Young whippersnapper--people have been infringing copyrights (not to be confused with pillaging treasure and killing crews of ships on the high seas) practically since there were bits. Even before modems, copies of digital media were traded by hand. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there had been a punched card WAREZ (no lowercase and no symbols back then:) ) scene!
And that will concern me the minute the ISPs with those Bayesian filters start accumulating a consumer profile based on them, serving me ads, and offering the profiles for sale to the highest bidder (which will happen--if the privacy policy doesn't allow it now, it'll be amended to allow it. "I'll make it legal" comes immediately to mind.)
That's entirely laughable. If you think for one moment that the ECPA is going to stop someone with access and interest from reading your email, you're terribly naive. It might stop them from divulging that they read your email, and make them carefully search out plausible public sources for the information they gleaned from it before acting on any of it, but it sure as heck won't stop them from reading it.
India and China are hardly the poster children for any sort of intellectual property protection. Granted, they have Draconian governments, but I don't see how that will keep a lid on downloads of Britney and all.
All it takes is one person to publish a means, and it is trivially disabled. End of story.
And the v-chip doesn't lock down what the owner of a TV set can do, which is probably why it wasn't violently and widely opposed like the SSSCA, the CBDTPA, and any successors will be.
Besides, its not only the RIAA members who want DRM on their tracks. You don't see any of the indie labels on iTMS demanding that Apple use non-DRMed AACs for them.
Can they? I don't imagine Apple would accomodate that even if the indies asked.
not be accepted in the marketplace--information moves too fast for even today's sheep-like consumers to be fooled that easily
be cracked anyway
The industry is still making billions of dollars a year selling Red Book CDs with no DRM. But they want to move towards a pay per play model with DRM. And I'm the prick?
making it hard for companies like Apple to create a market-oriented alternative that protects your rights.
I hope they're paying you well. Protect my rights? That's a good one. In any case, the only arbitror of whether it's a "market-oriented alternative" is whether it succeeds or fails. It looks like iTMS is doing OK, even hobbled by DRM, so it may have a shot. But the barrier to a real "market oriented alternative" is the RIAA members' oligopoly on distribution which would prevent the sale of lossless, non-restricted tracks.
The "market" isn't restricting anything here; the RIAA is fighting the market.
I'd like to think that Apple is doing this reluctantly, but they've used the threat of litigation against individuals and small organizations too many times in the past to give them the benefit of the doubt. They're like a smaller version of Microsoft--just as evil, but with style and with better PR.
LOL:). I'll hold my breath. The nice thing about being a CS student in the U.S. is being judgment proof. Given trends towards outsourcing, I'll probably be able to maintain that status as long as necessary after graduation.
The only "unconditional surrender" that will be accepted is that of the industry. There is no putting the toothpasted back into the tube. They'll sell us music on our terms, or not sell us music at all, because their distribution oligopoly will not protect them from the Internet.
By trying to sue something off the Internet, you only ensure its wider propagation and interest among people who otherwise wouldn't have cared. I'll be sharing a tarball on eMule immediately. Come and sue everybody, Apple.
Are you a lawyer? Law student at least? It is quite possible that there is law that would show such duty exists (copyright, trademark, obscenity, DMCA, contributory infringement), and that the fact that they have in the past suppressed results at the behest of a corporation, government, or what not would put them in a position of liability. Claiming that all the complex issues that could intertwine to provide a convincing theory of liability could not possibly exist is naive. If you're not a lawyer, your exhortation to "study a little law" is, well, without merit.
Since the Zoo system is primarily meant to be used to hide comments, I thought I had been posting (what I thought of as) thoughtful replies and was a bit irritated that they might never have been seen.
I don't think Google's and Germany's actions are of the same degree, but they certainly have the same intended effect. Google is a good example in this case, because they cooperate with governments like Germany, suppressing results offensive to the government in google.de.
I understand that you wish to preserve the power of the word "censorship." Others with to preserve the power of words like "pirate" and "hacker," to no avail. Once the majority changes their definition of the word, the definition has changed. Unfortunate, but true.
In any case, what Google is doing is bad--even if one agrees that no one should see this clip or discussion about it, it harms their reputation as an impartial indexer of content. Their actions in Germany smack of excessive coziness with government, which to me would make them near a censor by your own definition. I'm sure the folks at Google feel like they're not engaging in anything like censorship--they would argue that they don't want their service used to find such dreck. But once they've given up their impartiality, they can't be trusted.
I don't understand why a global context would be a necessary component of censorship. Is not Germany's (attempted) suppression of Nazi literature censorship, though it has little effect outside her borders?
My first sentence wasn't fair--I apologize. One more question, if I may. If your ISP nullrouted a site containing this kind of material, would that or would that not constitute censorship?
