Anti-Piracy Center is still possible for this district court ruling."

110 of 156 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Better be safe than sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 16:17 · Score: 1

I think this goes to show that in most cases, its better to have some encryption than an open network. Sure, you can possibly
fight your way legally, but you're going to need decent lawyers, money, and the press. I just don't think its worth it for most people,
especially with draconian penalties for stuff like child porn tacked on.
1. Re:Better be safe than sorry by leonardluen · 2012-05-15 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  i think this shows the opposite...
  Had he locked down his wifi he wouldn't have so easily been able to fight the charges. and would now be facing either fines or jail time whatever the the Fin's penalty is for this.
2. Re:Better be safe than sorry by Sancho · 2012-05-15 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Would he? Maybe he wasn't infringing, but someone did it over his wireless access point? I'm guessing that you're assuming he actually did engage in copyright infringement, but maybe he didn't?
  The alternative is that someone else did it on his open wifi. If he had locked it down, that probably wouldn't have happened.
3. Re:Better be safe than sorry by leonardluen · 2012-05-15 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  now i am not advocating that you should break copyright (or that the guy from the article was guilty), but if you are going to break copyright, this case shows you are better off leaving it open as it allows for some plausible deniability that someone else had used the open wifi to do it. had it been locked down it would be quite a bit more difficult to argue that someone else was may have been at fault.
  or there is another possibility, had he locked down his access point, and then someone either broke into it, or he gave his password to a friend that then decides to illegally download copyrighted works, then i suspect he would be in a lot more trouble as it would be far more difficult to prove that someone could unknowingly be using your secured wifi access point.
Duh? by Wattos · 2012-05-14 16:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

Offtopic: Can we please automatically delete all posts with links to my clean pc?
Ontopic:
This baffles me on how money is wasted on anti-piracy. This case should have been dismissed at the very beginning. How can you blame someone simply on the basis of ownership? This is like suing an owner of a car for not locking his car, because his car stolen and used in a crime.
What happens if I use WEP encryption? Would I be liable as well? I wish that the media corporations stopped trolling and started creating some business models which actually make sense in this day and age. All others have already moved forward.
1. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 16:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law. Now anybody can upload anything safely at airports, cafés, hotel lobbies. Hell, do it from your home WiFi router only make sure you don't use encryption for plausible deniability.
  What I'm waiting for is a ruling on an upload from the wired LAN of a largish corporation where they can tie the infringement to the company but not to an individual MAC address. Will employers be forced to do ISP-type logging of all employee network access with 6-month retention?
2. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 16:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law.
  I'm surprised too, but I think this ruling is satisfying. After all, just because it's hard/impossible to find the people who actually committed the crime (or perhaps it's just a civil suit), that doesn't mean they should be able to successfully punish/sue the wrong people.
3. Re:Duh? by brit74 · 2012-05-14 16:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > "I wish that the media corporations stopped trolling and started creating some business models which actually make sense in this day and age. All others have already moved forward."
  
  I was on reddit the other day and the creator of Isohunt mentioned several times that making money from piracy was the holy grail and he had no idea how to do it. (Yeah, Kim Dotcom got money off of piracy, though I'm sure he was earning far less than market value, which makes sense since he didn't have the burden of any costs of production.) So, here's your chance to give suggestions. Preferably ones that don't end up making a *lot* less money than the current system. For example, I recently read a suggestion that companies should put all their movies on something like Hulu for free (but ad supported). The problem is that ads aren't close to paying the bills once you include the cost of making movies and the bandwidth of sending them to you. The only reason ad-supported movies are even available on Hulu is because they're long past their prime, so they're being used to make a few extra bucks. Maybe the solution is to only create movies that cost less than $10 million to make - then, even if piracy grows and takes 90% of your profits, you could still get by. In many ways, I think that's a sad outcome for the movie industry. Even more worryingly, I've noticed a lot of articles talking about new ad-skipping technologies (http://www.dishtvblog.com/dish-news/the-dish-hopper-adds-all-new-feature-auto-hop-that-will-allow-for-a-commercial-skipping-option/) and several people I know have been talking about how they always skip the ads. Which makes me think: gee, people don't want to pay for their entertainment and they're becoming more empowered and pushy about being able to skip the ads, too. I wonder how anyone is supposed to pay for the costs of creating stuff?
  
  So, I just thought I'd put that question there. It's easy to say "hey, you guys should figure out a way to ...", but doing it is harder than saying it. I'm skeptical that there are any business models that can undercut piracy which don't also involve a large cut in revenues.
4. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  This is why the Finnish citizens will get an extended "kasettimaksu" (cassette fee). They will increase the price of devices capable of storage (even the clouds) to support the music industry.
5. Re:Duh? by brit74 · 2012-05-14 17:06 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  > "I'm surprised too, but I think this ruling is satisfying. After all, just because it's hard/impossible to find the people who actually committed the crime (or perhaps it's just a civil suit), that doesn't mean they should be able to successfully punish/sue the wrong people."
  
  I don't agree with punishing the wifi owner for the actual crime of the person who uses their wifi, but I do think wifi should be locked down for a variety of reasons - including piracy, viruses, hacking, etc. I also think ISPs should be allowed to ban people's computers if they're part of a botnet to do DOS attacks or send spam or viruses. I actually think it's kind of stupid the way we've put virtually no effort into securing the computer infrastructure. Perhaps if someone's wifi is left open and crimes are committed, then the ISPs should be proactive in helping to ensure that people's wifi's are made reasonably secure. If people are intentionally not securing their wifis, then maybe a small fine (which is not connected to the crimes committed) which is attached to the monthly bill.
6. Re:Duh? by macemoneta · 2012-05-14 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  The way to make money on piracy is the way that some content businesses are already doing it - by selling hardware. Media players, home theaters, hard drives - all the trappings of locally maintained content. They're not free, and they can't be copied. I remember reading that Sony makes 70-80% of their revenue from hardware (tangible products), and 20-30% from content. That's the model.
  
