In the U.S., DSL and cable Internet access were formerly regulated by the FCC according to different rules, but in 2005 the FCC re-classified DSL according to the more permissive cable rules -- Wikipedia
So I apologize, it was only DSL and other phone-line based internet that was regulated under common carrier laws under the telecommunications act. However, it still stands that these are not new regulations. The desire of proponents of Net Neutrality is to reclassify all internet access under the telecommunications rules for Common Carriers and unbundling etc.
You're under the mistaken impression that there is competition in the ISP industry. Corporation A and Corporation B aren't going to fight at all. They are going to agree not to poach each other's customers by being in different areas and do the exact same thing, allow companies to pay for priority service. This is a horrible thing for consumers and once we let the ISPs follow through and get entrenched doing this, not only would we have to fight the ISPs to implement Net Neutrality, but we'd have to fight all the companies paying for priority service so they don't lose the advantage they gain by paying exorbitant sums of money to ISPs.
I'm also sure that when the ISPs follow through with what they want to do, everyone who said that Net Neutrality should wait until they actually do something, will come up with some other reason why not to implement Net Neutrality.
Until 2005, the internet was covered under Title II of the telecommunications provisions and thus was subject to Common Carrier rules. As a result, Neutrality was the de facto rule of the internet. In addition until recently (with the last couple years) ISPs more or less were pretty neutral (with many notable exceptions). In 2005, the FCC reclassified broadband out from the Title II restrictions and thus eliminated Common Carrier rules on the internet.
As for "waiting until there is a real problem":
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
Former AT&T Cheif Ed Whitacre:
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
So, do you really want to wait until they do what they said they want to do?
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
It seems as long as the developer provided the information as to the location for access and microsoft allows developers to comment and display descriptions (which could contain a link to the source code) then they're all good.
I sincerely doubt that any Game company who is going to sell their game will use private keys they found on the internet to sign their software and sell their game without Sony at all. It's just not going to happen. As a result, the main use the private keys will get will be for homebrew games and running Linux. Thus, while you may infer the business is being harmed, you might guess that it is being harmed, there's no proof. Thus, if they cannot prove they are harming the business, the injunction shouldn't happen.
So, the security nightmare is that an Application tells you exactly what permissions it wants to use before you install it, and if you decide to install it it can use those and only those permissions because you trusted it to do so. ooooo spooky.
I'm sorry, where is the security nightmare? It may not have the central fine-grained controls of a blackberry, but it is hardly a security nightmare. People have been choosing what applications to trust and install for a long time.
In order for Mozilla and Opera to be able create decoders for their browsers, not only do they need to make decoding for internet streaming royalty, but they would also have to make distributing the decoder free.
The HTML5 mess can be easily solved by using WebM because it is royalty free and can be used as a lowest common denominator. If HTML5 must at least support WebM but gives the option to support others, then that should be good enough.
Actually, there is something wrong with a company seeking such an injunction against someone harming their business specifically when they are unable to prove they are harming the business in any way.
Because you don't patent the idea of the machine you engineered, you patent the implementation of the machine. How to construct it. Algorithms are by definition an idea. Any specific implementation of an algorithm can be used in a product under which it can be protected via copyright. But you shouldn't be able to patent an idea.
How does making decoding for internet streaming royalty free forever "solve everything"? It still will not be royalty free to write an encoder, yet WebM encoders will be freely implemented.
Because you shouldn't be able to patent an Idea, only an implementation. Patent the specific implementation of an algorithm that GIF uses. Not the algorithm itself.
Hey stupid, "were" and "where" are two different words. Functional illiteracy just makes you look like an idiot.
Interesting how you still got it wrong also. If you're going to correct someone, at least correct them correctly. I believe, in the context of the original post, it should be we're as in "we are". Good try though.
Using your logic, it is unreasonable to suggest that any site ever isn't making enough money from ad revenue and as such if the site continues to exist they must be making a fair amount of profit. That's unreasonable itself. It depends on whether the ad revenue is enough to cover the traffic to begin with. If your ad revenue is barely enough to cover your traffic, then as your traffic grows your ad revenue is going to grow in a similar fashion (since ad revenue is driven by traffic). Ad revenue is not, usually, going to grow faster than your traffic. So if your site is already making a profit from ad revenue alone, then it's reasonable to assume that as web traffic grows, so will your profit. If your site is barely covering its traffic from ad revenue, it's completely reasonable to assume that the ad revenue will just cover the growth. Since we don't know the numbers both situations are equally reasonable.
