There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
False. Prince owns a partial stake in the recording.
Have you ever been on TV? I did one of those TV talent shows about 5 years ago, and I had to sign a contract granting my share of the mechanicals for my recorded performance to the TV company. A person has a stake in any recordings he is in, unless he A) waives that right (either by signing it away explicitly as I did, or by performing where he is aware filming is taking place) or B) is incidental to the recording (eg a passer-by walking past an on-scene TV reporter doesn't own the news program).
Prince presumably knows all this, so is in the right.
Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed
That sounds a lot more like 'If I write a song, you have to get a license from me to perfom it' than it does 'If you perform a song, you automatically have the rights to any recording anyone happened to make of the performance (unless, of course, you wrote it)"
Well yes. But there are other factors in play not covered by that single quoted clause.
If someone makes a recording of me, I do not automatically have complete ownership, but neither does he. Neither of us can exploit the recording without the other's express permission. But if you look at countries with a life+X copyright term on recorded works, you'll see that it's the performers lifespan that is looked at first. (In cinema, this is usually extended to director, sound director and principal actors.)
I mean, if the artist has no stake in the copyright of the recording why is Prince richer than his recording engineer (who would technically then be copyright holder)?
AFAIK (IANAL), if I make an illegal recording I am not allowed to use it (as the creator of the work has not granted me permission) but equally no-one else can use it without my permission (as owner of the recording).
Both the performer's and the recorder's rights are protected by copyright.
There will have been signs up saying "no recording" or the like, so the cameraman knew he didn't have permission to make the recording.
If you're really that desperate for privacy, turn your phone off!
But conversely, my kidnapper is likely to switch my phone off. I'm not likely to make any calls (except to emergency services) if I'm lying injured in a ditch.
If my phone is on, working and making calls at semi-regular intervals, I'm probably OK.
Right from the start it was clear that audio captchas were theoretically easier to break than visual ones.
An image captcha is designed to require a mixture of perception and thought, but an audio one has to rely on pure perception, because it's temporary. You hear it then it's gone: you can't analyse it. This makes it infinitely less complicated that a video one.
It's only because of low uptake that it's taken so long for a true proof-of-concept attack.
You're missing the point: clause 7 says that an "aggragate" work (a compilation of various documents) does not constitute a derivative work. The GFDL applies to each individual document separately.
The question is what constitutes a single document. Would the law uphold that a Wikipedia article is an independent document, or would it classify the whole of Wikipedia as a single document? While the use of hyperlinks may suggest the latter, if we were to extend this argument to its logical conclusion, the whole internet could be described as one document. But maybe that's a bit of a strawman.
Anyway, I would argue that each article is an individual, self-contained document; thus the book is an aggragate work not governed as a single entity by the GFDL. As such, the German publisher may be able to legally block others from bringing out a substantially similar competing book.
Now I only know about the UK, but I'd be interested to hear a judgement on the compatibility between the GFDL (or similar) and the UK classification of "typographical arrangements".
Basically, a typographical arrangement (TA) is a collection of multiple works into a single volume. A TA has copyright protection for 25 years from the end of the year of first publication.
The idea is that I can research, for example, 18th century hymns and gather them into a single book. The hymns themselves aren't under copyright, so it would be no great work for someone else to replicate my hymnal, right down to hymn numbers and page numbers, undercut me and devalue my life's work.
So TA protection came along to protect my work. You can make something just as good if you want, but you can't make exactly the same thing (or even something substantially similar). So there.
I'm sure other countries must have similar laws regarding collections, compilations, albums or similar TAs.
Let's have a look at clause 7 of the GFDL:
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
Does each Wikipedia article constitute a "separate and independent document"? If so, the GFDL allows copyright protection to subsist on the compilation ("aggregate" in the GFDL's terms), even though every scrap of text is individually GFDLed....
Cutting all of that out of the loop would make nuclear power so hilariously efficient that nobody would care about the waste storage (we wouldn't need much of it anyway).
Actually, you've missed an important point about nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is dangerous because it's still radioactive. However, it's useless because it's no longer fissile and hence can't be used in a nuclear power plant.
This technology should be just as efficient with nuclear waste as with fissile materials. However, the problem with this technology is time. Fission releases a lot of energy very quickly, but most most common radioisotopes have very long half-lifes, releasing their radiation over thousands of years. (Anything with a short half-life will have "died" millenia ago.) The applications for this will be relatively low-power, long-term projects.
