No, the point is, you go to court, show your proof that was being served by at and ask the judge to allow you to subpoena the ISP. Then if the judge agrees that the evidence is good enough, the ISP is subpoenaed and the account holder is identified and brought into the lawsuit.
Copyright infringement is neither Piracy OR Theft, despite what the RIAA/MPAA FUD would have you believe.
It is still illegal though and yes I agree that ISPs should be required to hand over subscriber details but ONLY after the copyright holder has shown proof that was sharing at .
Thats the whole point of my post, we show the "think of the children" crowd that the Rudd proposal wont do a thing to stop child pornography or other "bad" internet content and that the money is better spent going after the pedophiles and pornographers who create the "bad" content in the first place.
Someone needs to come up with a demonstration that normal people will understand (people who know nothing about "the internet" except that you have to click on the blue E to get to it and that its full of "bad" things like child pornography, violent video games and Muslims urging other Muslims to kill people who arent Muslim) that shows exactly why this filter wont do the things that the government claims it will do (including blocking all the "bad" content) and how easy it will be to bypass the filter. (and bypass it in ways that cant be detected easily)
It would have the following aspects: 1.Freenet style "you dont know what you are sharing" plausible deniability so when the RIAA come after you for file sharing, you can prove in court that you had no clue that you were sharing that content. 2.A full set of options so you can limit its resource usage (and so it wont just use up all available bandwidth the way some p2p protocols and clients do) 3.Good encryption designed so that you cant tell what someone is downloading unless you are sharing the data yourself (AND have a modified client to record this info). For the encryption, use Diffie-Helman to negotiate an AES key or something with AES then being used for the actual data transfer. 4.The protocol and client would be 100% open source so its impossible to target the developers in the way Napster and others were targeted and 5.It would have a good in-built search feature (no more torrent tracker sites for the RIAA or MPAA to sue or go after)
Does DNSSEC mean that an ISP with a caching DNS server that returns an IP address other than the correct IP address cant do it anymore (i.e. clients that support DNSSEC will respond with an error)? Does DNSSEC do anything about NXDOMAIN fiddling? (are there any proposals out there that would allow users to get around ISPs that point NXDOMAIN at ad-laden ISP search pages or is using a non-ISP caching DNS server the only option here?)
Caching DNS servers also have the advantage that you are immune if your ISP messes with DNS or violates the DNS RFCs (such as by returning something other than NXDOMAIN for a non-existent domain)
1.It may not be using the standard floppy disk controler interface and may not be able to support that particular gizmo 2.Are YOU going to be the one to tell the boss that the really really expensive piece of equipment has failed and that they cant get warranty service for it because of an unauthorized third party modification just so you dont need to keep floppy disks around? 3.What do you do about things that actually come on floppy disk (for example the manufacturer may ship new firmware on floppy that you insert and have the machine read). Yes you could reinstall the disk drive for those rare occasions (or find a way to make the floppytousb device work with a USB floppy so you can read the disk you need to) but that's a lot of work.
At the time XP and IE6 hit mainstream, there WERE no viable alternatives. Everyone supported IE6 because that's all there was (and because it was better than IE5.x)
The problem with that idea is, what browser do you use as the outside-access browser? IE7/8/9 are out because you cant load both IE6 and later versions of IE. Firefox or Chrome are great browsers but neither of them contain any of the corporate lock-down features IE has (like being able to ensure updates only get installed once corporate IT says its ok to do so)
Often the problem may not be Siebel, it may be that these guys are running Siebel version x but the version that supports modern browsers may be version y. Which will cost $x to purchase licenses for then $y to install and $z to migrate all the data to. Oh and more on top of that to retrain users on the new interface because Siebel decided to move some important buttons a few pixels to the left.
Microsoft should just say "We will no longer produce security patches for IE6". Its not like those corporations who need such patches can do anything about it (its not like they are going to stop buying stuff from Microsoft)
Continuing to produce security patches for IE6 costs Microsoft money and provides essentially zero benefit. Its not like these large corporations who are stuck on IE6 are paying Microsoft money that they wouldn't be paying Microsoft if IE6 security patches stopped.