There is no evidence to suggest they were making a fair bit of profit, and the only thing you cite as evidence is that they continued to operate and you don't believe it's likely that they operated it at a loss for a long time. You also don't believe, for reasons you don't provide, that it's likely they were breaking about even or only making a small amount of profit. Considering there is no evidence either way, I don't see how you can say my suggestion is unreasonable but yours isn't.
Likewise, if the only thing betamax could be used for was copying someone else's work, then I don't think the court would had ruled the way they did.
Which falls in line with the ruling they made. Sony was not infringing because the betamax had substantial non-infringing uses. What you are saying is no different.
Please explain this censorship that you are imagining. The moderation here on Slashdot is nothing like censorship at all. No one is preventing you from reading what someone else wrote because you can just change your threshold and still see the posts. While some people do fit your description of "claiming this is about freedom" while "Knowing it's not" and "censoring facts". Many many more want both sides to be see, believe it really is about freedom, and believe that their argument will prevail because it does have facts.
It appears that your own personal bias and opinions are coloring your choice on what are actually "Facts".
Actually, the distinction is that they are making money by providing a service. The Pirate Bay has advertisers who pay to be seen by those who use the service. The service allows users to upload and download files at no cost whatever those files may be.
The difference with HotFile is they charge the users. A free service vs a pay-to-use service is a big difference.
As such, the ONLY reasonable assumption is they were making money left and right.
Actually, isn't it equally reasonable to assume that the revenue they made sometimes covered their costs and sometimes didn't? So that some months they may have made a small profit and others they may have had a loss, in such a way that it averages out to essentially no profit? Or maybe just very little profit? It's very possible seeing as their revenue via ads is tied directly to their traffic which is of course the direct driver of their costs.
More traffic = higher costs. Also, more traffic = higher ad revenues. Considering what was said on the stands during their trials, the most likely scenario is that the revenue they made on average covered their costs and maybe made them a very small amount of profit, but that's it.
Please link to some proof that you are who you say you are, and you have done what you say you have done. For all anyone knows you are a random person claiming the initials APK and claiming that you have done oh so much. In reality, it is difficult for you to prove anything seeing as you aren't even logged in so if multiple people were posting the same way, there's no way to know the difference.
If you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be, then you would know that it is stupid to follow the instructions of some person you've never heard of simply because they say they are knowledgeable and claim to have done a lot of development.
That's over 32.8 million iOS devices. I didn't include the 2 million Apple TVs
Wait. So, when you count all the iPhones, iPads and iPod touches, they still didn't surpass Android powered phones? Not counting Android Tablets and other android devices. You even estimate:
19.45 million iPods, over half of which were iPod touches, but they didn't give a breakdown
So your number isn't a hard figure either. The Apple TVs don't count anyways, because thats not what we're counting or competing in. Granted considering we're talking about smartphone marketshare, the iPods and iPads shouldn't count either but I'll let that slide to prove the point. Despite you yourself adding the numbers and showing that all iOS devices put together aren't selling more than Android smartphones alone. You still claim that Android smartphone sales haven't passed iPhone sales? Really?!
Not at all. Assuming your analogy has any accuracy (which it doesn't) A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the driver must follow the rules that these public roads and parking lots have. They must observe the speed limit, traffic laws, etc. They must make sure their car meets the inspections required for their state. They must go the correct way down a one way street. So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it. A driver who uses public roads does not make the rules, thus an ISP who uses public infrastructure should have to listen to public rules for their infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
In the U.S., DSL and cable Internet access were formerly regulated by the FCC according to different rules, but in 2005 the FCC re-classified DSL according to the more permissive cable rules -- Wikipedia
So I apologize, it was only DSL and other phone-line based internet that was regulated under common carrier laws under the telecommunications act. However, it still stands that these are not new regulations. The desire of proponents of Net Neutrality is to reclassify all internet access under the telecommunications rules for Common Carriers and unbundling etc.
I've seen the fake picture you mention. However, I've also seen this: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/ which is not fake at all. In fact, it looks remarkably similar to the satirical image you were referring to.
