Can we stop trying to make everything about money and just let people enjoy the classics already instead of copyright holding every fucking thing of culture hostage?
Apparently not. There are plenty of ways a government could fix this, but there isn't enough interest among voters to make this a ballot-deciding issue.
I've seen a few proposals that wouldn't appear to facially violate the Berne Convention's prohibition of formalities:
Property taxation
People who refer to copyrights as "intellectual property" would love this: Starting 28 years after first publication, require each owner of copyright in any published work that is not available under a free or reasonable uniform-royalty nonexclusive license to pay a recurring tax. This tax would fund libraries. Infringement of copyright in a work with substantially delinquent "intellectual property tax" is forgivable, as bringing suit for infringement would amount to confessing to tax evasion.
Eminent domain
The government assesses the fair market value of a published work's copyright, and if citizens pay this amount to the government, the government acquires a nonexclusive license to the work under a compulsory purchase.
Combining the two
The copyright owner assesses the value of a published work's copyright and periodically pays a percentage of this as tax. A copyright owner has an incentive to value its copyrights accurately: not too high in order to decrease tax liability but not too low in order to keep the work from entering the publ^W eminent domain.
To attack the cryptocurrency on which a decentralized organization relies: Attack the miners through electric power use regulation and accusations of income tax evasion. Attack the exchanges through money transfer regulation.
They could find a "friendly" jurisdiction with a sympathetic judge just as patent trolls do.
NPEs filing suit in NPE-friendly judicial districts state a cause of action, namely patent infringement. What cause of action under copyright or any other law would a label have against an entity performing a sound recording or musical work whose copyright does not belong to that label?
There are also numerous other ways to harass them using the legal system other than copyright law.
Unless Audius is going to pitch to unsigned actual musicians
That appears to be the case. Audius is starting with recording artists who are "unsigned" (in the sense that they own their own recordings) and are frustrated with SoundCloud's lack of revenue tools.
When major record labels sued Napster (A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001)), they had clear grounds to do so: Napster was infringing the copyright in the plaintiffs' recordings. Assuming Audius is obtaining permission from the owner of copyright in each recording and underlying musical work performed through its service, what grounds would the incumbent labels have to sue Audius and not have the suit discharged with prejudice as frivolous in summary judgment?
But for those who do care, Certificate Transparency monitoring is probably cheaper than an EV certificate. If you disagree: Let's say you were to start a website. How would you afford your website's EV certificate as well as the fee to form an LLC in order to qualify therefor?
I believe that job is called a notary. And you're right that a notary firm operating in multiple villages would have the resources to build the web beyond one geographic area.
Hell, the DMV ought to, establishing identification is half of their job anyway.
Even so, good luck getting that, or any other new duties of the DMV, past the minarchists in the Republican Party of each U.S. state.
English speakers use "one" or "someone" as the impersonal pronoun. For example, your comment could be reworded as follows: "Someone who can't set up a cron job shouldn't be in charge of an Internet-facing machine altogether."
Let's Encrypt depends on the TXT record for the dns-01 challenge. It does not for the http-01 challenge; it instead depends on having a public-facing web server as opposed to one behind the firewall.
Also a trojan horse for security in the internet because now with let's decrypt anyone can do MITM with a valid certificate.
This MITM would have to intercept the server's connection to the Internet through several paths at every renewal time, and the rightful owner of the domain would notice the misissued certificate through Certificate Transparency logs.
We as users should accept no less than mandatory EV everything.
That'd be fine if all major domain registrars offered a way to let a cron job update your domain's TXT records. I'm under the impression that many do not. Many dynamic DNS providers don't support TXT records at all.
You mentioned the Wikipedia article "Web of trust". It acknowledges that getting your key signed for the first time is impractical for many. True, a key signing party will help your key become trusted in the same village. But that doesn't help you build a robust set of paths through the web of trust to users on the other side of the planet unless several people who attended the same key signing party also routinely travel internationally to key signing parties in other countries. And with the U.S. TSA and other national air travel regulators ramping up their security theater in response to terrorist threats, international travel has become more impractical over time. The terrorists have won.