Well, I'm off to make a broth with some nice pearl barley. I'll throw in a few kernals of maize for colour, and I'll serve it with a nice hunk of rye bread. For desert, I think I'll have a nice oat flapjack.
The wheat monoculture thing was never really my bag.
As you see, this information given to the poster has done really nothing to change their "science is just a theory" attitude.
But science is all theory. Nothing is ever truly proven. Anyone who denies that is a fool. You can't accept science without accepting Socrates's definition of knowledge: the only true knowledge comes from knowing that we know nothing. Believing in a "scientific truth" undermines the notion of development; whereas if we accept that our "knowledge" is merely a best guess, we are motivated to challenge received wisdom and refine those guesses to make them better.
If you can't accept this, then science fossilises and becomes a religion, just as religion is arguably a fossilisation of early philosophical thinking (science was originally considered a branch of philosophy, after all).
One of my problems with the Science vs Biblical-Literalism debate is posts like this: anyone who is misguided is immediately suspected of being some crazy fundamentalist loon and the enemy of reason.
You can't start a productive debate by suggesting that your opponent is inherently stupid/ignorant/bigotted.
If you respond in an informed scientific way, anyone open to hearing a rational argument will respond well to you. If, on the other hand, you respond in a way that suggest science isn't for religious people, you actively encourage them to reject scientific thinking.
This polarises the debate -- meaning that it drives moderates to become extremists.
You may think you are promoting science, but you are actually promoting the rejection of science.
Imagine a poor author who's living on Baked Beans on toast, without two pennies to rub together.
He's finally finished his manuscript, and it's a masterpiece.
He can't register it, because he's got no money.
He asks a publisher for the registration fee.
The publisher asks to see the manuscript.
The writer's dilemma: if he shows it to the publisher, they could legally take it and print it without paying him (it's unregistered, remember); if he doesn't show it to the publisher, he'll never have the money to register or publish.
This is pretty much the problem that IP laws were written to solve in the first place! The bathwater is undoubtedly dirty, but don't throw the baby out along with it...
"In particular the Second Circuit ruled that linking on the Internet...could be restrained in ways that might not be constitutional for traditional media" which is why it was perfectly fine for the NYT to
print the hyperlink (which it did). I think the difference comes from the idea of "volition". Taking a URL from a piece of paper and entering it into your browser requires more thought than "click here". If you put it in a newspaper, people are likely to read and consider the text with it, whereas most casual web users read a tiny portion of the page and can't be assumed to understand the consequences of their actions.
Art existed long before copyright did -- but was paid for by a patronising sponsor.
Fixed that for you.
Seriously though, have a look at the works of any court poet or artist and you'll see your looking at the most biased material in existence: rose-tinted eulogies to the wit and genius of witless thickos.
Who would have sponsored Greenday's American Idiot if not the fans? Very few public figures would have been willing to put their name against that album. (And whether you like the album or not, and agree with its sentiment or not, it is a valid form of expression.)
That obligation is trumped by Mozilla's moral obligation to make sure that people who use Mozilla are not vulnerable to an exploit.
No one is suggesting that Mozilla should have delayed the fix (in order to hold back disclosure).
No, it would have been open and responsible and good if someone at Mozilla had thought to send an email to the Opera dev team a week or two ago saying:
Roses are red, violets are blue We're fixing this exploit and think you should too. Lots of Love, Your secret big red monster Valentine.
No need to coordinate releases, but given that it took them a while to patch it, they should assume it'll take Opera a wee while to, and in the meantime they're leaving members of the public open to exploit.
Members of the public that used to use Firefox, but had to stop because Mozilla never fixed the memory leak and these users were using old machines (NT4, 32 meg RAM) and Open Source was supposed to mean never being obsolete, but it was only the non-open, free Opera browser that offered me a fully-patched, fully working browser.
"Natural" is a word of many meanings, but in the context of the scientific theory of evolution, it implies merely the absence of supernatural influence.
Your attempt to draw a distinction between human intelligence and "natural" reflects a dualistic mode of thinking that is itself unscientific and outdated. From the view of science, human intelligence and culture are as natural as any pack of wolves culling a herd.
Shenanigans!
While it is all well and good (and perfectly true) to point out that humans are animals and hence natural and indeed agents of natural selection, this is a diversion from the foundations of Darwinian thought.
