What's really at stake is the future of both cable providers and small public access channels.
What's at stake is the future of community-based regulation of cable monopolies. If they win this case..... then that will mean the citizens couldn't impose conditions on renewing the Cable company's exclusivity, which means their monopoly becomes an almost unconditional one that the local government can no longer limit and impose build-out requirements on to protect the public interest and to sure the entire community gets reasonable service --- instead of just the richest areas and the most profitable viewers and channels.
It makes sense.... since the Wolves are guarding the henhouse, they've adopted a pro-Wolf policy to the point of not even investigating the reported theft of 10 million chickens.
And it can be, but the fact remains that if you use the same wallet over and over and don't take precautions to remain secret you will be found.
Yeah.... that's what I expect will eventually drive certain groups to coins such as AEON and MONERO; which conceals what the address is that receives coins; You need a wallet's View-Key to even see what the balance of a particular wallet is..... whereas with Bitcoin; you can see all the transactions related to any wallet, and you can see the balance of any wallet -- It's also become so popular that some Web-based services have emerged where you can simply search a specified Wallet ID and see its balance PLUS all the transactions that sent coin value to that wallet ID.
Not quite.... these are all broad generalizations. SOME do, but on average fewer women seem to
have the disposition resulting in them choosing or pursuing those particular jobs than men.
Violating EULA is not an infringement of copyright... In many locations, an EULA is totally unenforceable.
Are you forgetting that this is Blizzard we are talking about? In the landmark case against the developers of BNETD --- that created software allowing people to play Starcraft II in multiplayer (Emulating the BattleNet servers without the Lag, Instability, and General unreliability of BattleNet servers) - BECAUSE they didn't Copy the server - They reverse-engineered the protocol - the EULA clause in the Clickthrough agreement was invoked, and the court ruled in favor of Blizzard regarding the Developers' violation of the software EULA clause against reverse engineering --- resulting in a finding they infringed Blizzard's rights, and thus the Intellectual Property Rights to the previously-GPL'd BNETD software were transferred to Blizzard, and the Takedown of BNETD was made permanent.
Except the people who run the crypto currency, like bitcoin which is being run very badly and lightning which doesn't really exist yet.
That is just your personal opinion -- the network does not agree with you that Bitcoin is being "run badly". Lightning is currently a TestNet technology that already has all the necessary capabilities in the Bitcoin network itself to be developed on top of BTC.
Do you know who all the players in any given crypto-currency are? Do you really trust them more than the government.
No, and Yes. Remember the players have to come to consensus on each change --- they will only implement revisions to the rules that the network can agree upon, with all actors protecting their own interests.
the people that created them have shown nothing but greed and complete disdain for the environment. They could of tried to come up with solutions to lessen the amount of electricity needed
Now you're just bullshitting...... in most cases the creators haven't even profited significantly or don't expect to.
The technology doesn't require, nor does it consume unreasonable amounts of electricity. The early developers look upon centralized mining with great disdain ----- that was never meant to happen; Litecoin was the first major AltCoin and was created with a major focus of ending ASIC mining, although that goal was not achieved - Monero and the CryptoNight algorithm have achieved thus.
Some blockchains have come up with "Proof of Stake" and "Proof of Stack Velocity (POsV)", But those have a bigger problem in that they encourage coin hoarding even moreso than mining does, which is undesirable economically.
I expect in the future we'll later see crypto that distributes the initial coins more "fairly" and evenly among ALL its early users -- instead of concentrating them in a small number of Miners with GPUs or ASICs and Stackers with large stashes, and has functions such as "burning % of coins" network-wide on a regular basis to induce churn, discourage hoarding, and control the circulating supplies to reduce volatility.
These are all functions that can be automated with no government involvement (Eventually, with enough testing, hard work and further development) --- and agreed upon by consensus By whichever users decide to join that community.
Hmm if it's like auto insurance, it would only concern the cost to replace the lost item.
That's because your auto insurance policy is actually a contract that specifies how the loss is to be determined and what insurance will pay you.