Why would an OEM do something as stupid as shipping a machine with automatic updates turned off? Are they concerned about user complaints that their internet connection is slow due to it always downloading automatic updates?
Blame the carriers as well. I used to work as a software developer for a mobile phone manufacturer and was told by various people that phone software updates are more controlled by the carriers than by what the manufacturers or consumers want. Sometimes its a case of "the carriers wont fund the costs of porting to , therefore we wont do it". Sometimes its a case of "we have an update to for but we cant release it as our carrier partners havent signed of on it yet" or "its up to the carriers when this release happens"
Apple seems to be the only company to date who has told the carriers to go jump and taken over control of updates directly. Microsoft has hinted that they are going to do so for Windows Phone 7 also.
Personally, I think RIM should follow Apple and MS and tell carriers that firmware updates will go through RIM for future devices and not the carriers (and none of the big 4 US carriers could afford to not carry Blackberry devices due to its massive popularity so they would have to accept RIMs terms)
These provisions are specifically aimed at cases where the rights holder (or an agent authorized by the rights holder) has evidence that someone is likely going to infringe but has not yet done so. It then allows the rights holder (or agent) to obtain an injunction against the potential infringer.
Even if prop planes were unaffected, no-one makes a prop plane with more than a hand-full of seats, all larger prop planes are actually turboprops which would likely have the same problems as jets.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point is that you have no idea what files are in your encrypted blob (just like Freenet) or whether any of them are illegal in any way.
No, the point is, you go to court, show your proof that was being served by at and ask the judge to allow you to subpoena the ISP. Then if the judge agrees that the evidence is good enough, the ISP is subpoenaed and the account holder is identified and brought into the lawsuit.
Copyright infringement is neither Piracy OR Theft, despite what the RIAA/MPAA FUD would have you believe.
It is still illegal though and yes I agree that ISPs should be required to hand over subscriber details but ONLY after the copyright holder has shown proof that was sharing at .
Thats the whole point of my post, we show the "think of the children" crowd that the Rudd proposal wont do a thing to stop child pornography or other "bad" internet content and that the money is better spent going after the pedophiles and pornographers who create the "bad" content in the first place.
Someone needs to come up with a demonstration that normal people will understand (people who know nothing about "the internet" except that you have to click on the blue E to get to it and that its full of "bad" things like child pornography, violent video games and Muslims urging other Muslims to kill people who arent Muslim) that shows exactly why this filter wont do the things that the government claims it will do (including blocking all the "bad" content) and how easy it will be to bypass the filter. (and bypass it in ways that cant be detected easily)
It would have the following aspects:
1.Freenet style "you dont know what you are sharing" plausible deniability so when the RIAA come after you for file sharing, you can prove in court that you had no clue that you were sharing that content.
2.A full set of options so you can limit its resource usage (and so it wont just use up all available bandwidth the way some p2p protocols and clients do)
3.Good encryption designed so that you cant tell what someone is downloading unless you are sharing the data yourself (AND have a modified client to record this info). For the encryption, use Diffie-Helman to negotiate an AES key or something with AES then being used for the actual data transfer.
4.The protocol and client would be 100% open source so its impossible to target the developers in the way Napster and others were targeted
and 5.It would have a good in-built search feature (no more torrent tracker sites for the RIAA or MPAA to sue or go after)
Does DNSSEC mean that an ISP with a caching DNS server that returns an IP address other than the correct IP address cant do it anymore (i.e. clients that support DNSSEC will respond with an error)?
Does DNSSEC do anything about NXDOMAIN fiddling? (are there any proposals out there that would allow users to get around ISPs that point NXDOMAIN at ad-laden ISP search pages or is using a non-ISP caching DNS server the only option here?)
Caching DNS servers also have the advantage that you are immune if your ISP messes with DNS or violates the DNS RFCs (such as by returning something other than NXDOMAIN for a non-existent domain)
This isn't the Boy Scouts, its the Cub Scouts which is a totally different thing.
