What a free market is supposed to do is use competition to force out the suppliers that are not efficient enough to produce at a cost below the price, thus raising the price to where the remainder can survive.
I suppose you could consider uploaders to be competing with producers in this case.
That does not however change what something is worth to YOU. This also reserves scarce goods to the people who want it more, measured by how high a price they are willing to pay before they value keeping their money above trading it for the good.
There's lots of downloading because people can get the goods for far cheaper than white market rates, which may or may not exceed what you'd be WILLING to pay if it weren't free.
Everyone likes a bargain, but only the consumers who want it badly enough will stick it through in the face of a price hike.
The only problem is the system isn't perfect in distinguishing said criminal from an innocent bystander.
People get arrested by mistake all the time.
And giving carte blanche to DNA collection at arrest instead of conviction will give jerks an incentive to then plant your DNA.
Yes...the "random asshole who wants to fuck with the system to get you in trouble" routine. Jealous lovers do it routinely, and would do so all the more if they knew they could pull it off.
1. Make up a bullshit report to get someone arrested and his DNA in the system 2. Plant his DNA at a crime scene. 3. Call the cops and have him arrested again 4. Laugh your ass off as he gets railroaded 5. ??? 6. Profit!
If the guy promised to keep it anonymous, either through TOS or verbal agreement, then he breached the implied or express warranty of anonymity, and it is that breach he was sued for.
Of course, I have grunts of derision for the fact that he let the judgement default.
As only the people with crappy browsers like IE would have their experiences improved by switching, while those with browsers that follow the rules probably already have satisfied users who would be meh about leaping from one cloud to another.
"Any chance you run a Debian-based Linux? Ever installed anything on it? You know those installation packages are signed using GPG, right? Does that make the Linux community as evil as MS for pandering to DRM? No, because DRM has nothing to do with code signing."
Except in linux, a signature failure only makes the installation noisier, but you can still get around it. You can override the check. It warns you that you should know what you're doing, but it doesn't get in your way. You may get a big fat "I won't do that unless you use the -rumplestiltskin switch to confirm".
Non-sequitor.
By contrast, MS code signing IS drm because:
1. You are not allowed to put in drivers that MS hasn't vetted 2. Those drivers are not approved by MS if they don't enforce the DRM scheme.
So 1 is complicit in enforcing 2
put 1 and 2 together, and you have an MS enforced DRM scheme that just happens to be in two parts instead of one, where MS uses code signing as a means to forbid non PVP compliant code from getting on your system.
If windows permitted you to load any drivers you wished, then it wouldn't be DRM because you could bypass the PVP. It only becomes DRM because MS uses it to prevent you from bypassing its whims.
Actually, DNSSEC only obsoletes the authentication portion of SSL. You still need its encryption to prevent MITM attacks, but sites that are properly authenticated with DNSSEC would at least be able to publish their own certificates.
When politicians have tenure equal to their term of office and can only be ejected by the impeachment of their peers, it's hard for the voters to hold them accountable.
1. Get voted into office 2. Reveal your true colors and start keeping the secret promises you made to your pocket liners 3. ??? 4. Profit! 5. Laugh all the way to the bank with your pockets fattened by contributions, with the arrogant smugness you pick up from not answering to the public after you've been elected. 6. Bonus: Talk like a snake and get reelected if the public doesn't get wind of step 2 by the time the next election comes around.
The problem is that both sides are propped up by hardball playing corporate interests, while the politicians really do have nothing to fear from pissing off their constituents once they get their fat tushie comfortably seated in office.
"vote the bastards out" doesn't work because often times the damage has already been done by the time their term ends, no matter how blue in the face the voters get.
Why don't big bro just get a warrant for that crap...like they should be doing to begin with?
Only exigent circumstances allow you to get a warrant after the fact. You still have to show probable cause to keep evidence from getting tossed by a motion to suppress.
Alas, the problem is that you cannot reliably distinguish a wolf from a sheep, so you wind up having to give the wolf veto power in a check and balance case rather than risk giving them steamroll power in a "single point of failure".
The issue isn't authorization and validation, it's authentication.
I have high praise for MS's UAC "Cancel or allow" motivations, even though it caused lots of headaches (actually, it caught many applications with their pants down when they tried to blithely assume admin privileges).
Reputable application writers shouldn't ask for more privileges than they need, and should ask for those privileges at the earliest point they are known to be needed, so as to avoid confusing the user with an ambush of confirmation boxes.
And then you put apple in the position of dictating what you are and are not allowed to run on your mac.
This is the same tactic used by MS to enforce it's little PVP in Vista...require drivers to be signed by MS and revoke any drivers that don't pander to MS's DRM regulations.
Plus, nothing stops Apple from using its new monopoly in refereeing your software from then abusing that monopoly to enforce draconian rent-seeking functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the power of a baseless yet FUD inducing lawsuit.
Tom tom anyone?
I was actually referring to the likes of russia and china, well known for hosting scammers as well as being the origin of many botnet attacks.
I dunno...maybe the linked related story is about a company that got fed up with being attacked by foreign networks?
It's possible that only US residents with US issued credit cards can be trusted.
What a free market is supposed to do is use competition to force out the suppliers that are not efficient enough to produce at a cost below the price, thus raising the price to where the remainder can survive.
I suppose you could consider uploaders to be competing with producers in this case.
That does not however change what something is worth to YOU. This also reserves scarce goods to the people who want it more, measured by how high a price they are willing to pay before they value keeping their money above trading it for the good.
There's lots of downloading because people can get the goods for far cheaper than white market rates, which may or may not exceed what you'd be WILLING to pay if it weren't free.