Generally if you are a business or investor --- then your loss from theft will be the retail dollar amounts on the lost item to include your Lost profits since you would or could have sold those items but the theft got in the way, or at least the number of dollars you paid for them ---- But if you are a consumer whose purpose for holding the property is not to hold as investment and/or resell at a higher price, or you make personal use instead, then the loss IS the lesser of the cost to restore the item by repairing the damage OR the cost on the aftermarket to replace your lost item with one of similar type and condition and remaining value to the one you lost - fulfilling the same personal use and remaining lifetime ---- for example, If your car was 10 years old at the time it was lost, for example, its value on the market depreciated over that 10 years from $30,000 to less than $1,000, that's what you would have gotten if you sold it -- when your car worth $1000 today is totalled: you're not entitled to a brand new car that is worth the original $30k, before your mileage and normal use came into play.
On the other hand, if you hold a classic car or a painting you bought for $100k as a collector's piece or investment, then that is an appreciating asset purchased not to be used or consumed --- but with the intention of profiting from it, and the loss from a theft would be an estimate of Fair Market Value based on expert opinions that would be more than you paid for it.
The cryptocurrency is also considered a form of the money -- in terms of however much fiat the market says that cryptocurrency is worth during a particular day.
The government has already recognized that cryptocurrencies are cash-equivalent; if common marketplaces exists for trading them that establish their pricing and worth in fiat.
The market value of the pet rocks was imaginary and emotions.
No... the loss is similar to stolen gold. Your derogatory opinion regarding the fundamental worth of the cryptocurrency has no relevance to the case; the way it is decided what the monetary value of what was stolen is what people were willing to pay for that thing at the time of the theft by quoting its price from public marketplaces, if they exist --- marketplace quoted prices are verifiable and thus not imaginary, since they show the price of the goods for trade....
Just because the value of gold may fluctuate after the theft, or the thief may have traded the gold to something else before robbing the account does not mean the loss is something other than the fair market value the gold had at the time it was stolen --- the loss is not replacement value of the property LATER months after the theft, either, after the price may have gone to zero, anymore than the $$$ stolen would be reduced if the property was perishable goods such as milk that went sour while they were in the thief's possession.
That's not true. The money had value at the time it was stolen Based on The fair market value (Or what the market would pay for the property at the time that property was stolen or changed without permission) and could have been sold by the legitimate owner for an amount of cash ---- therefore the lost property equal that amount of cash it could've been sold for instead (As of the point in time before the first unauthorized transaction) MINUS the worth of any amounts of $$$ or property that were successfully salvaged or returned.
The price of Bitcoin and whatever business ventures the attackers spent the money on are irrelevent. The damages are the market value of exactly what was stolen at the time that it was stolen --- with the POTENTIAL of adding lost price appreciation between the time stolen and next statement period on the account; if the theft was not discovered immediately, since the accountholder was reviewing accounts infrequently only by reconciling statements with their accounting, Beyond that LOST PROFITS are theoretical and will be very difficult to claim, since the victim would have had the time to buy replacement crypto and chose not to..
5) How do you enforce it? Worst case, people use VPNs.
You go after businesses providing services pertinent to adoption --- mainly you create burdensome rules that make it even harder to have an exchange, or take or process vcurrency-based payments
They are debating what agency gets to regulate it under current laws. Basically CFTC and SEC discussing how they see cypto and current securities law.
Probably none of the above..... Bitcoins are not security exchanges, AND they are not commodities contract exchanges, that is unless you're talking about those futures --- they're "Spot" exchanges or places of "Barter"; that is entities where you deposit your X or Y, and you receive trading tokens denoted in what you deposited that you can trade and then withdraw your X or Y. And X or Y is either a Virtual currency value to/from a digital wallet or a Fiat currency value to/from a bank account.
Spot exchanges are rare, but I guess one of the largest and well-known would be eBay, where sellers list a physical good and a buyer wins the auction, then agrees to money they put down and receive the good.
Spot exchanges don't really require any 3rd party regulation, since buyers and sellers are directly swapping the end things of value, not contracts or securities --- virtual currencies are more standardized, so it's even easier for a virtual currency exchange to prevent fraud than it is for eBay to do. The additional concerns are mainly security in handling the systems; KYC/AML issues, and ensuring exchanges don't do deceptive things like fractional reserve -- or take assets from customer accounts and do their own trades, possibly resulting in losses, or the exchange having less fiat or crypto X than the aggregate of that in their customers' accounts.
Strongly disagree about crypto being a "fad". But regulation is an extremely BAD idea at this point, because (1) A major force behind the excitement for crypto is that "regulation" is flawwed and does more harm than good - that is the motivating force behind crypto AND the source of all the interest - Trust nobody, not even governments --- this is proven time and time again, despite peoples' best intentions ---- rules of the system are mathematical and determined by the consensus-based governance system, AND users knowing this voluntarily have the right to put their value or efforts into a system with particular regulations -- which is No regulations, except the cryptography.
