If you want complete failsafe encryption, the two devices must either be physically connected by wire, or else must broadcast wirelessly directly to eachother, with no repeater or any other physical device not under the complete control of either endpoint in between them.
Protocols can be devised in such systems which are completely eavesdrop tolerant, such that even if eavesdropping did occur, it would be indecipherable, even if one were to try to listen to the entire communication, including the protocol setup itself, it would sound like undecipherable gibberish right from the moment that the encryption began.
Such protocols can be vulnerable to MitM attacks, but that is why they are really only reliable as encryption when the communication is not subjected to any routing.
The type of copyright infringement caused by incidental web searches such as what you've described is much more of a peripheral issue than a core concern on matters of piracy on the 'net. I'm not suggesting it's entirely irrelevant, but the reality is that it does not represent a significant concern for most copyright advocates. The *MUCH* bigger concern is when people go and download newly released movies or the like. Moreover, they do so with intent, and often under the full realization that the channels they are obtaining it from may be considered a bit... shady (even if not actually illegal), and would not have actually been approved of by the copyright holder.
They would be... if it happened often enough to be noticed. That doesn't seem to be the case so far, however. Probably because (most) people who use McDonald's free wifi don't generally stay there for hours and hours to surf the 'net. The general case is that people are usually there to get food, and may only browse online while they are eating there. When they are done, they get up and leave. Not a whole lot of time for crime committing, overall. Of course exceptions to this can and certainly do happen, but my point is that such exceptions *ARE* just that... exceptions.
In general, the only way to really avoid liability is through common carrier status
I'd place not insubstantial odds that your ISP isn't going to accept data from you at all if you change your IP address to one that doesn't actually belong to you.
No... more like if you leave an open suitcase of cash on your front lawn while you go out (assuming there is no wind), where anybody walking by can see it, and make absolutely no effort to secure any of it inside your own home, then you should bear some responsibility for the fact that when you come back after a few hours, it's not all going to be there.... even though other people broke the law by stealing your property, you were still negligent in how you managed it. If that money was not ever actually yours, but belonged to somebody else, then you could reasonably be legally held liable for any that was missing.
It can't identify a specific person. At all. The pigeonhole principle proves it irrefutably, since there are 4 billion possible IP's, but roughly 7 billion people on the planet. It is therefore impossible for an IP to uniquely identify an individual.
Although admittedly that particular argument isn't valid for IPv6... it's still true for a vast majority of IP addresses right now. Even under IPv6, however, it will probably still be the case unless (or until) we start directly associating unique IP's with particular people regardless of what kind of device they are utilizing, you still won't be able to associate an IP address with a particular person. At best, you can get only the subscriber who leased that IP. This may or may not be the individual, but an argument can be made (one that I don't fully agree with, but can see some valid reasoning behind) that a subscriber could be held accountable for activities on his or her subscription that they ought to have had the ability to supervise and approve of.
It would be sort of "enforced" by banning the broadcasting of television programs which are specifically engineered to appeal to that demographic. Programs which currently target such audiences would have to be redesigned to be oriented more towards children who are perhaps just about to start school. While children under 3 might still be exposed to such programs, the lack of any content explicitly geared for infants and toddlers could nonetheless make some difference.
... then they shouldn't allow it to be imported in the first place.
Seems fairly simple, really.
Not that I advocate what they are doing here... but prohibiting unauthorized resale of it when they don't even *TRY* to stop unauthorized imports seems to me a whole lot like closing the barn door *after* the animals have left.
Of course I realize that there'd still be ways around the law in that case, but at least that would make the law a whole lot more consistent.
1) don't.... I will usually use google document viewer if I'm wanting to read a pdf online.
2) Because adobe hasn't made a version of Reader for Linux since 9.5 (although they've *never* made a 64 bit version for Linux. [grumble, grumble, grumble])
And no... to the best of my knowledge, there aren't equivalently functional alternatives. Name another one that supports pdf layers.
... I should hope that we've at least started to wean ourselves off of gasoline entirely. None of this mpg crap... we should be thinking more like miles per kwh.
