Should lead to automatic denial of the next 2 claims from the same claimant.
I would suggest a 3-strikes policy; a strike should occur upon any claim against a video that turns out to be false or turns out to be fair use. One strike should remove all access to "advanced" tools for a 3-month probation and require a specific form be used for further claims that will require answering CAPTCHAs to prevent automated use.
After 2-strikes, 6 month probation.
After 3 strikes, banned from Youtube; takedowns through DMCA Takedown process only, requiring payment of a civil compliance fee and answering a CAPTCHA on each submission then filling out a specific letter form, and submitting a paper copy for each video requested to be taken down.
how could it ever be your fault if you're rear ended?
When you are stopped, and a vehicle is a few feet behind you, throw your car into reverse, and accelerate: bonus points if your reverse lights are non-functional.
By the way, when the police comes to take a statement, say you were stopped at the light and got hit from behind --- be sure not to recall having put your car in reverse.
Require it, for example, to be installable with Linux with the "current version of the stable Debian installer" at the time of purchase.
(1) Test1: Netboot to CloneZilla Live Image.
(2) Test2: Boot system from IT Rescue USB Stick
(3) Test3: Debian installer from CD and Boot to OS from hard drive following installation
They failed to give attribution and failed provide a link to the license. Can not say if they modified it at all or if they were clear that it was licensed under the same
How do we know? Anything appearing on the eBay listings itself would likely be fair use in the engagement of sale of the work. Did somebody buy some of their objects?
Since they're selling physical objects made from designs, they could stick an attribution and link in 6-point Arial as an adhesive label on some surface of the object, and that would be compliant.
Or if the object is too small.... jewelry sized, they might inscribe the attribution using micro-print, in the manner that other jewelry is customarily inscribed.
may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Is converting a digital CAD file into a Physical Object by printing considered a technological measure which restricts others from doing something the license permits?
Also, is a Print a derivative work of the original design plans, or is it a new work entirely?
I think this might be new legal ground, since conventionally.... engineered objects are considered non-copyrightable; the original design can be protected by copyright, and functional aspects can be protected by patents, But the Design plans, and a work that someone makes out of those plans are two entirely different things.
So they can likely do whatever they want with these designs, regardless of the original license,
unless there is an aesthetic element deemed to have purely artistic value contained in both the plans and the print.
They could charge just for the printing service and require the consumer to download the files directly
Not necessary the customer has to be forced to do it directly... they could use a 3rd party mirror of Thingaverse, which is some separate website that provides all content in a CC-compliant manner.....
Then through the magic of "Web services APIs"; in their Online checkout store, provide a User Interface, where the user can just select from the library the file to direct-download which pre-loads a download URL for the shop to use, (or the user keys in their own custom URL)
Then the user can checkout, without having to necessarily realize the exact source of the content they are submitting to be used.
Anti-trust laws in America prohibit a manufacturer or distributor from fixing prices.
Anti-trust laws do not prevent the copyright owner from fixing prices, however, and they can.
Occasionally copyright owners provide a distribution agreement where 99% or 100% of all profits go to the copyright owner, and the merchant/distributor is only allowed to resell according to the author's policies.
Also, copyright owners occasionally provide gratis copies for special purposes --- for example, pre-release reviews or screeners. Just because there is no fee, does not mean the movie theaters that received these exclusive media can legally make and distribute copies.
It makes it sound like Microsoft is Angry with their insiders over something they did or something they didn't do, and demanding an explanation from each one of their beta testers about their lack of feedback, or else....
In reality, it's nothing of the sort.... they have just decided to remove the ability of Beta testers to Opt-Out of annoying nag screens.
. Starting with Build 14271 and newer, the frequency in which Windows will ask for your feedback will be locked to 'Automatically (Recommended)' in the Settings app and managed by the Windows Insider Program."
While Aul did not offer a more specific reason for the move than that feedback was important, Microsoft may have taken control of the setting because it didn't believe enough testers were contributing to the beta program. Asking for feedback in return for running pre-release software is traditional in the software business, but Microsoft's move here is a step further than most developers take.
If users object to the change, Aul suggested that they abandon the Insider program and revert to the latest production build, which was released to the Current Branch in November as "1511."
No... that's not why... that is not the problem. THE LOBBYISTS who specialize in these officials GOT TO THEM. The democrats will scrap network neutrality just as fast.
