Since the core of tis story is fooling a DNN rather than image recognition, I wonder whether the same exercise could be repeated with DNNs tasked to recognize human behavior and build digital profiles of humans based on for example browsing habits, keywords in online communication, movement is space, etc. How does a white noise terrorist look like? What would be its indirectly encoded best representation? We tend to be scared of digital profiling because we believe that our digital representation actually looks like us. but does it really?
If offering links to illegally shared content is unlawful (not protected) speech, then how can it be used in enforcement? Without access to such speech would (c) enforcement be feasible?
The report celebrates the music industry as the innovator, which not only gets the internet, but is essentially the “engine of the digital ecosystem”. Sadly, this self-boasting image seems to fall apart at the stitches. When IFPI wants to censor search engines, or make ISPs filter the net, it becomes obvious that they still haven’t learned anything from their own last 10 years. Users go to search engines to pose questions, get answers and do a selection according to their own needs. People pay for the internet connection to access people and content which they think is useful for them. I find irresistibly funny that IFPI thinks it knows better what people should be happy with as a search result. It is insulting though that IFPI thinks it knows better what people should be doing online than those, who pay for the access itself. But these fallacies are also warnings, that they couldn’t break those habits that nearly killed them in the last decade. Because if they think those people who have the money that crave for, should change, instead of them providing a better service, then they are wrong. This is why facing the past’s bad decision would help a lot. If you cannot look into the mirror and say: these were the things we fucked up: we wanted to dictate the terms of access instead of listening to what our consumers wanted; we thought they were notorious pirates who could only be forced to pay by lawsuits, and we were wrong, because we now see that people are happy to pay even if they cannot be forced to do so. Absent of such self-reflection the industry will keep repeating the same mistakes. But it is not only them, who are losing by these mistakes. Artists and fans, the music and the culture also loses. Maybe it is time to be a tad more honest and self-reflective, dear IFPI. But at least try to keep your own story straight. Make sure you hire an editor who is able to spot when you contradict your own story. It also helps if you don’t contradict published research with references to unpublished data Good luck next time.
"Subscription services are the fastest growth area in digital music, with subscriber numbers up 44 per cent in 2012 and revenues up 59 per cent in the first half of 2012." VS "Illegal free music remains an enormous obstacle to future growth of legitimate music markets." - I wonder what are the growth expectations of the industry if those enormous obstacles were removed? Exponential, they claim elsewhere. How realistic is that?
"Ifpi estimates that around one-third of internet users globally (32%) still regularly access unlicensed sites" VS "Pirate services are clunky and old-fashioned compared to the legal services available. they’re being usurped by mass consumer migration to smartphones and access to millions of tracks from legitimate subscription services. consumers can also tap into their social network and see what their friends and family are listening to. The pirate option just cannot offer that complete consumer experience." - They forgot to ask themselves: why people are still using those clunky and old-fashioned services even if so many excellent, legal and _free_ options exists. They claim better enforcement and not better legal services would solve the problem, despite the fact that they offer the proof to the contrary in their own report. Strange.
"The shift to the cloud could be as significant for the consumer as the shift from physical product to digital consumption. It provides a level of convenience around our content that is increasingly difficult for unlicensed services to replicate." VS "On January 12, 2000, MP3.com launched the "My.MP3.com" service which enabled users to securely register their personal CDs and then stream digital copies online from the My.MP3.com service. Since consumers could only listen online to music they already proved they owned the company saw this as a great opportunity for revenue by allowing fans to access their own music online. The record industry did not see it that way and sued MP3.com c
Can someone knowledgeable explain me what is the point of maintaining hierarchies in domain names? Why.Cant.I.use.any.name for an IP address? or to be more exact: why can I only do so via a search engine?
Are these the same Minnesotans, who think "carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth." is "Sodomy", and recognize that whoever "voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another" is wrong and merits a severe sanction of "imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both" ?
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.293
at least we now have a price: 1 song equals 27 bjs. can any grupie/musician on/. confirm this?
He argues that there is no scarcity in the radio spectrum, and government regulation or market allocation is essentially outdated by the arrival of smart radios.