  --
  Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
7. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  then maybe a small fine (which is not connected to the crimes committed) which is attached to the monthly bill.
  I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Not even if it's the ISP's decision alone (especially not if enforced by the government). I don't believe in punishing people for something merely because it could be abused. Especially since the internet is intended to be open to begin with.
8. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 17:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, the model is coming up with new ways to make money off of the entertainment being created. Give it away for free (or sell it at a fraction of the cost where it becomes more work to pirate it) so it becomes wildly popular. Then, sell merchandise related to said media. Have special showings of said media. Have live shows...people can't pirate live shows. Sell advertising inside the media using product placement. I dunno...I am just making shit up but there ARE possibilities here. Why is everyone so lazy to think and come up with new ideas? The internet has changed things. I thought of some ideas in 30 seconds and I am an engineer with no creative ability. I am sure some of those artsy-fartsy types can figure something out if they put their minds to it! The entertainment industry needs to realize this, and adapt. Adapt or die.
9. Re:Duh? by Wattos · 2012-05-14 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  How about starting with appreciating your customer?
  Currently it looks like this and it is getting worse. At some point, it is simply being greedy. Most triple-A movies already pay off during first weeks of release. E.g. ( The Avengers ). At that point, even $3 per copy makes you money.
10. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 17:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The model is to banish our perpetual copyright, and go back to a sane amount of years until works enter the public domain.
  I think 25 years is reasonable. At that rate, every movie from 1987 & before would be public domain, and we could have a decent selection on hulu.
  Then, I might be willing to pay for a new movie...
  business models that can undercut piracy which don't also involve a large cut in revenues.
  Lobbying for new laws should not be a 'business model.' Who cares if they have to take a revenue cut? They backed themselves into this corner, fuck 'em, they *should* be taking a revenue cut.
11. Re:Duh? by longk · 2012-05-14 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  You mean they might end up having to make more movies with a compelling story and rely less on special effects? What horror.
12. Re:Duh? by symbolset · 2012-05-14 17:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is really easy. Just sell the darned DRM free video file. The pirates already have it anyway, so they may as well get the money of the people who want to pay.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
13. Re:Duh? by c0lo · 2012-05-14 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  Offtopic: Can we please automatically delete all posts with links to my clean pc?
  Ontopic: This baffles me on how money is wasted on anti-piracy. This case should have been dismissed at the very beginning. How can you blame someone simply on the basis of ownership? This is like suing an owner of a car for not locking his car, because his car stolen and used in a crime.
  Hmmm... just for the sake of (hopefully civilized) debating: would one be off-the-hook if the dog one is owning bite a person passing-by? (say... while walking in the park. Even when on leash, sometime it happens)
  If you think this is not a valid analogy, can you please explain why?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
14. Re:Duh? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-05-14 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  More like blaming a property owner when the tenants build a meth lab. And the property owner knew that meth cookers were a local problem. And the property owner let just anyone move in without knowing who they were.
  I *want* open hotspots, but the legal issues are real.
15. Re:Duh? by rtb61 · 2012-05-14 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well excuse me but my crappy PMCIA card and router refuse to talk beyond anything but WEP regardless of upgrades, so their crappy code is now my fault, well, FU ;D (joking about the last bit but seriously I should hardly be liable for broken upgrade code that's meant to allow WAP but doesn't and I'm stuck with WEP). So who gets the fine in this case me or the router/PMCIA card manufacturer (same company).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
16. Re:Duh? by Fred+Ferrigno · 2012-05-14 18:52 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright is a government-enforced monopoly. It's really hard to beat monopoly pricing when it comes to making money, but generally we don't think monopolies are a good idea.
  If Domino's had a monopoly on pizza, I'm sure they'd make a lot more money than they do now. And if you came along and said, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't have a monopoly on pizza," they'd be upset at the prospect of losing all that revenue. They'd demand that you provide them with a business model that was just as lucrative. If all you could tell them is that their current revenues were artificially inflated because of their monopoly status, they'd dismiss you as not being serious.
17. Re:Duh? by geogob · 2012-05-14 18:57 · Score: 2
  
  I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law.
  Not really. It still has all its power and teeths for those copyright infringement cases for which it was designed in the first place. (hint: internet did not exist at that time, so I doubt it involves wlan access points).
18. Re:Duh? by Bob9113 · 2012-05-14 19:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Preferably ones that don't end up making a *lot* less money than the current system.
  Why?
  What data did you use to reach the conclusion that our current level of spending on copyrighted works is the right amount?
  We have a finite amount of money to spend on things (U.S. GDP, if the "we" we are talking about is the United States). Over the past 100 years, we have continually strengthened copyright. This has the effect of increasing the portion of GDP that is flowing to copyrighted works. Over the past 15 years, we have seen an escalating war between piracy and increased enforcement, and the data on whether this conflict has increased or decreased net proceeds to artists is *extremely* unclear and wildly misrepresented by all sides of the debate.
  Seems to me in a data storm like that, it's pretty important to find some solid ground on which to stand. It behooves us to have some way of measuring whether the current approach to funding the production of copyrighted works is consuming too much or too little of our GDP. If we don't know whether we are spending too much or too little, we can't really say whether an alternative solution would do best to result in more or less funding.
  Here's one example for spot-checking the situation: Are we more like the decadent side of Rome during the run-up to the decline, awash in circuses of spectacle, or are we more like Sparta in its prime, potent but lacking in culture? If the former, we may be spending too much on copyrighted works. If the latter, it would suggest we are spending too little.
  There are other ways to hold a finger up to the wind, and still more to dig into harder data. Do you think we are under-spending or over-spending on the production of copyrighted works, and why?
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
19. Re:Duh? by stud9920 · 2012-05-14 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  In Belgium you can get fined if you leave your vehicle open.
20. Re:Duh? by c0lo · 2012-05-14 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  In that situation, there is no human to punish.
  The dog's owner?
  
  Furthermore, the owner is the only one that can keep the dog under control.
  The dog was on leash. The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
  
  You don't typically have full control over other human beings so you can keep them from committing crimes.
  And then there's the fact that, unlike in the situation you describe, open WiFi can be used for legitimate purposes.
  A dog may be useful for legitimate purposes as well - property defense, guide dogs for the blind, etc.
  There would be a difference: there was no other human using the dog for illegitimate purposes.
  But this were it becomes interesting: even if the owner hasn't been negligent with the dog (his property) and there was noone else to "mishandle" it (this should make it a milder case), I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
21. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  And the property owner knew that meth cookers were a local problem. And the property owner let just anyone move in without knowing who they were.
  Uh... yes? Sorry, but I don't see the problem here. They committed the crime, not the property owner. Renting is a perfectly legitimate activity 99% of the time. I don't think the land owner should be liable for this, either.
22. Re:Duh? by thomsonjones · 2012-05-14 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  The dog's owner?
  No other human to punish. It's difficult to punish a dog, and the dog doesn't have money. You know, the one who actually committed the supposed crime.
  