We need an outrages populous from both their own party and their own party to speak to them about the publics' concern on network neutrality issues.....
Perhaps we're 3 years away from an even more complete lab demo, but better and better lab demos are aw way of eventually amounting to something too.
Is it the new thing on slashdot to criticize developments that are 'lab demos' ?
I just noted This the other day, on the new research breakthrough in super batteries.
Perpetually 10 years away, along with the solar panel to fill it. We'll have year of the Linux Desktop about 9 years before you can buy one of these batteries on eBay
All that means is that any given movie has to be decrypted by pirates using at least two discs, subsequently combining each distinct output to "wash out" the watermarks.
Not if they are clever. They could encode the watermark using steganography.
Placement within the video streams would be random for each unique key.
Thus simply combining or averaging the outputs would be additive, and result in both unique watermarks becoming embedded and detectable in the stream.
That was with 40 bit encryption. The MPAA learned this lesson and BD+ is way more complicated.
More complicated does not mean secure, however. It just means that the cipher itself isn't the weak point.
There is an inherent issue with DRM: People need to be able to play their disks, therefore, every consumer is going to have hardware capable of decrypting them that has all the knowledge built in necessary to do so.
Still, policy is policy, and the fact that Symantec is being allowed an exception (even if that exception makes some logical sense) is concerning.
I would suggest that in the future, CAs should be required to post a bond to get into the trust store, and there should be a financial penalty for non-compliance, AND the removal from trust store is at the option of some enforcement committee.
Preferably, the browser vendors should get together and agree to remove any certificate that the committee judges the enforcement action against, in addition to possible removal according to their own internal practices.
And you trust the government with Apple's signing keys?
Is it relevant whether I trust them?
Courts regularly require businesses to hand over internal secret memos and trade secrets.
That's what Source code and Crypto keys are: trade secrets.
They can be secured by a court and placed under protective seal to keep the public out,
then the court can use them, or allow the investigators or designated third parties to use the secured
secrets to accomplish the desired investigation project.
They are the government.
They have the technical police power. They can use the police power to get what is required (If possible to be produced)
to investigate crime and enforce the law.
The 4th amendment protects innocent citizens against search and seizures, BUT it does not protect
against authorities investigating crimes and securing the means to investigate criminals.
The 4th amendment does not say the police cannot secure the means that COULD IN THEORY BE ABUSED.
The constitution secures against actual unlawful searches by making unlawful searches illegal.
A lawful warrant is the key requirement there and parties are not required to produce anything
My bad.... They can pursue several routes for example (1) File with a court against Apple and Bring it before a judge to get a court order to deliver the Source code and signing keys., (2) Subpoena the source code and keys, Or
(3) A National Security Letter under the Patriot Act to secure delivery of source code and crypto keys,
There's limits as to what the courts can ask from uninvolved third parties
There's an argument that Apple is an involved party, because they supply current software and
updates to software for the criminal's device, And Apple is essentially the landlord who rents the device
to the customer, Because Apple maintains ownership of the software only allowing use through a
EULA, and by doing so they leave the ownership of the copy of the software with Apple (since the user
only acquires a "Limited license to use it", so long as the end user abides by the Lease),
and also, Apple fails or refuses to deliver even basic source code and device schematics to the user,
So it is essentially equipment Owned, Maintained, and Managed by Apple.
That Constitutional clause doesn't say anything about intent or motive
No.... Criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault.
hTe concept of a strict liability crime is a fairly modern one and doesn't apply to Treason or other crimes mentioned in the constitution, unless there has been a new law to set different standards; didn't come about until the 1800s, when
the idea of strict liability became necessary to hold employers accountable for worker safety standards in industry; before then,
business management could fail to abide by the law (And they did), without having any (provable) criminal intent: making them impervious to prosecution.
So only a very small number of crimes are prosecutable without showing criminal intent.
Even if the law itself doesn't mention intent.
Anyone in government intentionally acting beyond the restricted powers we've allowed them via the Constitution or a supreme court justice ruling in a manner inconsistent with Constitution both in letter and spirit.
I would love to see officials being charged with treason for such acts.
But I think the courts (And the public) will never agree that an elected official commits treason, by
doing things inconsistent with the Constitution.
clean room implementation of ZFS is still owned by Oracle as the API and keywords are owned.