Not a good comparison... since "flying spaghetti monster" has a known origin, which was to discourage intelligent design. It was never intended to be taken seriously, merely to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to incorporate intelligent design theory into science class.
There is absolutely no definitive evidence that the notion of God was contrived by anyone for any purpose other than that of genuine belief. While belief in God may well be considered superstition by many people, comparing it to believing in a modern invention like the FSM, whose design origins are a well-documente historical fact, is only demonstrating profound ignorance.
Lifetime AV contracts exist, but they only apply for the lifetime of the installation. Any reinstallation requires a new contract, and of course, it's not transferrable.
First of all, it depends on where the person who is doing the recording is located. In many jurisdictions, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation if at least one of the parties being recorded is aware of it.
And of course, quite often they will say that the call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes. Although they are talking about recording it themselves, those exact words also have the upshot of giving you permission to record the conversation as well.
And if there's really any doubt, you can just politely mention at the start of the call that it's being recorded, and then you're covered even in territories where both parties must be aware of a recording for it to be legal. After you've announced this, they can either continue to talk to you being in full awareness of the fact, or they can hang up.
I have no problem with patents on processes that, by the mere act of performing that process, some effect upon the real world is produced.
I have a problem with patents on processes, no matter how obscure they are, or innovative they might seem to be, which do not exhibit any causal interaction with the world around us. Usefulness doesn't mean it is real. (Morality is a good example of this... "good" isn't a real physical substance, but behaving in a morally acceptable way still has a very useful function for a majority of people).
Finally, if the only innovation on something is "do it with a computer", I would argue that this should not *EVER* make an otherwise non-patentable concept into a patentable one.
A process for curing rubber is an acceptable patent. A process for data compression should not be (I know many are, it's my position that those are bad patents).
If a process has causal components, which means that it affects the universe or world in some real way, but it is possible to identify a subset of the process which does not have any causal component, I would argue that while it may be acceptable to patent the whole process, other processes which might incorporate a causality-independent subset of that process, but which do not utilize a number of the same causal components as it should not infringe on that patent. So, for example, a process for controlling elevators could be a patentable process. However, an identical core algorithm could also be used to control how a disk drive head is moved when queuing reads and writes, and such an application of an otherwise identical process should not infringe on that patent.
Having bicycle helmets optional only makes sense in societies where either a) there is enough bicycle infrastructure that there is no real need for bicycles to ever need to use the same roads as motor vehicles, and that the safety to pedestrians is not adversely impacted by bikes on sidewalks; b) drivers actually respect a bicycle as a road vehicle just as legitimate as their own; or c) it is entirely socially acceptable to leave an injured person on the road where they are, and not have any concern whatsoever about calling an ambulance or getting them some medical attention.
The article appears to postulate that wearing a helmet stops a bicyclist from being hit by cars because it stops them from being a bicyclist in the first place.
I would not personally want to use the word "conspiracy", since it has connotations which aren't exactly applicable, even though it might still be a technically accurate term.
I would tend to prefer the term "willing accessory".
True... but personal use or not, in cases where the uploader has not received any permission to be making copies that they intend to distribute to others, then the uploader is committing copyright infringement, and the downloader might still need to be responsible for their own contribution to being an accessory of that fact by willingly participating with the uploader.
... is that treating the downloading of infringing content as a crime is virtually impossible to enforce universally.
Of course, laws prohibiting speeding only tend to catch a few people too... so I would argue that the inability to enforce it universally should not be an excuse to not try. At the very least, perhaps, some may simply curtail the illegal behavior only because they do not wish to be caught.
(Disclaimer... since the last time I said something like this here, it evidently wasn't obvious): I realize, of course, that there are deeper reasons for laws prohibiting speeding which relate to issues of public safety, and I'm not comparing the act of copyright infringement to driving 80 miles per hour down a residential road... only comparing, perhaps superficially, the similarity in the attempts to prohibit them.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want complete failsafe encryption, the two devices must either be physically connected by wire, or else must broadcast wirelessly directly to eachother, with no repeater or any other physical device not under the complete control of either endpoint in between them.