Darwin was a child of the industrial revolution. The rate of change and refinement in the design of equipment and tools suddenly became very rapid, and he will have experienced first-hand the power of good design to improve efficiency and fitness-for-purpose.
Darwin's innovation came when he realised that the pressures of the environment could perform this same iterative design process without concious direction. The idea is that nature creates variations through an undirected process of random mutation and the failures are naturally removed. However, human design creates variations by a directed process, reasoning on what would be a good change.
Polynesian canoe builders wouldn't have created variations at random. This means that they aren't exploring as wide a developmental space as nature would have, which actually means eventually reaching an inferior solution, because natural selection often reaches a highly-specialised, but not unique, ideal.
Compare the great auk and the penguin, for example. Both evolved in isolation in different hemispheres and the two were genetically very different, but in phenotype they were to all intents and purposes the same. Two flightless birds who had adapted to swim in polar waters and live on land, both of a similar colouring adapted to their similar terrain. Tasmanian wolves and tigers were marsupials, but took on physical characteristics very similar to dogs and cats as they fulfilled the same function in the eco-system.
But Polynesian canoes remain uniquely Polynesian. Outriggers like theirs don't occur in other similar habitats, and the best solution for sea-faring travel -- the sail -- didn't occur there.
This isn't Darwinian unconcious natural selection, it's industrial/technological concious selection.
First off this wouldn't be some whitehat's haphazard cure worm like the Welchia worm. This worm would proabably be signed by microsoft, made by microsoft.
Microsoft patches have crashed my computer before, and no doubt will do again. (In fact, at one point I had to restore a couple of times before I managed to stop the automatic updates redownloading the patch responsible.) I need to be able to control my update path. A "worm" doesn't do this, but I suspect they aren't really talking about worms in that sense -- they're talking "worm" in the sense of "ooh... we'll get in newspapers if we use this word!"
I wouldn't buy the whole "they may not be able to run three miles and carry a pack" the Air Force is kicking people out left and right for being too fat and lazy. They like to call it "Fit to Fight", even though most of our jobs requirements are "Fit to Sit", they're just trying to cut down on the medical bills they have to pay.
Ah, no.
"mens sana in corpus sana"
And if you don't understand that, it's probably because you haven't done enough exercise....
(*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
In a sense. It will stop sender address spoofing for certain domains. Spammers will stop using those domains. Spam will move elsewhere. But phishers need those domains. A mail from accounts@acmebank.com is more likely to fool an Acme Bank customer than one from Giorgio736@consumeremail.
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once No it doesn't. This isn't a garden wall -- those who don't have the tech will not be excluded. There will be a list of public keys for the opted-in ISPs/domains. If a message is received from a domain for which there is a key, it can be rejected, quarantined or flagged as non-genuine. If a message is received from a domain with no key, it will be let through as before.
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(*) Technically illiterate users
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
Nonsense. The technology is at the ISP end. Users are not affected. So users can't break the tech or render it useless. This technology does not guarantee the sender, only the sending domain. It's not intended as a cure-all: it's an incremental fix. Identity theft is irrelevant.
(*) Outlook
What part of servide-side do you not understand?
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually Sorry -- that makes no sense. I think what you're trying to get at is covered by my response to Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once above.
(*) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
External to the system.
I walk up to a house and announce I'm from Acme Security Company. I have a pass showing I'm from Acme Security company. At best, the pass only identifies me as a legitimate employee of Acme Security -- the pass in itself does not vouch for the integrity of Acme Security as a company.
Now contrast signed mail from AcmeBank.com with ConsumerEmail.com . We know that anyone sending from AcmeBank.com is a member of staff of AcmeBank.com, whereas an email from ConsumerEmail.com has ben sent by a member of the public. Even though we have equal guarantees of the originating domain, we can make a judgement on trustiworthiness using a simple list. But if rogue email starts being identified as originating on the AcmeBank.com domain, we can reduce their trust or blacklist them.
Two different tasks, two different processes, two different technologies.
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
I disagree -- and the irritating thing is that we should have implemented this a decade ago.
I only wish that I knew more languages so that I could teach them at this young age so they'd be fluent
Do what my mum did: buy albums of kids songs in foreign languages (in my case only French). When I was about four, I could sing in a perfect French accent. Didn't have a clue what I was saying, but the accent was there. When I started learning French about 8 years later I had no problems. My ear was primed and my mouth was primed, so I could handle the sound system without problems, and it's the sounding like a foreigner/lunatic that frustrates most people when learning languages.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot hold a copyright on a performance.