I have an old 4:3 51cm CRT and I PREFER to watch my movies in Widescreen (the way the filmmakers usually intended it to be seen), black bars and all.
1.It may not be using the standard floppy disk controler interface and may not be able to support that particular gizmo
2.Are YOU going to be the one to tell the boss that the really really expensive piece of equipment has failed and that they cant get warranty service for it because of an unauthorized third party modification just so you dont need to keep floppy disks around?
3.What do you do about things that actually come on floppy disk (for example the manufacturer may ship new firmware on floppy that you insert and have the machine read). Yes you could reinstall the disk drive for those rare occasions (or find a way to make the floppytousb device work with a USB floppy so you can read the disk you need to) but that's a lot of work.
Corporates generally wont accept anything from 3rd parties (which is why they wont accept the existing 3rd party MSI Firefox builds)
Only an officially endorsed Firefox build would be accepted by many corporate types
And in the US, movie studios continue to release 4:3 versions of 16:9 films for no good reason.
At the time XP and IE6 hit mainstream, there WERE no viable alternatives.
Everyone supported IE6 because that's all there was (and because it was better than IE5.x)
The problem with that idea is, what browser do you use as the outside-access browser? IE7/8/9 are out because you cant load both IE6 and later versions of IE. Firefox or Chrome are great browsers but neither of them contain any of the corporate lock-down features IE has (like being able to ensure updates only get installed once corporate IT says its ok to do so)
Often the problem may not be Siebel, it may be that these guys are running Siebel version x but the version that supports modern browsers may be version y. Which will cost $x to purchase licenses for then $y to install and $z to migrate all the data to. Oh and more on top of that to retrain users on the new interface because Siebel decided to move some important buttons a few pixels to the left.
Microsoft should just say "We will no longer produce security patches for IE6". Its not like those corporations who need such patches can do anything about it (its not like they are going to stop buying stuff from Microsoft)
Continuing to produce security patches for IE6 costs Microsoft money and provides essentially zero benefit. Its not like these large corporations who are stuck on IE6 are paying Microsoft money that they wouldn't be paying Microsoft if IE6 security patches stopped.
Why would an OEM do something as stupid as shipping a machine with automatic updates turned off?
Are they concerned about user complaints that their internet connection is slow due to it always downloading automatic updates?
The watch is not what is copyrighted, the logo on the watch is what Omega is claiming copyright on.
Blame the carriers as well.
I used to work as a software developer for a mobile phone manufacturer and was told by various people that phone software updates are more controlled by the carriers than by what the manufacturers or consumers want. Sometimes its a case of "the carriers wont fund the costs of porting to , therefore we wont do it". Sometimes its a case of "we have an update to for but we cant release it as our carrier partners havent signed of on it yet" or "its up to the carriers when this release happens"
Apple seems to be the only company to date who has told the carriers to go jump and taken over control of updates directly. Microsoft has hinted that they are going to do so for Windows Phone 7 also.
Personally, I think RIM should follow Apple and MS and tell carriers that firmware updates will go through RIM for future devices and not the carriers (and none of the big 4 US carriers could afford to not carry Blackberry devices due to its massive popularity so they would have to accept RIMs terms)
Its not like making fun of religious figures is illegal.
What are the Muslims who are offended by this going to do that the 100s of other people and groups Southpark have offended wont?
Crash a fully loaded 747 full of people into the Comedy Central HQ?
When Australia switched to the new plastic money, we changed over from old $100 to new $100 (for example) in a short space of time.
Although I guess the total number of AU$100 bills in circulation worldwide is a LOT less than the total number of US$100 bills :)
Get a DECENT anti-virus (not McAfee or Norton) and you wont have these problems.
Although what constitutes "decent" in a corporate environment I dont know.
These provisions are specifically aimed at cases where the rights holder (or an agent authorized by the rights holder) has evidence that someone is likely going to infringe but has not yet done so. It then allows the rights holder (or agent) to obtain an injunction against the potential infringer.
Even if prop planes were unaffected, no-one makes a prop plane with more than a hand-full of seats, all larger prop planes are actually turboprops which would likely have the same problems as jets.