These are taken from your own link and clearly state that sharing is a crime, but downloading isn't.
So look at the TorrentFreak article that was the source for the one in the intro:
One such request for cash landed on the doorstep of an Internet account holder in Finland during the spring. Known locally as TTVK, Finnish anti-piracy group CIAPC sent the man a letter informing him that his account had been traced back to an incidence of online file-sharing.
It was file-sharing that was being investigated, not simple downloading.
The Wikipedia page on Finland's 2005 amendment to the Copyright Act and Penal Code also says this was made a crime some seven years ago, bringing Finland into line with the EU copyright directive.
If someone is committing a crime from their home - in many countries, copyright infringement is a criminal as well as civil offense - should the police not be allowed to enter and put a stop to it?
If you disagree with the criminal designation, talk to politicians. They make the laws.
If Google doesn't correct this within a few days, I'll be surprised.
I'll be surprised if Google doesn't announce their street view cams have been adapted and installed on board ships. That island is out there somewhere, and I trust Google to find it.
In Florida v. Riley, the US Supreme Court found it was permissible for a police officer to observe inside a greenhouse through the open roof from a helicopter circling the property at 400ft.
The court said that helicopters are not bound by the lower limits of the navigable airspace allowed to other aircraft and that any member of the public could legally have been flying over the property at that time.
I think a lot of weight was given to the fact it was lawful in the jurisdiction for the officer (or anyone else) to be there (circling at 400ft). So your expectation of what you can consider to be private seems to be, at least in part, based on local or federal aviation laws.
If you want to grow marijuana in a greenhouse outside your home, you should probable consult a lawyer first.
Will it really? It will be hard to monetize a lot of those fans because they may not be close to the team. Contacting your one million followers twice a week will cost you about $300,000 a year.
So assuming you can make money from 5% of your followers (50,000) you need to make $6 profit from them that you wouldn't otherwise have made for it to be profitable.
Given they have contact details and probably an email address for the fans who are most likely to spend money, I'd expect the 5% figure is actually very high and the actual figure might be somewhere in the ½% range. That would make the necessary profit per new customer to be in the region of $60/year.
Remember, the outcome of tomorrow's election could be determined by a few tens of thousands of votes if you get the correct counties in the correct states.
It would have taken less than 60,000 votes to change the 2004 election from Bush to Kerry.
269 votes would have been enough for Al Gore.
Less than 10,000 votes separated Carter from Ford.
The DDOS doesn't need to be against the servers recording the votes. Simply try and target Comcast/Verizon/AT&T in a handful Republican/Democrat counties in swing states and you could change the result of the election.
While the Estonian DDOS only lasted a few hours, the bulk of votes are cast over the few hours after work and before polls close. A carefully planned and narrowly targeted DDOS could potentially achieve that - at a time of day when it might be too late for voters to change their plans and vote in person.
There is also an electronic voting system in Estonia that uses ID cards
I think we can learn a lesson from operating systems here. The danger of attack tends to be somewhat proportional to the size and value of the target. In the past, the vast majority of attacks were limited to Windows, because it ran on the vast majority of computers and the potential gains were greatest. Today that is no longer the case, with Linux, OSX and phone operating systems all being attacked, together with attacks of niche systems that control manufacturing processes.
I'd imagine that while there could be real gains by controlling any country's election, an electronic voting scheme in a major western country such as Germany, the UK or the USA would be subject to attacks much greater in number and more sophisticated in design.
A public key system based around smartcards is probably a prerequisite to secure voting. Unfortunately, that alone doesn't make it secure.
Could a virus replace the program and silently change votes prior to submission? What if the private keys were somehow exposed? What if Anonymous or a hostile nation ran a massive DDOS on polling day?
There was a project sponsored by GNU to develop software that would permit online voting securely. Obviously this would be hugely useful if it were secure and freely available. http://www.gnu.org/software/free/
Production stopped in 2002.
Here's what they had to say, "From my experience of designing and developing GNU.FREE over the past three years it has become clear that creating an Internet Voting system sufficiently secure, reliable and anonymous is extremely difficult, if not impossible. As Bruce Schneier points out "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers.""
