Those secret prisoners that we have are likely located in places where the media and general population aren't talking about.
Ah, you must mean the basement restrooms of MSNBC and Fox News. I never hear anyone talking about those places on the air or at the water-cooler, and it makes you wonder what is really happening down there.
There is a very limited market for "dumb" TVs that "smart" TVs don't fill just as well.
That is, almost everyone who thinks they want a "dumb" TV will choose a "smart" one if the price of the "dumb" one is even $1 more than the "smart" one.
There are some markets where a "smart" TV is just not an option. Any location where policy prohibits any device that's even capable of being connected to a network, such as prisons, come to mind. Another place is where the "smart" devices are perceived as being more likely to be abused/vandalized/stolen than a "dumb" one, such as hotel rooms in high-theft-risk locations. However, most of these users would be perfectly happy with a tuner-less monitor rather than a television, thereby making the question about "dumb TELEVISIONS" irrelevant to them.
I mean EVEN Debian still makes security packages for Potato and Woody!... right?
I don't know if Debian does or not (I'm going to assume not based on your tone), but at least Debian's customers have everything they need (except maybe skill and time) to fix it themselves.
Just looking at dollars and cents, there's no way you can make a blanket statement like that. Every city's housing and rental market is unique and the market today isn't the same as it will be a year from now. The same city that is "better to rent in" today could easily become "better to buy in next year" or vice-versa, while the city a few states over could easily be the other way around both now and a year from now.
There's also the issue of how much house you need. I know of one city that in the mid-2000s at least was better for buyers if you wanted a 3-bedroom suburban home but better for renters if you needed a 1-bedroom accommodation. At least it was after you added in the "volatility-risk cost" of buying a condo (the condo market was much more volatile than the single-family-home market in that city, meaning you could easily either take a bath or walk away with an unexpected bonus if you were forced to sell, say, due to a job transfer).
And this is not even considering the intangibles like "how much do I value not having to go through the hassle of selling when I want to move" and "how much value to I have in not being at the mercy of a landlord who can jack up rents with each lease renewal and/or sell the property to someone who wants to not renew my lease and move in himself."
The real time to buy a lottery ticket is when the expected payout - the payout times the odds that at least one person will draw the winning number - is more than the expected gross revenue since the last drawing.
Here's a simple example: pick 4 numbers from 1 to 100. The odds of winning are 1 in 100,000,000. If 100,000,000,000 million people play every week, then in the first week the odds that SOMEONE will win are close to but not quite 100%, so the expected pay-out is a bit less than $100,000,000. Smart money says don't play.
To keep things simple let's assume that the next week only 100,000,000 new people play. The odds that SOMEONE will win are close to but not quite 100%. They are certainly over 50%. The expected payout will be a bit less than $200,000,000 and certainly more than the $100,000,000 that bettors put on the table this time around. The smart money says play.
If you don't see how this works, assume YOU are the only bettor in week two and you buy all 100,000,000 tickets using a random-number-generator. There will be duplicate bets (if you weren't the only ticket-buyer, these numbers would result in you having to share the prize), but you will cover well over 50,000,000 of the possible combinations. If you win, you more than double your investment, and the odds of you winning are more than 50/50.
Of course in the real world it's almost never going to become a good investment to buy a lottery ticket if all you care about is financial return. Why? Because as the jackpot goes up, people who normally don't buy tickets do so. Why? Some do it for emotional/fantasizing reasons. Some do it so they can tell their grandchildren how they "almost won the big one." Some may do it because they think the number of new tickets sold will be low enough to make it a "smart decision" to buy a ticket.
Bottom line: There may be good reasons to buy a lottery ticket, but "because it's a good investment/because it's a smart gamble" is almost never one of them.
Or rather, do not want unless there it is "off" by default and it's only turned on when I want to turn it on.
While I am okay with a non-signed binary for an in-peson/over-USB-disk upgrade so I can hack my car, when it comes to OTA upgrades that by definition might happen when I'm not controlling the process, the software better be signed by someone I trust.
BUT that purpose is not the only factor that should go into deciding whether publishing the video in a given media or venue is a responsible thing to do.
Nick Ut's photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing a napalm attack sans clothing during the Vietnam conflict was published after careful consideration of the journalistic purposes and other factors. It won a Pulitzer prize.