You betray your intent to censor by referring to the material as filth. Google has taken deliberate steps to suppress this material, which, despite hair-splitting, meets the commonly used definition of censorship. Google should tread carefully in this sort of area, lest it find itself liable for things it fails to suppress some time in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Young whippersnapper--people have been infringing copyrights (not to be confused with pillaging treasure and killing crews of ships on the high seas) practically since there were bits. Even before modems, copies of digital media were traded by hand. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there had been a punched card WAREZ (no lowercase and no symbols back then :) ) scene!
What he is, however nice, is a traitor who is using his knowledge to suppress freedom.
"Troll" here is apparently defined as any post that dares to criticize Apple or its cult.
And that will concern me the minute the ISPs with those Bayesian filters start accumulating a consumer profile based on them, serving me ads, and offering the profiles for sale to the highest bidder (which will happen--if the privacy policy doesn't allow it now, it'll be amended to allow it. "I'll make it legal" comes immediately to mind.)
That's entirely laughable. If you think for one moment that the ECPA is going to stop someone with access and interest from reading your email, you're terribly naive. It might stop them from divulging that they read your email, and make them carefully search out plausible public sources for the information they gleaned from it before acting on any of it, but it sure as heck won't stop them from reading it.
Amen to that. There must be a packet of Kool-Aid packaged with every Mac :).
Not having looked for it, I can't know. But I suspect it made it to Usenet and could again were someone to request it in an appropriately named group.
India and China are hardly the poster children for any sort of intellectual property protection. Granted, they have Draconian governments, but I don't see how that will keep a lid on downloads of Britney and all.
Done.
And the v-chip doesn't lock down what the owner of a TV set can do, which is probably why it wasn't violently and widely opposed like the SSSCA, the CBDTPA, and any successors will be.
Can they? I don't imagine Apple would accomodate that even if the indies asked.
- not be accepted in the marketplace--information moves too fast for even today's sheep-like consumers to be fooled that easily
- be cracked anyway
The industry is still making billions of dollars a year selling Red Book CDs with no DRM. But they want to move towards a pay per play model with DRM. And I'm the prick?I hope they're paying you well. Protect my rights? That's a good one. In any case, the only arbitror of whether it's a "market-oriented alternative" is whether it succeeds or fails. It looks like iTMS is doing OK, even hobbled by DRM, so it may have a shot. But the barrier to a real "market oriented alternative" is the RIAA members' oligopoly on distribution which would prevent the sale of lossless, non-restricted tracks.
The "market" isn't restricting anything here; the RIAA is fighting the market.
I'd like to think that Apple is doing this reluctantly, but they've used the threat of litigation against individuals and small organizations too many times in the past to give them the benefit of the doubt. They're like a smaller version of Microsoft--just as evil, but with style and with better PR.
LOL :). I'll hold my breath. The nice thing about being a CS student in the U.S. is being judgment proof. Given trends towards outsourcing, I'll probably be able to maintain that status as long as necessary after graduation.
The only "unconditional surrender" that will be accepted is that of the industry. There is no putting the toothpasted back into the tube. They'll sell us music on our terms, or not sell us music at all, because their distribution oligopoly will not protect them from the Internet.
By trying to sue something off the Internet, you only ensure its wider propagation and interest among people who otherwise wouldn't have cared. I'll be sharing a tarball on eMule immediately. Come and sue everybody, Apple.
Are you a lawyer? Law student at least? It is quite possible that there is law that would show such duty exists (copyright, trademark, obscenity, DMCA, contributory infringement), and that the fact that they have in the past suppressed results at the behest of a corporation, government, or what not would put them in a position of liability. Claiming that all the complex issues that could intertwine to provide a convincing theory of liability could not possibly exist is naive. If you're not a lawyer, your exhortation to "study a little law" is, well, without merit.
Since the Zoo system is primarily meant to be used to hide comments, I thought I had been posting (what I thought of as) thoughtful replies and was a bit irritated that they might never have been seen.
I understand that you wish to preserve the power of the word "censorship." Others with to preserve the power of words like "pirate" and "hacker," to no avail. Once the majority changes their definition of the word, the definition has changed. Unfortunate, but true.
In any case, what Google is doing is bad--even if one agrees that no one should see this clip or discussion about it, it harms their reputation as an impartial indexer of content. Their actions in Germany smack of excessive coziness with government, which to me would make them near a censor by your own definition. I'm sure the folks at Google feel like they're not engaging in anything like censorship--they would argue that they don't want their service used to find such dreck. But once they've given up their impartiality, they can't be trusted.
I don't understand why a global context would be a necessary component of censorship. Is not Germany's (attempted) suppression of Nazi literature censorship, though it has little effect outside her borders?
Sheesh--disagree with you and make your foes list? Nice to be the first, anyway.
My first sentence wasn't fair--I apologize. One more question, if I may. If your ISP nullrouted a site containing this kind of material, would that or would that not constitute censorship?
You betray your intent to censor by referring to the material as filth. Google has taken deliberate steps to suppress this material, which, despite hair-splitting, meets the commonly used definition of censorship. Google should tread carefully in this sort of area, lest it find itself liable for things it fails to suppress some time in the future.
Why wouldn't the evidence be public record?