So now Utube is suing YouTube seeking a cease and desist on the youtube domain (I wonder if they think Google's pockets might be deeper that the previous owners)
If all they're seeking is a cease and desist order, then Google's big pockets are not a perk. It's the exact opposite. If they're just seeking injunctive relief and not damages, then Google's deep pockets just mean a harder, longer and much more expensive fight.
Yes, that's exactly the concept I was referring to (thanks for finding it!). And I do believe that it would provide some relief to future offenders. After reviewing that Wikipedia article, it seems likely that it would apply most directly to other Usenet providers. Giganews, for example, can look at this situation with GUBA, and determine that, despite knowing about infringing material on GUBA, the MPAA is not taking action. Thus, the MPAA is choosing not to enforce their copyrights on Usenet, and Giganews can invoke laches as a defense for any infringment that occurs after that observation has been made.
There is almost nothing available through torrents which hasn't been posted to Usenet within the past 90 days. So, if you have a Usenet provider with 3 months' retention (e.g. Giganews), Usenet is huge. But more importantly, unlike a torrent, it's reliable. You may find a torrent, but if it has no seeds, you can't download the files. With Usenet, if you've found the articles, the only limit is the speed of the connection between you and your provider.
Actually, it hurts future arguments they try to make against other infringers, or at least it should (the law has a funny way of bending in the favor of these major copyright holders/campaign contributors). See, owners of intellectual propery are charged with a responsibility called due diligence. They are required to take reasonable action to protect their property, or they lose the ability to enforce their rights at all.
If they want to openly give permission to GUBA to distribute copyrighted material, that's one thing. But to overlook what would otherwise be considered outright infringement, they are neglecting their responsibility of due diligence. They aren't necessarily required to take the -same- action against each violator, but flat out refusing to even respond when provided with proof that infringement is taking place effectively condones the act of infringing, and not just by GUBA.
I'm certainly no authority on this topic, but that's my understanding.
That's the problem. These things never become "more clear". They are consistently announced in conjunction with key political events in order to increase FUD over national security. Clarifying information is never forthcoming, key documents remain classified, and as soon as the media stops discussing it, it quickly fades from public memory. Were this not the prevailing precedent that had been set by nearly every previous event of this nature, I would fully agree with you that it would be imprudent to write this off as a political maneuver, but that just isn't the case.
Since QBox's title is for requiring the most computing power to carry out its intended application, Vista may well unseat it. It's just that QBox's intended application is extremely complex quantum physics calculations, and Vista's intended application is letting people check their email. So... not quite a victory for Vista.
If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.
Maybe they will. Maybe this isn't the stroke of marketing genius that everyone here seems to be suggesting it is. The public is pretty dumb when it comes to computers, but they tend to recognize when they're being ripped off. The real question is whether or not they'll decide to do anything about it.
Has anyone seen this "fix"? Unless I'm blind, it doesn't appear to be on Symantec's site. TFA says there's a fix, but never says where to get it from. From Symantec's page:
Symantec Response
This advisory will be updated when product updates to address this issue are available.
I would think that, for the security-conscious system admin, "posting a notice warning against unauthorized access" would probably have been second on the list. Right after setting a fricking password.
If they didn't take the time to password protect the server, I don't think it's safe to assume they did anything else at all to indicate that authorization was needed to access the machine.
Since there is no language or system of symbols which is instinctively understood by humans, coming up with a symbol or something to write on a sign that a generation of people with no knowledge of our civilization would understand is a lost cause.
The best solution is to just use a well defined symbol, such as the nuclear hazard symbol we use now, and plaster it all over the place. The first time it's encountered, it won't mean anything. But after the 5th guy dies soon after building his hut near one of those signs, the rest would catch on, and the symbol would develop meaning within their civilization. This is how humanity has always learned what is safe and not safe, and where good and bad places to live exist.
I think what that's stating is that the $1.1 million was spent on security above and beyond what would have otherwise been provided by hotels and transportation services. That's just my interpretation, but that would mean that the $1.1 million is still just a business-related travel expense. Regardless, it clearly cannot be considered a payment to Bezos.
I'm not really sure I see what the big deal is. While $1.1 million might seem like an excessive amount to spend on security for one person, it isn't compensation to Bezos. It's an expenditure for security of a company official while he's conducting company business, not a paycheck.
My point was not that you don't have the choice to block ads or that you are obligated to view them. It is that the content providers rely on ad revenue to fund their business activities. Believe it or not, it costs money to develop and publish original content, and to pay for bandwidth and server costs associated with serving it to the public. Whether or not their agreement requires you to view their ads, if you don't, they don't make money and will have no incentive to continue serving you the content. At that point, they either stop serving it to you, or begin charging you the money they would have made had you opted to view their ads.
People who block ads need to be prepared for subscription fees. Any content provider that relies on advertising for revenue will have to resort to subscriptions if viewers block or skip over their ads. In my opinion, if you choose to block ads, that is your choice. It's your hardware and you should be able to decide what your computer downloads and displays. But once you've made the choice to block ads, don't complain when you have to fork up a couple bucks a month for everything you once got for free.
So, on top of the already outrageous eBay and Paypal fees, there will be text messaging fees. I'll be sure to use this on a regular basis. Paypal is already worse than my bank when it comes to ridiculous fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Dead? At the very worst, it's now a free iTunes, and think about how many people pay $1/song to Apple.
