As a critical thinker, I speak for everyone when I say:
"Never believe effectiveness reports made by industry groups who lobbied for the change in question, without actually reviewing the report methodology (which, BTW, is hardly ever disclosed in these so-called "reports")."
For there to be negligence, there must first be a duty of care to even be breached in the first place.
Not to forget that defining "duty of care" in US tort law falls under the jurisdiction of the State governments, which would diminish even further Joe Average's ability to figure out if he has significant liability under copyright law (this ability already being close to zero anyway except for really blatant infringing activity).
And if I am not mistaken, there is no way to be excused from paying damages for infringement, no matter how impossible it was for you to know that your actions could lead to such liability --- i.e., fulfilling this hypothetical "duty of care" is not a valid defense from monetary liability. (The amount of damages awarded, however, can be affected by how your actions are perceived).
Thanks for the info, but this only confirms that the explanation is making a salad of the two different kinds of hashes used in the protocols: the hash function used for the data chunks and the hash function used to produce unique fileset IDs.
My guess is that the software is OK and the explanation is garbled; however, in a court document, that is not going to (or rather, should not) fly very well.
On page 7, RSA public key encryption is described, but it claims that it has "a public key with which decoding or signature checks are made possible". The typical way asymmetric encryption is described is that the public key is used for encoding and the private key for decoding. And even if somehow the broken English has inverted the two keys, the paragraph claims that both keys are used for decoding, which is silly, at least one of them has to be used for encoding. Possibly too minor an error to make a big deal over, since the algorithm seems to actually be used in this software for digital signatures, not encryptions.
A blaring error is on page 13, where (based on my understanding of the bad English) the data-block hashing algorithm of BitTorrent is claimed to be "BITH" (which I have never heard of, as far as I know BT uses SHA-1), and the hashing algorithm of Gnutella is claimed to be "SHA1" when a Tiger tree hash is used. Kind of hard to rely on a program designed to monitor P2P transfers when the description of the P2P technologies contain such errors.
Ah, he may have meant "btih" --- but my understanding is that that's used by BitTorrent to identify the whole file or fileset, not the individual chunks.
> why not cede it and make the old prefixes mean 1024 and the > new ones mean 1000 in the context of computer storage > and transmission rates?
You get points for originality --- that's the first time I've heard someone suggest that.
You know what? I'd be willing to press a magic button which would set the world to that state, if I became convinced that the uses of the prefixes would actually be unambiguous. The problem is that I'm not sure that's possible. I would codify your suggestion as "when applied to information, SI prefixes are binary and vice versa", but I'd need input from physicists working in information theory to know if there is actually a way to distinguish unambiguously between information and other physical quantities. If there was, I'd be willing to pay the price that various edge cases, like calculating the mass of a flash drive given the mass used per bit, would not work out nicely "in one's head".
> 3. The average person has no idea what you're talking about
What else is new? This wouldn't exactly phase me. Color me Aspie, I suppose.
> (2.5. In certain fonts, the i is hard to see)
That is a problem with the font, then, not the idea.
> 2. They take longer/are more complicated to type if you have to keep repeating them
I can't seriously think that this is significant for most people. The only item which is measured in binary units which is bought by non-technical people is RAM, and they usually don't write about it. Electrical engineers, computer scientists, and programmers are the only people I can think of who deal with binary quantities on a day-to-day basis. Even for them, the extra letter doesn't seem like a lot of overhead, considering that for most of them typing is a fundamental skill.
> 1. They sound ridiculous
As they say: "First they laugh at you,...". Most novel things seem strange, mainly because of their novelty. In this case, however, I'm not sure we're ever going to get over the hump of the chicken/egg problem with respect to the novelty wearing off.
I'm perfectly aware that it's unlikely that I'll live long enough to see the binary prefixes come into everyday use even within the professions where they would have the greatest impact. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy being pedantic and pointing out that that "Utopia" would have its advantages.
Nope. You got it wrong. Thanks for being a poster child for why it would be better if we properly distinguished between kilo- and kibi-, mega- and mebi-, etc.
Unless, of course, you actually meant to use a peculiar GB which is 1000*1000*1024 (a kilo-floppy-disk-mega)?
> Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a tor or freenet node.
In the near future, then, you should consider not running any kind of website which allows user content to be posted. Steganography exists and can be undetectable at low enough data rates (that only means that people using it as a covert channel will need to spread their information over multiple websites).
Would you be willing that, for example, 1KB of CP would be transmitted using your website? 10KB? Take into consideration that even a just a few bytes could be significant (it could be a password to a file uploaded to a shareable file locker provider somewhere).
> If Masnick didn't "create" this metric, which is faulty, it doesn't absolve him from using it to justify his > claim that "the sky is rising" for music content creators.
Why should he need "absolution"? He qualifies his use of the data immediately after presenting it --- I even quoted the text of where he does that.
> This contradicts Lowry's observation, based on his wife's recording business, that music production has decreased.
Well, if you prefer to rely on someone who is basing their arguments on their wife's recording business rather than the reports of companies like Neilsen and industry groups like IFPI, I suppose we don't have to continue this discussion any longer. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Of course, as Masnick emphasizes, "live music" is an enormously wide range of activities not all of which are covered by Neilsen SoundScan. You must forgive me for refusing to believe Lowery has reached his conclusion by gathering more data or different data than them; however, if Lowery would actually cough up the data in a way which could be reviewed, I could possibly be convinced.
OK. I understand that you've checked all Lowery's criticisms by yourself, so we can discuss them, one by one:
Among the most outrageous obfuscations and bizarre metrics: Including gaming revenue to help disguise recorded music revenue decline
The only place I see in Masnick's report where income from video games was included in the music section was when he reports the results of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, as far as I can tell, verbatim (let me know if you found a different place during your review).
