we send an email to the blogger using the address associated with their account and submit the original DMCA notice to chillingeffects.org. If a blogger wishes to challenge the DMCA notice, they can file a counter notice, at which time the original DMCA complainant has 14 days to file suit, or we will reinstate the removed content.
Google's outline of its DMCA procedures for Blogger: They require complainants to "IDENTIFY EACH POST BY PERMALINK OR DATE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS THE INFRINGING MATERIAL." They also have provision for counterclaims, and when they "receive a counter notification," they say they "may reinstate the material in question." But they don't specifically say that they will notify the blogger in response to receiving a claim -- or even in removing a post.
Contraire: if material that Viacom says infringes were shown to have been uploaded by Viacom, Google could argue that either it doesn't infringe, or that Viacom was, in essence, trying to entrap Google/YouTube...
Exactly. And as with the music industry, where the major record labels are increasingly competing against an increasing number of independent, internet-distributed artists, video content created by the major studios is increasingly having to compete against "user-generated" video, primarily (I'd guess) distributed on sites like youtube.
In essence, the viacom decision hands viacom a huge amount of data that gives them an unfair advantage over their competition. Viacom is handed data on the viewing habits of a huge number of people of a huge quantity of content from a huge number of producers (individuals users, small independents, and the other majors). Undoubtedly Viacom will be able to derive at least aggregate demographic information from this dataset, which will give them a(n unfair) competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Yeah, I'm convinved you're right; the goal is to kill off 90% (or more!) of internet radio.
The RIAA's goal is to preserve itself by making sure that there's no alternative to the music they offer. If anybody can be a webcaster, and a number of webcasters play independent, non-RIAA music, more people will be aware of -- and buy -- independent, non-RIAA music. The RIAA's solution is to shut down outlets for independent, non-RIAA music, and preserve a relative few, highly concentrated outlets which the RIAA has, over the years, learned how to control.
There are several policies which will be changing as a direct result of this incident and the goal is that nothing like this ever happens again. Any errors from now on should be on the side of caution.
[Turner Broadcasting] said the devices have been in place for two to three weeks in 10 cities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.
Huh. Apparently nobody's noticed them in Chicago? Does this mean Chicago security is less paranoid, or are we just less susceptible to guerrilla marketing?
Unless you are a large ISP or an official mass-mailing source (for example, an organization sending periodical newsletters to customers), there is no need for you to send thousands of messages within minutes. Official bulk mail sources can be exempted (whitelisted) if necessary. Large SMTP sources (ISPs or webmail providers) with more or less constant traffic volumes can also be statistically identified. But if a source suddenly appears and starts sending hundreds of messages in all directions, it is likely a junk mail transmitter.
The problem is whitelisting involves additional work.
For Source Trust Prediction (STP) filtering to work, you not only have to get an STP score, but you also have to check whether that score should be discounted because the sending IP is a known legitimate mass mailer. What about a legitimate mass mailer (including not just mailing lists, banks, online stores, political organizations, and social networking sites, but also services that handle mailings for these entities) that's ramping up -- either adding additional IPs to its network or changing IPs -- for sending mail or adding new clients? What's the process for getting whitelisted, and what's to keep spammers from using and abusing that process (either getting themselves somehow listed or DOSing the whitelist request process -- assuming shared/centralized whitelists, shared/centralized being less work than if every mail admin maintains his/her own whitelists.)
For that matter, imagine a scenario it which a news site or blog posts something of particularly bursty interest and that site lets users e-mail the article to a friend? Suddenly a site that historically hasn't looked anything like a spammer may look statistically similar to a spammer. No need for that site to have been whitelisted before, but suddenly the need is there.
Interesting idea, though, and I could certainly see STP being useful in combination with other tests (bayesian, pattern matching, dnsbl, etc.), but I'm much more skeptical about usefulness (avoiding false positives) in terms of actually blocking mail. And: a test that's used for filtering but not blocking spam means even more work for the filtering mail server (or client) to do.
That's the problem. this world is full of stupid people.
