3. Legal language is necessary just to prevent (or make less inviting) outside agencies or users from spying, collecting IP addresses, and otherwise abusing all the other users of their P2P network. Isn't this a good thing for privacy?
No, it's misleading. No privacy is ensured because of some ckick-through legalese.
Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?
Say it otherwise: what's the risk for the Internet user? Maybe these risks should have been clearly indicated within a notice before the installation. In all cases, those risks are still there.
It's true that the RIAA/MPAA does not have any interest in real education. It's true that Hitler did not have any interest in making the Jews "Frei" through "Arbeit".
Nevertheless, the comparison of the two does not make any sense, and drives the discussion off-topic.
Why are you complaining? You got your bribe (other would call it compensation for damages) and in return you are deleting a negative review (your experience also got less negative after your complaint has been heard and you have received payment).
Actually, you can steal an idea. At least everybody understands what is meant if you steal my idea about my next startup that I just told you (under NDA).
Now, I completely agree with you that copying copyrighted material is not stealing.
The real motivation here from big business is first to block the global trade in copyrighted digital goods: music, movies, TV (Vivendi, IFPI, et al).
Exactly. You need this technology deployed at each ISP to afterwards establish rules (not laws), such as "three times and you're out" for copyright violations. How could they know, without a full log and a list of copyrighted material?
A word warning: If you're not already a Stanislaw Lem fan, start rather with the short stories or the works Solaris or The Astronauts. Memoirs Found in a Bathtub are too kafkaesk for me.
Sight, if you quote the link, do it completely and correctly. Then you see that: (1) you can register anytime your copyright, and (2) your claims are limited if you register after an infringement.
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
* Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
* Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on âoeIntellectual Property Rights.â
Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.
2) Their volume discount is a total rip-off. Again, I am at a major university and our discount is basically the same as the Apple Education Store discount. It is really hard for me to justify my purchases and commitment to Apple.
No, that is actually not a rip-off. The real rip-off is the large volume discount by other manufacturers. Those volume discounts rip-off the average customer and small businesses. Volume discounts are only OK, if you need to invest much less money to make the deal. I would say that this is not true for Macs (maybe it is true for the Xserv).
The innovation with the iPod wasn't the iPod, but iTunes. 99-cents a song [...]
I disagree.
I have an iPod, many of my friends have iPods and nobody, ever, bought a piece of music in the iTunes shop. And probably won't. My shelves are full with CDs and those are feeding my iPod: As any other MP3 player it's a substitution of the walkman. However, compared with any other MP3 player the UI makes a difference; such a difference that the iPod really stands out. The same is true for the new iPod touch and the iPhone. To a lesser intent for the MacBooks, which are overprized when looking at the differences to other notebooks.
Don't spend your time, if you can have it automated in your Firefox (and you can stay anonymous towards Google). Here is the how-to:
1) Bookmark google (www.google.com) [Optional: Bookmark search.yahoo.com, www.live.com, etc.] 2) In Firefox, right-click on the bookmark and choose properties. 3) Enter "g" as keyword for Google ("y" for Yahoo, etc.) 4) In the location field enter: http://www.google.com/search?q=%s -site:experts-exchange.com
Done. Now you can easily search by typing in the address bar: g <keywords>
The %s in the location will be substituted by the keywords, and you get your Google research without expert-exchange.com entries.
[Nice side effect: since it is now as easy to type in "g" for Google, "y" for Yahoo and "m" for Microsoft, switching search engines is so easy that you actually do it from time to time.]
I already avoided buying any DVDs for that reason (actually the reason is the damned zone ID).
I don't own a MacBook, but why would you not buy a MacBook, because it can't play HD content without using HDCP? I mean, just avoid that crippled media and enjoy your computer.
-- unless you want to start massive data mining projects, which is exactly what is feared most from a privacy point of view.
Aehmm, I don't know, how you would describe the inner processes of a search engine, but in my book massive data mining is involved.
Agreed, but you do not need to store persistently for months the IP address of the requester. You can store the tags with the requests (such as location info, AS range of the IP). For more personalized computations you can use cookies -- at least with cookies the requester has some sort of control over his information.
Apparently, Google does not require the IP info after 9 months. So, what do they do with the IP address during those 9 months? Why can't they do it more or less immediately and then just store the results of the operations?
