I agree. I do realize that this isn't DRM, but it's also clear that the media providers, music, video, news, etc. are trying to find some kind of DRM solution. My musing is mainly about whether the history of the software industry shows us that DRM and it's variations simply don't work.
I recall the early days of development, sales and distribution for PC software. A bunch of different anti-piracy methods were pursued, we all heard about the enormous amounts of money being lost to piracy, etc. In the end all these approaches really did was piss off the legitimate users and make the software less attractive. It's not exactly clear to me if the software industry really has any effective DRM system now, although they seem to have some things that look they are trying to protect themselves. I suspect the media industry will go through a similar evolution... kicking, screaming and whining all the way.
It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else's problem. IANAL but isn't this like asking for an appeal?
In the discussions I'm seeing pros and cons on Garcia versus the artist, but I'm not seeing anything supporting AP. IANAL and need some insight. Does the AP have any legitimate claim to copyright ownership?
I performed the following experiment to test this report. In the presence of a particularly disagreeable person, I began to feel an enormous pain in my ass. I chanted neutral phrases and made small talk for 15 minutes. I observed that the person remained and the pain persisted unabated. I then began hurling profane epithets at the person. After 5 minutes I observed the person to leave and the pain suddenly abated. While not conclusive, I believe this experiment needs further study and repetition.
I once fell down the stairs and the next day I recieved a bill from ASCAP and RIAA for performing a Lars Ulrich drum solo... ok, maybe I do mean to be ridiculous.
The salient part of comments was the "too expensive" part, and not the "unwilling" part. To me it is clear that his agenda is simply to pay less, which is most likely linked to the H1B visas.
Actually, I've made a study of AI and I've concluded that the main thrust of the research is in the wrong direction. I propose research into the Artificial Anus, most likely implemented as a complex pneumatic structure of anal networks. I predict that such devices will be able to replicate the behavior of Congress and other deliberating bodies worldwide.
"is why the feed from these cameras aren't publicly available,"
Well, making the feed publicly available would be a tremendous boon to stalkers and voyeurs. Another question is "Can we trust individuals in government with access to these cameras not to be stalkers or voyeurs?"
The problems are... (1) The pervasive technological infrastructure is necessary for the "thought police" of the novel to be able to do anything. So in this sense, the surveillance is a necessary first step. and... (2) Even if the second step of a true Big Brother spying on everyone everywhere is never taken, it is inevitable, that individuals with access will abuse the system. In fact this situation is already upon us.
Yes they are indeed public places, but also consider that stalking, even in public places, is against the law. Perhaps the interesting discussion question is... When does legitimate surveillance become stalking? Has the government defined away the possibility that it can be guilty of stalking?
I believe the reviewer defines Big Brother too narrowly from Orwell's work. The oppressive dictatorial Big Brother is the ultimate icon or archetype of this concept. The more disturbing reality that people are reacting to is the inevitable buildup of the infrastructure of Big Brother. If anyone, acting as a smaller "big brother," say someone in law enforcement or some intelligence agency, decides to snoop on you... perhaps as a result of one of the myriad false positives that this infrastructure produces... the effect at the personal level is very similar to the dictatorial Big Brother that is spying on everybody. In the U.S. this gets uncomfortably close to violating the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Slashdot Mirror
Inspired by this latest development, I'm working on with my latest project... a device that will allow intelligent ethical people to be congressmen ...
I agree. I do realize that this isn't DRM, but it's also clear that the media providers, music, video, news, etc. are trying to find some kind of DRM solution. My musing is mainly about whether the history of the software industry shows us that DRM and it's variations simply don't work.
I recall the early days of development, sales and distribution for PC software. A bunch of different anti-piracy methods were pursued, we all heard about the enormous amounts of money being lost to piracy, etc. In the end all these approaches really did was piss off the legitimate users and make the software less attractive. It's not exactly clear to me if the software industry really has any effective DRM system now, although they seem to have some things that look they are trying to protect themselves. I suspect the media industry will go through a similar evolution ... kicking, screaming and whining all the way.
Yet another application for the SphincterMouse I am developing! Totally hands-free.
It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else's problem. IANAL but isn't this like asking for an appeal?
In the discussions I'm seeing pros and cons on Garcia versus the artist, but I'm not seeing anything supporting AP. IANAL and need some insight. Does the AP have any legitimate claim to copyright ownership?
I performed the following experiment to test this report. In the presence of a particularly disagreeable person, I began to feel an enormous pain in my ass. I chanted neutral phrases and made small talk for 15 minutes. I observed that the person remained and the pain persisted unabated. I then began hurling profane epithets at the person. After 5 minutes I observed the person to leave and the pain suddenly abated. While not conclusive, I believe this experiment needs further study and repetition.
I don't think the law entitles you to release copyrighted material into the wild, but rather describes a statute of limitations.
Three cheers for the lady!
I'm currently developing a methane-air battery. Unfortunately, it only works when I sit on it after eating a couple of bowls of chili ...
The obvious response is that we should all file secret lawsuits in secret courts against the FBI for unspecified damages ...
I never watch TV while driving ... however, I do frequently shower and shave while driving.
I'm currently looking into developing a Robot Gerbil to perform prostate exams ...
I once fell down the stairs and the next day I recieved a bill from ASCAP and RIAA for performing a Lars Ulrich drum solo ... ok, maybe I do mean to be ridiculous.
The salient part of comments was the "too expensive" part, and not the "unwilling" part. To me it is clear that his agenda is simply to pay less, which is most likely linked to the H1B visas.
Does this mean that in Tennessee I will finally be able to find out if I really am my own first cousin?
Payback's a bitch ...
I shudder to think what would happen if these images fell into the wrong hands! This must be classified Top Secret immediately!
Actually, I've made a study of AI and I've concluded that the main thrust of the research is in the wrong direction. I propose research into the Artificial Anus, most likely implemented as a complex pneumatic structure of anal networks. I predict that such devices will be able to replicate the behavior of Congress and other deliberating bodies worldwide.
"is why the feed from these cameras aren't publicly available,"
Well, making the feed publicly available would be a tremendous boon to stalkers and voyeurs. Another question is "Can we trust individuals in government with access to these cameras not to be stalkers or voyeurs?"
Yes ... at least when the technology provides ubiquitous surveillance or the electronic equivalent of something like breaking and entering.
The problems are ... (1) The pervasive technological infrastructure is necessary for the "thought police" of the novel to be able to do anything. So in this sense, the surveillance is a necessary first step. and ... (2) Even if the second step of a true Big Brother spying on everyone everywhere is never taken, it is inevitable, that individuals with access will abuse the system. In fact this situation is already upon us.
Yes they are indeed public places, but also consider that stalking, even in public places, is against the law. Perhaps the interesting discussion question is ... When does legitimate surveillance become stalking? Has the government defined away the possibility that it can be guilty of stalking?
I believe the reviewer defines Big Brother too narrowly from Orwell's work. The oppressive dictatorial Big Brother is the ultimate icon or archetype of this concept. The more disturbing reality that people are reacting to is the inevitable buildup of the infrastructure of Big Brother. If anyone, acting as a smaller "big brother," say someone in law enforcement or some intelligence agency, decides to snoop on you ... perhaps as a result of one of the myriad false positives that this infrastructure produces ... the effect at the personal level is very similar to the dictatorial Big Brother that is spying on everybody. In the U.S. this gets uncomfortably close to violating the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Oops I mean the FCC ...