Viacom do not need this information. Any of it. At all.
Viacom, as I understand, want to show what percentage of YouTube content views are of Viacom content. In order to accomplish this all they need to do is provide Google with a list of content IDs, which they would need to have if they themselves were to perform the analysis anyway, and then to allow Google to provide a count of views for each of these pieces of content versus the total of all other content views for the same period.
Done. Mission accomplished. No private data changes hands.
I personally cannot comprehend how a judge ruled that privacy issues resulting from this are "speculative". You are essentially handing over information on millions of people on what content they watched, uploaded, commented on, rated, tagged, etc. to a media company, without need. This information is also the foundation for YouTube's business being handed over to a competitor.
The judge says it's speculative? I say remove the judge for willfully violating the privacy of millions of citizens and foreign nationals.
I would also like to know how the judge has completely ignored the Video Privacy Protection Act? If it's on the Internet suddenly all privacy concern automatically goes away, even if you're engaged as a customer of a company with a published privacy policy offering you many protections?
Now alas, these are probably copyrighted and can't be shared.
Depends. Who owns the copyright? It's possible the copyright was assigned to the publisher and that the publisher has since folded, or that if you contact the publisher and explain your position that you could get a release to archive it online, at least for the parts that the publisher holds the rights on (screenshots, boxcovers, etc. - that's different but will anyone care? Given the use, they're probably fair use as part of the magazine too). The other thing to consider is that it may not be possible for a publisher to feel comfortable giving you permission to reproduce their works, but would the actually sue you?
I personally collect Amiga memorabilia. I would find it absurd for anyone in this day to object to preserving a passion for the system. Of course when there is passion for something there is money to be made, but those businesses working against the collectors for the possibility of gaining a few pennies years down the road that will probably never materialize are not doing themselves any favors with brand perception.
Twitter is great because you don't receive spam from people you don't follow. There is nothing more annoying right now than all the campaigners flooding the web with political spam. Spamming on Twitter ends up in people unfollowing you quickly, so I'd be interested to know how exactly it can act as a campaigning tool except to people who are already your supporters?
PGP is the worst mechanism for e-mail encryption. Sure, it might be strong and mature, but it is an absolute pain the the ass to use, PGP Corporation charges an arm and a leg for it, and GPG is a mess - trying to find all the bits and pieces you need installed, configured, and working well with a clearly make-shift UI that is *not* easy to use is beyond most people.
I agree that it is not about ownership of the box. I wonder if the box can be treated as a closed system, so that in fact it is possible to argue that the object code or executable code was never distributed to you, only an interface to interact with it, and that by connecting to the device you either "stole" the property of the manufacturer, or that you took it upon yourself to make an unlicensed copy?
I've personally emailed Minerva and left voicemails with no reply. I suppose it comes down to you being able to prove that you have contacted them and requested the source. A notarized letter sent by registered mail would probably go some way to achieving that.
You can find out more about Minerva Networks here.
Off the top of my head, things like older versions of the Real codecs, MS MPEG4 (there are several versions and some streams need specific versions for correct decoding), old material in Cinepak, high-end QuickTime plug-ins that require registration, proprietary DV codecs for footage from certain HD cameras, and so on and so forth. Blender's Peach project just last month released an AVI version of Big Buck Bunny in 1080 using MS MPEG 4 video (has been deprecated for years). The decoder wasn't even present on my XP SP2 machine. DivX 3 content commonly uses old Windows Media Audio v2 codecs that don't ship with Windows Media Player these days and are only available through codec packs.
The submitter did not say all of the 100GB of content they have acquired is in MPEG-2. There are dozens of codecs that over periods of time have been popular but will be obscure in 20 years time, if they aren't already. I download files all the time that use strange combinations of codecs.
Do not buy the largest hard drives that you can find. Cutting-edge storage densities might mean bad long term reliability. Go for something a little smaller than the leading edge that has had enough test time for you to find a large number of reviews on the drive's reliability. These will also be cheaper so you can buy two and store them at separate locations.
