Google isn't even trust worthy enough to handle my email without (trying) to monetizing it.
Why would you possibly think a corporation is going to spend billions in resources, servers, developers, electricity, hardware, and bandwidth without trying to monetize it? Are you new here (on Earth that is)?
The fact that it is not a "legal" defense tells you all you need to know about the "justice system."
Sure does. It tells me that it's practical. How exactly would things work if everyone could simply claim "I didn't know that" whenever they were accused of a crime? Pretty hard in most cases to prove what's in someone's brain. Or maybe we convict people are not based on how good they can fake stupidity.
In this case, yeah, if you make a false DCMA claim, I'm good with raking you over the coals if you are too dumb to look into what you are even doing beforehand.
There's white noise the mathematical definition, then there's white noise the commonly understood definition. White noise, to most people, means background noise. People refer to nature sounds as white noise.
Common sense would point to the fact that what's copyrighted here is a particular mix of white noise, not pure random numbers in the audible frequency range. That doesn't make the DCMA claim valid... which by the way it wasn't. The video is still up meaning the DCMA claim was either dropped or the claimer didn't respond in time (the former is more likely since not enough time has passed).
I'm guessing what happened here is that the the white noise video was tagged by automated system, and was quickly dropped upon review. Nothing to see here. Move on folks.
You don't understand Senate procedure, that much is obvious.
Pretty sure the title of TFA is:
Key word: VOTE.
I guess that could be a complete lie, but I really can't offer an opinion since I don't know. Maybe you could post an article here titled "Senate NOT Will Force Vote On Overturning Net Neutrality Repeal", then I can comment on that possibility.
These politicians want to be able to pass laws that they find convenient at any particular moment by the party in power at any particular time without any due process. Now they want to enshrine this practice by enforcing one executive order and not another.
One EO was popular and benefited the people and small business, and the other is utterly unpopular and benefits large corporations and stifles competition. Even here on/. which is usually full of trolling Trump supporters you can't find an opinion against NN.
Every president makes EOs. In his first year, Trump had 56. Obama had 39. Bush had 54. Clinton had 57. This is normal operating procedure. Ajit Pai was appointed by Trump. By all means, consider a president's EOs when you decide how to vote in 2020. Now senators will be required to mark the public record as well. Hold them accountable.
If internet is 'net neutral' and 'regulated like a utility' guess where that leads? It leads to getting billed for how much you use like any other utility.
Yes, because "bits" are a lot like "water" and "gas". right?
If internet actually is regulated/billed like a utility Grandma is soon getting a deal and Billy Hacker's sex life is going to get a lot worse.
Is your point that most "readers" here are going to identify with "Billy Hacker" therefore support Grandma getting "fleeced" on her internet "bill"?
But really will it change anything in terms of votes?
It will make every politician take a stand one way or the other then answer for it down the road when they come up for reelection. I'm just hoping it's harder to buy off hundreds of senators and congresspeople than it was to buy off Mr. Pai.
You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.
Folks keep saying that with nothing other than IANAL logic to back it up. White noise is not just random numbers. There are other characteristics. For example, the distribution of frequencies. Here's a tool that can create different "white noises" that sound very different. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...
I'm not saying that makes it copyrightable, but the "you can't copyright random numbers" argument is not relevant.
The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims.
The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.
No, it doesn't. The way it works on Youtube is that if you dispute the claim, the submitter has to respond with legal action within a given period or the claim is removed. No proof is necessary to dispute the claim.
White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it.
All white noise is not the same. It has characteristics. I'm not claiming that necessarily qualifies it for copyright, but the "it's just random numbers" argument isn't going to get you anywhere.
More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.
To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.
Then let's also be honest that netflix doesn't mean their service to be one physical house only.
Please link the ToS that explains where you can share your account with other households / other people not at your billing address. Can't? Okay, then be quiet.
FYI, I bothered to Google it. Here it is from the CEO's mouth:
"The terms of use is sharing within the household and that's our expectation," he added.
Slashdot Mirror
So nice pointless maneuver by your side...
My side is the one where I want net neutrality. What's your side?
What part of "voice vote" don't you get?
Sorry, is this a sealed record? Of course it's not.
Good luck with your trolling. It was a nice attempt.
Google Wallet
Android Pay
Google Checkout
Pay With Google
and now:
Google Pay (not to be confused with Google Payments).
Google isn't even trust worthy enough to handle my email without (trying) to monetizing it.
Why would you possibly think a corporation is going to spend billions in resources, servers, developers, electricity, hardware, and bandwidth without trying to monetize it? Are you new here (on Earth that is)?
This might surprise you, but you EARN interest using credit cards, as long as you pay them off. Not to mention the cashback which is just free money.
VOTE? Yes.
And that's public record, right?
Good. Every politicians will have to go on record for or against. That will allow us to vote for the people that support it when their bid comes up.
^^^ This.
Nice troll "nothing matters, give up, let them win" post though. A+ for effort.
And as a side note, no one is going to jail for filing a false DCMA claim. In practice, public apologies patch things up (for a first offense).
The fact that it is not a "legal" defense tells you all you need to know about the "justice system."
Sure does. It tells me that it's practical. How exactly would things work if everyone could simply claim "I didn't know that" whenever they were accused of a crime? Pretty hard in most cases to prove what's in someone's brain. Or maybe we convict people are not based on how good they can fake stupidity.