Remember: It's not the information that hurts, it's the way you use and react to it.
True and false at the same moment. If you do not store massive amount of data, you cannot misuse it (or anybody else, if you leak it). Privacy means that you store only the data that you really need and only as long as you need it.
Actually, the IP should not be stored at all. Google might want to analyze the IPs to analyze and prevent attacks on its servers and additionally to get location information for its ad services. But there is no need to store it for a longer period -- unless you want to start massive data mining projects, which is exactly what is feared most from a privacy point of view.
So, any good news would be that the IP is not stored at all (except very temporarily).
Google Chrome Terms of Service are still an EULA for a service and not a software license. Why has a browser software an EULA about the services by Google? I understand that you may want a service EULA for Google Suggests -- the address bar -- but this is opt out.
Needless to say that the service conditions still are scary especially for privacy reasons. And all of this just for using a browser? No thanks.
The Google EULA that I clicked through was the Google services EULA (at least I think so) -- and as such not really acceptable.
Apparently Google published some clarifications, but still there are open questions:
why is there a unique number with each installation and when is it send to Google? Can I disable sending it to Google?
I can opt out from many services that use a constant feedback to Google (such as Google Suggest; Malware sites; etc.), but is it then guaranteed that Chrome does no longer send details to Google?
is there an option "do not send anything to Google" that is not equal to the incognito mode?
So, in summary: It's a good browser to use Google applications; but for the moment not apt to access anything outside the Google universum.
Yet another example of sensationalism on Slashdot.
Ooh, you mean that Canadian Privacy Czar for Canadian Privacy Commissioner, "The web is evil and must be stopped" as a would-be-quote (she never said this - at least not in the linked article), and the end phrase "Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless?" is sensationalism? Welcome to the new Slashdot (there was a time where such sensationalism was not the norm in/. articles).
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why I do not own DVDs: region codes.
The EULA ensues
b) that you still have privacy when using it.
No, it does not. Your privacy is exposed the same way with or without this Eula.
Or do you want to add security the next time by saying: and, you're not allowed to hack ...?
3. Legal language is necessary just to prevent (or make less inviting) outside agencies or users from spying, collecting IP addresses, and otherwise abusing all the other users of their P2P network. Isn't this a good thing for privacy?
No, it's misleading. No privacy is ensured because of some ckick-through legalese.
Would you rather grant every person/agency on the internet full permission to abuse their video customers instead?
Say it otherwise: what's the risk for the Internet user? Maybe these risks should have been clearly indicated within a notice before the installation. In all cases, those risks are still there.
"Wienerschnitzel"
"Sauerkraut"
"Leberwurst"
"Blitzkrieg".
"...und der Ullstein mit der Wurst!"
happy kraut-sourcing ....
I wish I had mod points ...
Chapeau!
FTA:
Browser technologies are too limiting.
I couldn't agree more.
It's true that the RIAA/MPAA does not have any interest in real education.
It's true that Hitler did not have any interest in making the Jews "Frei" through "Arbeit".
Nevertheless, the comparison of the two does not make any sense, and drives the discussion off-topic.
Why are you complaining? You got your bribe (other would call it compensation for damages) and in return you are deleting a negative review (your experience also got less negative after your complaint has been heard and you have received payment).
But my copy is now worthless.
New courses in fall: Computer History
Actually, you can steal an idea. At least everybody understands what is meant if you steal my idea about my next startup that I just told you (under NDA).
Now, I completely agree with you that copying copyrighted material is not stealing.
The real motivation here from big business is first to block the global trade in copyrighted digital goods: music, movies, TV (Vivendi, IFPI, et al).
Exactly. You need this technology deployed at each ISP to afterwards establish rules (not laws), such as "three times and you're out" for copyright violations. How could they know, without a full log and a list of copyrighted material?
The Bathroom.. A universal private reading room.
At least there are Memoirs Found in a Bathtub. ;-)
A word warning: If you're not already a Stanislaw Lem fan, start rather with the short stories or the works Solaris or The Astronauts. Memoirs Found in a Bathtub are too kafkaesk for me.
Sight, if you quote the link, do it completely and correctly. Then you see that: (1) you can register anytime your copyright, and (2) your claims are limited if you register after an infringement.
Quote from: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr
Copyright Registration
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
* Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
* Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on âoeIntellectual Property Rights.â
Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.
