Which is why organisations such as financial institutions should publish their certificate fingerprint 'out of band', for example on the back of the credit/debit cards and on every (paper) statement they send you.
W3C should not be including anything like DRM. They should remember that is is HyperText Markup Language. All they need to define is the usage of the 'a' tag, and left some IETF working group define the transport type for video etc. rather than using HyperText Transfer Protocol.
There is no technical reason why the decryption modules could not be cross-platform. They could be implemented in an 'intermediate' language such Java Bytecode or UCSD p-code which can be run on (almost) any platform.
All it means is that as well as quoting the IP address they will also have to quote the port number and an accurate time in order for the subscriber to be identified. It would also need the ISP to log the 4-tuple (Subscriber 'private' IP, External IP, External Port, TCP/UDP) for each connection as well as which private IP is allocated to each subscriber.
It *would* be a DCMA violation for you to buy/acquire a copy of a game that wouldn't run on your Xbox without said modification. Now you are "stealing" the use of someone's copyrighted work without their permission.
Is that necessarily true? What if someone wrote a game that only works on a hardware modified X-Box? Would it not be perfectly legal for the game's author to sell the game and for people to purchase and run it?
Part of the problem is that products that start off good and have a good reputation often lose their edge but people continue using them. I remember when Norton Utilities (or it competitor PC Tools from Central Point) was almost essential for 'power' users, and when McAfeee was amonst the best anti-virus toolkits.
When there are several facebook users with a given real name and many of them have no picture and make their profile private with just the "If you know XXXX, send them a friend request", it is almost impossible to know which one of the 50 John Does is the one you went to college with or used to work with but have lost touch.
So you just introduce a law that anyone who publishes an image, video or audio file electronically is not allowed to remove any author attribution metadata from file as they received it. This is in effect enforcing article 6bis or the Berne Convention
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
Maybe the solution is to only ban the deletion of some metadata by anyone except the creator of the data.. This would include the creation date and the creator or copyright owner, and allow other metadata to be deleted. This would prevent the problem of premature orphaning whilst preserving any privacy issues.
Alternatively, as far as privacy issues are concerned, the creator is at perfect liberty to edit the metadata, to remove anything which they do not want published, before uploading/sharing/distributing the work.
If a TOR exit node can be prosecuted for traffic passing through it, should the ISP and backbone router owners not also be held responsible for traffic passing through their nodes? If the ISP and network operators are not held responsible then neither should the TOR node owner.
Granted that it is a lower bit rate, but Spotify seems to manage to reliably deliver audio streaming with almost instant start and no pauses. So maybe the video streaming sites could learn from this.
The problem with 900, and other premium rate, numbers is that they cannot be called internationally so are only good for callers in the same country as the 900 number.
She is not asking for it "for free" she recognises that it has value so she is asking for it in lieu of financial reward. ie she is asking for something of value in (at least part) payment of the royalties due to her.
As long as (electronic) communications are working, how many of the people who work in the finance district (apart from those providing physical support, eg janitors, food vendors etc) need to actually be in their offices to work? As long as they have telephone and internet access thay can do their jobs by telecommuting.
And they just cannot understand how anyone would not want to watch/listen to the movies/music produced by their members. The same as the UK TV Licensing cannot understand how any household could live without a TV set, so assume that anyone who does not have a TV licence is watching TV illegally.
The problem is that if you're watching Justin Bieber clips in YouTube, you will get JB ads when you open your GMail even if your emails have nothing to do with it. Some people don't like the idea of cross-service advertisement.
Or if your YouTube username was 'Beiberfan' and the new policy forces it to change to your real name, but you would rather your friends not know that it was you who wrote some of the comments to the Bieber clips.
But that is not NOT what the declaration states. It states "I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the the owner of an exclusive right". It does not state "..or am authorized to act on behalf of SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS to be the owner of an exclusive right". They are swearing under penalty of perjury both that they are authorized at acting on behalf of someone who does have the right. The only alleged is that the work complained about actually infringes. The declaration states as a fact that the person making the notification, or on whose behalf it is being made, is actually the owner of the exclusive right which is alleged to be infringed.
If the law (in whatever jurisdiction) gives you the right to make the copy (rather than just making it not illegal), then surely any DRM that prevents you from exercising that right should be illegal. Digital Rights Management needs to 'grow up' so that it enforces the rights of both the copyright owner and the owner of the individual copy.
But what he (or his wife) could do is sue the pants off the company which claimed to own the copyright in the speech which his wife was giving and caused the takedown.
And have even severe penalties for corporations which falsely claim to own the copyright, as in the case of the media companies which claimed copyright on the NASA video and Obama speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why organisations such as financial institutions should publish their certificate fingerprint 'out of band', for example on the back of the credit/debit cards and on every (paper) statement they send you.
W3C should not be including anything like DRM. They should remember that is is HyperText Markup Language. All they need to define is the usage of the 'a' tag, and left some IETF working group define the transport type for video etc. rather than using HyperText Transfer Protocol.