Of course, it's possible the Swiss know something about secure software development that Schneier doesn't. Or perhaps they're just happy to accept the risks.
Competition that time and time again has proven completely incapable of producing search products that the large majority of users, consumers and businesses want.
Really? Bing is actually pretty nice. I expect their low use is more to do with Google being embedded in everyone's mind (mine included) and being Good Enough.
Sure there was a time Google were way out in front, but I honestly don't think that's the case these days. Now it's just familiar and comfortable and does the job.
Does OSX come, by default, with any alternate to Safari? No? Then why is MS treated like some kind of James Bond villain, but Apple isn't?
Because, at the time Microsoft controlled almost the entire PC market. Apple were tiny by comparison to where they stand today.
Since Microsoft Windows was installed on every computer and they came with Internet Explorer already included, Microsoft was able to use a monopoly in one industry (PC operating systems) to create a monopoly in another (internet browsers).
As for how you would get another browser, these were the days when every news stand was full of computer magazines that had CD Roms and, later, DVDs attached to the cover. Most folk didn't have the bandwidth to download large programs easily, so you just installed from disc.
Apple could easily have found itself in a similar situation had Android not come along.
So, after two years they can charge an equipment fee. If you have three televisions,each with a decoder and a $5/monthly fee, the cable company starts taking in $180/year in extra revenue from the lowest paying customers.
I've no idea why you're so defensive? Do you feel guilty about your lifestyle?
I didn't try to suggest anyone should follow my preferred lifestyle. I'll encourage anyone that shows an interest in cycling to try it out, but I certainly don't evangelize on cycling's behalf.
That said, I maintain that any attempt to compare the miles the average cyclist travels to the miles the average car travels is ridiculous.
You may be much better off - I have no idea about your lifestyle to be able to comment. You're surely the best judge of that. Personally I know that I am fitter and healthier than I would be otherwise, because I ride a bike.
Deaths per mile traveled are spectacularly higher, and the bicycle always "loses" in an accident, even vs pedestrians, something to do with height of head above ground and road rash. People are notoriously bad at estimating risk, so that's no surprise that something supposedly health is actually unhealthy.
You're "about" four times safer driving on road than biking. I realize its not politically correct but roads are for cars and motorcycles, not for bicycles. Use the correct tool for the job. Or at least buy sufficient life insurance for spouse and kids if you insist on biking.
Statistics can be interpreted in many many ways.
Deaths per mile are higher, deaths per hour on the road are much lower. Cycling encourages you to live close so you can reach amenities by bikes. Few cycling commuters live 20+ miles away from work, lots of car owners do.
I commute four miles to work in 15 minutes by bike. Many others at the same location commute 10 miles in that time.
So, if you pretend your bike is a car and do 15,000 miles a year on it, your figures might be right. Use a bike like most do and ride only a few thousand miles per year and your figures are misleading to the point of being ridiculous.
. I mean *I* could use a bicycle in regular clothes, without the costume, so why can't they? There must be a reason. Don't tell me that at 30 mph the wind resistance of spandex gives you extra speed or something, that's ridiculous.
Do you watch any sport? Why do you think your football team/baseball team/soccer team wear the clothes they do? The answer is because they're functional.
Try sticking your arm out a car window at 30mph wearing loose clothing (ideally when you're a passenger). Your clothes will be flapping a lot because of the wind resistance. Yes, wearing cycling gear makes you faster, but it's also a heck of a lot more comfortable than flapping clothes.
Cycling clothes have seams prepared so a rough seam won't graze through your skin. Sure, that's probably not needed for a five mile commute to work, but most the guys and girls you'll see wearing spandex on a weekend will be on their bike for hours.
How about a neighbor. You could host a drive for them, they host one for you. Cheap wifi network connecting the drives to your networks. Encrypt everything you backup. You each have an offsite backup with reasonably fast connections.
You do not seem to understand the significance of what you read.
I've no idea what you're suggesting. Your past says almost exactly the same thing I did.
If it's being argued to the court that the first sale doctrine does not apply when goods contain foreign components that is a big deal.
