There was probably a lengthy contract which you probably did not read which probably went through all that in probably very painful detail when you signed up for the cable connection / DVR box.
What I mean is... Probably, though, you can’t do that because they told you that you couldn’t. I.e. they asserted that right. No similar implicit agreement exists when you leave a message on my voicemail.
we're gonna have a lawyer back us up. (Especially since there have been good points about potential $$$ damages for perjuring a false copyright take-down.)
A DMCA takedown is a slip of paper that says “hi my name is jimbob and I’ll sic my lawyers on you if you don’t remove xyz!”
A DMCA counter-takedown is a slip of paper that says “um no actually I’ll sic my lawyers on you if you don’t put it back quick!”
EITHER PARTY could be bluffing, and either party could also be downright lying under the assumption that the OTHER party won’t take the matter to court.
A takedown is a slip of paper that says “under penalty of perjury, I assert that this content violates my copyright”.
A counter-takedown is a slip of paper that says “under penalty of perjury, no it did not (p.s. and that other guy just committed perjury)”.
I say again: either could be bluffing; either could be lying.
-
Basically what I’m trying to get at is that a counter-takedown isn’t something that your typical YouTube user should be thinking “oh they took down my video because of the song in the background? imma send an e-mail and have them put it back”. Leaving it alone makes you pretty much okay: guy got mad, guy had your stuff taken down, guy is mostly happy now we hope. Sending the counter notice EXPLICITLY makes you LIABLE if your content DID violate a copyright.
You (like most who “know” what they’re doing, I’d guess) are pretty well aware of the implications of a takedown notice, and pretty (blissfully perhaps) unaware of the implications of a counter-takedown notice. (This is, I think, often the case because the takedown notice usually has high-priced lawyers behind it, and the counter-takedown notice usually has “cuz I said so” written pretty plainly between the lines of actual print.)
Basically, the matter can be broken down into arrangements/liabilities between parties:
- User-hoster arrangement; user uploads content and hoster hosts it. - Claimant issues a DMCA takedown: Liability now lies EITHER between claimant and hoster, or between claimant and user, DEPENDING on hoster’s action. - Assume in this case that they remove the content, in which case liability will lie between claimant and user. Generally the process stops here, because claimant usually has high-powered lawyers and user typically does not. - However, user, in this case, hires lawyers of their own and issues counter-takedown notice: Liability now lies either between user and claimant or between user and hoster, depending on whether or not hoster restores the content.
YouTube is probably laughing right now... if anybody human actually saw it so soon.
Not the way it should be, of course... a counter-takedown notice is basically legal notice that you, the uploader, take full legal responsibility for the content, and they must IMMEDIATELY restore it – and they face full legal responsibility of any losses you incur if they do not!
(Personally I’d love to see the outcome of a lawsuit to try to recoup damages from YouTube after a counter-takedown notice was ignored. Granted they have other stuff in their TOS that pretty much makes them not liable for anything, but if they explicitly took something down because of the DMCA, shouldn’t they be liable under its terms?)
Also fwiw a “day” (or night) on the moon lasts ~30 days, so I think getting one “daytime” image of the entire sphere should have took at least that long.
think of what a blackhat could do with the HTML5 ping attribute, directing many thousands of twitter users all hammering a single site (and url shortening sites go down as collateral damage) to death. It could originate from any social networking site.
And that’s any worse than, say, sending them all to a pastebin page that will repeatedly download all the images from the target website?
Likely some CSS style that failed to realize that (despite having no spaces) not only is red"onmouseover="//javascriptgoeshere an invalid CSS colour attribute*, it’s also a security hole if you don’t ensure that it’s properly parsed by the browser as a CSS colour attribute, not an onmouseover event.
*no idea which CSS style was being set, but I used colour as an example
He didn’t really fathom the extent of the exploit, though. He thought it was just a novel toy to pop up alert boxes when you moved the mouse over the tweet. (Well, he actually got the idea of trying to steal users’ session cookies, but didn’t find a way to do it within the 140-character limit.) The idea that really allowed it to go viral – posting a new tweet – was conceived by someone else.
Hell, I’ve done similar... “oh look, the layout of the page broke after I put a special char in that form element... I wonder if I can make it alert(document.cookie) using that? (sure enough) yup...” The main difference in this case is that (a) it was a massive social networking site and (b) other people could see his experiments and come up with their own little variations on the exploit, some of which were less benign than his experiments had been...
After a "little bit of coding", he said he "managed to generate a dialog box containing the data from within the Twitter cookie file". He said "theoretically this could be used to maliciously steal users' account details".
They make it sound difficult to alert(document.cookie)...
But "the problem was being able to write code that can steal usernames and passwords while still remaining under Twitter's 140 character tweet limit", he said.