When you store your files, write a small utility or script that runs through them all and builds redundancy data, like QuickPar, and that stores a hash, e.g. MD5, so that 20 years later you can check the data is still good bit for bit, and even if it contains errors theres a high probability that you'll be able to correct it, even from the redundancy data stored on the same drive, let alone your second copy.
One important thing: As well as all of this, on each drive store a copy of the software (e.g. codecs), as well as any registration information to make them work. Backups of your files are no good if you can't play them later. Try to avoid storing video long term in any format that requires a codec with online activation. Will that company still be around in 20 years time?
They didn't ask you to send wifi signals back into theirs either;) Unlike listening to your neighbors music, using their wifi requires broadcasting on the part of both parties.
Impeaching him would have been a better idea 7 years ago. Right now, it would have no real benefit. I've heard that time and time again during his presidency. If he had been impeached the first time we would not be where we are now. How much personal profit will he and his cohorts make during the remainder of his term? I do not want history to be the judge of Bush. He should be judged by the senate, followed by an international war crimes tribunal.
I'd also like to see an actual law passed revoking all retroactive immunities Bush Co. have granted themselves. Then either retroactive laws are permissible, in which case Bush Co. have no immunity, or they aren't, in which case Bush Co. have no immunity.
Either throttling will still occur during peak hours, in which case we'll all wonder what we're paying for, or throttling won't occur during peak hours, in which case we'll all wonder how the ISPs have suddenly grown the capacity they've been complaining about not having all this time now that they stand to further profit from it.
I personally can't wait until they store the naked body scans on file and use them in conjunction with biometrics. After all, why not? When have government agencies not wanted to collect all kinds of information on us and use them for purposes other than originally intended? And by agreeing to go through the scanner you're consenting to the scan being used for security purposes..
If the latter, the data is still recoverable with a simple undelete utility. No it isn't.
Okay, it might be. Imagine it repeating the process on many files, each time a new file is written it may fill the space of the last deleted one. This also depends on the file system, OS strategy, file sizes, etc.
Using an undelete utility means you risk recovering many corrupt files. That may be better than nothing or sending money to a malware author, which as much as I hate to say it may legitimately be classed as "funding terrorism".
Someone should really forbide this practice by law, for the sake of the environment. Maybe. Plastic food containers that we all use will do infinitely more volume and thus harm.
It's kind of funny to see this idea continuously regurgitated as if it will be successful this time. $6 seems a bit steep for a two day rental. Even for impulse buys that's half the cost of many retail DVDs (after about 6 months of shelf life). Many people have Internet access that is fast enough to pipe DVD-quality or better movies straight into your home in seconds (e.g. Netflix's Watch Now) and of course a NetFlix subscription is better value, although you might have to wait a day or two for actual discs. As the economy is in depression and gas prices are soaring (compared to typical US prices at least) it seems like these might be a hard sell.
I think that is off-topic, but since you're interested I thought I'd let you know that many people (including me) already use IM software for BlackBerry over edge instead of SMS. Try JiveTalk, it costs about $20 but it's one of the most useful and cost-effective one-time purchases for your BB you'll make.
i bet a million dollars they're all using the same, industry standard, software. Hey guys, take him seriously! Our Moody software indicates that he's good for this.
Just as a side: When I wrote this I did so in humor, but it does hold an element of interest. People who have never used e-mail are going to be far more susceptible to scams that those who have used e-mail have become well aware of and learned to ignore. The art will be in perpetrating them over forms such as SMS, which allows only short messages, successfully. I would say 1/5 people a reasonably large target population.
By learning the reasons email doesn't meet the communication needs of a significant portion of the population, you can either expand the capabilities of email, or design new systems to address those gaps. Those gaps don't exist. If they did, 20% of the population would be working on a way to solve them. This goes back to the original point: People will use e-mail if they need to.