  The dog was on leash.
  And? Actually, isn't a dog being on a leash about the same thing as securing a WiFi? Would you get punished if someone hacked into it and misused it, too?
  
  The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
  I'd say it's their fault in that case, then. I think too often dog owners get punished when it really wasn't their fault.
  
  I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
  They should really stop that.
23. Re:Duh? by Raved+Thrad · 2012-05-14 19:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's the thing, though: the "rights-owners" act as if the people who want to pay are pirates themselves, or potential pirates. DRM doesn't convince people to pay for a product; rather, it's more likely to convince people that it's not worth the hassle of trying to be good, and end up pirating anyway. DRM is targeted at the people who are paying for the product, rather than the pirates who are going to hack the product anyway and never would have bought it in the first place.
  
  --
  Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
24. Re:Duh? by Bob9113 · 2012-05-14 19:33 · Score: 2
  
  This has the effect of increasing the portion of GDP that is flowing to copyrighted works.
  Footnote: Another way to frame this is that it increases the portion of U.S. resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship) that are being dedicated to the production of copyrighted works instead of producing something else.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
25. Re:Duh? by AngryOldGuy · 2012-05-14 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but no. The skill level required between virtual football and real life football is significantly different. Same is true for the entertainment value of watching them. The two just doesn't compare. It was already painful to take turns with friend when gaming back in the 90's when playing together, why the hell would I just want to watch now?
26. Re:Duh? by b1scuit · 2012-05-14 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  >So, I just thought I'd put that question there. It's easy to say "hey, you guys should figure out a way to ...", but doing it is harder than saying it. I'm skeptical that there are any business models that can undercut piracy which don't also involve a large cut in revenues.
  Sometimes, people make less money than they used to.
27. Re:Duh? by blind+biker · 2012-05-14 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the solution is to only create movies that cost less than $10 million to make - then, even if piracy grows and takes 90% of your profits,
  What makes you think piracy takes any profits at all? Do you have any proof that those downloading free copies of a given content (be it music or movies) would have otherwise paid for it? There is research proving otherwise.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
28. Re:Duh? by SharpFang · 2012-05-14 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  A friend has a smartphone that can either run Skype audio calls or use WPA. The CPU is not strong enough to run both. So, his accesspoint uses WEP.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
29. Re:Duh? by Krneki · 2012-05-14 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Create an Internet all -you-can-eat package. You pay 10E a month and you can get all the contentment for free (games, appz, movies, mp3 ,....). Owners will get paid based on how much time people use their products.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
30. Re:Duh? by jones_supa · 2012-05-14 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Seconded. Just sell the stuff DRM-free with reasonable prices and easy payment, profit.
31. Re:Duh? by xelah · 2012-05-14 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's the model for whom? It works fine for hardware manufacturers. But how does it help content producers?
  If the content producers can make money by selling hardware, why wouldn't they just give up on making the content? Or, if not, if they cross-subsidise the content from the hardware sales, how do they stop Wing-Wang-Po Industries making similar hardware more cheaply by not subsidising the content?
  The only way I can think of doing it is to put encryption keys in your product, protected as best you can, so that only your devices will play your content for a few years (until someone breaks it). And if you're going to do that, you might as well charge per content-item.
32. Re:Duh? by c0lo · 2012-05-14 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
  I'd say it's their fault in that case, then. I think too often dog owners get punished when it really wasn't their fault.
  
  I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
  They should really stop that.
  Ok. What's your opinion on the more general view of "responsibility of an owner about how their property is used no matter by whom"? Does it exist in such a general context? 'cause in more restricted contexts certainly is: e.g. at least in some (many?) countries, try to get a firearm and you'll be asked to keep it secure/under-lock when you are not wearing/using it.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
33. Re:Duh? by fa2k · 2012-05-14 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  We can just look at the music industry to see how well that works, and it seems to work OK. I buy music downloads, but I don't buy video because it's all DRMed (I currently get all my video by recording free over-the-air channels in MythTV, so it's legal, but I used to pirate a good amount of TV shows and video).
34. Re:Duh? by QuasiSteve · 2012-05-14 22:07 · Score: 2
  
  I know you're AC and unlikely to return back here, but back in my AC days I did.. so let's give it a shot..
  Precursor: I've argued for the removal of copyright, period, before - my view on this is rather black-and-white, if you will.
  You say that 25 years is reasonable. But do you then believe that strict enforcement under the full penalty that the law allows is also reasonable for infringement of works that fall within that 25-year period?
  You note that you 'might' be willing to pay for a new movie. Can you expand on the 'might'?
  Specifically, are you saying that you may or may not even want to see the new movie (and thus payment being implied in the case where you do want to see it) - or are you saying that if you want to see the movie, you might pay for it, but then again you might still 'pirate' it as you have been doing?
  In the latter case, how do you believe that your argument for a 25-year period is bolstered by that behavior?
  You also only note that you might be willing 'to pay' for a new movie. I would be willing to pay for a Lamborghini, myself, but not the several hundreds of thousands of dollars they currently go for. What do you feel is a reasonable price for a new movie - taking into account, say, day 1 of release?
  The remainder of your comment takes a turn. Lobbying for laws has always been 'a business model', but one might well argue that in this case it's not particularly working anyway. One might also well argue that being backed into the corner they're in is not solely their own doing. After all, even if the film industry had caught on early and started putting every movie in their library and new releases as high quality files online without DRM for the cost of $1 each in a well-organized system with an open API so that it could also be offered through e.g. IMDB or any other site... then each movie would still find its way onto sites that will simply bypass that $1 payment and have every bit the breadth of offering, quality, and ease of use.. as those are mere technical limitations that are easily overcome. I have no doubt that it would have cut into 'piracy' substantially - given that there are people who will happily use their Roku to buy an Amazon Prime movie that for all intents and purposes may as well be DRM'd and can only be played back for 24 hours after having started it and must be started within a 48-hour period (iirc). But then again, the Roku box doesn't have an interface to piracy sites. Some others do. Over here it's not entirely uncommon for people to have a big-name media player with official 'newsgroups' support and people will simply hook that up to their favorite binaries server and download the latest movies for free (or something like $8/month if applicable to the binaries server), while people paying to see a movie on demand is far less common.
  As to whether they should take a revenue cut... I don't believe they 'should'. That implies direction from above. I believe that if people buy their merchandise less, revenue cuts will follow. Basic business mechanisms will deal with revenue rise/fall - there's no 'should' required or desirable any more than a their desire of a revenue rise that 'should' happen by making it law for everybody to buy at least 1 movie per month. Legislation that says "pirating is disallowed" is vastly different from "you must buy", as the former still leaves the option of neither pirating -nor- buying.
35. Re:Duh? by grahamm · 2012-05-14 22:47 · Score: 2
  