Better would be one that required the same for searching headers and other meta-data for all live and store-and-forward communication, including snail-mail, and one which would ban retention of this information by carriers after it is no longer needed for delivery- or billing-, or legitimate tracking purposes.
In other words, stop the US Post Office from keeping the to/from information from mailed items for more than a few weeks after the item was delivered (you need to keep it a few weeks in case a customer claims it was never delivered). Similar, force phone companies to delete calling data after the bill has been paid and any bill-dispute time-period has elapsed UNLESS the customer has signed up to have the carrier keep such records.
Is this gonna happen soon? Of course not - it may never happen as long as our country exists in its current form (i.e. all bets are off if there is ever a revolution - which I am *NOT* advocating) - but I still want it.
I expect that the camera-equipped smartphone is decimating the market for cameras that can only do what smartphone cameras can already do.
I also expect that it is decimating the market for that slightly-better cameras that people would have bought if it wasn't included "free" in the phone they already own.
I would be surprised if it is putting a big dent the $700+ market. Heck, with everyone carrying a camera around, there are probably some people who find they enjoy photography and want to upgrade to a DSLR that otherwise would not have.
It didn't happen in this case, but if your computer algorithm churned out 10,000 "poems" and you or a team of people sifted through them to find the ones that sounded like they were written by a person, then submitted them for publication without telling anyone that 99.99% of the computer's output had been discarded by a person before submission, it would hit/. with a similar article title.
the Constitutional maximum should be the longest period of time that any halfway reasonable person would allow for realization of financial gain
I'd put that at twenty to thirty years
This is probably true for most things but there are some projects that get funded by investors looking beyond 20-30 years. For projects right on the edge of being funded, a copyright term of 50 or more years vs. 20-30 can make the difference. Church hymnals are (or used to be, pre-cheap-overhead-display-technology) typically designed with a 20-40 year lifetime in mind and there is enough of the music in them whose rights won't expire during those 20-40 years to ensure continued sales. Granted, such cases are rare but not so rare as to be worthy of discarding completely.
There are also projects in which the copyright is used primarily to protect the integrity of the work, not to make money. Many people release items into the Creative Commons under a "NoDerivatives" license for this reason. I'm sure a significant number of people would not want to see their works mis-used within their lifetime and are grateful that at least in the USA and most other countries, single-author works enjoy legal protection until after the author dies.
How about 18-19 years of learning to think critical before you get a high school diploma?
In case you are wondering when the clock starts, education starts the day you are born (let's set aside pre-birth experiences for the moment). For those outside the United States, most students in the United States who don't graduate early or "fail" a grade (or drop out) get their high school diplomas between their 18th and 19th birthdays.
It's silly to equate CS or knowing a programming language to knowing a human language.
Assuming the reason for having the language requirement is to make sure students have exercised that part of the brain and not to make sure they have the communication skills that knowing a foreign language brings, it's not silly to change the requirement from "have 2 years of a human language" to "meet one of the following requirements: Have 2 years of a human language OR have 2 years of computer science."
Of course, if the reason for requiring a foreign language is to make sure the students know how to speak/read in English and one other human language, then it is silly to change the requirement.
... is that by and large, there are some technical features that most humans - or at least most humans that the scientists from Yahoo Labs in Barcelona used to train this computer - agree create a beautiful image.
I didn't read the report so maybe they already addressed this, but some problems are self-limiting.
Adding more roads to a congested city won't help unless you way-overdo it, because of the "build it and they will come" effect.
Likewise, NOT adding more roads will deter investment and growth in that city in favor of other cities or countries, which will mean less increase in total traffic than if current investment/growth rates continued.
Now, if you way-underinvest in infrastructure on a national basis, you will see more congestion because people have to live and work somewhere and we aren't likely to see the reductions in population growth fast enough to keep up with decreased infrastructure investments, at least not until people from other countries decide that America isn't worth moving to because its infrastructure is collapsing.
If everyone had such keys I would make at least two encrypted copies, one each with the public keys of people I trusted and who I believed would be accessible, such as my parents or a sibling if they lived nearby.
Then I would print out the encrypted copies. I would keep one of each for myself and store one of each someplace else.
This way, if I lost my key-fob I could go to one of them and get it re-made. If my house burned down taking my key-fob and my printed copies with it, I could still re-create the key fob.