Not only that, but the UK is starting to warm up to tiered internet like this http://www.telecoms.com/23428/uk-warms-to-tiered-internet/ so of course we'll start seeing ISPs in the US clambering to do the same thing.
Let Corporation A and Corporation B fight it out
You're under the mistaken impression that there is competition in the ISP industry. Corporation A and Corporation B aren't going to fight at all. They are going to agree not to poach each other's customers by being in different areas and do the exact same thing, allow companies to pay for priority service. This is a horrible thing for consumers and once we let the ISPs follow through and get entrenched doing this, not only would we have to fight the ISPs to implement Net Neutrality, but we'd have to fight all the companies paying for priority service so they don't lose the advantage they gain by paying exorbitant sums of money to ISPs.
I'm also sure that when the ISPs follow through with what they want to do, everyone who said that Net Neutrality should wait until they actually do something, will come up with some other reason why not to implement Net Neutrality.
Until 2005, the internet was covered under Title II of the telecommunications provisions and thus was subject to Common Carrier rules. As a result, Neutrality was the de facto rule of the internet. In addition until recently (with the last couple years) ISPs more or less were pretty neutral (with many notable exceptions). In 2005, the FCC reclassified broadband out from the Title II restrictions and thus eliminated Common Carrier rules on the internet.
As for "waiting until there is a real problem":
William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
Former AT&T Cheif Ed Whitacre:
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
So, do you really want to wait until they do what they said they want to do?
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
It seems as long as the developer provided the information as to the location for access and microsoft allows developers to comment and display descriptions (which could contain a link to the source code) then they're all good.
Wouldn't the ONLY thing they have to do is direct any requests for source to the developer who would have to respond?
GPL does not require bundling the code with the app as long as when asked, a location to retrieve the code freely is provided.
I sincerely doubt that any Game company who is going to sell their game will use private keys they found on the internet to sign their software and sell their game without Sony at all. It's just not going to happen. As a result, the main use the private keys will get will be for homebrew games and running Linux. Thus, while you may infer the business is being harmed, you might guess that it is being harmed, there's no proof. Thus, if they cannot prove they are harming the business, the injunction shouldn't happen.
So, the security nightmare is that an Application tells you exactly what permissions it wants to use before you install it, and if you decide to install it it can use those and only those permissions because you trusted it to do so. ooooo spooky.
I'm sorry, where is the security nightmare? It may not have the central fine-grained controls of a blackberry, but it is hardly a security nightmare. People have been choosing what applications to trust and install for a long time.
In order for Mozilla and Opera to be able create decoders for their browsers, not only do they need to make decoding for internet streaming royalty, but they would also have to make distributing the decoder free.
The HTML5 mess can be easily solved by using WebM because it is royalty free and can be used as a lowest common denominator. If HTML5 must at least support WebM but gives the option to support others, then that should be good enough.
Actually, there is something wrong with a company seeking such an injunction against someone harming their business specifically when they are unable to prove they are harming the business in any way.
H.264 is not safe from patent claims. If anyone outside of the MPEG-LA has a patent which covers H.264, you are not protected.
Patenting an algorithm is patenting the math itself, not a particular implementation. That is why software should not be patentable.
Because you don't patent the idea of the machine you engineered, you patent the implementation of the machine. How to construct it. Algorithms are by definition an idea. Any specific implementation of an algorithm can be used in a product under which it can be protected via copyright. But you shouldn't be able to patent an idea.
How does making decoding for internet streaming royalty free forever "solve everything"? It still will not be royalty free to write an encoder, yet WebM encoders will be freely implemented.
Because you shouldn't be able to patent an Idea, only an implementation. Patent the specific implementation of an algorithm that GIF uses. Not the algorithm itself.
Yes, tried to fork, but where not free to fork
Hey stupid, "were" and "where" are two different words. Functional illiteracy just makes you look like an idiot.
Interesting how you still got it wrong also. If you're going to correct someone, at least correct them correctly. I believe, in the context of the original post, it should be we're as in "we are". Good try though.