Ah, so the 140-character limit is actually beneficial in some sense!
And then I forgot my main point, which was that I wouldn’t trust FF Portable to shield me from these tracking cookies in any way, shape, or form.
Clearing the history, cache, cookies, any HTML5 local storage, and the Flash cookies will defeat them, though, and the only one of those that Firefox won’t handle on its own is clearing the Flash cookies (plugins do exist that do it though).
Firefox Portable is terrible about plugins. You can start up a completely fresh install and open the addons dialog only to find half a dozen plugins that were installed by Flash, Adobe, Silverlight, VLC, etc. on the computer and which Firefox helpfully located when it started up. That’s actually just how it’s designed, and the portable version isn’t sandboxed to keep it from doing this...
I wish they would fix it. Portable apps shouldn’t be loading stuff from the computer you’re running them on.
They left in the colour detection exploit. The link colour doesn’t change the layout of the page but it can still be detected using getComputedStyle. In the future they’re planning on making getComputedStyle return the colour of an unvisited link regardless of the link’s actual visited or unvisited status, but they haven’t done that yet. In the meantime there’s a config option to disable the CSS selector for colour of visited links.
Tools, Clear Recent History, Select time range to clear (last hour, last 2 hours, last 4 hours, today, or everything), under Details pick which data to clear. If anything it’s more user-friendly than before. It just doesn’t automatically pop up when you exit.
But if you don't have a confirmation window about the History being cleared on exit, you have no idea. Or do you without looking deep into the preferences?? Right!
Actually, yes, since I can simply remember whether or not I set that option in this particular Firefox install on this particular computer... it’s not like it changes often without my knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that seems to be about how it works more often than not... ok, nothing magically appears but it was there already and you just find it.
There was probably a lengthy contract which you probably did not read which probably went through all that in probably very painful detail when you signed up for the cable connection / DVR box.
What I mean is... Probably, though, you can’t do that because they told you that you couldn’t. I.e. they asserted that right. No similar implicit agreement exists when you leave a message on my voicemail.
Yes, and it’s worth repeating. POTENTIAL DAMAGES.
we're gonna have a lawyer back us up. (Especially since there have been good points about potential $$$ damages for perjuring a false copyright take-down.)
A DMCA takedown is a slip of paper that says “hi my name is jimbob and I’ll sic my lawyers on you if you don’t remove xyz!”
A DMCA counter-takedown is a slip of paper that says “um no actually I’ll sic my lawyers on you if you don’t put it back quick!”
EITHER PARTY could be bluffing, and either party could also be downright lying under the assumption that the OTHER party won’t take the matter to court.
A takedown is a slip of paper that says “under penalty of perjury, I assert that this content violates my copyright”.
A counter-takedown is a slip of paper that says “under penalty of perjury, no it did not (p.s. and that other guy just committed perjury)”.
I say again: either could be bluffing; either could be lying.
-
Basically what I’m trying to get at is that a counter-takedown isn’t something that your typical YouTube user should be thinking “oh they took down my video because of the song in the background? imma send an e-mail and have them put it back”. Leaving it alone makes you pretty much okay: guy got mad, guy had your stuff taken down, guy is mostly happy now we hope. Sending the counter notice EXPLICITLY makes you LIABLE if your content DID violate a copyright.
You (like most who “know” what they’re doing, I’d guess) are pretty well aware of the implications of a takedown notice, and pretty (blissfully perhaps) unaware of the implications of a counter-takedown notice. (This is, I think, often the case because the takedown notice usually has high-priced lawyers behind it, and the counter-takedown notice usually has “cuz I said so” written pretty plainly between the lines of actual print.)
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf (disregard .pdf extension, it isn’t)
Basically, the matter can be broken down into arrangements/liabilities between parties:
- User-hoster arrangement; user uploads content and hoster hosts it.
- Claimant issues a DMCA takedown: Liability now lies EITHER between claimant and hoster, or between claimant and user, DEPENDING on hoster’s action.
- Assume in this case that they remove the content, in which case liability will lie between claimant and user. Generally the process stops here, because claimant usually has high-powered lawyers and user typically does not.
- However, user, in this case, hires lawyers of their own and issues counter-takedown notice: Liability now lies either between user and claimant or between user and hoster, depending on whether or not hoster restores the content.
YouTube is probably laughing right now... if anybody human actually saw it so soon.
Not the way it should be, of course... a counter-takedown notice is basically legal notice that you, the uploader, take full legal responsibility for the content, and they must IMMEDIATELY restore it – and they face full legal responsibility of any losses you incur if they do not!