  If a hoax or threatening or terrorist telephone call is made from a payphone, either one run directly by the telephone company or one in privately owned premises such as a hotel or motorway services (gas station for those in the USA), the authorities would not confiscate the phone or arrest the owner of the premises. So should an open WiFi connection available to the public not be treated the same way as a payphone?
36. Re:Duh? by Krneki · 2012-05-14 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Bad idea.
  How do you track who's using what and how long without causing an unacceptable breach of privacy?
  ISP already knows a lot about you, to protect your privacy we have laws.
  
  What's covered by this "package"? Will people downloading Linux distributions and other free software and even proprietary freeware also cause money to flow to the creators of such software?
  
  Whoever is the "owner" gets paid.
  
  And who gets to set the "price"? Is a fart app on your smartphone worth as much per hour of use as Photoshop?
  
  Me, 10E is ok. If you spend the same amount of time, then to you it has the same worth.
  
  How politically correct is it to propose a model which would essentially give a large amount of money to porn companies?
  So what, if they provied what you want they will get paid.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
37. Re:Duh? by gnasher719 · 2012-05-14 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law. Now anybody can upload anything safely at airports, cafÃ©s, hotel lobbies. Hell, do it from your home WiFi router only make sure you don't use encryption for plausible deniability.
  You are completely misinterpreting this. Your comment about airports, cafes etc.: This ruling helps the owner of the open router; it doesn't affect the user of that open router (who would likely not be caught anyway), so there it doesn't make any difference. Your comment about home use: "Plausible deniability" isn't going to help you, it's "preponderance of evidence" that is against you. In this case, there wasn't just "Plausible deniability", there was about hundred people present at exactly the time when the copyright infringement happened, which was usually not the case. Had the copyright infringement happened at a different time, especially if it had happened at two different times, then it would have been quite possible that she got convicted. Just because it is _possible_ that someone uses your open WiFi, that doesn't make it likely.
  
  In case of a corporation, they are usually responsible for what their employees are doing, so if there is evidence that an unknown employee of company X has caused damage in his role as an employee, then it is quite possible that company X has to pay for the damage. It is then up to them to find that employee and try to recover the money, or fire him or her, if they wish to do so.
38. Re:Duh? by SuricouRaven · 2012-05-14 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of people with a Nintendo DS continue to run WEP because it doesn't support WPA.
39. Re:Duh? by hawkinspeter · 2012-05-14 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget public mailboxes. Maybe we should put CCTV cameras covering all public mailboxes and ensure that dangerous/threatening letters can be traced back.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
40. Re:Duh? by SuricouRaven · 2012-05-14 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  The ad-skipping is already being countered by an increase in product placement.
41. Re:Duh? by SuricouRaven · 2012-05-14 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  The landlords also have to foot the cleanup bill. Landlords' insurance doesn't cover deliberate damage caused in the running of a pot farm, and the growers tend to trash the place in order to maximise production in an enclosed space. Bypassing the power meter, knocking holes through walls and floors for ventilation ducts, water damage from improvised irrigation systems.
42. Re:Duh? by shentino · 2012-05-15 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  They don't care if you're aiding and abetting or not.
  They just want to make you help them by threatening you with a lawsuit if you're not bending over backwards to police things for them.
43. Re:Duh? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  The centre for economic and policy research postulates a tax deductable "artistic freedom voucher":
  http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights
  Then there is Kickstarter.
  Or you could look to how artistic works got created in the past - patronage.
  Wanna know where that movie or music money goes? Well sometimes it goes to the star (McCartney is worth almost $800 mil, Cruise around $250 mil). But a huge wedge goes to the publishers and distributors.
  The future for music may be a mix of live concerts and possible fan funded development. The film industry spending $250 million on a film may be doomed, but the quality and diversity of the films is likely to go up as a result. Super Size Me cost $65k to make and netted 30 million (although to be fair I don't know how much marketing cost). Source http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
44. Re:Duh? by shentino · 2012-05-15 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  DRM doesn't target them, it's just that pirates are so adept that paying customers are the only ones that get hit.
45. Re:Duh? by ultranova · 2012-05-15 00:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I do think wifi should be locked down for a variety of reasons - including piracy, viruses, hacking, etc.
  
  In other words, people should not have anonymous Internet access least they commit a crime. Nice.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
46. Re:Duh? by tepples · 2012-05-15 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  What's covered by this "package"? Will people downloading Linux distributions and other free software and even proprietary freeware also cause money to flow to the creators of such software?
  Whoever is the "owner" gets paid.
  So how does the ISP determine 1. what works of authorship are being used at any given moment, especially on a computer running a Free operating system and not connected to the Internet 24/7, and 2. who is the copyright owner of each work?
47. Re:Duh? by Raved+Thrad · 2012-05-15 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  If it's not targeted at them but they're the only ones getting hit, then the people deploying the DRM have really shitty aim.
  