The problem isn't so much stupid people as it is naive people. One big reason there are suckers ready to be taken in by spam is that every day, there are still a great many people experiencing spam for the first time. (The internet was "growing at an annualized rate of 18%" as of December 2005 according to one source just found in a quick Google search.) There are still a lot of people out there who've never read e-mail; they haven't yet learned about spam. If they start using e-mail, those people will be particularly vulnerable. The reality seems to be that education efforts about spam need to be directed not just to current e-mail users, but to potential e-mail users.
Once a particular Google bomb gets noticed and talked about on the Web, that discussion of the Google bomb itself serves to help "the algorithms work by themselves": in the "miserable failure" example, the third and fourth results in that Google search are a BBC article about the "miserable failure" Google-bomb and the Wikipedia article about "Political Google bombs" -- the Google bomb still pushes its target to the top of search results, but related, following search results provide explanation and context.
I gather both NameZero and alum.mit.edu are services for redirecting e-mail?
I've found e-mail redirection to be a huge problem with spam reporting when the users reporting spam don't understand how reporting works. In particular, a lot of people out there using spamcop don't set up any Mailhost configurations even when they're forwarding/redirecting mail across domains. This means users end up reporting their own ISPs in cases where that ISP is the last verifiable hop in the Received: headers before the account where users actually read their mail.
Things are much worse with AOL, where there's apparently no provision for customers' letting their system know that e-mail is being redirected to them from somewhere else.
You make a good point: a law can be regarded as ethical or unethical, but it can also be seen as "not unethical" -- an important third possibility I'd not been taking into account. And surely it would only be unethical laws that one would ethically have to resist. So fair enough.
Similarly, if the British government wished it, they could censor the print version themselves before it ever reached the eyes of any of their citizens, and block the NYT website from everyone in the country without batting an eyelash.
If it's about ethics, why publish the story at all for anyone? Further, if the NYTimes, by choosing to follow a particular British law is in essence showing its support for that law as ethically correct, wouldn't that also suggest that the NYTimes should be lobbying to have the same sort of law implemented in the US of A?
In this case it may be innocuous, even beneficial. But what if it were, say, an article about human rights in China that includes information the government in China considers "state secrets." Should the New York times voluntarily block users in China from seeing that content in order to comply with the law in China?
Definitely.
Also, on the blog, he mentions "Guifré, our Catalan subtitle translator"; instead of just having the translator proofread the work, why hadn't the heading for that translator's language originated with the translator in the first place instead of with wikipedia?
Slashdot Mirror
What would a peer-to-peer "Facebook killer" alternative look like?
... on that news story and the Hitwise report it links to.
Google's outline of its DMCA procedures for Blogger: They require complainants to "IDENTIFY EACH POST BY PERMALINK OR DATE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS THE INFRINGING MATERIAL." They also have provision for counterclaims, and when they "receive a counter notification," they say they "may reinstate the material in question." But they don't specifically say that they will notify the blogger in response to receiving a claim -- or even in removing a post.
Contraire: if material that Viacom says infringes were shown to have been uploaded by Viacom, Google could argue that either it doesn't infringe, or that Viacom was, in essence, trying to entrap Google/YouTube...
Exactly. And as with the music industry, where the major record labels are increasingly competing against an increasing number of independent, internet-distributed artists, video content created by the major studios is increasingly having to compete against "user-generated" video, primarily (I'd guess) distributed on sites like youtube.
In essence, the viacom decision hands viacom a huge amount of data that gives them an unfair advantage over their competition. Viacom is handed data on the viewing habits of a huge number of people of a huge quantity of content from a huge number of producers (individuals users, small independents, and the other majors). Undoubtedly Viacom will be able to derive at least aggregate demographic information from this dataset, which will give them a(n unfair) competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Yeah, I'm convinved you're right; the goal is to kill off 90% (or more!) of internet radio. The RIAA's goal is to preserve itself by making sure that there's no alternative to the music they offer. If anybody can be a webcaster, and a number of webcasters play independent, non-RIAA music, more people will be aware of -- and buy -- independent, non-RIAA music. The RIAA's solution is to shut down outlets for independent, non-RIAA music, and preserve a relative few, highly concentrated outlets which the RIAA has, over the years, learned how to control.