If you pay for services in advance and tell him you will file your own insurance paperwork for reimbursement, then he will not only want your business more than if you don't, but he won't have any insurance/banking/collection reason to need your SS#.
This will leave only a few reasons why he might ask for it: * Some federal or state law requires it (doubtful, but possible) * He's part of a larger practice which requires the SS# (possible) * His patient-tracking or -payment system chokes without it (very likely) and he doesn't know how to work around that problem (also very likely).
That sort of thing [holding higher-ups accountable] only happens in China
In theory and I'm sure sometimes in practice, it also happens in the US military. In some situations, if a service member violates orders and his boss doesn't fix the problem pronto or fails to see a problem that it's his job to see, he gets punished.
I say "in theory" because as with many organizations where "who you know" and "your perceived value to the organization" are unwritten factors in who takes the blame when things go wrong, there are probably plenty of times when the rules say such punishment should happen but the reality is that it does not.
For sensitive information like financial or medical data, it may be time to physically isolate the main data warehouse so any non-insider breach would only compromise records that had been copied to a "front end server" for short-term use.
Here is how it might work:
You have a back-end data warehouse that holds all of your records.
You have a "smart filter" that mediates access to this back-end database. This filter looks for suspicious behavior and alerts real human beings when things start to look funky. Ideally this "smart filter" would be "invisible" to both the "back-end data warehouse" and the "front end cache" which I will describe shortly. This "invisibility" will make it much harder to compromise.
You have a "front-end cache" that contains holds copies of information from the back-end data warehouse for a very short time - hours or days for most types of information.
It is this "front end cache" that bank tellers, ATM machines, home-banking web servers, etc. access.
If the front-end cache gets compromised and all of its data stolen, there will be a loss but it won't be nearly as big as the loss of having the entire data warehouse compromised.
If the front-end cache gets compromised in a way that causes it to start querying the back-end data warehouse for lots of data, alarms will go off.
This system is designed to mitigate damage, not prevent it entirely. It is meant to augment, not substitute, for existing security measures. By itself, it does nothing to protect against spear-phishing or to protect against a non-greedy adversary who is content to get only a small fraction of the total data available. But depending on how much it limits the damage when a breach does occur, it may be well worth the cost.
For a machine that you would just blindly take updates for anyways, rolling releases are probably convenient.
For mission-critical systems where every change should be tested first, it's probably a bad idea unless rolling back is very easy, as it might be in a VM-with-easy-snapshots environment.
If I were on the Supreme Court of the United States and was asked to rule on the Constittuional limit of copyright of "a limited period of time" I would say that 9 months after the last person who was alive* when the item either entered copyright or when it was published anywhere in the world whichever was earlier is the absolute latest date at which the US copyright protection must end.
Why? Because a creative person might legitimately plan to 1) impregnate his wife/get pregnant, 2) want to create a financial legacy for the child that is on the way, and 3) create something for the financial benefit of that child or publish something in the US that he previously created that was not under a US copyright (perhaps something he created before moving to the USA and which has never had a US copyright).
* When we get to the point where people are living longer than 125 years, I would put a hard cap at 125 years UNLESS people are living past that age without the assistance of technology. Why 125 years? It's a nice round number and it's slightly longer than the oldest confirmed lifespan of 122 years-and-change (see Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) ).
If I were asked what should be a good maximum copyright term I would say a good term is the number of years of the longest average life expectancy for anyone born in the last 125 years (which is probably the average life expectancy for someone born today, or about 79 years) minus the age of legal majority (18 years). 79-18 = 70. So, for any work that is still in copyright today which is 70 years old or older SHOULD immediately fall into the public domain. I would also reintroduce some form of mandatory renewal so works that are not renewed either fall into the public domain or if that is politically infeasible they fall into a mandatory-licensing regime so anyone and everyone can use them by paying a reasonable fee, similar to mandatory-music-licensing.
Slashdot Mirror
Those secret prisoners that we have are likely located in places where the media and general population aren't talking about.
Ah, you must mean the basement restrooms of MSNBC and Fox News. I never hear anyone talking about those places on the air or at the water-cooler, and it makes you wonder what is really happening down there.
There is a very limited market for "dumb" TVs that "smart" TVs don't fill just as well.