If, on the other hand, it is being argued that if you buy something in another country you are not protected by the US constitution, that is much less of a deal and would, in fact, be precisely in line with prior SCOTUS decisions where they have declined to permit an extraterritorial extension of constitutional protections.
legally the case is is sadly about who has the right for resale. global markets and all, consumers should benefit from it. if we can find a cheaper way to ship the products into our hands in whatever country we are in, then we should be allowed to do so.
It might not be as black and white as you make out.
Take for example antiretroviral drugs used for treating HIV infections. As they often say, each tablet costs about 20 cents, after the first tablet which cost $2 billion.
The drug firm needs to recoup its development costs before its patent expires. So it might calculate it can do so by selling to customers in the West at $1,000 per patient per year.
But there are people dying in the developing world who could also benefit. The drug firm could see the drug their profitably (if we only consider manufacturing) at $50 per patient per year. That increases their overall revenue and lets them spend more money developing more drugs.
But if those $50/year drugs were to make their way back into the Western markets, the drug company would now be losing money.
So, should they not sell the lower cost drugs and leave the developing world to fend for themselves, or should they be able to sell at different prices in different markets?
Of course the argument is very different for denims, where there's not huge development costs to recoup. But it might be similar with textbooks which had large upfront fees paying the authors and doing the editing and layout. Similarly it might be the same with electronics that have huge development costs.
So having read the article, it doesn't say the same thing as the summary. To be fair, I haven't read any of the court paperwork, so the publisher could indeed be claiming that you cannot sell something with foreign parts.
This case, however, stems from a student buying textbooks at lower cost overseas and then selling them in the US on eBay.
I'm not saying it's good, right or proper that the publisher wishes to restrict these sales. I simply want to highlight that it's a very different proposition saying you cannot resell in the US a complete product purchased in a developing market where the manufacturer sells at a lower cost as opposed to being unable to sell anything that contains a foreign part.
I believe the situation the publisher supports is already the case in Europe, where Levi Strauss won a battle against supermarkets who were importing grey market denims and selling them at a lower cost than licensed distributors could buy the jeans in the UK.
The do not call list is worthless. My phone rings almost every day with political calls, surveys, local government and commercial calls from "cardholder services". We're on the do not call list. Writing this post was just interrupted after 8pm by someone who just wanted to ask a few questions about issues in the news.
Numbers are prone to war dialing by spammers. I don't need to give them my number, they can just cycle through all the numbers that exist.
Area codes don't help with routing. Number portability means any number can terminate anywhere. Fortunately the phone companies have figured out a way to deal with this and it looks a lot like DNS.
Slashdot Mirror
So look at the TorrentFreak article that was the source for the one in the intro:
It was file-sharing that was being investigated, not simple downloading.
A lot of file sharing software is designed to upload simultaneously with the download. BitTorrent would be a popular example.
That's strange, this academic paper suggests otherwise.
The Wikipedia page on Finland's 2005 amendment to the Copyright Act and Penal Code also says this was made a crime some seven years ago, bringing Finland into line with the EU copyright directive.
Do you have a source for your claim?
If someone is committing a crime from their home - in many countries, copyright infringement is a criminal as well as civil offense - should the police not be allowed to enter and put a stop to it?
If you disagree with the criminal designation, talk to politicians. They make the laws.
I'll be surprised if Google doesn't announce their street view cams have been adapted and installed on board ships. That island is out there somewhere, and I trust Google to find it.
I'm not a lawyer.
In Florida v. Riley, the US Supreme Court found it was permissible for a police officer to observe inside a greenhouse through the open roof from a helicopter circling the property at 400ft.
The court said that helicopters are not bound by the lower limits of the navigable airspace allowed to other aircraft and that any member of the public could legally have been flying over the property at that time.
I think a lot of weight was given to the fact it was lawful in the jurisdiction for the officer (or anyone else) to be there (circling at 400ft). So your expectation of what you can consider to be private seems to be, at least in part, based on local or federal aviation laws.
If you want to grow marijuana in a greenhouse outside your home, you should probable consult a lawyer first.
Will it really? It will be hard to monetize a lot of those fans because they may not be close to the team. Contacting your one million followers twice a week will cost you about $300,000 a year.