Everyone likes a bargain, but only the consumers who want it badly enough will stick it through in the face of a price hike.
...I KNEW that EMACS needed a dedicated server to run properly...
No
You are simply enjoying a consumer surplus.
It's worth whatever you're willing to pay for it.
By that, I mean that if you could not get a bargain, how high would the price go before you kept your money?
It's worth to you is the price at which you'd keep your wallet closed.
red light violations are such a cash cow that municipalities won't put up with it.
The only problem is the system isn't perfect in distinguishing said criminal from an innocent bystander.
People get arrested by mistake all the time.
And giving carte blanche to DNA collection at arrest instead of conviction will give jerks an incentive to then plant your DNA.
Yes...the "random asshole who wants to fuck with the system to get you in trouble" routine. Jealous lovers do it routinely, and would do so all the more if they knew they could pull it off.
1. Make up a bullshit report to get someone arrested and his DNA in the system
2. Plant his DNA at a crime scene.
3. Call the cops and have him arrested again
4. Laugh your ass off as he gets railroaded
5. ???
6. Profit!
Rhetorical question:
WHY is upstream so pricey?
If the guy promised to keep it anonymous, either through TOS or verbal agreement, then he breached the implied or express warranty of anonymity, and it is that breach he was sued for.
Of course, I have grunts of derision for the fact that he let the judgement default.
That would be good marketing though...
As only the people with crappy browsers like IE would have their experiences improved by switching, while those with browsers that follow the rules probably already have satisfied users who would be meh about leaping from one cloud to another.
I think the Nuremberg principle should apply, really.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
"Any chance you run a Debian-based Linux? Ever installed anything on it? You know those installation packages are signed using GPG, right? Does that make the Linux community as evil as MS for pandering to DRM? No, because DRM has nothing to do with code signing."
Except in linux, a signature failure only makes the installation noisier, but you can still get around it. You can override the check. It warns you that you should know what you're doing, but it doesn't get in your way. You may get a big fat "I won't do that unless you use the -rumplestiltskin switch to confirm".
Non-sequitor.
By contrast, MS code signing IS drm because:
1. You are not allowed to put in drivers that MS hasn't vetted
2. Those drivers are not approved by MS if they don't enforce the DRM scheme.
So 1 is complicit in enforcing 2
put 1 and 2 together, and you have an MS enforced DRM scheme that just happens to be in two parts instead of one, where MS uses code signing as a means to forbid non PVP compliant code from getting on your system.
If windows permitted you to load any drivers you wished, then it wouldn't be DRM because you could bypass the PVP. It only becomes DRM because MS uses it to prevent you from bypassing its whims.
Actually, DNSSEC only obsoletes the authentication portion of SSL. You still need its encryption to prevent MITM attacks, but sites that are properly authenticated with DNSSEC would at least be able to publish their own certificates.
My mistake...
When politicians have tenure equal to their term of office and can only be ejected by the impeachment of their peers, it's hard for the voters to hold them accountable.
1. Get voted into office
2. Reveal your true colors and start keeping the secret promises you made to your pocket liners
3. ???
4. Profit!
5. Laugh all the way to the bank with your pockets fattened by contributions, with the arrogant smugness you pick up from not answering to the public after you've been elected.
6. Bonus: Talk like a snake and get reelected if the public doesn't get wind of step 2 by the time the next election comes around.
The problem is that both sides are propped up by hardball playing corporate interests, while the politicians really do have nothing to fear from pissing off their constituents once they get their fat tushie comfortably seated in office.
"vote the bastards out" doesn't work because often times the damage has already been done by the time their term ends, no matter how blue in the face the voters get.
perhaps not applicable outside the US, but...
Why don't big bro just get a warrant for that crap...like they should be doing to begin with?
Only exigent circumstances allow you to get a warrant after the fact. You still have to show probable cause to keep evidence from getting tossed by a motion to suppress.
Alas, the problem is that you cannot reliably distinguish a wolf from a sheep, so you wind up having to give the wolf veto power in a check and balance case rather than risk giving them steamroll power in a "single point of failure".
The issue isn't authorization and validation, it's authentication.
Also true.
I have high praise for MS's UAC "Cancel or allow" motivations, even though it caused lots of headaches (actually, it caught many applications with their pants down when they tried to blithely assume admin privileges).
Reputable application writers shouldn't ask for more privileges than they need, and should ask for those privileges at the earliest point they are known to be needed, so as to avoid confusing the user with an ambush of confirmation boxes.
Since there's probably the typical draconian TOS that says "we can do what the fuck we want" this whole discussion is probably moot.
It is if you wind up losing something you were already promised.
Barring a contractual agreement to the contrary, you don't get to revoke something that you've already sold.
And if DNSSEC was properly implemented across the board then we wouldn't even NEED to be wary of self-signed certificates to begin with.
If you can trust that the DNS pointed you to the right site, then you are as safe as you are using SSL.
I don't mind punitive actions to deter guys exploiting infringement fees as just a cost of doing business.
Make it like a traffic ticket.
The problem is forking over $$$$ to verisign and giving them monopoly control of the internet.
I would rather be insecure than verisign's puppet.
And then you put apple in the position of dictating what you are and are not allowed to run on your mac.
This is the same tactic used by MS to enforce it's little PVP in Vista...require drivers to be signed by MS and revoke any drivers that don't pander to MS's DRM regulations.
Plus, nothing stops Apple from using its new monopoly in refereeing your software from then abusing that monopoly to enforce draconian rent-seeking functionality.