In this case, yeah, if you make a false DCMA claim, I'm good with raking you over the coals if you are too dumb to look into what you are even doing beforehand.
You've been trolled by the clickbait title.
There's white noise the mathematical definition, then there's white noise the commonly understood definition. White noise, to most people, means background noise. People refer to nature sounds as white noise.
Common sense would point to the fact that what's copyrighted here is a particular mix of white noise, not pure random numbers in the audible frequency range. That doesn't make the DCMA claim valid ... which by the way it wasn't. The video is still up meaning the DCMA claim was either dropped or the claimer didn't respond in time (the former is more likely since not enough time has passed).
I'm guessing what happened here is that the the white noise video was tagged by automated system, and was quickly dropped upon review. Nothing to see here. Move on folks.
You don't understand Senate procedure, that much is obvious.
Pretty sure the title of TFA is:
Key word: VOTE.
I guess that could be a complete lie, but I really can't offer an opinion since I don't know. Maybe you could post an article here titled "Senate NOT Will Force Vote On Overturning Net Neutrality Repeal", then I can comment on that possibility.
These politicians want to be able to pass laws that they find convenient at any particular moment by the party in power at any particular time without any due process. Now they want to enshrine this practice by enforcing one executive order and not another.
One EO was popular and benefited the people and small business, and the other is utterly unpopular and benefits large corporations and stifles competition. Even here on /. which is usually full of trolling Trump supporters you can't find an opinion against NN.
Every president makes EOs. In his first year, Trump had 56. Obama had 39. Bush had 54. Clinton had 57. This is normal operating procedure. Ajit Pai was appointed by Trump. By all means, consider a president's EOs when you decide how to vote in 2020. Now senators will be required to mark the public record as well. Hold them accountable.
This will be fun.
If internet is 'net neutral' and 'regulated like a utility' guess where that leads? It leads to getting billed for how much you use like any other utility.
Yes, because "bits" are a lot like "water" and "gas". right?
If internet actually is regulated/billed like a utility Grandma is soon getting a deal and Billy Hacker's sex life is going to get a lot worse.
Is your point that most "readers" here are going to identify with "Billy Hacker" therefore support Grandma getting "fleeced" on her internet "bill"?
Why to map out a campaign issue of course... Nothing more...
Good. Every politicians will have to go on record for or against. That will allow us to vote for the people that support it when their bid comes up.
How is this bad?
the big guys can afford to pay but the small startups cannot
Exactly. The Netflixes and Googles of the internet love this. They have to pay, but in return they get protection against competition.
I am for rational NN. And i am 100% Republican.
If your party votes no on NN, will you change your vote?
But really will it change anything in terms of votes?
It will make every politician take a stand one way or the other then answer for it down the road when they come up for reelection. I'm just hoping it's harder to buy off hundreds of senators and congresspeople than it was to buy off Mr. Pai.
Google's CEO Sundar Pichai should be fired for being inept. The man is fucking up Google in the worst possible ways.
Let's not be so quick. With clear product direction like this?
Google Wallet
Android Pay
Pay With Google
Google Checkout
and now:
Google Pay (not to be confused with Google Payments).
Well, Microsoft didn't even add support for directories until version 2 of DOS, so this isn't a new problem.
Thanks for this timely, relevant addition to the thread.
I'm completely wrong, but it isn't clear to me I've done anything illegal.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. We are bound by laws whether we've had someone explain them to us, or not. Thank god.
3) Does anyone have any idea of how difficult it is to leverage this particular vulnerability to do something useful?
NVD doesn't, yet. They have a big banner that says "undergoing analysis".
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/deta...
I know that a raspberry pi is at MINIMUM a thousand times more powerful than computers that took us to the moon.
So why hasn't the Pi taken us to Mars? Something is wrong with your logic.
You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.
Folks keep saying that with nothing other than IANAL logic to back it up. White noise is not just random numbers. There are other characteristics. For example, the distribution of frequencies. Here's a tool that can create different "white noises" that sound very different. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...
I'm not saying that makes it copyrightable, but the "you can't copyright random numbers" argument is not relevant.
The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims.
Of course there is.
http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/c...
The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.
No, it doesn't. The way it works on Youtube is that if you dispute the claim, the submitter has to respond with legal action within a given period or the claim is removed. No proof is necessary to dispute the claim.
White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it.
https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...
All white noise is not the same. It has characteristics. I'm not claiming that necessarily qualifies it for copyright, but the "it's just random numbers" argument isn't going to get you anywhere.
More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.
To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.
That piece of plastic with a McDonald's ad is not paying for the entire ride, otherwise we'd be riding for free or at a significant discount.
No one is suggesting that. They are suggesting that a shared ride system that drops off 10 people at McDonalds would pay for the shared ride.
I think it's foolish.
You can think that all you want but it doesn't change the fact that advertising is extremely lucrative. Advertising has a proven payoff.
Then let's also be honest that netflix doesn't mean their service to be one physical house only.
Please link the ToS that explains where you can share your account with other households / other people not at your billing address. Can't? Okay, then be quiet.
FYI, I bothered to Google it. Here it is from the CEO's mouth:
"The terms of use is sharing within the household and that's our expectation," he added.
Source:
https://www.express.co.uk/life...