So assuming you can make money from 5% of your followers (50,000) you need to make $6 profit from them that you wouldn't otherwise have made for it to be profitable.
Given they have contact details and probably an email address for the fans who are most likely to spend money, I'd expect the 5% figure is actually very high and the actual figure might be somewhere in the ½% range. That would make the necessary profit per new customer to be in the region of $60/year.
Remember, the outcome of tomorrow's election could be determined by a few tens of thousands of votes if you get the correct counties in the correct states.
It would have taken less than 60,000 votes to change the 2004 election from Bush to Kerry.
269 votes would have been enough for Al Gore.
Less than 10,000 votes separated Carter from Ford.
The DDOS doesn't need to be against the servers recording the votes. Simply try and target Comcast/Verizon/AT&T in a handful Republican/Democrat counties in swing states and you could change the result of the election.
While the Estonian DDOS only lasted a few hours, the bulk of votes are cast over the few hours after work and before polls close. A carefully planned and narrowly targeted DDOS could potentially achieve that - at a time of day when it might be too late for voters to change their plans and vote in person.
I think we can learn a lesson from operating systems here. The danger of attack tends to be somewhat proportional to the size and value of the target. In the past, the vast majority of attacks were limited to Windows, because it ran on the vast majority of computers and the potential gains were greatest. Today that is no longer the case, with Linux, OSX and phone operating systems all being attacked, together with attacks of niche systems that control manufacturing processes.
I'd imagine that while there could be real gains by controlling any country's election, an electronic voting scheme in a major western country such as Germany, the UK or the USA would be subject to attacks much greater in number and more sophisticated in design.
A public key system based around smartcards is probably a prerequisite to secure voting. Unfortunately, that alone doesn't make it secure.
Could a virus replace the program and silently change votes prior to submission? What if the private keys were somehow exposed? What if Anonymous or a hostile nation ran a massive DDOS on polling day?
Just to emphasize the danger - the country you mentioned, Estonia - was subject to a massive DDOS five years ago.
Those are just the start of the potential problems.
There was a project sponsored by GNU to develop software that would permit online voting securely. Obviously this would be hugely useful if it were secure and freely available. http://www.gnu.org/software/free/
Production stopped in 2002.
Here's what they had to say, "From my experience of designing and developing GNU.FREE over the past three years it has become clear that creating an Internet Voting system sufficiently secure, reliable and anonymous is extremely difficult, if not impossible. As Bruce Schneier points out "a secure Internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers.""
Of course, it's possible the Swiss know something about secure software development that Schneier doesn't. Or perhaps they're just happy to accept the risks.
Whooosh.
Oh come on, 16GB should be enough for anybody.
Really? Bing is actually pretty nice. I expect their low use is more to do with Google being embedded in everyone's mind (mine included) and being Good Enough.
Sure there was a time Google were way out in front, but I honestly don't think that's the case these days. Now it's just familiar and comfortable and does the job.
Because, at the time Microsoft controlled almost the entire PC market. Apple were tiny by comparison to where they stand today.
Since Microsoft Windows was installed on every computer and they came with Internet Explorer already included, Microsoft was able to use a monopoly in one industry (PC operating systems) to create a monopoly in another (internet browsers).
As for how you would get another browser, these were the days when every news stand was full of computer magazines that had CD Roms and, later, DVDs attached to the cover. Most folk didn't have the bandwidth to download large programs easily, so you just installed from disc.
Apple could easily have found itself in a similar situation had Android not come along.
So, after two years they can charge an equipment fee. If you have three televisions,each with a decoder and a $5/monthly fee, the cable company starts taking in $180/year in extra revenue from the lowest paying customers.
I've no idea why you're so defensive? Do you feel guilty about your lifestyle?
I didn't try to suggest anyone should follow my preferred lifestyle. I'll encourage anyone that shows an interest in cycling to try it out, but I certainly don't evangelize on cycling's behalf.
That said, I maintain that any attempt to compare the miles the average cyclist travels to the miles the average car travels is ridiculous.
You may be much better off - I have no idea about your lifestyle to be able to comment. You're surely the best judge of that. Personally I know that I am fitter and healthier than I would be otherwise, because I ride a bike.