That is, almost everyone who thinks they want a "dumb" TV will choose a "smart" one if the price of the "dumb" one is even $1 more than the "smart" one.
There are some markets where a "smart" TV is just not an option. Any location where policy prohibits any device that's even capable of being connected to a network, such as prisons, come to mind. Another place is where the "smart" devices are perceived as being more likely to be abused/vandalized/stolen than a "dumb" one, such as hotel rooms in high-theft-risk locations. However, most of these users would be perfectly happy with a tuner-less monitor rather than a television, thereby making the question about "dumb TELEVISIONS" irrelevant to them.
I mean EVEN Debian still makes security packages for Potato and Woody! ... right?
I don't know if Debian does or not (I'm going to assume not based on your tone), but at least Debian's customers have everything they need (except maybe skill and time) to fix it themselves.
Microsoft customers? Not so much.
I bet the "valid random sample" didn't include any projects from the Obfuscated C Code Contest.
"Microsoft Does Not Fix Critical Remotely Exploitable Windows Root-Level Design Bug"
To all Windows Server 2003 users still out there: Oh wait...
Or even worse:
For the last several years there's been a critical no-workaround vulnerability that even the vendor didn't know about. Oh wait...
buying a home. Hasn't made sense since the 1970s
Just looking at dollars and cents, there's no way you can make a blanket statement like that. Every city's housing and rental market is unique and the market today isn't the same as it will be a year from now. The same city that is "better to rent in" today could easily become "better to buy in next year" or vice-versa, while the city a few states over could easily be the other way around both now and a year from now.
There's also the issue of how much house you need. I know of one city that in the mid-2000s at least was better for buyers if you wanted a 3-bedroom suburban home but better for renters if you needed a 1-bedroom accommodation. At least it was after you added in the "volatility-risk cost" of buying a condo (the condo market was much more volatile than the single-family-home market in that city, meaning you could easily either take a bath or walk away with an unexpected bonus if you were forced to sell, say, due to a job transfer).
And this is not even considering the intangibles like "how much do I value not having to go through the hassle of selling when I want to move" and "how much value to I have in not being at the mercy of a landlord who can jack up rents with each lease renewal and/or sell the property to someone who wants to not renew my lease and move in himself."
The real time to buy a lottery ticket is when the expected payout - the payout times the odds that at least one person will draw the winning number - is more than the expected gross revenue since the last drawing.
Here's a simple example:
pick 4 numbers from 1 to 100. The odds of winning are 1 in 100,000,000.
If 100,000,000,000 million people play every week, then in the first week the odds that SOMEONE will win are close to but not quite 100%, so the expected pay-out is a bit less than $100,000,000. Smart money says don't play.
To keep things simple let's assume that the next week only 100,000,000 new people play. The odds that SOMEONE will win are close to but not quite 100%. They are certainly over 50%. The expected payout will be a bit less than $200,000,000 and certainly more than the $100,000,000 that bettors put on the table this time around. The smart money says play.
If you don't see how this works, assume YOU are the only bettor in week two and you buy all 100,000,000 tickets using a random-number-generator. There will be duplicate bets (if you weren't the only ticket-buyer, these numbers would result in you having to share the prize), but you will cover well over 50,000,000 of the possible combinations. If you win, you more than double your investment, and the odds of you winning are more than 50/50.
Of course in the real world it's almost never going to become a good investment to buy a lottery ticket if all you care about is financial return. Why? Because as the jackpot goes up, people who normally don't buy tickets do so. Why? Some do it for emotional/fantasizing reasons. Some do it so they can tell their grandchildren how they "almost won the big one." Some may do it because they think the number of new tickets sold will be low enough to make it a "smart decision" to buy a ticket.
Bottom line: There may be good reasons to buy a lottery ticket, but "because it's a good investment/because it's a smart gamble" is almost never one of them.
Let's hope things work out better than they did in a couple of years ago.
Or rather, do not want unless there it is "off" by default and it's only turned on when I want to turn it on.
While I am okay with a non-signed binary for an in-peson/over-USB-disk upgrade so I can hack my car, when it comes to OTA upgrades that by definition might happen when I'm not controlling the process, the software better be signed by someone I trust.
Yes, it serves a legitimate journalistic purpose.
BUT that purpose is not the only factor that should go into deciding whether publishing the video in a given media or venue is a responsible thing to do.