There is no technical reason why the decryption modules could not be cross-platform. They could be implemented in an 'intermediate' language such Java Bytecode or UCSD p-code which can be run on (almost) any platform.
Other than with a credit card, how else do you recommend paying for mail-order goods?
Send a cheque or postal order with the order or in settlement of the account.
There are already ISPs which supply IPv6. The SixXS FAQ lists 7 in the UK (which means competitors of BT) and 14 in the USA.
All it means is that as well as quoting the IP address they will also have to quote the port number and an accurate time in order for the subscriber to be identified. It would also need the ISP to log the 4-tuple (Subscriber 'private' IP, External IP, External Port, TCP/UDP) for each connection as well as which private IP is allocated to each subscriber.
...Henceforth all conversations must be recorded on your official government recorder, which will relay all conversations in real time..
On the bright side, free telescreens for everyone!
Or Google Glass
It *would* be a DCMA violation for you to buy/acquire a copy of a game that wouldn't run on your Xbox without said modification. Now you are "stealing" the use of someone's copyrighted work without their permission.
Is that necessarily true? What if someone wrote a game that only works on a hardware modified X-Box? Would it not be perfectly legal for the game's author to sell the game and for people to purchase and run it?
Part of the problem is that products that start off good and have a good reputation often lose their edge but people continue using them. I remember when Norton Utilities (or it competitor PC Tools from Central Point) was almost essential for 'power' users, and when McAfeee was amonst the best anti-virus toolkits.
When there are several facebook users with a given real name and many of them have no picture and make their profile private with just the "If you know XXXX, send them a friend request", it is almost impossible to know which one of the 50 John Does is the one you went to college with or used to work with but have lost touch.
So you just introduce a law that anyone who publishes an image, video or audio file electronically is not allowed to remove any author attribution metadata from file as they received it. This is in effect enforcing article 6bis or the Berne Convention
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
So such use of sock puppets should be made illegal in the same way as shill bidding in auctions and considered to be false advertising.
Maybe the solution is to only ban the deletion of some metadata by anyone except the creator of the data.. This would include the creation date and the creator or copyright owner, and allow other metadata to be deleted. This would prevent the problem of premature orphaning whilst preserving any privacy issues.
Alternatively, as far as privacy issues are concerned, the creator is at perfect liberty to edit the metadata, to remove anything which they do not want published, before uploading/sharing/distributing the work.
If a TOR exit node can be prosecuted for traffic passing through it, should the ISP and backbone router owners not also be held responsible for traffic passing through their nodes? If the ISP and network operators are not held responsible then neither should the TOR node owner.
Granted that it is a lower bit rate, but Spotify seems to manage to reliably deliver audio streaming with almost instant start and no pauses. So maybe the video streaming sites could learn from this.
The problem with 900, and other premium rate, numbers is that they cannot be called internationally so are only good for callers in the same country as the 900 number.
She is not asking for it "for free" she recognises that it has value so she is asking for it in lieu of financial reward. ie she is asking for something of value in (at least part) payment of the royalties due to her.
As long as (electronic) communications are working, how many of the people who work in the finance district (apart from those providing physical support, eg janitors, food vendors etc) need to actually be in their offices to work? As long as they have telephone and internet access thay can do their jobs by telecommuting.
And they just cannot understand how anyone would not want to watch/listen to the movies/music produced by their members. The same as the UK TV Licensing cannot understand how any household could live without a TV set, so assume that anyone who does not have a TV licence is watching TV illegally.
The problem is that if you're watching Justin Bieber clips in YouTube, you will get JB ads when you open your GMail even if your emails have nothing to do with it. Some people don't like the idea of cross-service advertisement.
Or if your YouTube username was 'Beiberfan' and the new policy forces it to change to your real name, but you would rather your friends not know that it was you who wrote some of the comments to the Bieber clips.
But that is not NOT what the declaration states. It states "I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the the owner of an exclusive right". It does not state "..or am authorized to act on behalf of SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS to be the owner of an exclusive right". They are swearing under penalty of perjury both that they are authorized at acting on behalf of someone who does have the right. The only alleged is that the work complained about actually infringes. The declaration states as a fact that the person making the notification, or on whose behalf it is being made, is actually the owner of the exclusive right which is alleged to be infringed.
If the law (in whatever jurisdiction) gives you the right to make the copy (rather than just making it not illegal), then surely any DRM that prevents you from exercising that right should be illegal. Digital Rights Management needs to 'grow up' so that it enforces the rights of both the copyright owner and the owner of the individual copy.
No. The offence is making the false claim that it will not run Linux.
But what he (or his wife) could do is sue the pants off the company which claimed to own the copyright in the speech which his wife was giving and caused the takedown.
And have even severe penalties for corporations which falsely claim to own the copyright, as in the case of the media companies which claimed copyright on the NASA video and Obama speech.