True.
You can hold a copyright on a recording.
True.
There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
False. Prince owns a partial stake in the recording.
Have you ever been on TV? I did one of those TV talent shows about 5 years ago, and I had to sign a contract granting my share of the mechanicals for my recorded performance to the TV company. A person has a stake in any recordings he is in, unless he A) waives that right (either by signing it away explicitly as I did, or by performing where he is aware filming is taking place) or B) is incidental to the recording (eg a passer-by walking past an on-scene TV reporter doesn't own the news program).
Prince presumably knows all this, so is in the right.
HAL.
Well yes. But there are other factors in play not covered by that single quoted clause.
If someone makes a recording of me, I do not automatically have complete ownership, but neither does he. Neither of us can exploit the recording without the other's express permission. But if you look at countries with a life+X copyright term on recorded works, you'll see that it's the performers lifespan that is looked at first. (In cinema, this is usually extended to director, sound director and principal actors.)
HAL.
Moot? I'm not convinced.
I mean, if the artist has no stake in the copyright of the recording why is Prince richer than his recording engineer (who would technically then be copyright holder)?
AFAIK (IANAL), if I make an illegal recording I am not allowed to use it (as the creator of the work has not granted me permission) but equally no-one else can use it without my permission (as owner of the recording).
Both the performer's and the recorder's rights are protected by copyright.
There will have been signs up saying "no recording" or the like, so the cameraman knew he didn't have permission to make the recording.
HAL.
I thought there was something funny there. $4 million spacecraft. $80 million. =>20 spacecraft? Unlikely.
But what you said makes more sense.
Of course, I could have read TFA myself, but why bother duplicate effort when someone else has already read it?
I call this philosophy Slashdot OpenRTFA.
HAL.
How can you "make good money" on an "NC" (non-commercial license?
Who do I sue?
HAL.
But conversely, my kidnapper is likely to switch my phone off. I'm not likely to make any calls (except to emergency services) if I'm lying injured in a ditch.
If my phone is on, working and making calls at semi-regular intervals, I'm probably OK.
HAL.
I think your explanation is missing something, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.
OK, I'll be more brief:
Audio captchas require on-line real-time processing by the human brain.
Picture captchas can be processed off-line.
Audio captchas therefore are harder to process, so effectively have to have a lower information bandwidth.
The lower the information content, the less computer processing required to process it.
Questions can never be culture-neutral, and any ability to cherry-pick questions reduces the complexity of the task for an automated hack.
HAL.
Right from the start it was clear that audio captchas were theoretically easier to break than visual ones.
An image captcha is designed to require a mixture of perception and thought, but an audio one has to rely on pure perception, because it's temporary. You hear it then it's gone: you can't analyse it. This makes it infinitely less complicated that a video one.
It's only because of low uptake that it's taken so long for a true proof-of-concept attack.
HAL.
You're missing the point: clause 7 says that an "aggragate" work (a compilation of various documents) does not constitute a derivative work. The GFDL applies to each individual document separately.
The question is what constitutes a single document. Would the law uphold that a Wikipedia article is an independent document, or would it classify the whole of Wikipedia as a single document? While the use of hyperlinks may suggest the latter, if we were to extend this argument to its logical conclusion, the whole internet could be described as one document. But maybe that's a bit of a strawman.
Anyway, I would argue that each article is an individual, self-contained document; thus the book is an aggragate work not governed as a single entity by the GFDL. As such, the German publisher may be able to legally block others from bringing out a substantially similar competing book.
HAL.
Now I only know about the UK, but I'd be interested to hear a judgement on the compatibility between the GFDL (or similar) and the UK classification of "typographical arrangements".
Basically, a typographical arrangement (TA) is a collection of multiple works into a single volume. A TA has copyright protection for 25 years from the end of the year of first publication.
The idea is that I can research, for example, 18th century hymns and gather them into a single book. The hymns themselves aren't under copyright, so it would be no great work for someone else to replicate my hymnal, right down to hymn numbers and page numbers, undercut me and devalue my life's work.
So TA protection came along to protect my work. You can make something just as good if you want, but you can't make exactly the same thing (or even something substantially similar). So there.
I'm sure other countries must have similar laws regarding collections, compilations, albums or similar TAs.