Bicycling Magazine ranked Minneapolis the #1 US city for biking. I've never been there, but I've heard they get the occasional bit of snow.
http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-minneapolis
Google for some articles and videos and you'll see how they do it.
Statistics can be interpreted in many many ways.
Deaths per mile are higher, deaths per hour on the road are much lower. Cycling encourages you to live close so you can reach amenities by bikes. Few cycling commuters live 20+ miles away from work, lots of car owners do.
I commute four miles to work in 15 minutes by bike. Many others at the same location commute 10 miles in that time.
So, if you pretend your bike is a car and do 15,000 miles a year on it, your figures might be right. Use a bike like most do and ride only a few thousand miles per year and your figures are misleading to the point of being ridiculous.
Do you watch any sport? Why do you think your football team/baseball team/soccer team wear the clothes they do? The answer is because they're functional.
Try sticking your arm out a car window at 30mph wearing loose clothing (ideally when you're a passenger). Your clothes will be flapping a lot because of the wind resistance. Yes, wearing cycling gear makes you faster, but it's also a heck of a lot more comfortable than flapping clothes.
Cycling clothes have seams prepared so a rough seam won't graze through your skin. Sure, that's probably not needed for a five mile commute to work, but most the guys and girls you'll see wearing spandex on a weekend will be on their bike for hours.
How about a neighbor. You could host a drive for them, they host one for you. Cheap wifi network connecting the drives to your networks. Encrypt everything you backup. You each have an offsite backup with reasonably fast connections.
You do not seem to understand the significance of what you read.
I've no idea what you're suggesting. Your past says almost exactly the same thing I did.
If it's being argued to the court that the first sale doctrine does not apply when goods contain foreign components that is a big deal.
If, on the other hand, it is being argued that if you buy something in another country you are not protected by the US constitution, that is much less of a deal and would, in fact, be precisely in line with prior SCOTUS decisions where they have declined to permit an extraterritorial extension of constitutional protections.
It might not be as black and white as you make out.
Take for example antiretroviral drugs used for treating HIV infections. As they often say, each tablet costs about 20 cents, after the first tablet which cost $2 billion.
The drug firm needs to recoup its development costs before its patent expires. So it might calculate it can do so by selling to customers in the West at $1,000 per patient per year.
But there are people dying in the developing world who could also benefit. The drug firm could see the drug their profitably (if we only consider manufacturing) at $50 per patient per year. That increases their overall revenue and lets them spend more money developing more drugs.
But if those $50/year drugs were to make their way back into the Western markets, the drug company would now be losing money.
So, should they not sell the lower cost drugs and leave the developing world to fend for themselves, or should they be able to sell at different prices in different markets?
Of course the argument is very different for denims, where there's not huge development costs to recoup. But it might be similar with textbooks which had large upfront fees paying the authors and doing the editing and layout. Similarly it might be the same with electronics that have huge development costs.
So having read the article, it doesn't say the same thing as the summary. To be fair, I haven't read any of the court paperwork, so the publisher could indeed be claiming that you cannot sell something with foreign parts.
This case, however, stems from a student buying textbooks at lower cost overseas and then selling them in the US on eBay.
I'm not saying it's good, right or proper that the publisher wishes to restrict these sales. I simply want to highlight that it's a very different proposition saying you cannot resell in the US a complete product purchased in a developing market where the manufacturer sells at a lower cost as opposed to being unable to sell anything that contains a foreign part.
I believe the situation the publisher supports is already the case in Europe, where Levi Strauss won a battle against supermarkets who were importing grey market denims and selling them at a lower cost than licensed distributors could buy the jeans in the UK.
The do not call list is worthless. My phone rings almost every day with political calls, surveys, local government and commercial calls from "cardholder services". We're on the do not call list. Writing this post was just interrupted after 8pm by someone who just wanted to ask a few questions about issues in the news.
Numbers are prone to war dialing by spammers. I don't need to give them my number, they can just cycle through all the numbers that exist.
Area codes don't help with routing. Number portability means any number can terminate anywhere. Fortunately the phone companies have figured out a way to deal with this and it looks a lot like DNS.
Seriously, you spend $150+ a month for a cell phone or is that for your entire family?