Using your logic, it is unreasonable to suggest that any site ever isn't making enough money from ad revenue and as such if the site continues to exist they must be making a fair amount of profit. That's unreasonable itself. It depends on whether the ad revenue is enough to cover the traffic to begin with. If your ad revenue is barely enough to cover your traffic, then as your traffic grows your ad revenue is going to grow in a similar fashion (since ad revenue is driven by traffic). Ad revenue is not, usually, going to grow faster than your traffic. So if your site is already making a profit from ad revenue alone, then it's reasonable to assume that as web traffic grows, so will your profit. If your site is barely covering its traffic from ad revenue, it's completely reasonable to assume that the ad revenue will just cover the growth. Since we don't know the numbers both situations are equally reasonable.
There is no evidence to suggest they were making a fair bit of profit, and the only thing you cite as evidence is that they continued to operate and you don't believe it's likely that they operated it at a loss for a long time. You also don't believe, for reasons you don't provide, that it's likely they were breaking about even or only making a small amount of profit. Considering there is no evidence either way, I don't see how you can say my suggestion is unreasonable but yours isn't.
Someone mod parent up. This is probably the most coherent response I've ever seen to the issue of calling copyright infringment, stealing.
So allowing anonymity is equivalent to encouraging the breaking of the law? Wow. That's news to me....
Likewise, if the only thing betamax could be used for was copying someone else's work, then I don't think the court would had ruled the way they did.
Which falls in line with the ruling they made. Sony was not infringing because the betamax had substantial non-infringing uses. What you are saying is no different.
Please explain this censorship that you are imagining. The moderation here on Slashdot is nothing like censorship at all. No one is preventing you from reading what someone else wrote because you can just change your threshold and still see the posts. While some people do fit your description of "claiming this is about freedom" while "Knowing it's not" and "censoring facts". Many many more want both sides to be see, believe it really is about freedom, and believe that their argument will prevail because it does have facts.
It appears that your own personal bias and opinions are coloring your choice on what are actually "Facts".
Actually, the distinction is that they are making money by providing a service. The Pirate Bay has advertisers who pay to be seen by those who use the service. The service allows users to upload and download files at no cost whatever those files may be.
The difference with HotFile is they charge the users. A free service vs a pay-to-use service is a big difference.
As such, the ONLY reasonable assumption is they were making money left and right.
Actually, isn't it equally reasonable to assume that the revenue they made sometimes covered their costs and sometimes didn't? So that some months they may have made a small profit and others they may have had a loss, in such a way that it averages out to essentially no profit? Or maybe just very little profit? It's very possible seeing as their revenue via ads is tied directly to their traffic which is of course the direct driver of their costs.
More traffic = higher costs. Also, more traffic = higher ad revenues. Considering what was said on the stands during their trials, the most likely scenario is that the revenue they made on average covered their costs and maybe made them a very small amount of profit, but that's it.
Please link to some proof that you are who you say you are, and you have done what you say you have done. For all anyone knows you are a random person claiming the initials APK and claiming that you have done oh so much. In reality, it is difficult for you to prove anything seeing as you aren't even logged in so if multiple people were posting the same way, there's no way to know the difference.
If you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be, then you would know that it is stupid to follow the instructions of some person you've never heard of simply because they say they are knowledgeable and claim to have done a lot of development.
That's over 32.8 million iOS devices. I didn't include the 2 million Apple TVs
Wait. So, when you count all the iPhones, iPads and iPod touches, they still didn't surpass Android powered phones? Not counting Android Tablets and other android devices. You even estimate:
19.45 million iPods, over half of which were iPod touches, but they didn't give a breakdown
So your number isn't a hard figure either. The Apple TVs don't count anyways, because thats not what we're counting or competing in. Granted considering we're talking about smartphone marketshare, the iPods and iPads shouldn't count either but I'll let that slide to prove the point. Despite you yourself adding the numbers and showing that all iOS devices put together aren't selling more than Android smartphones alone. You still claim that Android smartphone sales haven't passed iPhone sales? Really?!
Not at all. Assuming your analogy has any accuracy (which it doesn't) A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the driver must follow the rules that these public roads and parking lots have. They must observe the speed limit, traffic laws, etc. They must make sure their car meets the inspections required for their state. They must go the correct way down a one way street. So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it. A driver who uses public roads does not make the rules, thus an ISP who uses public infrastructure should have to listen to public rules for their infrastructure.