Let's have a look at clause 7 of the GFDL:
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.Does each Wikipedia article constitute a "separate and independent document"? If so, the GFDL allows copyright protection to subsist on the compilation ("aggregate" in the GFDL's terms), even though every scrap of text is individually GFDLed....
HAL.
Yes. E20 is 107% of the net price. The vat (7/107 of 20 Euros) is therefore 1.31 Euros.
Cutting all of that out of the loop would make nuclear power so hilariously efficient that nobody would care about the waste storage (we wouldn't need much of it anyway).
Actually, you've missed an important point about nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is dangerous because it's still radioactive. However, it's useless because it's no longer fissile and hence can't be used in a nuclear power plant.
This technology should be just as efficient with nuclear waste as with fissile materials. However, the problem with this technology is time. Fission releases a lot of energy very quickly, but most most common radioisotopes have very long half-lifes, releasing their radiation over thousands of years. (Anything with a short half-life will have "died" millenia ago.) The applications for this will be relatively low-power, long-term projects.
HAL.
Well, I'm off to make a broth with some nice pearl barley. I'll throw in a few kernals of maize for colour, and I'll serve it with a nice hunk of rye bread. For desert, I think I'll have a nice oat flapjack.
The wheat monoculture thing was never really my bag.
HAL.
As you see, this information given to the poster has done really nothing to change their "science is just a theory" attitude.
But science is all theory. Nothing is ever truly proven. Anyone who denies that is a fool. You can't accept science without accepting Socrates's definition of knowledge: the only true knowledge comes from knowing that we know nothing. Believing in a "scientific truth" undermines the notion of development; whereas if we accept that our "knowledge" is merely a best guess, we are motivated to challenge received wisdom and refine those guesses to make them better.
If you can't accept this, then science fossilises and becomes a religion, just as religion is arguably a fossilisation of early philosophical thinking (science was originally considered a branch of philosophy, after all).
HAL.
One of my problems with the Science vs Biblical-Literalism debate is posts like this: anyone who is misguided is immediately suspected of being some crazy fundamentalist loon and the enemy of reason.
You can't start a productive debate by suggesting that your opponent is inherently stupid/ignorant/bigotted.
If you respond in an informed scientific way, anyone open to hearing a rational argument will respond well to you. If, on the other hand, you respond in a way that suggest science isn't for religious people, you actively encourage them to reject scientific thinking.
This polarises the debate -- meaning that it drives moderates to become extremists.
You may think you are promoting science, but you are actually promoting the rejection of science.
With friends like you, does science need enemies.
HAL.
Imagine a poor author who's living on Baked Beans on toast, without two pennies to rub together.
He's finally finished his manuscript, and it's a masterpiece.He can't register it, because he's got no money.
He asks a publisher for the registration fee.
The publisher asks to see the manuscript.
The writer's dilemma: if he shows it to the publisher, they could legally take it and print it without paying him (it's unregistered, remember); if he doesn't show it to the publisher, he'll never have the money to register or publish.
This is pretty much the problem that IP laws were written to solve in the first place! The bathwater is undoubtedly dirty, but don't throw the baby out along with it...
HAL.
HAL.
Fixed that for you.
Seriously though, have a look at the works of any court poet or artist and you'll see your looking at the most biased material in existence: rose-tinted eulogies to the wit and genius of witless thickos.
Who would have sponsored Greenday's American Idiot if not the fans? Very few public figures would have been willing to put their name against that album. (And whether you like the album or not, and agree with its sentiment or not, it is a valid form of expression.)
Let's not go back to that, please.
HAL.
No one is suggesting that Mozilla should have delayed the fix (in order to hold back disclosure).
No, it would have been open and responsible and good if someone at Mozilla had thought to send an email to the Opera dev team a week or two ago saying:
Roses are red, violets are blueWe're fixing this exploit and think you should too.
Lots of Love,
Your secret big red monster Valentine.
No need to coordinate releases, but given that it took them a while to patch it, they should assume it'll take Opera a wee while to, and in the meantime they're leaving members of the public open to exploit.
Members of the public that used to use Firefox, but had to stop because Mozilla never fixed the memory leak and these users were using old machines (NT4, 32 meg RAM) and Open Source was supposed to mean never being obsolete, but it was only the non-open, free Opera browser that offered me a fully-patched, fully working browser.
HAL.
Your attempt to draw a distinction between human intelligence and "natural" reflects a dualistic mode of thinking that is itself unscientific and outdated. From the view of science, human intelligence and culture are as natural as any pack of wolves culling a herd.