E-mail is not the only solution to communication. It does not fulfill all communication needs and it does not need to fulfill all communication needs. Does everyone you know own a TV? Lots of my friends choose not to, for different reasons. That does not mean that the capabilities of TV must be expanded or that new systems must be designed, because it is not mandatory that everyone watches TV.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any dated newer than February.
why not keeping them in a country where privacy still means something
The video privacy protection act should be immediately amended to include support for Internet video services.
Viacom do not need this information. Any of it. At all.
Viacom, as I understand, want to show what percentage of YouTube content views are of Viacom content. In order to accomplish this all they need to do is provide Google with a list of content IDs, which they would need to have if they themselves were to perform the analysis anyway, and then to allow Google to provide a count of views for each of these pieces of content versus the total of all other content views for the same period.
Done. Mission accomplished. No private data changes hands.
I personally cannot comprehend how a judge ruled that privacy issues resulting from this are "speculative". You are essentially handing over information on millions of people on what content they watched, uploaded, commented on, rated, tagged, etc. to a media company, without need. This information is also the foundation for YouTube's business being handed over to a competitor.
The judge says it's speculative? I say remove the judge for willfully violating the privacy of millions of citizens and foreign nationals.
I would also like to know how the judge has completely ignored the Video Privacy Protection Act? If it's on the Internet suddenly all privacy concern automatically goes away, even if you're engaged as a customer of a company with a published privacy policy offering you many protections?
Now alas, these are probably copyrighted and can't be shared.
Depends. Who owns the copyright? It's possible the copyright was assigned to the publisher and that the publisher has since folded, or that if you contact the publisher and explain your position that you could get a release to archive it online, at least for the parts that the publisher holds the rights on (screenshots, boxcovers, etc. - that's different but will anyone care? Given the use, they're probably fair use as part of the magazine too). The other thing to consider is that it may not be possible for a publisher to feel comfortable giving you permission to reproduce their works, but would the actually sue you?
I personally collect Amiga memorabilia. I would find it absurd for anyone in this day to object to preserving a passion for the system. Of course when there is passion for something there is money to be made, but those businesses working against the collectors for the possibility of gaining a few pennies years down the road that will probably never materialize are not doing themselves any favors with brand perception.
See how that works both ways? Maybe some substance to your post would help your argument.
Twitter is great because you don't receive spam from people you don't follow. There is nothing more annoying right now than all the campaigners flooding the web with political spam. Spamming on Twitter ends up in people unfollowing you quickly, so I'd be interested to know how exactly it can act as a campaigning tool except to people who are already your supporters?
I'm sure enigmail is lovely if everyone you want to talk to uses Thunderbird or Seamonkey.
PGP is the worst mechanism for e-mail encryption. Sure, it might be strong and mature, but it is an absolute pain the the ass to use, PGP Corporation charges an arm and a leg for it, and GPG is a mess - trying to find all the bits and pieces you need installed, configured, and working well with a clearly make-shift UI that is *not* easy to use is beyond most people.
That is very interesting.
I agree that it is not about ownership of the box. I wonder if the box can be treated as a closed system, so that in fact it is possible to argue that the object code or executable code was never distributed to you, only an interface to interact with it, and that by connecting to the device you either "stole" the property of the manufacturer, or that you took it upon yourself to make an unlicensed copy?
From the summary:
I've personally emailed Minerva and left voicemails with no reply. I suppose it comes down to you being able to prove that you have contacted them and requested the source. A notarized letter sent by registered mail would probably go some way to achieving that.You can find out more about Minerva Networks here.
Off the top of my head, things like older versions of the Real codecs, MS MPEG4 (there are several versions and some streams need specific versions for correct decoding), old material in Cinepak, high-end QuickTime plug-ins that require registration, proprietary DV codecs for footage from certain HD cameras, and so on and so forth. Blender's Peach project just last month released an AVI version of Big Buck Bunny in 1080 using MS MPEG 4 video (has been deprecated for years). The decoder wasn't even present on my XP SP2 machine. DivX 3 content commonly uses old Windows Media Audio v2 codecs that don't ship with Windows Media Player these days and are only available through codec packs.