At least a Nintendo DS has a Control Pad, four face buttons, two shoulder buttons, and two system buttons. It's why a lot of game genres work better on a DS or 3DS than on the flat sheet of glass that is the input device of an iPhone or Android phone.
Frankly, not mobile-only chat apps, I'd rather either (a) use another chat app
Good luck getting your contacts to switch from their preferred chat app to your preferred chat app, especially if it uses a protocol without built-in support for battery-efficient push notifications, attachments, or offline messaging (such as IRC). I keep having to turn down requests to join groups on Signal and WhatsApp over this.
or (b) stick it in the nice, padded cell of an Android emulator.
Only if the chat app is (legally) available as an APK, because Android emulators for Windows, macOS, and X11/Linux didn't include a (legal) copy of Google Play Store last I checked.
How would "file access permissions" help if I'm running the application under my own user account? It has permission to read everything that I have permission to read. In order to use the user/group/world permission system, I'm under the impression that I'd have to put each application under its own user account.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we stop trying to make everything about money and just let people enjoy the classics already instead of copyright holding every fucking thing of culture hostage?
Apparently not. There are plenty of ways a government could fix this, but there isn't enough interest among voters to make this a ballot-deciding issue.
I've seen a few proposals that wouldn't appear to facially violate the Berne Convention's prohibition of formalities:
Property taxation People who refer to copyrights as "intellectual property" would love this: Starting 28 years after first publication, require each owner of copyright in any published work that is not available under a free or reasonable uniform-royalty nonexclusive license to pay a recurring tax. This tax would fund libraries. Infringement of copyright in a work with substantially delinquent "intellectual property tax" is forgivable, as bringing suit for infringement would amount to confessing to tax evasion. Eminent domain The government assesses the fair market value of a published work's copyright, and if citizens pay this amount to the government, the government acquires a nonexclusive license to the work under a compulsory purchase. Combining the two The copyright owner assesses the value of a published work's copyright and periodically pays a percentage of this as tax. A copyright owner has an incentive to value its copyrights accurately: not too high in order to decrease tax liability but not too low in order to keep the work from entering the publ^W eminent domain.To attack the cryptocurrency on which a decentralized organization relies:
Attack the miners through electric power use regulation and accusations of income tax evasion.
Attack the exchanges through money transfer regulation.
They could find a "friendly" jurisdiction with a sympathetic judge just as patent trolls do.
NPEs filing suit in NPE-friendly judicial districts state a cause of action, namely patent infringement. What cause of action under copyright or any other law would a label have against an entity performing a sound recording or musical work whose copyright does not belong to that label?
There are also numerous other ways to harass them using the legal system other than copyright law.
What might these "numerous" causes of action be?
Unless Audius is going to pitch to unsigned actual musicians
That appears to be the case. Audius is starting with recording artists who are "unsigned" (in the sense that they own their own recordings) and are frustrated with SoundCloud's lack of revenue tools.
When the World Wide Web was released to the public, it caused a bubble that burst in 2001. "Pets.com: Because pets can't drive."
When major record labels sued Napster ( A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001)), they had clear grounds to do so: Napster was infringing the copyright in the plaintiffs' recordings. Assuming Audius is obtaining permission from the owner of copyright in each recording and underlying musical work performed through its service, what grounds would the incumbent labels have to sue Audius and not have the suit discharged with prejudice as frivolous in summary judgment?
Vulkan and Metal are graphics API which define not just content but processing and coding of content.
So do JavaScript and the DOM API.
If Apple wants something in the new version, the group has to agree to it.
How isn't the same true of JavaScript and the DOM API?
How exactly is relying on W3C for the web API "not remotely close to [...] relying on a standards body for the graphics API"?
Apple's implementation of HTML processing is called WebKit. It's used in the Safari web browser for macOS and iOS.
