Kleenex is not a copyright. It's a trademark. They are different beasts with different rules. I mentioned that the rules about "neglect" apply to trademarks. They don't apply to copyrights, though a judge might choose to reduce damages awarded if copyright is selectively enforced (note that I don't know of any instance of this occurring, however the nature and wide range for the award would allow this to happen.) That said, to the best of my knowledge, there's no law stating that it's legal for a judge to use this in determining award--though if you know of a law which states it, I'd be very interested to hear it.
The rules regarding copyright and trademark are very complex and very commonly misunderstood, but a long history of Slashdot-lawyering has taught me this much.:)
There's a difference. People are downright stupid when it comes to computers. Part of it is psychological--it's new, completely unknown, and we have a tendency to immediately shut down our mental processes in the face of things like this. It's natural.
But plumbing follows the laws of physics. Even if I don't know all the intricacies, I understand that water flows, it flows downhill unless there's pressure, etc. It's hard to have a working understanding of life without most of this knowledge. Not so of the Internet. I know people who don't even have an e-mail address. They don't have a computer at home, and they're blue-collar, so the most exposure they have to one at work is the punch-clock.
miltary tribunals handle cases which they have superior info on We already do that, actually.
The biggest problem with tech (and specifically, the spam case) is that on its face, it's easy, but the devil is in the details. We need judges that understand that e-mail can be spoofed. We need judges that understand that "view source" is not hacking. We need judges who understand that computers inherently must make copies of the data all the time--into memory, into swap space, hell, onto your computer from that website--and that data in RAM is not "stored data."
Most of the time, expert witnesses can provide this information, and hopefully the judge will try to understand it, but from what we can see here, not all of them will even try (this judge sounds like she just shut the case down because she didn't understand what was going on--or worse, she had a gross misunderstanding and wasn't willing to let her preconceived notions be overturned.) The problem with expert witnesses is that they cost money, and high expenses start making it so that the law is no longer available to the common man. And that's exactly why more specialized courts for things like this make sense.
The average TV show loses its appeal after a handful of episodes. It becomes repetitive You mean Sailor Moon doesn't get repetitive?? Dragon Ball Z?
Of course, I can't entirely blame you--the question you were answering was loaded to begin with. Anime is a medium, and there are good and bad anime, just like there's good and bad classical television. I do have to wonder if you don't have a pretty strong bias that might cloud your judgement[1].
Rarely if ever a show manages to capture me, that's why Lost lost me after about half of the first season. The trick with Lost is that the plane crash and survival on the island was just the hook to get people watching. After that, it became about the characters. If you watch the series for a season (and it helps to watch it all at once) you'll see drastic character growth. You learn about their backgrounds, their hopes, their fears. Plenty of movies have been almost entirely about the characters (with very little action), but it's pretty rare for a TV show these days. A lot of viewers stopped watching Lost when it became apparent that they were never going to resolve anything, and that's fine. They want a show with more action. Not everyone does.
I don't understand this, though:
[With anime y]ou get resolutions, and quite often fairly surprising resolutions, yet the story can continue. Most serial shows have this. There's an overarching plot with many subplots that get resolved along the way. Buffy: The Vampire Slayer is a perfect example. It was rare that an episode couldn't stand on its own, yet it also contributed to the season story arc. Lost has this, just a different mix of "standalone/arc." Same with Heroes. 24 is quite the opposite--although there are minor resolutions over the season, it's really just one long story.
Then, of course, there are sit-coms, where each episode is almost completely standalone, and only for the sake of continuity is there ever even a reference to previous shows. And there are equivalents to this in anime, which is just another reason that the original question doesn't make any sense.
[1] I'm the same way, really. I don't particularly care for animated media, so it takes a lot for an anime to grab me. There have been many anime that, upon reading the premise, I know that I should like, but when I sit down to watch it, I immediately get a bit turned off in my mind.
ignoring something you are well aware of is approval by silence. I hate sentences like this. You're implying that it's all black-and-white, and that there's no gray. What if the company disapproves, but doesn't think that it's worth the time/energy/money/whatever to deal with it?
Try not to think of things only in black-and-white. The "you're either for us or against us" mentality demonstrates that you have a very simple mind.
Incidentally:
A trademark owner, for example, cannot ignore infringements without effectively saying that they've abandoned that trademark. Yes, this is codified into law. Legally, it's not the same for copyrights/patents, which can be used without permission, but WITH knowledge by the copyright/patent holder without the copyright or patent becoming invalid.