(2) Regulation kill potential innovation; because the filling of unforseeable needs will be hindered. There's a chance the way you understand crypto right now causes regulations to be written such a way that stops crypto from throwing away what it is today and evolving and adapting to a completely new paradigm.
(3) This space is young and deserves a chance for technologists and researchers to learn through experiment --- regulators know next to zero about and future potential and technology ideas that have not been tried yet, and have zero business playing with regulations before they even understand that a persistent material problem exists AND they need to deal with it AND it's even THEIR job to deal with it.... the best ideas have likely not been expressed and experimented with yet, and may not come for decades. Don't assume that just because Bitcoin has issue X, that this issue is inherent to the exchange of cryptocurrency.
(4) Regulation moves too slowly, and regulators have no way of adapting as fast as changes in technology ---- they should be having years of collaboration with technologists before they learn enough to even begin to see what is sensible regarding regulation.
then simple things like NPCs that have the same name as in WoW... is clearly an infringement of copyright.
NOPE. Not clearly at all. Character Names are not copyrightable --- You can publish lists of names of all the fantasy characters you want within a database... you can use the word "Mickey" in print AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE for most purposes ---- There is just one thing copyright prevents you from doing with the name.... you cannot write and publish your own fictional story, performance, or animation with a similar character, whose name is Mickey and is an anthropomorphic mouse, and use the name Mickey to refer to that character, unless your story is protected by a fair use exception, since now you would be invoking the likeness of a famous creative expression. You could write other stories of a different nature and call as many characters Mickey as you wanted.
You can also FREELY use "Mickey" or "Mickey Mouse" in referring to the famous character if you aren't publishing a work of fiction.
Blizzard never published a product called "WoW Server" --- the only published goods in this case are the World of Warcraft game which you had to purchase, AND you STILL have to obtain from Blizzard in order to connect to these servers.
The server code is Not the game itself and just controlling the operation of a server ----- so there are some things here: (1) The server code is Not a published game --- it is one component of a system. Blizzard never published copyrighted server code, so it's extremely unlikely the server code could possibly be an infringement in any case, Because copying it would have been impossible, ONLY re-creation of its functionality within an overall system where users took observations from the Client.
(2) Does the server enable circumvention of a copy protection system?
(3) With the WoW packaged product.... are the "Fees to use their server" PURELY a usage fee, Or is part of that payment a licensing charge for the use of content?
(4) If the content is included with the game.... then the Copyrighted character name appearing in the End User experience might be a performance of Blizzard's copyright, BUT the end user that owns the copy of the game has a right to perform Blizzard's copyrights for their own personal use.
(5) The vanilla server code is not a "Standalone work", so it can't possibly be described as a published work of fiction on its own, or as any kind of competitor to the WoW Game --- this is not a game or any kind of fictional work on its own - it is repeating data that the client component the end user purchased from Blizzard wants to see: regardless of Blizzard's desires, the end user has the right to attempt to enjoy their purchased game, even re-creating missing data from the now vacant server piece.
There's a very good chance that none of the code on GitHub is anywhere close to being copyright infringement; However, the act of using the code to run a server and then encouraging users to modify their clients to connect to your server MIGHT be an inducement on end-users to infringe on copyright by connecting to your server in violation of the EULA.
So it could be non-infringing code. Perhaps even the production server itself is a non-infringement, BUT an argument for Contributory Copyright Infringement against the server operator(s) might be possible --- if the End User has to commit a licensing violation regarding their EULA in order to use the copy of WoW they purchased with Your server.
The complains hinge around 2-3 sql file using names and having a few data that looks like the data used in wow
Database data falls under factual records; similar to polling data.... Databases of information, such as the statistics on an object are non-copyrightable.
They are complaining about the code using official Blizzard trademarked name to designate Blizzard's said trademarked characters.
Trademark is a whole other branch of law.... referencing a trademark is not copyright infringement. Lists of names are not copyrightable.
They're complaining that the datamodel is very close to how it used to be in old servers:
Data models are non-copyrightable. A creative representation of a data model May be copyrightable in regards to that expression, BUT other expressions of the data model in other systems such as SQL are not. Unless the actual SQL DDL code is similar to Blizzard's SQL code, then the SQL code is not capable of being a copyright infringement.