Protocols can be devised in such systems which are completely eavesdrop tolerant, such that even if eavesdropping did occur, it would be indecipherable, even if one were to try to listen to the entire communication, including the protocol setup itself, it would sound like undecipherable gibberish right from the moment that the encryption began.
Such protocols can be vulnerable to MitM attacks, but that is why they are really only reliable as encryption when the communication is not subjected to any routing.
The type of copyright infringement caused by incidental web searches such as what you've described is much more of a peripheral issue than a core concern on matters of piracy on the 'net. I'm not suggesting it's entirely irrelevant, but the reality is that it does not represent a significant concern for most copyright advocates. The *MUCH* bigger concern is when people go and download newly released movies or the like. Moreover, they do so with intent, and often under the full realization that the channels they are obtaining it from may be considered a bit... shady (even if not actually illegal), and would not have actually been approved of by the copyright holder.
They would be... if it happened often enough to be noticed. That doesn't seem to be the case so far, however. Probably because (most) people who use McDonald's free wifi don't generally stay there for hours and hours to surf the 'net. The general case is that people are usually there to get food, and may only browse online while they are eating there. When they are done, they get up and leave. Not a whole lot of time for crime committing, overall. Of course exceptions to this can and certainly do happen, but my point is that such exceptions *ARE* just that... exceptions.
In general, the only way to really avoid liability is through common carrier status
I'd place not insubstantial odds that your ISP isn't going to accept data from you at all if you change your IP address to one that doesn't actually belong to you.
There is no physical harm caused in counterfeiting currency either.
Just sayin'.
No... more like if you leave an open suitcase of cash on your front lawn while you go out (assuming there is no wind), where anybody walking by can see it, and make absolutely no effort to secure any of it inside your own home, then you should bear some responsibility for the fact that when you come back after a few hours, it's not all going to be there.... even though other people broke the law by stealing your property, you were still negligent in how you managed it. If that money was not ever actually yours, but belonged to somebody else, then you could reasonably be legally held liable for any that was missing.
It can't identify a specific person. At all. The pigeonhole principle proves it irrefutably, since there are 4 billion possible IP's, but roughly 7 billion people on the planet. It is therefore impossible for an IP to uniquely identify an individual.
Although admittedly that particular argument isn't valid for IPv6... it's still true for a vast majority of IP addresses right now. Even under IPv6, however, it will probably still be the case unless (or until) we start directly associating unique IP's with particular people regardless of what kind of device they are utilizing, you still won't be able to associate an IP address with a particular person. At best, you can get only the subscriber who leased that IP. This may or may not be the individual, but an argument can be made (one that I don't fully agree with, but can see some valid reasoning behind) that a subscriber could be held accountable for activities on his or her subscription that they ought to have had the ability to supervise and approve of.
It would be sort of "enforced" by banning the broadcasting of television programs which are specifically engineered to appeal to that demographic. Programs which currently target such audiences would have to be redesigned to be oriented more towards children who are perhaps just about to start school. While children under 3 might still be exposed to such programs, the lack of any content explicitly geared for infants and toddlers could nonetheless make some difference.
That's still q-36.
That's q-36.
<eyeroll/>
Seems fairly simple, really.
Not that I advocate what they are doing here... but prohibiting unauthorized resale of it when they don't even *TRY* to stop unauthorized imports seems to me a whole lot like closing the barn door *after* the animals have left.
Of course I realize that there'd still be ways around the law in that case, but at least that would make the law a whole lot more consistent.
Speaking for myself here...
1) don't.... I will usually use google document viewer if I'm wanting to read a pdf online.
2) Because adobe hasn't made a version of Reader for Linux since 9.5 (although they've *never* made a 64 bit version for Linux. [grumble, grumble, grumble])
And no... to the best of my knowledge, there aren't equivalently functional alternatives. Name another one that supports pdf layers.