Look at it from the perspective of someone who isn't on the Internet 8 hours a day.
X-PHP-Script: What the hell is this? Does it have something to do with a movie or play?
www.theeashblahblah.com Not weird. It's a website. They're all over the place.
linkmachine Ok, I have no idea what this means.
auto.php Automatically sent mail is not necessarily spam. And "auto" implies "automatic" but it doesn't imply that the mail was sent automatically in the first place--in fact, there's no context whatsoever.
The problem is that judges don't have the knowledge that we have, and so they don't make reasonable decisions. What we need is a "tech court" with judges that are former IT managers and have at least a passing knowledge of what's going on.
You don't have to prove anything in civil court--you just have to convince the judge that you're right. That's obviously where he failed, despite the fact that all of the rest of us know that this type of e-mail is quite clearly spam.
These people are obviously abusing TinyURL. The purpose of TinyURL is to make it easier to tell people about websites, not for a permanent link. Hyperlinks are quite good enough for embedding in webpages, but they're not so great for transmitting over IRC.
More and more devices can play video. I think the time will come when it's almost as ubiquitous as music, and at that point, we'll see how the MPAA fairs.
As it is, the MPAA tends to only send C&D letters rather than suing. My hope is that they see the error of their ways and stop DRMing content. Of course, it's wholly up to the members of the MPAA, in this case--they can choose to stop using CSS any time they want.
Signature-based blocking is only as good as the signatures you use. Malware is increasingly morphing to avoid signature detection. Spam is less so, but I'm not on AT&T, so I really can't say how good their spam filtering is/isn't.
ISPs can keep track of the account associated with an IP address at a given time. That's as good as phone tracing. It gets you to a household. Past that point, you're relying on the individuals' testimony as to who was using the computer or phone at the given time.
Spoofing is really easily dealt with these days. It's a non-issuel
AT&T will just require that those services pay to let customers access their product. This filtering isn't about copyrights--it's a stab into the heart of net neutrality.
Does OS X support arbitrary encrypted volumes? I don't necessarily want to encrypt my entire home directory, just a small volume for passwords (in the even that my computer gets stolen) and other sensitive information.
No doubt. However, the fact that a hidden partition could exist and that the data they were looking for wasn't found on the first partition shouldn't be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A witness who saw you enter in two passwords would go a long way towards proof, though.
What's most damning is that True Crypt supports an arbitrary number of hidden containers. Applying the logic that "because it supports it, it is likely to be there," means that a TC user would always be implicated for data hiding unless they had filled up their partition and could provide keys that showed this. Any "empty" space would be a potential hidden partition.
Of course, if TrueCrypt is designed to do this, that analysis doesn't work. (I thought it did this, but I'm not sure--regardless, it would be an important feature.)
You would need to be aware of how the applications on your PC work. Do you have an indexing application that runs and might index the hidden files (Spotlight, anyone?) Does your shell keep track of commands you've run? Does your OS?
Someone who needs to hide this information needs to be aware of these things. If they aren't, you're right--they're going to get screwed.
A good lawyer should be able to stop this tactic. This is exactly like saying that a person who has purchased a safe in the past must have the safe somewhere and must tell you where it is, and what the combination is. I may have thrown the safe away years ago, or I may have given it to someone, or it may have been stolen, or it may have been lost in a move.... They can't hold you forever just because they think you might have it.
(please, no Gitmo replies--those are, at least right now, highly specialized cases.)
I'd love to see this go to trial. I don't think any sane person would say that the person has a second set of encryption keys beyond a reasonable doubt.
Truecrypt randomizes empty space in its containers to avoid this problem. It didn't come from the manufacturer--it came from Truecrypt.
And if someone's paranoid enough to use TC, they're paranoid enough to turn logging off on their system, stop bash from creating a history file, etc. There may be other references (for example, if you read html files from your encrypted container, filename references may be in the browser history) but it's impossible to say where that mounted directory came from. Was it Samba? NFS? Truecrypt? An external drive? I really hope that a jury wouldn't convict someone under RIPA just because files which were referenced on the system are no longer there. Anyone who ever deletes files would be at risk.
I don't have the best understanding of how it all works, but I know that there are some errors here.
There are a couple of drawbacks to this method, one being that you can have two encrypted volumes start to corrupt each other if you fill the entire partition. If you plan ahead for this scenario you can avoid it, though. The other drawback is that you have to encrypt an entire partition to use it. That's not how it works.