Matching Record IDs –
Since a directory of Names, People, Places, or Things is not copyrightable; it doesn't really matter if the Order of your list and Unique numbers match theirs or not --- adding a Unique number doesn't make something copyrightable, unless it's a creative expression (Which it's not --- they're just serialized numbers; there's not an artistic or aesthetic reason for the Order these numbers are assigned to things in)
ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals..."
The average person is going to have the dealer perform all required routine maintenance, and software updates would likely be automatic and managed by the manufacturer, anyways. Of course the whole point of Self-Driving car is that the owner doesn't operate them anymore, and software can manage all the tasks required ----- it's already out of reach for the average person to do required maintenance on their vehicle.... so people hire garages. As for those that don't; the SDC can detect when maintenance is required and when SDC-related systems are functioning correctly.
The REAL motive is a communist one --- ban personal vehicle ownership (Or at least ownership of cars that can operate themselves), so everybody is effectively legally forced either drive the car themself or buy rides from Uber.
This can only be described as self-serving bullshit designed to help Uber / Lyft make more money; and reduce or eliminate the systemic threat of SDCs to their entire business model at the expense of economic and personal freedom for the population..
Encrypt-only isn't the solution to everything, but it actually might be a better solution to the problem stated in the summary.
Yeah.... even if you go encrypt-only; you could still use a unique symmetric key for each file, and just encrypt the symmetric key using GPG.
Hold the symmetric key for each photo in RAM for a short amount of time to allow the review process, and then when the camera is shut off, or the review is done --- purge the symmetric keys from RAM.
Encrypt upon capture with encrypt-only software would prevent the camera user from being able to review the photo they just took
Encrypt all the photos on a particular card with the same 128-Bit AES "User Key" that is generated by applying a certain number rounds of Argon2id to a passphrase selected by the user. Save a strong hash of the key on the card alongside each file --- AND keep the key in RAM until the camera is shut off, or the user pushes a 'lock' button to allow picture review.
When the camera is turned on, the user will be prompted to enter that SD Card's "User Key".
Also, when the user loads the SD Card into a computer they will see on the SD Card a "Filesystem file" that the filename is the hash of the user key, and the content is an exFAT filesystem image file where each sector is encrypted using the user key, and the listing of files is embedded into the image.
The merchant doesn't need "insurance" --- they simply engage with a payment provider such as BitPay.
When the transaction is initiated, for $5, for example.... BitPay looks at the current exchange rate and charges the customer $5 plus a network transaction fee PLUS a 2 to 3% premium on the exchange rate, and locks in that rate for a specified amount of time --- if the transaction completes within that time, then the merchant is paid $5 and the transaction is finished.
If the price of a Bitcoin in fiat increased or didn't change, then that 2 to 3% premium is pure profit for the payment provider.
If the price of a Bitcoin in fiat decreased during that time window, but less than the 3%, then there is reduced profit for the payment provider.
A loss only occurs if the transaction turns out costing them more than their premium and the network fee that are all paid by the customer.
How about this: Amazon will sell a service where Alexa will listen for certain inaudible acoustic commands, which you can embed a unique ID into your Broadcast, or Radio program, or insert into your song, and Amazon will provide you intelligence or data about how many people and what demographics are listening to your content.
I'm betting that if they can even produce inaudible frequencies at all
How about coded white noise at the same volume as "Alexa" of a duration imperceptible to humans?
This is similar to the idea of steganography...... hiding a more complicated message inside a picture or sound file by applying variations that human eyes or ears won't detect.
Disclaimers on SPECIAL-INTEREST/ACTIVIST GROUP funded broadcasts and also CORPORATE funded broadcasts.
Also, Comments made to government officials by people being paid by a corporation should be required to contain a disclaimer identifying the relationship and whether they are being paid in general, or whether they are being paid to influence government officials, And any comment to a town hall or regulatory body's comment process paid for by a corporation must begin with disclaimer "This comment is a paid comment by XX corp".
Furthermore, any "paid protestor" must carry high-visibility signage identifying that they are being paid to take this action.
STATE-FUNDED broadcasts should be identified too, but they are the least of our worries ---- the real worry should be paid political messages in general.
Slashdot Mirror
What's really at stake is the future of both cable providers and small public access channels.