  --
  Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
48. Re:Duh? by gl4ss · 2012-05-15 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  the dogs owner is responsible. sheesh. just like the guns owner is responsible if the guns owner shoots it. or the traps owner if the traps owner builds and arms a trap to harm another person.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
49. Re:Duh? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Or. Anyone who uploads bits to anyone else gets a very small fee per MB. Anyone who downloads pays that fee plus a handling fee to their ISP (rather than a connection fee).
  In other words you pay simply for the volume of data you take from the Internet. Sure you may still get piracy, but the people downloading would know that by going to the official site they are supporting the work, otherwise they are not.
50. Re:Duh? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  "How politically correct is it to propose a model which would essentially give a large amount of money to porn companies?"
  If more people watch, for example, Juicy Lucy goes Down Under, than Tom Cruise in his latest drivel (and you know they do, despite what the box office figures say), why shouldn't Lucy and her cohorts get remunerated accordingly?
51. Re:Duh? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that you would be prosecuted as if YOU did the biting. i.e. for assault or murder, depending on the nature of the bite. Far more likely the only crime you may have committed would be keeping a dangerous dog, but only if it were reasonable for you to suspect that the dog was dangerous - such a dog that is required to wear a muzzle in public, or that you trained him to bite.
  Of course it is not a valid analogy. You are equating a dog to a wireless access point and the act of that dog biting someone to the act of that someone using the wireless access point without permission. The only part of your analogy that works is that there is a owner in both cases.
  It is very simple. Third person uses some of my property to commit a crime (a lawnmower, car, set of golf clubs or if they are really inventive, my water supply). Maybe I lent it to them, or maybe they just 'borrowed it' from my front lawn. Should I be held responsible for what they do? No, didn't think so.
52. Re:Duh? by Kjella · 2012-05-15 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  DRM is targeted at the people who are paying for the product, rather than the pirates who are going to hack the product anyway and never would have bought it in the first place.
  DRM is targeted at technophobes and there's still plenty people who can't figure out to use a ripper and won't go to TPB because they still feel a little bit dirty about it, as least enough that they won't ask the kid down the street to teach them this torrents thing. But those people are either getting very old or have finally after 10+ years finally figured it out. It may have made sense back when one kid got a CD from their parents and another kid tried to copy it, not when both of them are downloading off the Internet. Like a lot of other things they do it's an obsolete system that's largely made irrelevant, except it makes it a giant pest to be an open source user. Even if you can't buy under Linux like e.g. iTunes with DRM-free files at least you can play them.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
53. Re:Duh? by Prof.Phreak · 2012-05-15 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  How about merchandising? You can't deny that the Avengers movie won't boost sales of action figures or Avengers themed rides in amusement parks, etc. What I'm saying is that instead of "selling the movie", you use the movie to sell something else (like seats in a theater---there's no reason why theaters don't play "old" movies---lots of folks didn't see Avatar in a cinema, and would pay for that kind of entertainment---especially without all the crowds).
  Also, the reasons that advertising doesn't work is because it's applied wrong. Like 99% of ads on TV are completely wasted---showing something twice doesn't make me twice as likely to purchase something... probably quite the reverse. And yet that kind of TV advertising costs a gazillion---with no way of measuring the affectiveness. Perhaps if they moved more towards google-like metrics, where you measure things buy purchase (click, or some other method) and not by how many times the commercial appears in front of your eyes... they'd be more successful? (no point in showing me something I'm going to ignore---show me something I'm likely to take action on..).
  