But for those who do care, Certificate Transparency monitoring is probably cheaper than an EV certificate. If you disagree: Let's say you were to start a website. How would you afford your website's EV certificate as well as the fee to form an LLC in order to qualify therefor?
It's Google's fault for trying to strong-arm HTTPS-only.
It's not even only Google. Mozilla is on the same track of deprecating cleartext HTTP, according to its HTTPS FAQ from May 2015.
So establishing the web could be somebody's job.
I believe that job is called a notary. And you're right that a notary firm operating in multiple villages would have the resources to build the web beyond one geographic area.
Hell, the DMV ought to, establishing identification is half of their job anyway.
Even so, good luck getting that, or any other new duties of the DMV, past the minarchists in the Republican Party of each U.S. state.
English speakers use "one" or "someone" as the impersonal pronoun. For example, your comment could be reworded as follows: "Someone who can't set up a cron job shouldn't be in charge of an Internet-facing machine altogether."
Let's Encrypt depends on the TXT record for the dns-01 challenge. It does not for the http-01 challenge; it instead depends on having a public-facing web server as opposed to one behind the firewall.
Web browsers require HTTPS for some JavaScript APIs, even on non-Internet-facing machines such as a NAS box on your home LAN.
Also a trojan horse for security in the internet because now with let's decrypt anyone can do MITM with a valid certificate.
This MITM would have to intercept the server's connection to the Internet through several paths at every renewal time, and the rightful owner of the domain would notice the misissued certificate through Certificate Transparency logs.
We as users should accept no less than mandatory EV everything.
Are you buying?
*BSD uses Mozilla's root certificate bundle.
FreeBSD The port port security/ca_root_nss provides Mozilla roots. (Source: chatwizrd's post). NetBSD The package security/mozilla-rootcerts provides Mozilla roots. OpenBSD This libressl commit states that OpenBSD's LibreSSL library provides Mozilla roots.That'd be fine if all major domain registrars offered a way to let a cron job update your domain's TXT records. I'm under the impression that many do not. Many dynamic DNS providers don't support TXT records at all.
You mentioned the Wikipedia article "Web of trust". It acknowledges that getting your key signed for the first time is impractical for many. True, a key signing party will help your key become trusted in the same village. But that doesn't help you build a robust set of paths through the web of trust to users on the other side of the planet unless several people who attended the same key signing party also routinely travel internationally to key signing parties in other countries. And with the U.S. TSA and other national air travel regulators ramping up their security theater in response to terrorist threats, international travel has become more impractical over time. The terrorists have won.
Caller ID takes care of the imaginary problem you pose above
Many landline subscribers opted out of Caller ID because telcos charged an extra $100 per year to add Caller ID to a line.
Some people anyway ignore "apps" and only use the web browser, having been trained to do that on the desktop.
And many sites' mobile view is just a button to download the associated app. Pandora Radio (US) is one example.
Because this sounds like a Nintendo DS to me.
At least a Nintendo DS has a Control Pad, four face buttons, two shoulder buttons, and two system buttons. It's why a lot of game genres work better on a DS or 3DS than on the flat sheet of glass that is the input device of an iPhone or Android phone.
Frankly, not mobile-only chat apps, I'd rather either (a) use another chat app
Good luck getting your contacts to switch from their preferred chat app to your preferred chat app, especially if it uses a protocol without built-in support for battery-efficient push notifications, attachments, or offline messaging (such as IRC). I keep having to turn down requests to join groups on Signal and WhatsApp over this.
or (b) stick it in the nice, padded cell of an Android emulator.
Only if the chat app is (legally) available as an APK, because Android emulators for Windows, macOS, and X11/Linux didn't include a (legal) copy of Google Play Store last I checked.
That or don't install software you don't trust.
What steps should an end user take to determine what software to trust?
How would "file access permissions" help if I'm running the application under my own user account? It has permission to read everything that I have permission to read. In order to use the user/group/world permission system, I'm under the impression that I'd have to put each application under its own user account.