Shenanigans!
While it is all well and good (and perfectly true) to point out that humans are animals and hence natural and indeed agents of natural selection, this is a diversion from the foundations of Darwinian thought.
Darwin was a child of the industrial revolution. The rate of change and refinement in the design of equipment and tools suddenly became very rapid, and he will have experienced first-hand the power of good design to improve efficiency and fitness-for-purpose.
Darwin's innovation came when he realised that the pressures of the environment could perform this same iterative design process without concious direction. The idea is that nature creates variations through an undirected process of random mutation and the failures are naturally removed. However, human design creates variations by a directed process, reasoning on what would be a good change.
Polynesian canoe builders wouldn't have created variations at random. This means that they aren't exploring as wide a developmental space as nature would have, which actually means eventually reaching an inferior solution, because natural selection often reaches a highly-specialised, but not unique, ideal.
Compare the great auk and the penguin, for example. Both evolved in isolation in different hemispheres and the two were genetically very different, but in phenotype they were to all intents and purposes the same. Two flightless birds who had adapted to swim in polar waters and live on land, both of a similar colouring adapted to their similar terrain. Tasmanian wolves and tigers were marsupials, but took on physical characteristics very similar to dogs and cats as they fulfilled the same function in the eco-system.
But Polynesian canoes remain uniquely Polynesian. Outriggers like theirs don't occur in other similar habitats, and the best solution for sea-faring travel -- the sail -- didn't occur there.
This isn't Darwinian unconcious natural selection, it's industrial/technological concious selection.
HAL.
Microsoft patches have crashed my computer before, and no doubt will do again. (In fact, at one point I had to restore a couple of times before I managed to stop the automatic updates redownloading the patch responsible.) I need to be able to control my update path. A "worm" doesn't do this, but I suspect they aren't really talking about worms in that sense -- they're talking "worm" in the sense of "ooh... we'll get in newspapers if we use this word!"
HAL.
Argh - dative!
HAL.
Ah, no.
"mens sana in corpus sana"
And if you don't understand that, it's probably because you haven't done enough exercise....
HAL.
Shenanigans!
(*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with itIn a sense. It will stop sender address spoofing for certain domains. Spammers will stop using those domains. Spam will move elsewhere. But phishers need those domains. A mail from accounts@acmebank.com is more likely to fool an Acme Bank customer than one from Giorgio736@consumeremail.
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once No it doesn't. This isn't a garden wall -- those who don't have the tech will not be excluded. There will be a list of public keys for the opted-in ISPs/domains. If a message is received from a domain for which there is a key, it can be rejected, quarantined or flagged as non-genuine. If a message is received from a domain with no key, it will be let through as before. Specifically, your plan fails to account for(*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(*) Technically illiterate users
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
Nonsense. The technology is at the ISP end. Users are not affected. So users can't break the tech or render it useless. This technology does not guarantee the sender, only the sending domain. It's not intended as a cure-all: it's an incremental fix. Identity theft is irrelevant.
(*) OutlookWhat part of servide-side do you not understand?
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:(*) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
Sorry -- that makes no sense. I think what you're trying to get at is covered by my response to Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once above. (*) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
External to the system.
I walk up to a house and announce I'm from Acme Security Company. I have a pass showing I'm from Acme Security company. At best, the pass only identifies me as a legitimate employee of Acme Security -- the pass in itself does not vouch for the integrity of Acme Security as a company.
Now contrast signed mail from AcmeBank.com with ConsumerEmail.com . We know that anyone sending from AcmeBank.com is a member of staff of AcmeBank.com, whereas an email from ConsumerEmail.com has ben sent by a member of the public. Even though we have equal guarantees of the originating domain, we can make a judgement on trustiworthiness using a simple list. But if rogue email starts being identified as originating on the AcmeBank.com domain, we can reduce their trust or blacklist them.
Two different tasks, two different processes, two different technologies.
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
I disagree -- and the irritating thing is that we should have implemented this a decade ago.
HAL.
Do what my mum did: buy albums of kids songs in foreign languages (in my case only French). When I was about four, I could sing in a perfect French accent. Didn't have a clue what I was saying, but the accent was there. When I started learning French about 8 years later I had no problems. My ear was primed and my mouth was primed, so I could handle the sound system without problems, and it's the sounding like a foreigner/lunatic that frustrates most people when learning languages.
HAL.