  --
  "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
54. Re:Duh? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Worse that that, because once they had paid for the R&D for the recipe the real cost of ingredients in each new instance of the pizza approaches zero. With infinite supply the value of that product to the market should approach cost, which approaches zero.
55. Re:Duh? by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno, but a lot of people pay to watch virtual actors in virtual scenery. That's how Disney got started after all...
56. Re:Duh? by jank1887 · 2012-05-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm skeptical that there are any business models that can undercut piracy which don't also involve a large cut in revenues."
  Sounds like a false assumption is made in your decision process. The way people consume media has changed. That will likely require a change in business model and/or revenue stream. money for media will fall, people trying to innovate and make money will do so within the parameters available. then money for media may climb again. for those people, and the landscape will likely look a bit different. such is progress.
57. Re:Duh? by Sancho · 2012-05-15 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  If a hoax or threatening or terrorist telephone call is made from a payphone, either one run directly by the telephone company or one in privately owned premises such as a hotel or motorway services (gas station for those in the USA), the authorities would not confiscate the phone or arrest the owner of the premises. So should an open WiFi connection available to the public not be treated the same way as a payphone?
  The phone won't have logs--the phone company will, and they will almost certainly share them with law enforcement. The phone cannot contain evidence of the wrongdoing--it won't have a cached copy of the threat. The phone company is also not the prime suspect in the case.
  Particularly in a civil trial, the burden of proof is essentially "more likely than not." The standard for evidence gathering is even lower. It's perfectly reasonable to demand an image of a suspect's drive, assuming there is reasonable evidence that the illegal action was taken in the first place.
58. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law. Now anybody can upload anything safely at airports, c
  No, it does not remove the teeth of copyright law. Illegal copying is still illegal - period. You merely need more proof than "some logged ip address" to point the finger, that is all. For example, do you find the pirated content on this guy's PC? got him, then!
59. Re:Duh? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-05-15 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Only in an infinitely big market.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
60. Re:Duh? by alexo · 2012-05-15 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  This baffles me on how money is wasted on anti-piracy.
  The money is not "wasted". It finds its way to lawyers' pockets. This is by design.
61. Re:Duh? by Krneki · 2012-05-15 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  You could have a centralized system (like Steam) for tracking user activities. As for ownership, no problem, if no one is, no one is getting the money. But for most works there is always one who takes care of the system. but if you like to see only problems, I can't change your point of view, nor I care to do so. I'm merely providing a better solution to piracy. If you have a better one, please say so.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
62. Re:Duh? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-05-15 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  25p isn't the cost of a Game of Thrones episode without the cost of pressing the discs, printing the box and distributing.
  Game of Thrones S1 DVD version costs 25 pounds.
  It has 5 disks, each costing about 1 pound (that's if they were burned. Pressed disks are cheaper). I assume 3 pounds for the box. Transporting of that box from the manufacturer to Amazon couldn't possibly cost 5 pounds (they'd never ship only 1 box set) but I'll assume 5.
  This leaves 12 pounds or 1.2 pounds per episode.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
63. Re:Duh? by mcgrew · 2012-05-15 04:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Offtopic: Can we please automatically delete all posts with links to my clean pc?
  That's one of the things the little black flag is for -- flagging spam so the /. administrators can review and delete it. Just click the flag when you see spam.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
64. Re:Duh? by tlhIngan · 2012-05-15 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Wanna know where that movie or music money goes? Well sometimes it goes to the star (McCartney is worth almost $800 mil, Cruise around $250 mil). But a huge wedge goes to the publishers and distributors.
  Actually a large chunk of it goes to executives.
  For most bands, the advance is the entire amount they'll be paid for an album. Let's say it's $10,000. After retailer's cut, the wholesale price of a CD is around $15 or so. The artist may get maybe $1 of that, but before that happens, the $10,000 has to be paid off first (i.e., they need to sell 10,000 CDs).
  Of course, if you realize the label is pocketing $14, the lael only needs to sell about 715 CDs to break even. If we factor in production costs (really about $1), so they only get $13, that's still only 770 CDs. If they sell 1,000 of them, the 230 extra are pure profit for them (and the band would've paid off only $1,000 of their $10,000 advance) - or $2,990. The band "lost money" (didn't recover the advance), but the label made money ($2,990, after paying for production and "royalty").
  And I'm actually "off". Technically for the first part, the band is getting nothing (they're paying off the royalty) so the label is pocketing $14/CD, which has a breakeven of 720 CDs. Of 1,000 CD run, the extra 280 CDs would bring in another $3,920. And the band pays for the manager, the road trips, the studio time, etc.
  And that's all the label needs - just a bunch of bands able to sell 1,000 CDs for a $10,000 advance. After costs, that band made $14,000 for the label, or $4,000 after the advance. The band is "in the hole", but the label is happy because all costs were recouped. And that's where the trick is - the label only needed to sell 720-ish CDs to profit, whereas the band needed to sell 10,000 CDs to see any further revenue from the album. Given most albums will sell more than 720 and less than 10,000, anything above 720 is profit profit profit.
65. Re:Duh? by orgelspieler · 2012-05-15 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Even more worryingly, I've noticed a lot of articles talking about new ad-skipping technologies (http://www.dishtvblog.com/dish-news/the-dish-hopper-adds-all-new-feature-auto-hop-that-will-allow-for-a-commercial-skipping-option/) and several people I know have been talking about how they always skip the ads. Which makes me think: gee, people don't want to pay for their entertainment and they're becoming more empowered and pushy about being able to skip the ads, too. I wonder how anyone is supposed to pay for the costs of creating stuff?
  I don't know. Maybe by the monthly fees charged by the cable and satellite companies? Where does that money go, if not to the people creating stuff?
66. Re:Duh? by mcgrew · 2012-05-15 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  I disagree, you should keep your wifi open if possible, with strong passwords on your wired network and a firewall between your network an modem. I'd leave my wifi open if my ISP's TOS didn't forbid it.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
67. Re:Duh? by rastoboy29 · 2012-05-15 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately, it is not your responsibility to make sure that someone else can make a living. :-) They'll figure it out, eventually. The music industry is doing well enough. The movie folks seem to be doing alright, too. But it's their problem, not ours. Unless you think we should all be worried about how you make a living, too? (I mean personally I'm a liberal and all and I'm concerned for your welfare, but do you see what I'm saying?)
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
68. Re:Duh? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-15 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  But in this case, they're punishing you for what someone else did.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
69. Re:Duh? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-15 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  b) Copyright organizations claim it's necessary to pay (some of ) the costs of piracy
  Then no wonder some people claim the former. If you're having to pay these organizations when you didn't even pirate anything to begin with, is that any surprise?
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
70. Re:Duh? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-15 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  ISP already knows a lot about you, to protect your privacy we have laws.
  Yeah. Let's not make it worse. And I'd prefer not to rely on corrupt lawmakers, either, to protect my privacy. They're the same geniuses that came up with the TSA and Patriot Act.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
71. Re:Duh? by mcgrew · 2012-05-15 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I thought of some ideas in 30 seconds and I am an engineer with no creative ability.
  An engineer with no creative abilities? How do you do your job?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
72. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for your reply, I do follow up on my AC comments, I just don't like logging in.
  I believe we need a give and take with copyright - as that's what it was originally intended to do. I tried watching non-licensed animes and things from overseas, but after a while they get rather boring. Movies older than 25 years are past their prime and unlikely to generate any significant revenue. I like putting movies on, and not necessarily even watching them, more like background noise, and I enjoy old movies as well. It seems ridiculous that we cannot freely watch movies that are almost as old as me.
  It's sickening that old artwork cannot be rediscovered for 75 years, who is going to remember it after that time? Why should you still be allowed royalties, after the creator of the work has died?
  So to try and explain my 'might be willing to pay' comment - I used to watch and buy movies all the time. Now, I browse thru usenet nzb's and torrent sites and there's so many to choose from...I download them, and then don't ever watch them. It feels like media overload, there's too many choices, and so I choose none. Current pricing is ok for new movies, but older flicks should be free, so I have something to watch in those 'down' months when I can't afford new media.
  But instead, I've turned to pirating, which is always cheaper and easier, but mostly because I want the selection, and the ability to watch a decent movie without commercials when I'm having a finanically tough time.
  So I *might* pay the current prices, if I didn't hate their business practices. The cost isn't that high - I'm single and have lots of disposable income. But why should I pay for 'dead artist' media and 'new artist' media too?
  I guess what I'm trying to say is - I would respect their system, if they showed any respect for me, as a consumer.
73. Re:Duh? by mcgrew · 2012-05-15 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not the AC you responded to, but I agree 25 years is reasonable. However, today's penalties are as insane as today's copyright lengths. Look at the difference between a music pirate and a music thief.
  The theif steals a CD from walmart, and whether or not he ever intends to listen to it, walamart is out the price of the CD. If caught, it's a misdemeanor and he'll pay a few hundred bucks in fines.
  The pirate downloads a song, and if he listens to it and likes it he's likely to buy the CD. Whether or not he listens to it, nobody has lost anything. And if he's caught it's going to cost him thousands.
  I have no clue how shortening copyright periods to sanity would prompt the AC to buy new movies.
  Lobbying for laws has always been 'a business model'
  That's true, but it shouldn't even be possible.
  One might also well argue that being backed into the corner they're in is not solely their own doing.
  Not by me it couldn't. The music industry freaked out over Napster instead of using it to their advantage. P2P is great advertising, but the industry had to protect itself -- from their independant competetion, who had only the internet. RIAA labels have radio and TV. Had they embraced P2P and used it to sell CDs, using their marketers to convince the public that CDs were superior to downloads (not hard to do, they are superior) they would never have gotten into that mess.
  The MPAA is making the same kind of stupid mistakes. Had DVDs and BluRays been without DRM and the movie started as soon as you put the thing in the drive, they would be superior to the download because you have an automatic backup copy. As it is, pirated movies are superior to most DVDs because DVDs have stupid unskippable FBI warnings and often stupid unskippable trailers and stupid, worthless animated menuus before you see the movie.
  As to whether they should take a revenue cut... I don't believe they 'should'. That implies direction from above. I believe that if people buy their merchandise less, revenue cuts will follow.
  In most cases that's true, but with the MAFIAA they'll simply blame any losses on piracy and call for harsher legislation. With most movies selling for less than tapess use to cost cost to rent, the only reason to pirate is so you don't have to go through the hassle of ripping it or the aggravation of the stupid unskippables.
  In short, the media industry looks like it's run by cocaine soaked mediocrities with no clue whatever.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
74. Re:Duh? by mcgrew · 2012-05-15 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  You keep... missing... your... Target! -- james T Kirk, The Wrath of Khan. Oh, the evil geniuses in the entertainment industry! Just like Khan.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
75. Re:Duh? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-15 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  If you flag it, the editors downmod it to -1. They cannot and do not delete it. Email the editors requesting for the ability to delete posts when you see such blatant spam.
76. Re:Duh? by xenobyte · 2012-05-15 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  (Yeah, Kim Dotcom got money off of piracy, though I'm sure he was earning far less than market value, which makes sense since he didn't have the burden of any costs of production.)
  That is so wrong. Kim Dotcom made his money selling bandwidth. Maybe you missed this but he ran a cloud hosting business where you upload smaller files and and download with limited bandwidth for free, but could subscribe to premium services which included more storage, longer lifespan for uploaded material and much greater bandwidth for downloads. He never sold the stuff people uploaded, nor was it his business to care what they uploaded. Stupid legislation forced him to implement DMCA tools that allowed copyright holders to delete stuff they claimed to own but that's about it. It should never be the service providers responsibility to police their users usage of the services but the greedy media industry is of another opinion.
  It's kind of strange because all the DMCA tools I've heard about allows the copyright holders to delete anything they think they own. They don't need to verify or prove it, despite the DMCA says they have to. You can't just delete something because the filename might indicate a title that might be something you own the rights to. I mean, a file named "Home Improvement" might hold something related to the tv-show of the same name, but might just as well be a thousand other things.
  It should be a requirement to actually prove for each and every file that the content indeed is something you own the rights to, and of course that you do own the rights, i.e. show the contracts that link the content to the rights holder and the contract that allows the person/company doing the complaints to do so on behalf of the rights holder. Yes, for each and every file. This will help prevent abuse which I'm sure occurs rampant these days.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
77. Re:Duh? by QuasiSteve · 2012-05-15 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent reply and I thank you for taking the time to revisit and post it.
78. Re:Duh? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-16 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I hope you're not assuming I agree with that. Just because a law exists doesn't mean I agree with it.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Just an aside by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-05-14 18:06 · Score: 1