... I should hope that we've at least started to wean ourselves off of gasoline entirely. None of this mpg crap... we should be thinking more like miles per kwh.
Not a good comparison... since "flying spaghetti monster" has a known origin, which was to discourage intelligent design. It was never intended to be taken seriously, merely to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to incorporate intelligent design theory into science class.
There is absolutely no definitive evidence that the notion of God was contrived by anyone for any purpose other than that of genuine belief. While belief in God may well be considered superstition by many people, comparing it to believing in a modern invention like the FSM, whose design origins are a well-documente historical fact, is only demonstrating profound ignorance.
Lifetime AV contracts exist, but they only apply for the lifetime of the installation. Any reinstallation requires a new contract, and of course, it's not transferrable.
First of all, it depends on where the person who is doing the recording is located. In many jurisdictions, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation if at least one of the parties being recorded is aware of it.
And of course, quite often they will say that the call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes. Although they are talking about recording it themselves, those exact words also have the upshot of giving you permission to record the conversation as well.
And if there's really any doubt, you can just politely mention at the start of the call that it's being recorded, and then you're covered even in territories where both parties must be aware of a recording for it to be legal. After you've announced this, they can either continue to talk to you being in full awareness of the fact, or they can hang up.
I have no problem with patents on processes that, by the mere act of performing that process, some effect upon the real world is produced.
I have a problem with patents on processes, no matter how obscure they are, or innovative they might seem to be, which do not exhibit any causal interaction with the world around us. Usefulness doesn't mean it is real. (Morality is a good example of this... "good" isn't a real physical substance, but behaving in a morally acceptable way still has a very useful function for a majority of people).
Finally, if the only innovation on something is "do it with a computer", I would argue that this should not *EVER* make an otherwise non-patentable concept into a patentable one.
A process for curing rubber is an acceptable patent. A process for data compression should not be (I know many are, it's my position that those are bad patents).
If a process has causal components, which means that it affects the universe or world in some real way, but it is possible to identify a subset of the process which does not have any causal component, I would argue that while it may be acceptable to patent the whole process, other processes which might incorporate a causality-independent subset of that process, but which do not utilize a number of the same causal components as it should not infringe on that patent. So, for example, a process for controlling elevators could be a patentable process. However, an identical core algorithm could also be used to control how a disk drive head is moved when queuing reads and writes, and such an application of an otherwise identical process should not infringe on that patent.
Having bicycle helmets optional only makes sense in societies where either a) there is enough bicycle infrastructure that there is no real need for bicycles to ever need to use the same roads as motor vehicles, and that the safety to pedestrians is not adversely impacted by bikes on sidewalks; b) drivers actually respect a bicycle as a road vehicle just as legitimate as their own; or c) it is entirely socially acceptable to leave an injured person on the road where they are, and not have any concern whatsoever about calling an ambulance or getting them some medical attention.
The article appears to postulate that wearing a helmet stops a bicyclist from being hit by cars because it stops them from being a bicyclist in the first place.
If it's isomorphic to a mathematical operation, or sequence of them, then its bad.
That would be... oh.... all of them.
I would not personally want to use the word "conspiracy", since it has connotations which aren't exactly applicable, even though it might still be a technically accurate term.
I would tend to prefer the term "willing accessory".
True... but personal use or not, in cases where the uploader has not received any permission to be making copies that they intend to distribute to others, then the uploader is committing copyright infringement, and the downloader might still need to be responsible for their own contribution to being an accessory of that fact by willingly participating with the uploader.
Of course, laws prohibiting speeding only tend to catch a few people too... so I would argue that the inability to enforce it universally should not be an excuse to not try. At the very least, perhaps, some may simply curtail the illegal behavior only because they do not wish to be caught.
(Disclaimer... since the last time I said something like this here, it evidently wasn't obvious): I realize, of course, that there are deeper reasons for laws prohibiting speeding which relate to issues of public safety, and I'm not comparing the act of copyright infringement to driving 80 miles per hour down a residential road... only comparing, perhaps superficially, the similarity in the attempts to prohibit them.