You can use new keywords. Search and replace if you want.
It will still be a filesystem if you use different keywords in the implementation.....
it's not like Java, where all the keywords in the code have special significance,
because they are meant to be invoked directly from other programs.
I'm not sure what anyone would stand to gain by arguing that Ubuntu is violating the GPLv2 license. It seems kind of ridiculous.
I think the argument against it is a political one, not a legal question.
Ubuntu having reviewed it by lawyers, I would feel comfortable that what they are doing is on the up-and-up.
The 'Software Freedom Conservancy (SFS)' is an activist organization.
They have an ideological stance against that which is non-GPL, even if what is being done is legal, they don't like what Ubuntu is doing,
so they have their lawyers come up with a biased perspective.
they're giving aid to our enemies. Ergo, the FBI agents pushing for this are treasonous monsters
No.... they don't intend to aid our enemies; they are just incompetent.
And the FBI director is a cabinet position; therefore, agents by definition CANNOT be treasonous, since the president is
by fundamental definition the opposite of the enemy,
unless agents are going outside the orders coming down from the executive.
The US government cannot be treasonous to itself while adhering to its own directives.
They could demand Apple's source code and compiling process and Apple's private key.
I have argued that this is exactly what they should seek a court to order Apple to do, in order to gain the upper hand in bargaining, because ordering Apple to develop and produce a piece of software for them they don't have is essentially unconstitutional (Involuntary labor, equivalent to unlawful enslavement).
However, Apple is not above the law in regards to producing a copy of materials in their possession relating to a 3rd party as required or desired for law enforcement to conduct an investigation.... if Apple are served with a warrant for the source code and all necessary signing keys and build tools, required by law enforcement in order to conduct an investigation (That involves the FBI building a modified version), they must comply and produce the materials, or else be charged with obstruction of justice.
There's no legal argument against producing source code once ordered, since they will clearly be in possession, and clearly be capable of complying with the order, any failure to promptly submit can result in contempt of court and jailtime for managers.
This would also conveniently excuse Apple from appearing as a willing party to any perceived government overreach.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".
Slashdot Mirror
Should lead to automatic denial of the next 2 claims from the same claimant.
I would suggest a 3-strikes policy; a strike should occur upon any claim against a video that turns out to be false or turns out to be fair use. One strike should remove all access to "advanced" tools for a 3-month probation and require a specific form be used for further claims that will require answering CAPTCHAs to prevent automated use.
After 2-strikes, 6 month probation.
After 3 strikes, banned from Youtube; takedowns through DMCA Takedown process only, requiring payment of a civil compliance fee and answering a CAPTCHA on each submission then filling out a specific letter form, and submitting a paper copy for each video requested to be taken down.
how could it ever be your fault if you're rear ended?
When you are stopped, and a vehicle is a few feet behind you, throw your car into reverse, and accelerate: bonus points if your reverse lights are non-functional.
By the way, when the police comes to take a statement, say you were stopped at the light and got hit from behind --- be sure not to recall having put your car in reverse.
Require it, for example, to be installable with Linux with the "current version of the stable Debian installer" at the time of purchase.
(1) Test1: Netboot to CloneZilla Live Image.
(2) Test2: Boot system from IT Rescue USB Stick
(3) Test3: Debian installer from CD and Boot to OS from hard drive following installation
All 3 tests must pass for each system.
They failed to give attribution and failed provide a link to the license. Can not say if they modified it at all or if they were clear that it was licensed under the same
How do we know? Anything appearing on the eBay listings itself would likely be fair use in the engagement of sale of the work. Did somebody buy some of their objects?
Since they're selling physical objects made from designs, they could stick an attribution and link in 6-point Arial as an adhesive label on some surface of the object, and that would be compliant.
Or if the object is too small.... jewelry sized, they might inscribe the attribution using micro-print, in the manner that other jewelry is customarily inscribed.
may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Is converting a digital CAD file into a Physical Object by printing considered a technological measure which restricts others from doing something the license permits?
Also, is a Print a derivative work of the original design plans, or is it a new work entirely?
I think this might be new legal ground, since conventionally.... engineered objects are considered non-copyrightable; the original design can be protected by copyright, and functional aspects can be protected by patents, But the Design plans, and a work that someone makes out of those plans are two entirely different things.