Does the font used on this article give anyone else a headache?
1. Re:Just an aside by gl4ss · 2012-05-14 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  yes.
  the article body text tries to mimic "official" typeface, ie. shitty typewriter.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It's illegal in Germany. by purpledinoz · 2012-05-14 18:21 · Score: 5, Informative

In Germany, you are legally obligated to secure your wifi. There's a reason why the Pirate Party is receiving many votes in the state elections. If you're in Germany, a lot of YouTube videos (most of them are legit) are blocked because of GEMA (the German RIAA). I've heard that some bands aren't even allowed to post their OWN music on YouTube because GEMA won't allow this. My guess is that the old East German Stasi was just renamed to GEMA.
1. Re:It's illegal in Germany. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  In Germany, you are legally obligated to secure your wifi. There's a reason why the Pirate Party is receiving many votes in the state elections. If you're in Germany, a lot of YouTube videos (most of them are legit) are blocked because of GEMA (the German RIAA). I've heard that some bands aren't even allowed to post their OWN music on YouTube because GEMA won't allow this. My guess is that the old East German Stasi was just renamed to GEMA.
  GEMA has achieved in Germany, what the MAFIAA could only dream of. A legally protected monopoly. Artists, Youtube Uploaders (even if its just background noise) and anyone else, needs to prove their innocence, or else pay up to GEMA.
2. Re:It's illegal in Germany. by Wattos · 2012-05-14 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  So what happens if your hardware supports only WEP? What happens if you simply have bad luck and buy buggy hardware ?
3. Re:It's illegal in Germany. by BlackPignouf · 2012-05-14 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Viel Spaß : http://www.unblocker.yt/ :D
Smokescreen by ChunderDownunder · 2012-05-14 20:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

This fanfare over piracy, thinking of the children, and terrorism is just masking the real issue. Follow the money trail - it leads to mobile phone carriers.
If everyone had open access wifi, there would be reduced need for 3G data plans in major cities. Handsets would use VOIP.
1. Re:Smokescreen by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-05-15 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention neighbours and near neighbours being able to share internet. In Sydney in the early 2000's there was a private network strung together using Pringles cans for antennas. It wasn't allowed to be connected to the Internet due to telco laws.
Re:Wow! by SharpFang · 2012-05-14 20:41 · Score: 3, Funny

A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of fellow slashdotters posted in a comment. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my fellow slashdotter want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
It was pretending to be a strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Finnish Anti-Piracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 21:28 · Score: 1

or FAP.
Arcade first by tepples · 2012-05-15 00:03 · Score: 1

Ever heard of an arcade? It used to be that video games would come out first on an arcade platform such as Neo Geo or Capcom Play System and then get ported to a console six months later. That was the video game equivalent to films' theatrical window.
Authorship is the U.S.'s big export by tepples · 2012-05-15 00:09 · Score: 1