What's at stake is the future of community-based regulation of cable monopolies. If they win this case..... then that will mean the citizens couldn't impose conditions on renewing the Cable company's exclusivity, which means their monopoly becomes an almost unconditional one that the local government can no longer limit and impose build-out requirements on to protect the public interest and to sure the entire community gets reasonable service --- instead of just the richest areas and the most profitable viewers and channels.
Paid sick or better yet personal days should be the norm.
Most full-time employees have a number of hours PTO they can take; at least in the professional world, this is the case....
It makes sense.... since the Wolves are guarding the henhouse, they've adopted a pro-Wolf policy to the point of not even investigating the reported theft of 10 million chickens.
And it can be, but the fact remains that if you use the same wallet over and over and don't take precautions to remain secret you will be found.
Yeah.... that's what I expect will eventually drive certain groups to coins such as AEON and MONERO; which conceals what the address is that receives coins; You need a wallet's View-Key to even see what the balance of a particular wallet is..... whereas with Bitcoin; you can see all the transactions related to any wallet, and you can see the balance of any wallet -- It's also become so popular that some Web-based services have emerged where you can simply search a specified Wallet ID and see its balance PLUS all the transactions that sent coin value to that wallet ID.
Not quite.... these are all broad generalizations. SOME do, but on average fewer women seem to
have the disposition resulting in them choosing or pursuing those particular jobs than men.
Violating EULA is not an infringement of copyright... In many locations, an EULA is totally unenforceable.
Are you forgetting that this is Blizzard we are talking about?
In the landmark case against the developers of BNETD --- that created software allowing people to play Starcraft II in multiplayer (Emulating the BattleNet servers without the Lag, Instability, and General unreliability of BattleNet servers) - BECAUSE they didn't Copy the server - They reverse-engineered the protocol - the EULA clause in the Clickthrough agreement was invoked, and the court ruled in favor of Blizzard regarding the Developers' violation of the software EULA clause against reverse engineering --- resulting in a finding they infringed Blizzard's rights, and thus the Intellectual Property Rights to the previously-GPL'd BNETD software were transferred to Blizzard, and the Takedown of BNETD was made permanent.
Except the people who run the crypto currency, like bitcoin which is being run very badly and lightning which doesn't really exist yet.
That is just your personal opinion -- the network does not agree with you that Bitcoin is being "run badly".
Lightning is currently a TestNet technology that already has all the necessary capabilities in the Bitcoin network itself to be developed on top of BTC.
Do you know who all the players in any given crypto-currency are? Do you really trust them more than the government .
No, and Yes. Remember the players have to come to consensus on each change --- they will only implement revisions to the rules that the network can agree upon, with all actors protecting their own interests.
the people that created them have shown nothing but greed and complete disdain for the environment. They could of tried to come up with solutions to lessen the amount of electricity needed
Now you're just bullshitting...... in most cases the creators haven't even profited significantly or don't expect to.
The technology doesn't require, nor does it consume unreasonable amounts of electricity.
The early developers look upon centralized mining with great disdain ----- that was never meant to happen; Litecoin was the first major AltCoin and was created with a major focus of ending ASIC mining, although that goal was not achieved - Monero and the CryptoNight algorithm have achieved thus.
Some blockchains have come up with "Proof of Stake" and "Proof of Stack Velocity (POsV)", But those have a bigger problem in that they encourage coin hoarding even moreso than mining does, which is undesirable economically.
I expect in the future we'll later see crypto that distributes the initial coins more "fairly" and evenly among ALL its early users -- instead of concentrating them in a small number of Miners with GPUs or ASICs and Stackers with large stashes, and has functions such as "burning % of coins" network-wide on a regular basis to induce churn, discourage hoarding, and control the circulating supplies to reduce volatility.
These are all functions that can be automated with no government involvement (Eventually, with enough testing, hard work and further development) --- and agreed upon by consensus By whichever users decide to join that community.
"Tsunami warning everybody.. J/K"
Some people didn't realize that J/K means for realsies.
Hmm if it's like auto insurance, it would only concern the cost to replace the lost item.
That's because your auto insurance policy is actually a contract that specifies how the loss is to be determined and what insurance will pay you.