Nick Ut's photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing a napalm attack sans clothing during the Vietnam conflict was published after careful consideration of the journalistic purposes and other factors. It won a Pulitzer prize.
The image can be found here.
Consider Obamacare: The policy behind it was originally proposed by Republicans
I'm grateful that Obama and Congress got together and passed RomneyCare.
Better would be one that required the same for searching headers and other meta-data for all live and store-and-forward communication, including snail-mail, and one which would ban retention of this information by carriers after it is no longer needed for delivery- or billing-, or legitimate tracking purposes.
In other words, stop the US Post Office from keeping the to/from information from mailed items for more than a few weeks after the item was delivered (you need to keep it a few weeks in case a customer claims it was never delivered). Similar, force phone companies to delete calling data after the bill has been paid and any bill-dispute time-period has elapsed UNLESS the customer has signed up to have the carrier keep such records.
Is this gonna happen soon? Of course not - it may never happen as long as our country exists in its current form (i.e. all bets are off if there is ever a revolution - which I am *NOT* advocating) - but I still want it.
I expect that the camera-equipped smartphone is decimating the market for cameras that can only do what smartphone cameras can already do.
I also expect that it is decimating the market for that slightly-better cameras that people would have bought if it wasn't included "free" in the phone they already own.
I would be surprised if it is putting a big dent the $700+ market. Heck, with everyone carrying a camera around, there are probably some people who find they enjoy photography and want to upgrade to a DSLR that otherwise would not have.
It didn't happen in this case, but if your computer algorithm churned out 10,000 "poems" and you or a team of people sifted through them to find the ones that sounded like they were written by a person, then submitted them for publication without telling anyone that 99.99% of the computer's output had been discarded by a person before submission, it would hit /. with a similar article title.
the Constitutional maximum should be the longest period of time that any halfway reasonable person would allow for realization of financial gain
I'd put that at twenty to thirty years
This is probably true for most things but there are some projects that get funded by investors looking beyond 20-30 years. For projects right on the edge of being funded, a copyright term of 50 or more years vs. 20-30 can make the difference. Church hymnals are (or used to be, pre-cheap-overhead-display-technology) typically designed with a 20-40 year lifetime in mind and there is enough of the music in them whose rights won't expire during those 20-40 years to ensure continued sales. Granted, such cases are rare but not so rare as to be worthy of discarding completely.
There are also projects in which the copyright is used primarily to protect the integrity of the work, not to make money. Many people release items into the Creative Commons under a "NoDerivatives" license for this reason. I'm sure a significant number of people would not want to see their works mis-used within their lifetime and are grateful that at least in the USA and most other countries, single-author works enjoy legal protection until after the author dies.
How about 18-19 years of learning to think critical before you get a high school diploma?
In case you are wondering when the clock starts, education starts the day you are born (let's set aside pre-birth experiences for the moment). For those outside the United States, most students in the United States who don't graduate early or "fail" a grade (or drop out) get their high school diplomas between their 18th and 19th birthdays.
It's silly to equate CS or knowing a programming language to knowing a human language.
Assuming the reason for having the language requirement is to make sure students have exercised that part of the brain and not to make sure they have the communication skills that knowing a foreign language brings, it's not silly to change the requirement from "have 2 years of a human language" to "meet one of the following requirements: Have 2 years of a human language OR have 2 years of computer science."
Of course, if the reason for requiring a foreign language is to make sure the students know how to speak/read in English and one other human language, then it is silly to change the requirement.
... is that by and large, there are some technical features that most humans - or at least most humans that the scientists from Yahoo Labs in Barcelona used to train this computer - agree create a beautiful image.
I didn't read the report so maybe they already addressed this, but some problems are self-limiting.
Adding more roads to a congested city won't help unless you way-overdo it, because of the "build it and they will come" effect.
Likewise, NOT adding more roads will deter investment and growth in that city in favor of other cities or countries, which will mean less increase in total traffic than if current investment/growth rates continued.
Now, if you way-underinvest in infrastructure on a national basis, you will see more congestion because people have to live and work somewhere and we aren't likely to see the reductions in population growth fast enough to keep up with decreased infrastructure investments, at least not until people from other countries decide that America isn't worth moving to because its infrastructure is collapsing.
A private key should be easy enough to print out.