"The current legal framework for radio transmission relies on administrative licensing of broadcasters. The emerging regulatory alternative replaces licensing with an exhaustive system of property rights in the radio frequency spectrum.
This article analyzes a third alternative: egulating wireless transmissions as a public
commons, as we today regulate our highway system and our computer networks. The choice we make among these alternatives will determine the path of development of our wireless communications infrastructure.
Its social, political, and cultural implications are likely to be profound."
in that article he argues for treating the spectrum as a commons: "Our capacity to think about the truly central questions concerning regulation of
wireless communications is obscured by the language we use to discuss the problem.
When we speak of regulating wireless communications, we speak of managing a
resource, the spectrum. Generally, we use market-based solutions for resource
management, and therefore when posed with such a problem look for something to
which we can affix property rights to be traded in the market. But there is no such
thing as spectrum. There is no ether out there, no finite physical resource that
needs to be allocated. There are simply people communicating with each other,
transmitting and receiving messages with equipment that uses electromagnetic waves
to encode meaningful communications and send them over varying distances without
using a wire. Spectrum management means regulating how these people use their
equipment. Spectrum allocation, whether it be done by licensing or auctioning, is the
practice whereby government solves this coordination problem by threatening most
people in society that it will tear down their antennas and confiscate their transmitters
if they try to communicate with each other using wireless communications equipment
without permission."
As for assigning private rights to commons there is a big problem. Once You start to dismantle the commons, You bump into BIG problems, like in the case of any cultural expression.
or to put it in an other way: just because all images in this picture are private property, should we think this form of expression (by Banksy) is illegal without the IP owners consent: http://mokk.bme.hu/~bodo/banksy/banksy3.jpg?
Slashdot Mirror
Since the core of tis story is fooling a DNN rather than image recognition, I wonder whether the same exercise could be repeated with DNNs tasked to recognize human behavior and build digital profiles of humans based on for example browsing habits, keywords in online communication, movement is space, etc. How does a white noise terrorist look like? What would be its indirectly encoded best representation? We tend to be scared of digital profiling because we believe that our digital representation actually looks like us. but does it really?
If offering links to illegally shared content is unlawful (not protected) speech, then how can it be used in enforcement? Without access to such speech would (c) enforcement be feasible?
The report celebrates the music industry as the innovator, which not only gets the internet, but is essentially the “engine of the digital ecosystem”. Sadly, this self-boasting image seems to fall apart at the stitches. When IFPI wants to censor search engines, or make ISPs filter the net, it becomes obvious that they still haven’t learned anything from their own last 10 years. Users go to search engines to pose questions, get answers and do a selection according to their own needs. People pay for the internet connection to access people and content which they think is useful for them. I find irresistibly funny that IFPI thinks it knows better what people should be happy with as a search result. It is insulting though that IFPI thinks it knows better what people should be doing online than those, who pay for the access itself. But these fallacies are also warnings, that they couldn’t break those habits that nearly killed them in the last decade.
Because if they think those people who have the money that crave for, should change, instead of them providing a better service, then they are wrong. This is why facing the past’s bad decision would help a lot. If you cannot look into the mirror and say: these were the things we fucked up: we wanted to dictate the terms of access instead of listening to what our consumers wanted; we thought they were notorious pirates who could only be forced to pay by lawsuits, and we were wrong, because we now see that people are happy to pay even if they cannot be forced to do so. Absent of such self-reflection the industry will keep repeating the same mistakes. But it is not only them, who are losing by these mistakes. Artists and fans, the music and the culture also loses. Maybe it is time to be a tad more honest and self-reflective, dear IFPI. But at least try to keep your own story straight. Make sure you hire an editor who is able to spot when you contradict your own story. It also helps if you don’t contradict published research with references to unpublished data
Good luck next time.
"Subscription services are the fastest growth area in digital music, with subscriber numbers up 44 per cent in 2012 and revenues up 59 per cent in the first half of 2012." VS "Illegal free music remains an enormous obstacle to future growth of legitimate music markets." - I wonder what are the growth expectations of the industry if those enormous obstacles were removed? Exponential, they claim elsewhere. How realistic is that?