Generally if you are a business or investor --- then your loss from theft will be the retail dollar amounts on the lost item to include your Lost profits since you would or could have sold those items but the theft got in the way, or at least the number of dollars you paid for them ---- But if you are a consumer whose purpose for holding the property is not to hold as investment and/or resell at a higher price, or you make personal use instead, then the loss IS the lesser of the cost to restore the item by repairing the damage OR the cost on the aftermarket to replace your lost item with one of similar type and condition and remaining value to the one you lost - fulfilling the same personal use and remaining lifetime ---- for example, If your car was 10 years old at the time it was lost, for example, its value on the market depreciated over that 10 years from $30,000 to less than $1,000, that's what you would have gotten if you sold it -- when your car worth $1000 today is totalled: you're not entitled to a brand new car that is worth the original $30k, before your mileage and normal use came into play.
On the other hand, if you hold a classic car or a painting you bought for $100k as a collector's piece or investment, then that is an appreciating asset purchased not to be used or consumed --- but with the intention of profiting from it, and the loss from a theft would be an estimate of Fair Market Value based on expert opinions that would be more than you paid for it.
"Money," in your context is fiat
The cryptocurrency is also considered a form of the money -- in terms of however much fiat the market says that cryptocurrency is worth during a particular day.
The government has already recognized that cryptocurrencies are cash-equivalent; if common marketplaces exists for trading them that establish their pricing and worth in fiat.
The market value of the pet rocks was imaginary and emotions.
No... the loss is similar to stolen gold. Your derogatory opinion regarding the fundamental worth of the cryptocurrency has no relevance to the case; the way it is decided what the monetary value of what was stolen is what people were willing to pay for that thing at the time of the theft by quoting its price from public marketplaces, if they exist --- marketplace quoted prices are verifiable and thus not imaginary, since they show the price of the goods for trade....
Just because the value of gold may fluctuate after the theft, or the thief may have traded the gold to something else before robbing the account does not mean the loss is something other than the fair market value the gold had at the time it was stolen --- the loss is not replacement value of the property LATER months after the theft, either, after the price may have gone to zero, anymore than the $$$ stolen would be reduced if the property was perishable goods such as milk that went sour while they were in the thief's possession.
The damages are the market value ...
The play money has no value at all.
It's like saying someone stole his pet rocks.
The play money has no value at all.
It's like saying someone stole his pet rocks.
That's not true. The money had value at the time it was stolen Based on The fair market value (Or what the market would pay for the property at the time that property was stolen or changed without permission) and could have been sold by the legitimate owner for an amount of cash ---- therefore the lost property equal that amount of cash it could've been sold for instead (As of the point in time before the first unauthorized transaction) MINUS the worth of any amounts of $$$ or property that were successfully salvaged or returned.
WTF does the price of Bitcoin have to do with it?
The price of Bitcoin and whatever business ventures the attackers spent the money on are irrelevent. The damages are the market value of exactly what was stolen at the time that it was stolen --- with the POTENTIAL of adding lost price appreciation between the time stolen and next statement period on the account; if the theft was not discovered immediately, since the accountholder was reviewing accounts infrequently only by reconciling statements with their accounting, Beyond that LOST PROFITS are theoretical and will be very difficult to claim, since the victim would have had the time to buy replacement crypto and chose not to..
5) How do you enforce it? Worst case, people use VPNs.
You go after businesses providing services pertinent to adoption --- mainly you create burdensome rules that make it even harder to have an exchange, or take or process vcurrency-based payments
They are debating what agency gets to regulate it under current laws. Basically CFTC and SEC discussing how they see cypto and current securities law.
Probably none of the above..... Bitcoins are not security exchanges, AND they are not commodities contract exchanges, that is unless you're talking about those futures --- they're "Spot" exchanges or places of "Barter"; that is entities where you deposit your X or Y, and you receive trading tokens denoted in what you deposited that you can trade and then withdraw your X or Y.
And X or Y is either a Virtual currency value to/from a digital wallet or a Fiat currency value to/from a bank account.
Spot exchanges are rare, but I guess one of the largest and well-known would be eBay, where sellers list a physical good and a buyer wins the auction, then agrees to money they put down and receive the good.
Spot exchanges don't really require any 3rd party regulation, since buyers and sellers are directly swapping the end things of value, not contracts or securities --- virtual currencies are more standardized, so it's even easier for a virtual currency exchange to prevent fraud than it is for eBay to do.
The additional concerns are mainly security in handling the systems; KYC/AML issues, and ensuring exchanges don't do deceptive things like fractional reserve -- or take assets from customer accounts and do their own trades, possibly resulting in losses, or the exchange having less fiat or crypto X than the aggregate of that in their customers' accounts.