When you initialize your encrypted disk space, you tell Truecrypt how many containers you want. Say that you choose 2. When you mount your Truecrypt drive, you must always mount both containers. In this way, Truecrypt knows and can maintain integrity between the two--they won't start to overwrite or corrupt each other, because they are both known about and available. If you ever only give the first key (you can't just give the second key, as the second container is entirely within the first) then you run the risk of corrupting the second container--in fact, any write operation will probably do it.
Now you can choose more than just two containers, and the same applies. One thing I'm not sure of is whether the third container is fully within the second.
None of this, however, helps in hiding the existence of a PGP key. If your opponent has access to your email servers and can see you sending messages encrypted by PGP you're gonna have some explaining to do when it comes to investigation time. I don't know of any steganographic programs with plausible deniability that are out at this time. If anyone's heard of any please let us know. Even this has some subtle nuances.
If I am sending encrypted mail using PGP, I'm using someone else's PGP key. I don't have to have a PGP key myself in order to do this. If someone else is sending me encrypted messages, they could be sending it using anyone's PGP key--it's only obviously my key if it's provable that I've read the messages. For example, Alice could encrypt a message using Bob's public key, and then send that message to Charlie in an effort to frame him. Charlie gets the junk message and deletes it, but the feds who were wiretapping Charlie come in and demand to know what was in the message. Charlie can't answer--he has no idea. So he gets 2 years in prison from the RIPA act.
You're never going to move? I've learned to never say never, but I don't have many incentives to move right now. I've got a great job, all of my family (and my wife's family) is here, and except for the heat, there's not much to hate. I think the only thing I'd change if I could would be the utter lack of public transportation. I really envy people in the northeastern states, but then, I think the population density of those areas would drive me crazy. Ironically, the only way I'd move is if I got $1million and could buy a cottage in Ireland, maybe start up a computer tech support business.
Incidentally, yeah I'd sell my right for a million, but that'd be if I could get about a thousand other people to do the same, then we spend our billion on making real change happen. Yeah, I know, hypotheticals aren't meant to be answered that way... Yeah. The survey was clearly not intended to be answered with that in mind.
What's interesting is the demographic they chose. Lots of those students have probably never had the opportunity to vote in a major election. It's also the age demographic that is the least likely to vote. Thinking back, I didn't really care much about politics when I was in college. I mostly remember thinking that Bush was riding on his father's coattails, and that his tax cuts were probably a bad plan (but that might have been because I wouldn't be seeing any of that green.)
Now that I'm a little older, I paradoxically care more and am more apathetic about politics. I care more because I see that these things really are important. I'm more apathetic because I realize how little a difference a single vote makes.
So if no one comes around and offers me $1million to never vote again, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. If Ron Paul ends up miraculously getting the Republican nomination, I'll vote for some independent (because my state's vote will go to Ron anyway.)
Slashdot Mirror
Kleenex is not a copyright. It's a trademark. They are different beasts with different rules. I mentioned that the rules about "neglect" apply to trademarks. They don't apply to copyrights, though a judge might choose to reduce damages awarded if copyright is selectively enforced (note that I don't know of any instance of this occurring, however the nature and wide range for the award would allow this to happen.) That said, to the best of my knowledge, there's no law stating that it's legal for a judge to use this in determining award--though if you know of a law which states it, I'd be very interested to hear it.
:)
The rules regarding copyright and trademark are very complex and very commonly misunderstood, but a long history of Slashdot-lawyering has taught me this much.
But plumbing follows the laws of physics. Even if I don't know all the intricacies, I understand that water flows, it flows downhill unless there's pressure, etc. It's hard to have a working understanding of life without most of this knowledge. Not so of the Internet. I know people who don't even have an e-mail address. They don't have a computer at home, and they're blue-collar, so the most exposure they have to one at work is the punch-clock. miltary tribunals handle cases which they have superior info on We already do that, actually.
The biggest problem with tech (and specifically, the spam case) is that on its face, it's easy, but the devil is in the details. We need judges that understand that e-mail can be spoofed. We need judges that understand that "view source" is not hacking. We need judges who understand that computers inherently must make copies of the data all the time--into memory, into swap space, hell, onto your computer from that website--and that data in RAM is not "stored data."