So they can likely do whatever they want with these designs, regardless of the original license, unless there is an aesthetic element deemed to have purely artistic value contained in both the plans and the print.
They could charge just for the printing service and require the consumer to download the files directly
Not necessary the customer has to be forced to do it directly... they could use a 3rd party mirror of Thingaverse, which is some separate website that provides all content in a CC-compliant manner.....
Then through the magic of "Web services APIs"; in their Online checkout store, provide a User Interface, where the user can just select from the library the file to direct-download which pre-loads a download URL for the shop to use, (or the user keys in their own custom URL)
Then the user can checkout, without having to necessarily realize the exact source of the content they are submitting to be used.
Anti-trust laws in America prohibit a manufacturer or distributor from fixing prices.
Anti-trust laws do not prevent the copyright owner from fixing prices, however, and they can.
Occasionally copyright owners provide a distribution agreement where 99% or 100% of all profits go to the copyright owner, and the merchant/distributor is only allowed to resell according to the author's policies.
Also, copyright owners occasionally provide gratis copies for special purposes --- for example, pre-release reviews or screeners. Just because there is no fee, does not mean the movie theaters that received these exclusive media can legally make and distribute copies.
classify the businesses into upper, middle and lower groups and redo the comparson.
No... that's not a fair comparison either.
We should look at companies of a similar size to the universities, with a similar number of staff and customers.
And instead of taking mean salary; take the median for both Universities and Corporations, then compare them.
Make it so that LIKE to LIKE is being compared, in regards to organization complexity and amount of job duties; instead of this all-out average-fest.
It makes it sound like Microsoft is Angry with their insiders over something they did or something they didn't do, and demanding an explanation from each one of their beta testers about their lack of feedback, or else....
In reality, it's nothing of the sort.... they have just decided to remove the ability of Beta testers to Opt-Out of annoying nag screens.
They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary,
No... that's not why... that is not the problem. THE LOBBYISTS who specialize in these officials GOT TO THEM. The democrats will scrap network neutrality just as fast.
We need an outrages populous from both their own party and their own party to speak to them about the publics' concern on network neutrality issues.....
Perhaps we're 3 years away from an even more complete lab demo, but better and better lab demos are aw way of eventually amounting to something too.
Is it the new thing on slashdot to criticize developments that are 'lab demos' ? I just noted This the other day, on the new research breakthrough in super batteries.
All that means is that any given movie has to be decrypted by pirates using at least two discs, subsequently combining each distinct output to "wash out" the watermarks.
Not if they are clever. They could encode the watermark using steganography.
Placement within the video streams would be random for each unique key.
Thus simply combining or averaging the outputs would be additive, and result in both unique watermarks becoming embedded and detectable in the stream.
That was with 40 bit encryption. The MPAA learned this lesson and BD+ is way more complicated.
More complicated does not mean secure, however. It just means that the cipher itself isn't the weak point.
There is an inherent issue with DRM: People need to be able to play their disks, therefore, every consumer is going to have hardware capable of decrypting them that has all the knowledge built in necessary to do so.
Still, policy is policy, and the fact that Symantec is being allowed an exception (even if that exception makes some logical sense) is concerning.
I would suggest that in the future, CAs should be required to post a bond to get into the trust store, and there should be a financial penalty for non-compliance, AND the removal from trust store is at the option of some enforcement committee.
Preferably, the browser vendors should get together and agree to remove any certificate that the committee judges the enforcement action against, in addition to possible removal according to their own internal practices.
And you trust the government with Apple's signing keys?
Is it relevant whether I trust them?
Courts regularly require businesses to hand over internal secret memos and trade secrets. That's what Source code and Crypto keys are: trade secrets.
They can be secured by a court and placed under protective seal to keep the public out, then the court can use them, or allow the investigators or designated third parties to use the secured secrets to accomplish the desired investigation project.
They are the government. They have the technical police power. They can use the police power to get what is required (If possible to be produced) to investigate crime and enforce the law.
The 4th amendment protects innocent citizens against search and seizures, BUT it does not protect against authorities investigating crimes and securing the means to investigate criminals.
The 4th amendment does not say the police cannot secure the means that COULD IN THEORY BE ABUSED. The constitution secures against actual unlawful searches by making unlawful searches illegal.