"Ifpi estimates that around one-third of internet users globally (32%) still regularly access unlicensed sites" VS "Pirate services are clunky and old-fashioned compared to the legal services available. they’re being usurped by mass consumer migration to smartphones and access to millions of tracks from legitimate subscription services. consumers can also tap into their social network and see what their friends and family are listening to. The pirate option just cannot offer that complete consumer experience." - They forgot to ask themselves: why people are still using those clunky and old-fashioned services even if so many excellent, legal and _free_ options exists. They claim better enforcement and not better legal services would solve the problem, despite the fact that they offer the proof to the contrary in their own report. Strange.
"The shift to the cloud could be as significant for the consumer as the shift from physical product to digital consumption. It provides a level of convenience around our content that is increasingly difficult for unlicensed services to replicate." VS "On January 12, 2000, MP3.com launched the "My.MP3.com" service which enabled users to securely register their personal CDs and then stream digital copies online from the My.MP3.com service. Since consumers could only listen online to music they already proved they owned the company saw this as a great opportunity for revenue by allowing fans to access their own music online. The record industry did not see it that way and sued MP3.com c
Can someone knowledgeable explain me what is the point of maintaining hierarchies in domain names? Why.Cant.I.use.any.name for an IP address? or to be more exact: why can I only do so via a search engine?
The results would only surprise those who don't know anything about how informal media markets are structured. These people didn't do their homework. Read: b-bstf. (2004). A Guide To Internet Piracy. 2600 Hacker Quarterly Summer. http://web.archive.org/web/20070512002747/old.wheresthebeef.co.uk/show.php/guide/2600_Guide_to_Internet_Piracy-TYDJ.txt and Howe, J. (2005): The Shadow Internet Wired http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/topsite.html This is why you need social scientists (sociologists, anthropologists, media and communications studies people) in a group of engineers and statisticians to conducts such studies.
Are these the same Minnesotans, who think "carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth." is "Sodomy", and recognize that whoever "voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another" is wrong and merits a severe sanction of "imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both" ? https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.293 at least we now have a price: 1 song equals 27 bjs. can any grupie/musician on /. confirm this?
I would like to draw your attention to the work of Yochai Benkler http://www.benkler.org/.
He argues that there is no scarcity in the radio spectrum, and government regulation or market allocation is essentially outdated by the arrival of smart radios.
"The current legal framework for radio transmission relies on administrative licensing of broadcasters. The emerging regulatory alternative replaces licensing with an exhaustive system of property rights in the radio frequency spectrum. This article analyzes a third alternative: egulating wireless transmissions as a public commons, as we today regulate our highway system and our computer networks. The choice we make among these alternatives will determine the path of development of our wireless communications infrastructure.
Its social, political, and cultural implications are likely to be profound."
the article quoted is Overcoming Agoraphobia: Building the Commons of the Digitally Networked Environment http://www.benkler.org/agoraphobia.pdf
in that article he argues for treating the spectrum as a commons: "Our capacity to think about the truly central questions concerning regulation of wireless communications is obscured by the language we use to discuss the problem. When we speak of regulating wireless communications, we speak of managing a resource, the spectrum. Generally, we use market-based solutions for resource management, and therefore when posed with such a problem look for something to which we can affix property rights to be traded in the market. But there is no such thing as spectrum. There is no ether out there, no finite physical resource that needs to be allocated. There are simply people communicating with each other, transmitting and receiving messages with equipment that uses electromagnetic waves to encode meaningful communications and send them over varying distances without using a wire. Spectrum management means regulating how these people use their equipment. Spectrum allocation, whether it be done by licensing or auctioning, is the practice whereby government solves this coordination problem by threatening most people in society that it will tear down their antennas and confiscate their transmitters if they try to communicate with each other using wireless communications equipment without permission."
As for assigning private rights to commons there is a big problem. Once You start to dismantle the commons, You bump into BIG problems, like in the case of any cultural expression.
another very good article an that question: Michael F. Brown: Can Culture Be Copyrighted? http://www.williams.edu/AnthSoc/brown-ca98.pdf
or to put it in an other way: just because all images in this picture are private property, should we think this form of expression (by Banksy) is illegal without the IP owners consent: http://mokk.bme.hu/~bodo/banksy/banksy3.jpg?