The submitter did not say all of the 100GB of content they have acquired is in MPEG-2. There are dozens of codecs that over periods of time have been popular but will be obscure in 20 years time, if they aren't already. I download files all the time that use strange combinations of codecs.
Do not buy the largest hard drives that you can find. Cutting-edge storage densities might mean bad long term reliability. Go for something a little smaller than the leading edge that has had enough test time for you to find a large number of reviews on the drive's reliability. These will also be cheaper so you can buy two and store them at separate locations.
When you store your files, write a small utility or script that runs through them all and builds redundancy data, like QuickPar, and that stores a hash, e.g. MD5, so that 20 years later you can check the data is still good bit for bit, and even if it contains errors theres a high probability that you'll be able to correct it, even from the redundancy data stored on the same drive, let alone your second copy.
One important thing: As well as all of this, on each drive store a copy of the software (e.g. codecs), as well as any registration information to make them work. Backups of your files are no good if you can't play them later. Try to avoid storing video long term in any format that requires a codec with online activation. Will that company still be around in 20 years time?
They didn't ask you to send wifi signals back into theirs either ;) Unlike listening to your neighbors music, using their wifi requires broadcasting on the part of both parties.
I'd also like to see an actual law passed revoking all retroactive immunities Bush Co. have granted themselves. Then either retroactive laws are permissible, in which case Bush Co. have no immunity, or they aren't, in which case Bush Co. have no immunity.
Either throttling will still occur during peak hours, in which case we'll all wonder what we're paying for, or throttling won't occur during peak hours, in which case we'll all wonder how the ISPs have suddenly grown the capacity they've been complaining about not having all this time now that they stand to further profit from it.
I personally can't wait until they store the naked body scans on file and use them in conjunction with biometrics. After all, why not? When have government agencies not wanted to collect all kinds of information on us and use them for purposes other than originally intended? And by agreeing to go through the scanner you're consenting to the scan being used for security purposes..
Okay, it might be. Imagine it repeating the process on many files, each time a new file is written it may fill the space of the last deleted one. This also depends on the file system, OS strategy, file sizes, etc.
Using an undelete utility means you risk recovering many corrupt files. That may be better than nothing or sending money to a malware author, which as much as I hate to say it may legitimately be classed as "funding terrorism".
The only problem is that in the process you are committing one or more of perjury/fraud/identity theft.
It's kind of funny to see this idea continuously regurgitated as if it will be successful this time. $6 seems a bit steep for a two day rental. Even for impulse buys that's half the cost of many retail DVDs (after about 6 months of shelf life). Many people have Internet access that is fast enough to pipe DVD-quality or better movies straight into your home in seconds (e.g. Netflix's Watch Now) and of course a NetFlix subscription is better value, although you might have to wait a day or two for actual discs. As the economy is in depression and gas prices are soaring (compared to typical US prices at least) it seems like these might be a hard sell.
- Al / DivX (the codec, not the stupid one)
Student visas are J visas, not H-1B's.
I think that is off-topic, but since you're interested I thought I'd let you know that many people (including me) already use IM software for BlackBerry over edge instead of SMS. Try JiveTalk, it costs about $20 but it's one of the most useful and cost-effective one-time purchases for your BB you'll make.
Just as a side: When I wrote this I did so in humor, but it does hold an element of interest. People who have never used e-mail are going to be far more susceptible to scams that those who have used e-mail have become well aware of and learned to ignore. The art will be in perpetrating them over forms such as SMS, which allows only short messages, successfully. I would say 1/5 people a reasonably large target population.
E-mail is not the only solution to communication. It does not fulfill all communication needs and it does not need to fulfill all communication needs. Does everyone you know own a TV? Lots of my friends choose not to, for different reasons. That does not mean that the capabilities of TV must be expanded or that new systems must be designed, because it is not mandatory that everyone watches TV.