If everyone had such keys I would make at least two encrypted copies, one each with the public keys of people I trusted and who I believed would be accessible, such as my parents or a sibling if they lived nearby.
Then I would print out the encrypted copies. I would keep one of each for myself and store one of each someplace else.
This way, if I lost my key-fob I could go to one of them and get it re-made. If my house burned down taking my key-fob and my printed copies with it, I could still re-create the key fob.
If you pay for services in advance and tell him you will file your own insurance paperwork for reimbursement, then he will not only want your business more than if you don't, but he won't have any insurance/banking/collection reason to need your SS#.
This will leave only a few reasons why he might ask for it:
* Some federal or state law requires it (doubtful, but possible)
* He's part of a larger practice which requires the SS# (possible)
* His patient-tracking or -payment system chokes without it (very likely) and he doesn't know how to work around that problem (also very likely).
That sort of thing [holding higher-ups accountable] only happens in China
In theory and I'm sure sometimes in practice, it also happens in the US military. In some situations, if a service member violates orders and his boss doesn't fix the problem pronto or fails to see a problem that it's his job to see, he gets punished.
I say "in theory" because as with many organizations where "who you know" and "your perceived value to the organization" are unwritten factors in who takes the blame when things go wrong, there are probably plenty of times when the rules say such punishment should happen but the reality is that it does not.
For sensitive information like financial or medical data, it may be time to physically isolate the main data warehouse so any non-insider breach would only compromise records that had been copied to a "front end server" for short-term use.
Here is how it might work:
You have a back-end data warehouse that holds all of your records.
You have a "smart filter" that mediates access to this back-end database. This filter looks for suspicious behavior and alerts real human beings when things start to look funky. Ideally this "smart filter" would be "invisible" to both the "back-end data warehouse" and the "front end cache" which I will describe shortly. This "invisibility" will make it much harder to compromise.
You have a "front-end cache" that contains holds copies of information from the back-end data warehouse for a very short time - hours or days for most types of information.
It is this "front end cache" that bank tellers, ATM machines, home-banking web servers, etc. access.
If the front-end cache gets compromised and all of its data stolen, there will be a loss but it won't be nearly as big as the loss of having the entire data warehouse compromised.
If the front-end cache gets compromised in a way that causes it to start querying the back-end data warehouse for lots of data, alarms will go off.
This system is designed to mitigate damage, not prevent it entirely. It is meant to augment, not substitute, for existing security measures. By itself, it does nothing to protect against spear-phishing or to protect against a non-greedy adversary who is content to get only a small fraction of the total data available. But depending on how much it limits the damage when a breach does occur, it may be well worth the cost.
For a machine that you would just blindly take updates for anyways, rolling releases are probably convenient.
For mission-critical systems where every change should be tested first, it's probably a bad idea unless rolling back is very easy, as it might be in a VM-with-easy-snapshots environment.
If I were on the Supreme Court of the United States and was asked to rule on the Constittuional limit of copyright of "a limited period of time" I would say that 9 months after the last person who was alive* when the item either entered copyright or when it was published anywhere in the world whichever was earlier is the absolute latest date at which the US copyright protection must end.
Why? Because a creative person might legitimately plan to 1) impregnate his wife/get pregnant, 2) want to create a financial legacy for the child that is on the way, and 3) create something for the financial benefit of that child or publish something in the US that he previously created that was not under a US copyright (perhaps something he created before moving to the USA and which has never had a US copyright).
* When we get to the point where people are living longer than 125 years, I would put a hard cap at 125 years UNLESS people are living past that age without the assistance of technology. Why 125 years? It's a nice round number and it's slightly longer than the oldest confirmed lifespan of 122 years-and-change (see Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) ).
If I were asked what should be a good maximum copyright term I would say a good term is the number of years of the longest average life expectancy for anyone born in the last 125 years (which is probably the average life expectancy for someone born today, or about 79 years) minus the age of legal majority (18 years). 79-18 = 70. So, for any work that is still in copyright today which is 70 years old or older SHOULD immediately fall into the public domain. I would also reintroduce some form of mandatory renewal so works that are not renewed either fall into the public domain or if that is politically infeasible they fall into a mandatory-licensing regime so anyone and everyone can use them by paying a reasonable fee, similar to mandatory-music-licensing.