Strongly disagree about crypto being a "fad". But regulation is an extremely BAD idea at this point, because
(1) A major force behind the excitement for crypto is that "regulation" is flawwed and does more harm than good - that is the motivating force behind crypto AND the source of all the interest - Trust nobody, not even governments --- this is proven time and time again, despite peoples' best intentions ---- rules of the system are mathematical and determined by the consensus-based governance system, AND users knowing this voluntarily have the right to put their value or efforts into a system with particular regulations -- which is No regulations, except the cryptography.
(2) Regulation kill potential innovation; because the filling of unforseeable needs will be hindered. There's a chance the way you understand crypto right now causes regulations to be written such a way that stops crypto from throwing away what it is today and evolving and adapting to a completely new paradigm.
(3) This space is young and deserves a chance for technologists and researchers to learn through experiment --- regulators know next to zero about and future potential and technology ideas that have not been tried yet, and have zero business playing with regulations before they even understand that a persistent material problem exists AND they need to deal with it AND it's even THEIR job to deal with it.... the best ideas have likely not been expressed and experimented with yet, and may not come for decades. Don't assume that just because Bitcoin has issue X, that this issue is inherent to the exchange of cryptocurrency.
(4) Regulation moves too slowly, and regulators have no way of adapting as fast as changes in technology ---- they should be having years of collaboration with technologists before they learn enough to even begin to see what is sensible regarding regulation.
then simple things like NPCs that have the same name as in WoW ... is clearly an infringement of copyright.
NOPE. Not clearly at all. Character Names are not copyrightable --- You can publish lists of names of all the fantasy characters you want within a database... you can use the word "Mickey" in print AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE for most purposes ---- There is just one thing copyright prevents you from doing with the name.... you cannot write and publish your own fictional story, performance, or animation with a similar character, whose name is Mickey and is an anthropomorphic mouse, and use the name Mickey to refer to that character, unless your story is protected by a fair use exception, since now you would be invoking the likeness of a famous creative expression. You could write other stories of a different nature and call as many characters Mickey as you wanted.
You can also FREELY use "Mickey" or "Mickey Mouse" in referring to the famous character if you aren't publishing a work of fiction.
Blizzard never published a product called "WoW Server" --- the only published goods in this case are the World of Warcraft game which you had to purchase, AND you STILL have to obtain from Blizzard in order to connect to these servers.
The server code is Not the game itself and just controlling the operation of a server ----- so there are some things here:
(1) The server code is Not a published game --- it is one component of a system. Blizzard never published copyrighted server code, so it's extremely unlikely the server code could possibly be an infringement in any case, Because copying it would have been impossible, ONLY re-creation of its functionality within an overall system where users took observations from the Client.
(2) Does the server enable circumvention of a copy protection system?
(3) With the WoW packaged product.... are the "Fees to use their server" PURELY a usage fee, Or is part of that payment a licensing charge for the use of content?
(4) If the content is included with the game.... then the Copyrighted character name appearing in the End User experience might be a performance of Blizzard's copyright, BUT the end user that owns the copy of the game has a right to perform Blizzard's copyrights for their own personal use.
(5) The vanilla server code is not a "Standalone work", so it can't possibly be described as a published work of fiction on its own, or as any kind of competitor to the WoW Game --- this is not a game or any kind of fictional work on its own - it is repeating data that the client component the end user purchased from Blizzard wants to see: regardless of Blizzard's desires, the end user has the right to attempt to enjoy their purchased game, even re-creating missing data from the now vacant server piece.
There's a very good chance that none of the code on GitHub is anywhere close to being copyright infringement; However,
the act of using the code to run a server and then encouraging users to modify their clients to connect to your server MIGHT be
an inducement on end-users to infringe on copyright by connecting to your server in violation of the EULA.
So it could be non-infringing code. Perhaps even the production server itself is a non-infringement, BUT an argument for Contributory Copyright Infringement against the server operator(s) might be possible --- if the End User has to commit a licensing violation regarding their EULA in order to use the copy of WoW they purchased with Your server.
The complains hinge around 2-3 sql file using names and having a few data that looks like the data used in wow
Database data falls under factual records; similar to polling data.... Databases of information, such as the statistics on an object are non-copyrightable.
They are complaining about the code using official Blizzard trademarked name to designate Blizzard's said trademarked characters.
Trademark is a whole other branch of law.... referencing a trademark is not copyright infringement.
Lists of names are not copyrightable.