Most of the time, expert witnesses can provide this information, and hopefully the judge will try to understand it, but from what we can see here, not all of them will even try (this judge sounds like she just shut the case down because she didn't understand what was going on--or worse, she had a gross misunderstanding and wasn't willing to let her preconceived notions be overturned.) The problem with expert witnesses is that they cost money, and high expenses start making it so that the law is no longer available to the common man. And that's exactly why more specialized courts for things like this make sense.
Of course, I can't entirely blame you--the question you were answering was loaded to begin with. Anime is a medium, and there are good and bad anime, just like there's good and bad classical television. I do have to wonder if you don't have a pretty strong bias that might cloud your judgement[1]. Rarely if ever a show manages to capture me, that's why Lost lost me after about half of the first season. The trick with Lost is that the plane crash and survival on the island was just the hook to get people watching. After that, it became about the characters. If you watch the series for a season (and it helps to watch it all at once) you'll see drastic character growth. You learn about their backgrounds, their hopes, their fears. Plenty of movies have been almost entirely about the characters (with very little action), but it's pretty rare for a TV show these days. A lot of viewers stopped watching Lost when it became apparent that they were never going to resolve anything, and that's fine. They want a show with more action. Not everyone does.
I don't understand this, though: [With anime y]ou get resolutions, and quite often fairly surprising resolutions, yet the story can continue. Most serial shows have this. There's an overarching plot with many subplots that get resolved along the way. Buffy: The Vampire Slayer is a perfect example. It was rare that an episode couldn't stand on its own, yet it also contributed to the season story arc. Lost has this, just a different mix of "standalone/arc." Same with Heroes. 24 is quite the opposite--although there are minor resolutions over the season, it's really just one long story.
Then, of course, there are sit-coms, where each episode is almost completely standalone, and only for the sake of continuity is there ever even a reference to previous shows. And there are equivalents to this in anime, which is just another reason that the original question doesn't make any sense.
[1] I'm the same way, really. I don't particularly care for animated media, so it takes a lot for an anime to grab me. There have been many anime that, upon reading the premise, I know that I should like, but when I sit down to watch it, I immediately get a bit turned off in my mind.
Try not to think of things only in black-and-white. The "you're either for us or against us" mentality demonstrates that you have a very simple mind.
Incidentally: A trademark owner, for example, cannot ignore infringements without effectively saying that they've abandoned that trademark. Yes, this is codified into law. Legally, it's not the same for copyrights/patents, which can be used without permission, but WITH knowledge by the copyright/patent holder without the copyright or patent becoming invalid.
Maybe the artist thinks that translating the film would destroy the artistic value of the creation? Remember, copyright isn't just about money.
Does noscript allow me to selectively block Flash within the same site?
I.e. there's a Flash game I want to play, and a Flash ad that I want to block. Can I play the game without also viewing the ad?
The problem is that judges don't have the knowledge that we have, and so they don't make reasonable decisions. What we need is a "tech court" with judges that are former IT managers and have at least a passing knowledge of what's going on.
You don't have to prove anything in civil court--you just have to convince the judge that you're right. That's obviously where he failed, despite the fact that all of the rest of us know that this type of e-mail is quite clearly spam.
These people are obviously abusing TinyURL. The purpose of TinyURL is to make it easier to tell people about websites, not for a permanent link. Hyperlinks are quite good enough for embedding in webpages, but they're not so great for transmitting over IRC.
More and more devices can play video. I think the time will come when it's almost as ubiquitous as music, and at that point, we'll see how the MPAA fairs.
As it is, the MPAA tends to only send C&D letters rather than suing. My hope is that they see the error of their ways and stop DRMing content. Of course, it's wholly up to the members of the MPAA, in this case--they can choose to stop using CSS any time they want.
Signature-based blocking is only as good as the signatures you use. Malware is increasingly morphing to avoid signature detection. Spam is less so, but I'm not on AT&T, so I really can't say how good their spam filtering is/isn't.
ISPs can keep track of the account associated with an IP address at a given time. That's as good as phone tracing. It gets you to a household. Past that point, you're relying on the individuals' testimony as to who was using the computer or phone at the given time.
Spoofing is really easily dealt with these days. It's a non-issuel
AT&T will just require that those services pay to let customers access their product. This filtering isn't about copyrights--it's a stab into the heart of net neutrality.
Not everything is black and white. Why is this concept so difficult for people to understand?