(Personally I’d love to see the outcome of a lawsuit to try to recoup damages from YouTube after a counter-takedown notice was ignored. Granted they have other stuff in their TOS that pretty much makes them not liable for anything, but if they explicitly took something down because of the DMCA, shouldn’t they be liable under its terms?)
+1 Funny moderations do not give you karma.
Also fwiw a “day” (or night) on the moon lasts ~30 days, so I think getting one “daytime” image of the entire sphere should have took at least that long.
And... why, exactly, did you think that I wanted to open that can of worms?
Sounds pretty win-win to me.
I have a witty response, I’m sure of it... but first I have to figure out whether “they” refers to the Chinese Communists or the moon hoaxers.
I think I saw the bikini version, but at the time I just thought it was supposed to be tie-dye.
Yeah, but I’d love to see the explanation they’d have to come up to manage to get Communist China in on the hoax. The plot thickens...
think of what a blackhat could do with the HTML5 ping attribute, directing many thousands of twitter users all hammering a single site (and url shortening sites go down as collateral damage) to death. It could originate from any social networking site.
And that’s any worse than, say, sending them all to a pastebin page that will repeatedly download all the images from the target website?
Egads! Either you’re posting from the year 1910 or you’re likely dead by now!
(“The 18th century lasted from 1701 to 1800 in the Gregorian calendar.”)
But they nuked it from orbit (which is the only way to be sure) and making a picture of it (i.e. a thousand words) is pretty certain.
That’s an awful lot of toasted cheese... where on earth will we find a large enough hunk of bread?
“That’s no moon, it’s a space station”
etc.
While I’m opening cans of worms, I’m sure the moon hoaxers would like to know whether or not it saw the American flag we left up there.
Likely some CSS style that failed to realize that (despite having no spaces) not only is red"onmouseover="//javascriptgoeshere an invalid CSS colour attribute*, it’s also a security hole if you don’t ensure that it’s properly parsed by the browser as a CSS colour attribute, not an onmouseover event.
*no idea which CSS style was being set, but I used colour as an example
He didn’t really fathom the extent of the exploit, though. He thought it was just a novel toy to pop up alert boxes when you moved the mouse over the tweet. (Well, he actually got the idea of trying to steal users’ session cookies, but didn’t find a way to do it within the 140-character limit.) The idea that really allowed it to go viral – posting a new tweet – was conceived by someone else.
Hell, I’ve done similar... “oh look, the layout of the page broke after I put a special char in that form element... I wonder if I can make it alert(document.cookie) using that? (sure enough) yup...” The main difference in this case is that (a) it was a massive social networking site and (b) other people could see his experiments and come up with their own little variations on the exploit, some of which were less benign than his experiments had been...
After a "little bit of coding", he said he "managed to generate a dialog box containing the data from within the Twitter cookie file". He said "theoretically this could be used to maliciously steal users' account details".
They make it sound difficult to alert(document.cookie)...
But "the problem was being able to write code that can steal usernames and passwords while still remaining under Twitter's 140 character tweet limit", he said.
Ah, so the 140-character limit is actually beneficial in some sense!
You do NOT have these options available anymore...it's either all or nothing.
You still have it, it’s just not automatic anymore. It’s called Clear Recent History.
And then I forgot my main point, which was that I wouldn’t trust FF Portable to shield me from these tracking cookies in any way, shape, or form.
Clearing the history, cache, cookies, any HTML5 local storage, and the Flash cookies will defeat them, though, and the only one of those that Firefox won’t handle on its own is clearing the Flash cookies (plugins do exist that do it though).
Firefox Portable is terrible about plugins. You can start up a completely fresh install and open the addons dialog only to find half a dozen plugins that were installed by Flash, Adobe, Silverlight, VLC, etc. on the computer and which Firefox helpfully located when it started up. That’s actually just how it’s designed, and the portable version isn’t sandboxed to keep it from doing this...
I wish they would fix it. Portable apps shouldn’t be loading stuff from the computer you’re running them on.
They left in the colour detection exploit. The link colour doesn’t change the layout of the page but it can still be detected using getComputedStyle. In the future they’re planning on making getComputedStyle return the colour of an unvisited link regardless of the link’s actual visited or unvisited status, but they haven’t done that yet. In the meantime there’s a config option to disable the CSS selector for colour of visited links.
Tools, Clear Recent History, Select time range to clear (last hour, last 2 hours, last 4 hours, today, or everything), under Details pick which data to clear. If anything it’s more user-friendly than before. It just doesn’t automatically pop up when you exit.
But if you don't have a confirmation window about the History being cleared on exit, you have no idea. Or do you without looking deep into the preferences?? Right!
Actually, yes, since I can simply remember whether or not I set that option in this particular Firefox install on this particular computer... it’s not like it changes often without my knowledge.