2) Their volume discount is a total rip-off. Again, I am at a major university and our discount is basically the same as the Apple Education Store discount. It is really hard for me to justify my purchases and commitment to Apple.
No, that is actually not a rip-off. The real rip-off is the large volume discount by other manufacturers. Those volume discounts rip-off the average customer and small businesses. Volume discounts are only OK, if you need to invest much less money to make the deal. I would say that this is not true for Macs (maybe it is true for the Xserv).
The innovation with the iPod wasn't the iPod, but iTunes. 99-cents a song [...]
I disagree.
I have an iPod, many of my friends have iPods and nobody, ever, bought a piece of music in the iTunes shop. And probably won't. My shelves are full with CDs and those are feeding my iPod: As any other MP3 player it's a substitution of the walkman. However, compared with any other MP3 player the UI makes a difference; such a difference that the iPod really stands out. The same is true for the new iPod touch and the iPhone. To a lesser intent for the MacBooks, which are overprized when looking at the differences to other notebooks.
The above is the automated way of typing this in Google every time. You see the difference?
Don't spend your time, if you can have it automated in your Firefox (and you can stay anonymous towards Google). Here is the how-to:
1) Bookmark google (www.google.com)
[Optional: Bookmark search.yahoo.com, www.live.com, etc.]
2) In Firefox, right-click on the bookmark and choose properties.
3) Enter "g" as keyword for Google ("y" for Yahoo, etc.)
4) In the location field enter: http://www.google.com/search?q=%s -site:experts-exchange.com
Done. Now you can easily search by typing in the address bar:
g <keywords>
The %s in the location will be substituted by the keywords, and you get your Google research without expert-exchange.com entries.
[Nice side effect: since it is now as easy to type in "g" for Google, "y" for Yahoo and "m" for Microsoft, switching search engines is so easy that you actually do it from time to time.]
I already avoided buying any DVDs for that reason (actually the reason is the damned zone ID).
I don't own a MacBook, but why would you not buy a MacBook, because it can't play HD content without using HDCP? I mean, just avoid that crippled media and enjoy your computer.
-- unless you want to start massive data mining projects, which is exactly what is feared most from a privacy point of view.
Aehmm, I don't know, how you would describe the inner processes of a search engine, but in my book massive data mining is involved.
Agreed, but you do not need to store persistently for months the IP address of the requester. You can store the tags with the requests (such as location info, AS range of the IP). For more personalized computations you can use cookies -- at least with cookies the requester has some sort of control over his information.
Apparently, Google does not require the IP info after 9 months. So, what do they do with the IP address during those 9 months? Why can't they do it more or less immediately and then just store the results of the operations?
Remember: It's not the information that hurts, it's the way you use and react to it.
True and false at the same moment. If you do not store massive amount of data, you cannot misuse it (or anybody else, if you leak it). Privacy means that you store only the data that you really need and only as long as you need it.
Actually, the IP should not be stored at all. Google might want to analyze the IPs to analyze and prevent attacks on its servers and additionally to get location information for its ad services. But there is no need to store it for a longer period -- unless you want to start massive data mining projects, which is exactly what is feared most from a privacy point of view.
So, any good news would be that the IP is not stored at all (except very temporarily).
Google Chrome Terms of Service are still an EULA for a service and not a software license. Why has a browser software an EULA about the services by Google? I understand that you may want a service EULA for Google Suggests -- the address bar -- but this is opt out.
Needless to say that the service conditions still are scary especially for privacy reasons. And all of this just for using a browser? No thanks.
The Google EULA that I clicked through was the Google services EULA (at least I think so) -- and as such not really acceptable.
Apparently Google published some clarifications, but still there are open questions:
So, in summary: It's a good browser to use Google applications; but for the moment not apt to access anything outside the Google universum.
Yet another example of sensationalism on Slashdot.
Ooh, you mean that Canadian Privacy Czar for Canadian Privacy Commissioner, "The web is evil and must be stopped" as a would-be-quote (she never said this - at least not in the linked article), and the end phrase "Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless?" is sensationalism? Welcome to the new Slashdot (there was a time where such sensationalism was not the norm in /. articles).
Privacy and freedom are dead opposite notions.
Wrong. If there is no privacy left at all, you also lost your freedom.