Does OS X support arbitrary encrypted volumes? I don't necessarily want to encrypt my entire home directory, just a small volume for passwords (in the even that my computer gets stolen) and other sensitive information.
No doubt. However, the fact that a hidden partition could exist and that the data they were looking for wasn't found on the first partition shouldn't be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A witness who saw you enter in two passwords would go a long way towards proof, though.
What's most damning is that True Crypt supports an arbitrary number of hidden containers. Applying the logic that "because it supports it, it is likely to be there," means that a TC user would always be implicated for data hiding unless they had filled up their partition and could provide keys that showed this. Any "empty" space would be a potential hidden partition.
Of course, if TrueCrypt is designed to do this, that analysis doesn't work. (I thought it did this, but I'm not sure--regardless, it would be an important feature.)
You would need to be aware of how the applications on your PC work. Do you have an indexing application that runs and might index the hidden files (Spotlight, anyone?) Does your shell keep track of commands you've run? Does your OS?
Someone who needs to hide this information needs to be aware of these things. If they aren't, you're right--they're going to get screwed.
A good lawyer should be able to stop this tactic. This is exactly like saying that a person who has purchased a safe in the past must have the safe somewhere and must tell you where it is, and what the combination is. I may have thrown the safe away years ago, or I may have given it to someone, or it may have been stolen, or it may have been lost in a move.... They can't hold you forever just because they think you might have it.
(please, no Gitmo replies--those are, at least right now, highly specialized cases.)
I know that it doesn't apply to all countries. Can you tell me which criminal actions in the US it does not apply to?
I'd love to see this go to trial. I don't think any sane person would say that the person has a second set of encryption keys beyond a reasonable doubt.
Truecrypt randomizes empty space in its containers to avoid this problem. It didn't come from the manufacturer--it came from Truecrypt.
And if someone's paranoid enough to use TC, they're paranoid enough to turn logging off on their system, stop bash from creating a history file, etc. There may be other references (for example, if you read html files from your encrypted container, filename references may be in the browser history) but it's impossible to say where that mounted directory came from. Was it Samba? NFS? Truecrypt? An external drive? I really hope that a jury wouldn't convict someone under RIPA just because files which were referenced on the system are no longer there. Anyone who ever deletes files would be at risk.
When you initialize your encrypted disk space, you tell Truecrypt how many containers you want. Say that you choose 2. When you mount your Truecrypt drive, you must always mount both containers. In this way, Truecrypt knows and can maintain integrity between the two--they won't start to overwrite or corrupt each other, because they are both known about and available. If you ever only give the first key (you can't just give the second key, as the second container is entirely within the first) then you run the risk of corrupting the second container--in fact, any write operation will probably do it.
Now you can choose more than just two containers, and the same applies. One thing I'm not sure of is whether the third container is fully within the second. None of this, however, helps in hiding the existence of a PGP key. If your opponent has access to your email servers and can see you sending messages encrypted by PGP you're gonna have some explaining to do when it comes to investigation time. I don't know of any steganographic programs with plausible deniability that are out at this time. If anyone's heard of any please let us know. Even this has some subtle nuances.
If I am sending encrypted mail using PGP, I'm using someone else's PGP key. I don't have to have a PGP key myself in order to do this. If someone else is sending me encrypted messages, they could be sending it using anyone's PGP key--it's only obviously my key if it's provable that I've read the messages. For example, Alice could encrypt a message using Bob's public key, and then send that message to Charlie in an effort to frame him. Charlie gets the junk message and deletes it, but the feds who were wiretapping Charlie come in and demand to know what was in the message. Charlie can't answer--he has no idea. So he gets 2 years in prison from the RIPA act.
Huh. I really thought thay the Euro was in use there. Color me embarrassed (I think it's a shade of red.)
What's interesting is the demographic they chose. Lots of those students have probably never had the opportunity to vote in a major election. It's also the age demographic that is the least likely to vote. Thinking back, I didn't really care much about politics when I was in college. I mostly remember thinking that Bush was riding on his father's coattails, and that his tax cuts were probably a bad plan (but that might have been because I wouldn't be seeing any of that green.)
Now that I'm a little older, I paradoxically care more and am more apathetic about politics. I care more because I see that these things really are important. I'm more apathetic because I realize how little a difference a single vote makes.
So if no one comes around and offers me $1million to never vote again, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. If Ron Paul ends up miraculously getting the Republican nomination, I'll vote for some independent (because my state's vote will go to Ron anyway.)