Yes, that's exactly the concept I was referring to (thanks for finding it!). And I do believe that it would provide some relief to future offenders. After reviewing that Wikipedia article, it seems likely that it would apply most directly to other Usenet providers. Giganews, for example, can look at this situation with GUBA, and determine that, despite knowing about infringing material on GUBA, the MPAA is not taking action. Thus, the MPAA is choosing not to enforce their copyrights on Usenet, and Giganews can invoke laches as a defense for any infringment that occurs after that observation has been made.
There is almost nothing available through torrents which hasn't been posted to Usenet within the past 90 days. So, if you have a Usenet provider with 3 months' retention (e.g. Giganews), Usenet is huge. But more importantly, unlike a torrent, it's reliable. You may find a torrent, but if it has no seeds, you can't download the files. With Usenet, if you've found the articles, the only limit is the speed of the connection between you and your provider.
Actually, it hurts future arguments they try to make against other infringers, or at least it should (the law has a funny way of bending in the favor of these major copyright holders/campaign contributors). See, owners of intellectual propery are charged with a responsibility called due diligence. They are required to take reasonable action to protect their property, or they lose the ability to enforce their rights at all. If they want to openly give permission to GUBA to distribute copyrighted material, that's one thing. But to overlook what would otherwise be considered outright infringement, they are neglecting their responsibility of due diligence. They aren't necessarily required to take the -same- action against each violator, but flat out refusing to even respond when provided with proof that infringement is taking place effectively condones the act of infringing, and not just by GUBA. I'm certainly no authority on this topic, but that's my understanding.
Obviously, this does not apply to Senator Ted Stevens. He clearly has a grasp on modern technology.
The internet is not a big truck!
LFG for WoW Addicts Anonymous, PST
That's the problem. These things never become "more clear". They are consistently announced in conjunction with key political events in order to increase FUD over national security. Clarifying information is never forthcoming, key documents remain classified, and as soon as the media stops discussing it, it quickly fades from public memory. Were this not the prevailing precedent that had been set by nearly every previous event of this nature, I would fully agree with you that it would be imprudent to write this off as a political maneuver, but that just isn't the case.
...but you can't stop Debbie Downer!
Or unmasking? 'Unmaking' doesn't unmake any sense to me.
Since QBox's title is for requiring the most computing power to carry out its intended application, Vista may well unseat it. It's just that QBox's intended application is extremely complex quantum physics calculations, and Vista's intended application is letting people check their email. So... not quite a victory for Vista.
Maybe they will. Maybe this isn't the stroke of marketing genius that everyone here seems to be suggesting it is. The public is pretty dumb when it comes to computers, but they tend to recognize when they're being ripped off. The real question is whether or not they'll decide to do anything about it.
Now introducing... White Castle RiceBurgers! They contradict themselves...
I would think that, for the security-conscious system admin, "posting a notice warning against unauthorized access" would probably have been second on the list. Right after setting a fricking password.
If they didn't take the time to password protect the server, I don't think it's safe to assume they did anything else at all to indicate that authorization was needed to access the machine.
Yes: http://www.pysol.org/
Since there is no language or system of symbols which is instinctively understood by humans, coming up with a symbol or something to write on a sign that a generation of people with no knowledge of our civilization would understand is a lost cause.
The best solution is to just use a well defined symbol, such as the nuclear hazard symbol we use now, and plaster it all over the place. The first time it's encountered, it won't mean anything. But after the 5th guy dies soon after building his hut near one of those signs, the rest would catch on, and the symbol would develop meaning within their civilization. This is how humanity has always learned what is safe and not safe, and where good and bad places to live exist.
One step closer to sharks with frickin' laser beams!
Please stop the hurting and put these poor creatures out of their misery.
;-)
Welcome to a lifetime of Secret Service surveillance.
I think what that's stating is that the $1.1 million was spent on security above and beyond what would have otherwise been provided by hotels and transportation services. That's just my interpretation, but that would mean that the $1.1 million is still just a business-related travel expense. Regardless, it clearly cannot be considered a payment to Bezos.
I'm not really sure I see what the big deal is. While $1.1 million might seem like an excessive amount to spend on security for one person, it isn't compensation to Bezos. It's an expenditure for security of a company official while he's conducting company business, not a paycheck.
My point was not that you don't have the choice to block ads or that you are obligated to view them. It is that the content providers rely on ad revenue to fund their business activities. Believe it or not, it costs money to develop and publish original content, and to pay for bandwidth and server costs associated with serving it to the public. Whether or not their agreement requires you to view their ads, if you don't, they don't make money and will have no incentive to continue serving you the content. At that point, they either stop serving it to you, or begin charging you the money they would have made had you opted to view their ads.
People who block ads need to be prepared for subscription fees. Any content provider that relies on advertising for revenue will have to resort to subscriptions if viewers block or skip over their ads. In my opinion, if you choose to block ads, that is your choice. It's your hardware and you should be able to decide what your computer downloads and displays. But once you've made the choice to block ads, don't complain when you have to fork up a couple bucks a month for everything you once got for free.
So, on top of the already outrageous eBay and Paypal fees, there will be text messaging fees. I'll be sure to use this on a regular basis. Paypal is already worse than my bank when it comes to ridiculous fees.
Sorry, I didn't intend that as trolling, and should have checked my facts first.