A lawful warrant is the key requirement there and parties are not required to produce anything
My bad.... They can pursue several routes for example (1) File with a court against Apple and Bring it before a judge to get a court order to deliver the Source code and signing keys., (2) Subpoena the source code and keys, Or (3) A National Security Letter under the Patriot Act to secure delivery of source code and crypto keys,
There's limits as to what the courts can ask from uninvolved third parties
There's an argument that Apple is an involved party, because they supply current software and updates to software for the criminal's device, And Apple is essentially the landlord who rents the device to the customer, Because Apple maintains ownership of the software only allowing use through a EULA, and by doing so they leave the ownership of the copy of the software with Apple (since the user only acquires a "Limited license to use it", so long as the end user abides by the Lease), and also, Apple fails or refuses to deliver even basic source code and device schematics to the user, So it is essentially equipment Owned, Maintained, and Managed by Apple.
That Constitutional clause doesn't say anything about intent or motive
No.... Criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. hTe concept of a strict liability crime is a fairly modern one and doesn't apply to Treason or other crimes mentioned in the constitution, unless there has been a new law to set different standards; didn't come about until the 1800s, when the idea of strict liability became necessary to hold employers accountable for worker safety standards in industry; before then, business management could fail to abide by the law (And they did), without having any (provable) criminal intent: making them impervious to prosecution.
So only a very small number of crimes are prosecutable without showing criminal intent. Even if the law itself doesn't mention intent.
Anyone in government intentionally acting beyond the restricted powers we've allowed them via the Constitution or a supreme court justice ruling in a manner inconsistent with Constitution both in letter and spirit.
I would love to see officials being charged with treason for such acts.
But I think the courts (And the public) will never agree that an elected official commits treason, by doing things inconsistent with the Constitution.
I would liken Ext4 more to a 1932 Ford V8; XFS is a Reliant Robin
BTRFS is a 1981 DeLorean DMC-12.
Finally, ZFS is a 1990 Lexus LS 400
clean room implementation of ZFS is still owned by Oracle as the API and keywords are owned.
You can use new keywords. Search and replace if you want.
It will still be a filesystem if you use different keywords in the implementation..... it's not like Java, where all the keywords in the code have special significance, because they are meant to be invoked directly from other programs.
I'm not sure what anyone would stand to gain by arguing that Ubuntu is violating the GPLv2 license. It seems kind of ridiculous.
I think the argument against it is a political one, not a legal question.
Ubuntu having reviewed it by lawyers, I would feel comfortable that what they are doing is on the up-and-up.
The 'Software Freedom Conservancy (SFS)' is an activist organization.
They have an ideological stance against that which is non-GPL, even if what is being done is legal, they don't like what Ubuntu is doing, so they have their lawyers come up with a biased perspective.
they're giving aid to our enemies. Ergo, the FBI agents pushing for this are treasonous monsters
No.... they don't intend to aid our enemies; they are just incompetent.
And the FBI director is a cabinet position; therefore, agents by definition CANNOT be treasonous, since the president is by fundamental definition the opposite of the enemy, unless agents are going outside the orders coming down from the executive.
The US government cannot be treasonous to itself while adhering to its own directives.
They could demand Apple's source code and compiling process and Apple's private key.
I have argued that this is exactly what they should seek a court to order Apple to do, in order to gain the upper hand in bargaining, because ordering Apple to develop and produce a piece of software for them they don't have is essentially unconstitutional (Involuntary labor, equivalent to unlawful enslavement).
However, Apple is not above the law in regards to producing a copy of materials in their possession relating to a 3rd party as required or desired for law enforcement to conduct an investigation.... if Apple are served with a warrant for the source code and all necessary signing keys and build tools, required by law enforcement in order to conduct an investigation (That involves the FBI building a modified version), they must comply and produce the materials, or else be charged with obstruction of justice.
There's no legal argument against producing source code once ordered, since they will clearly be in possession, and clearly be capable of complying with the order, any failure to promptly submit can result in contempt of court and jailtime for managers.
This would also conveniently excuse Apple from appearing as a willing party to any perceived government overreach.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "
Developing a measure with the explicit intended goal to deny the US Government Legal access to any random State enemy's communications device by demanding brute-force decryption software through lawful order by making an alteration solely intended to render that as impossible could be argued as an act with the sole intention of "giving aid and comfort".