Except that copyrighted works are one of the few things that the United States still successfully exports. If the United States has no goods or services for export, then by the Balassa-Samuelson model, the value of its currency will plummet and it'll have a hard time importing things like energy.
1. Re:Authorship is the U.S.'s big export by Bob9113 · 2012-05-15 02:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  copyrighted works are one of the few things that the United States still successfully exports.
  Citation needed. Here's what I found on Wikipedia:
  Exports: $1.511 trillion (2011 est.)
  Export Goods: agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%
  Here's another good source:
  1. Civilian aircraft: $74 billion (5.7% of total exports)
  2. Semiconductors: $50.6 billion (3.9%)
  3. Passenger cars: $49.6 billion (3.9%)
  4. Pharmaceutical preparations: $40.4 billion (3.1%)
  5. Automotive accessories: $39.9 billion (3.1%)
  6. Other industrial machines: $38.1 billion (3%)
  7. Fuel oil: $34.9 billion (2.7%)
  8. Organic chemicals: $33.4 billion (2.6%)
  9. Telecommunications: $32.9 billion (2.6%)
  10. Plastic materials: $31.6 billion (2.5%)
  So, copyright is not in the top 10, and it's not more than 2.5%.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
2. Re:Authorship is the U.S.'s big export by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-15 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Copyrighted works are rarely directly exported from the US. It usually exported from a shell company in a tax haven abroad. It avoids any export taxes the US may have (I doubt it has any, but still there might be some restrictions), and saves the parent company taxes in the US.
3. Re:Authorship is the U.S.'s big export by Bob9113 · 2012-05-15 10:48 · Score: 2
  
  Copyrighted works are rarely directly exported from the US. It usually exported from a shell company in a tax haven abroad.
  I think I see what you're saying: If copyrighted works are not being taxed like other exports, then we can't make a direct dollar-to-dollar comparison with, for example, industrial equipment exports which pay a larger tax burden. A dollar worth of industrial equipment export contributes more to the public coffers than a dollar of copyright export.
  Interesting. Good point to consider. Do you have any numbers?
  I'm not sure if I get the exact point you're making relative to this thread. I like the info, but if I'm not seeing a direct point you were trying to make, could you clarify?
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Legacy devices by tepples · 2012-05-15 00:15 · Score: 1

But if there's a Nintendo DS on your WLAN, then your hardware can only do WEP.
Internet on the bus by tepples · 2012-05-15 00:18 · Score: 2

If everyone had open access wifi, there would be reduced need for 3G data plans in major cities.
How so? A device with a 3G data plan can connect to the Internet on public transit, unlike a device with only Wi-Fi.
1. Re:Internet on the bus by ChunderDownunder · 2012-05-15 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the word 'reduced'. But for a lot of cases, wifi would suffice.
  Where I am it's about $10 a month for an extra 1GB of data on top of a voice plan.
2. Re:Internet on the bus by tepples · 2012-05-15 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Where I am, the difference between the cheapest voice plan ($15 per 3 months from Virgin Mobile) and the cheapest voice and data plan from the same carrier ($35 per month) is a lot more than $10 per month.
3. Re:Internet on the bus by welshie · 2012-05-15 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I tried, 3G did not connect to the public Internet; it didn't give my device a unique IP address that would allow other devices to send it data directly. Until the 3G networks provide proper, non-NAT, non-proxied IPv6 (or IPv4 if you're feeling really lucky), it's not full network access. It's access to something that looks a little bit like the Internet (sufficient for most dumb one-way HTTP traffic), and is connected to the Internet.
  Ditto for most public wifi access points though. Most of them aren't full internet access. I wonder how long before someone gets hauled up in front of a court somewhere for offering IPv6 only open access?
  There are ways of roaming across wifi access points, one of which is UMC, where a mobile device with a SIM tries to connect to wifi, and route the 3G (or 2G) traffic over wifi instead in preference to 3G/2G, and it will fall back to 3G/2G when out of range. Sadly, not widely implemented on handsets and mobile operator networks - even though they get to charge for something the user would get for free otherwise.
Re:Wow! by BenoitRen · 2012-05-15 00:20 · Score: 1

The suspense is killing me! What happened next?!
Re:Wow! by Neil+Boekend · 2012-05-15 01:46 · Score: 1

The world ended and everybody died. Didn't you notice?

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
A sandbox that can't see much by tepples · 2012-05-15 04:06 · Score: 1

You could have a centralized system (like Steam) for tracking user activities.
How would such a system track user activities on a Free operating system, where the user can modify the OS kernel to limit the "centralized system (like Steam) for tracking user activities" to a sandbox that can't see much? And even without a sandbox, how would it track music and movies that don't match any well-known hashes because they have been copied through the analog hole or otherwise reencoded?
1. Re:A sandbox that can't see much by Krneki · 2012-05-15 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Can't cover every box in this world, I give you that, but if you can reach 90%, it's way better then what we have now. As for unknown files, all you need is a pop up box where you ask the user what original files does it match.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
"what original files does it match" by tepples · 2012-05-15 04:30 · Score: 1

As for unknown files, all you need is a pop up box where you ask the user what original files does it match.
For one thing, the user has no incentive to answer correctly. Either there is a way to answer that the file is a file that the user created (in which case the user will lie), or there is no way for the user to create an original work or otherwise add a file that isn't a major-label published work (in which case it's as locked down as a game console). Or I'm missing something fundamental.
Re:Wow! by doccus · 2012-05-16 15:05 · Score: 1

The suspense is killing me! What happened next?!
Somebody invented a /. "spam" filter and this thread's first post mysteriously disappeared...
Wi-Fi is just as NATted by tepples · 2012-05-18 02:21 · Score: 1

If everyone had open access wifi, there would be reduced need for 3G data plans in major cities.
A device with a 3G data plan can connect to the Internet on public transit, unlike a device with only Wi-Fi.
Last time I tried, 3G did not connect to the public Internet
Neither does Wi-Fi, which is behind NAT in every single deployment that I remember having used.