I sure hope one of the new elements is finally permablink!
... for them to follow the series up with a "reimagined" Galactica 1980 ! Oh, wait, yes I can.
Maybe oters should hold candidates accountable for agreeing to these sorts of rules.
The Trib reports Chicago cops went out last night and collected all the Chicago examples.
Huh. Apparently nobody's noticed them in Chicago? Does this mean Chicago security is less paranoid, or are we just less susceptible to guerrilla marketing?
The problem is whitelisting involves additional work.
For Source Trust Prediction (STP) filtering to work, you not only have to get an STP score, but you also have to check whether that score should be discounted because the sending IP is a known legitimate mass mailer. What about a legitimate mass mailer (including not just mailing lists, banks, online stores, political organizations, and social networking sites, but also services that handle mailings for these entities) that's ramping up -- either adding additional IPs to its network or changing IPs -- for sending mail or adding new clients? What's the process for getting whitelisted, and what's to keep spammers from using and abusing that process (either getting themselves somehow listed or DOSing the whitelist request process -- assuming shared/centralized whitelists, shared/centralized being less work than if every mail admin maintains his/her own whitelists.)
For that matter, imagine a scenario it which a news site or blog posts something of particularly bursty interest and that site lets users e-mail the article to a friend? Suddenly a site that historically hasn't looked anything like a spammer may look statistically similar to a spammer. No need for that site to have been whitelisted before, but suddenly the need is there.
Interesting idea, though, and I could certainly see STP being useful in combination with other tests (bayesian, pattern matching, dnsbl, etc.), but I'm much more skeptical about usefulness (avoiding false positives) in terms of actually blocking mail. And: a test that's used for filtering but not blocking spam means even more work for the filtering mail server (or client) to do.
Once a particular Google bomb gets noticed and talked about on the Web, that discussion of the Google bomb itself serves to help "the algorithms work by themselves": in the "miserable failure" example, the third and fourth results in that Google search are a BBC article about the "miserable failure" Google-bomb and the Wikipedia article about "Political Google bombs" -- the Google bomb still pushes its target to the top of search results, but related, following search results provide explanation and context.
I gather both NameZero and alum.mit.edu are services for redirecting e-mail?
I've found e-mail redirection to be a huge problem with spam reporting when the users reporting spam don't understand how reporting works. In particular, a lot of people out there using spamcop don't set up any Mailhost configurations even when they're forwarding/redirecting mail across domains. This means users end up reporting their own ISPs in cases where that ISP is the last verifiable hop in the Received: headers before the account where users actually read their mail.
Things are much worse with AOL, where there's apparently no provision for customers' letting their system know that e-mail is being redirected to them from somewhere else.
You make a good point: a law can be regarded as ethical or unethical, but it can also be seen as "not unethical" -- an important third possibility I'd not been taking into account. And surely it would only be unethical laws that one would ethically have to resist. So fair enough.
Similarly, if the British government wished it, they could censor the print version themselves before it ever reached the eyes of any of their citizens, and block the NYT website from everyone in the country without batting an eyelash.
If it's about ethics, why publish the story at all for anyone? Further, if the NYTimes, by choosing to follow a particular British law is in essence showing its support for that law as ethically correct, wouldn't that also suggest that the NYTimes should be lobbying to have the same sort of law implemented in the US of A?
If it's about ethics, why publish the story at all for anyone?
In this case it may be innocuous, even beneficial. But what if it were, say, an article about human rights in China that includes information the government in China considers "state secrets." Should the New York times voluntarily block users in China from seeing that content in order to comply with the law in China?
Definitely. Also, on the blog, he mentions "Guifré, our Catalan subtitle translator"; instead of just having the translator proofread the work, why hadn't the heading for that translator's language originated with the translator in the first place instead of with wikipedia?