They're complaining that the datamodel is very close to how it used to be in old servers :
Data models are non-copyrightable. A creative representation of a data model May be copyrightable in regards to that expression,
BUT other expressions of the data model in other systems such as SQL are not.
Unless the actual SQL DDL code is similar to Blizzard's SQL code, then the SQL code is not capable of being a copyright infringement.
Matching Record IDs –
Since a directory of Names, People, Places, or Things is not copyrightable; it doesn't really matter if the Order of your list and Unique numbers match theirs or not --- adding a Unique number doesn't make something copyrightable, unless it's a creative expression (Which it's not --- they're just serialized numbers; there's not an artistic or aesthetic reason for the Order these numbers are assigned to things in)
ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals..."
The average person is going to have the dealer perform all required routine maintenance, and software updates would likely be automatic and managed by the manufacturer, anyways. Of course the whole point of Self-Driving car is that the owner doesn't operate them anymore, and software can manage all the tasks required ----- it's already out of reach for the average person to do required maintenance on their vehicle.... so people hire garages. As for those that don't; the SDC can detect when maintenance is required and when SDC-related systems are functioning correctly.
The REAL motive is a communist one --- ban personal vehicle ownership (Or at least ownership of cars that can operate themselves), so everybody is effectively legally forced either drive the car themself or buy rides from Uber.
This can only be described as self-serving bullshit designed to help Uber / Lyft make more money; and reduce or eliminate the systemic threat of SDCs to their entire business model at the expense of economic and personal freedom for the population..
Encrypt-only isn't the solution to everything, but it actually might be a better solution to the problem stated in the summary.
Yeah.... even if you go encrypt-only; you could still use a unique symmetric key for each file, and just encrypt the symmetric key using GPG.
Hold the symmetric key for each photo in RAM for a short amount of time to allow the review process, and then when the camera is shut off, or the review is done --- purge the symmetric keys from RAM.
Encrypt upon capture with encrypt-only software would prevent the camera user from being able to review the photo they just took
Encrypt all the photos on a particular card with the same 128-Bit AES "User Key" that is generated by applying a certain number rounds of Argon2id to a passphrase selected by the user. Save a strong hash of the key on the card alongside each file --- AND keep the key in RAM until the camera is shut off, or the user pushes a 'lock' button to allow picture review.
When the camera is turned on, the user will be prompted to enter that SD Card's "User Key".
Also, when the user loads the SD Card into a computer they will see on the SD Card a "Filesystem file" that the filename is the hash of the user key, and the content is an exFAT filesystem image file where each sector is encrypted using the user key, and the listing of files is embedded into the image.
The merchant doesn't need "insurance" --- they simply engage with a payment provider such as BitPay.
When the transaction is initiated, for $5, for example.... BitPay looks at the current exchange rate and charges the customer $5 plus a network transaction fee PLUS a 2 to 3% premium on the exchange rate, and locks in that rate for a specified amount of time --- if the transaction completes within that time, then the merchant is paid $5 and the transaction is finished.
If the price of a Bitcoin in fiat increased or didn't change, then that 2 to 3% premium is pure profit for the payment provider.
If the price of a Bitcoin in fiat decreased during that time window, but less than the 3%, then there is reduced profit for the payment provider.
A loss only occurs if the transaction turns out costing them more than their premium and the network fee that are all paid by the customer.
How about this: Amazon will sell a service where Alexa will listen for certain inaudible acoustic commands, which you can embed a unique ID into your Broadcast, or Radio program, or insert into your song, and Amazon will provide you intelligence or data about how many people and what demographics are listening to your content.
I'm betting that if they can even produce inaudible frequencies at all
How about coded white noise at the same volume as "Alexa" of a duration imperceptible to humans?
This is similar to the idea of steganography...... hiding a more complicated message inside a picture or sound file
by applying variations that human eyes or ears won't detect.
Disclaimers on SPECIAL-INTEREST/ACTIVIST GROUP funded broadcasts and also CORPORATE funded broadcasts.
Also, Comments made to government officials by people being paid by a corporation should be required to contain a disclaimer identifying the relationship and whether they are being paid in general, or whether they are being paid to influence government officials, And any comment to a town hall or regulatory body's comment process paid for by a corporation must begin with disclaimer "This comment is a paid comment by XX corp".
Furthermore, any "paid protestor" must carry high-visibility signage identifying that they are being paid to take this action.
STATE-FUNDED broadcasts should be identified too, but they are the least of our worries ---- the real worry should be paid political messages in general.