Another way of looking at the music industry is through the numbers that the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) publishes on what it calls "the broader music industry." In 2005, the IFPI estimated the global music industry to be worth $132 billion -- which included revenues from music in radio advertising, recorded music sales, musical instrument sales, live performance revenues and portable digital music player sales (among a few other income categories). By 2010, the IFPI estimated the market to be worth $168 billion, but it had also changed how it categorized some of the revenues and added categories such as audio home systems, music-related video game sales and music revenues from TV advertising (in addition to a few other categories).
Hmm, what have we here? Seems to me that Lowery is misrepresenting the lumping of that income to Masnick trying to disguise something else, rather than it being a lumped metric reported by a respected industry group, the IFPI. I guess Lowery knows better than all of those deadheads at IFPI who decided that "Guitar Hero"-like game income should be attributed to the "broader" music industry.
Not mentioning the drop in live music revenues in North America
OK, I cannot judge anything about this one, except that Lowery doesn't post any data backing his claim. He could be right.
creating the bizarre metric of “number of recorded music transactions” instead of using recorded music revenues
This criticism address the data Masnick reports from Neilsen Soundscan:
On the consumption side, music is also being consumed at near record-setting levels. According to Nielsen SoundScan figures, the overall sale of music (including albums, singles, digital tracks, etc.) exceeded 1.5 billion transactions in 2010. That's up from 845 million transactions in 2000. These overall sales figures seem to rise and fall a bit over the years, but they don't necessarily drop during economic recessions.
Masnick didn't "create" this metric. Those idiots at Nielsen, who obviously don't know squat compared to Lowery, did. Masnick does address various problems using the metric:
Again, there are a few caveats with the Nielsen SoundScan sales data that should be mentioned. First of all, these are transactions without regard to the price of an item, so as we'll discuss later, this does not necessarily mean that consumers are spending more when they buy music.
If you want, we can segue into an argument over the article, too. However, from my cursory perusal of it, I get the impression that it largely reflects Lowery's self-image; it starts with several slides solely about himself, rather than the topic --- in order to set himself up as an "authority". He throws around all kinds of anecdotal numbers and talks about "14 academic papers", but doesn't give us any references or actual access to his data or data collection protocol, so we cannot actually judge to what degree his adamant backing of his argument is due to confirmation bias rather than him actually being correct. Because of his Techdirt run-in, he feebly tries to discredit Masnick's report on the music industry:
Totally misleading fake studies. Like the Computer and Communications Industry Association’s ”The Sky is Rising” Report. First off this was passed around as independent research when it was actually industry lobby generated propaganda. Among the most outrageous obfuscations and bizarre metrics: Including gaming revenue to help disguise recorded music revenue decline, Not mentioning the drop in live music revenues in North America, and creating the bizarre metric of “number of recorded music transactions” instead of using recorded music revenues. Recorded music transactions are up because people buy individual tracks now instead of 1 album of 10 songs. Get it?
When he dismisses Masnick's report, his main argument in doing so is because it is sponsored by a particular group (it's rather typical that people who argue from authority use ad-hominem attacks to discredit other points of view). He continually calls it various names, like "fake", "propaganda". His actual attacks target a few specific points without quoting the paper itself, and are largely specious (if you want, we can address them in further discussion). In comparison, the paper's intro to the music industry section starts with this paragraph:
Defining the music industry is tricky -- it can be defined in several different ways and each method can leave out significant segments of the market. For instance, various music organizations and government statistics don't count (or vastly under-count) contributors to the music industry, such as self-employed artists who might work part-time or musicians working for non-profit entities like schools, churches or other cultural venues. There are also several independent music distributors that aren't counted in mainstream music industry statistics. Ultimately, music is a pervasive part of life, and the music industry is not a centralized, monolithic business. The music industry is made up of several music industries -- ranging from the major labels to piano teachers. If the book industry looked almost too vast to account for, then the music industry could seem even more daunting.
Personally, I find that so refreshing compared to Lowery: "reality is complex and hard to understand" vs. "I'm an expert and you can rely on my understanding of the music business".
Within the context of Lowery's emphasis of his own expertise, the Techdirt post is actually cogent. He complains that "he gets the digital world" while at the same time he laughably threatens "i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?" --- even more pathetically, he's threatening to sue Mike Masnick, coiner of the term "Streisand effect". Riiiight.
> what's that supposed to prove? That Lowery can use non-censured language? That's it? I read the whole 5-part article
I didn't, and none of this discussion is about that article. You fail, interestingly in exactly the same way Lowery did.
This particular discussion is about whether Lowery manages to project an image of someone who deserves respect, in those particular Techdirt posts. I understand that you are free to disagree. What bothers me doesn't have to bother you, and visa versa.
> That criticism contains nothing persuasive for me and no real data.
Actually, I was curious enough to look for your 5-part article. Is it the one linked in the summary? Posted almost a month after Lowery's Techdirt escapade? I find it silly that you're dissing Masnick for not having good arguments against something which was obviously posted after Masnick's Techdirt post.
Looking at the article which impressed you so much, I don't see a lot of data in it either (it is, I admit, chock full of claims --- but that's different from data.). One statement did impress me with its honesty, though:
I like to think that I am uniquely qualified as an artist, entrepreneur and geek.
Yes, that is exactly the impression one gets from Lowery's Techdirt post. Someone who believes he is uniquely qualified, in fact, so uniquely qualified he couldn't possibly be wrong --- in fact, people should apologize for disagreeing with him.
OK, I'll bite: I repost Lowery's first reply post on that Techdirt article:
digeridiot. David C Lowery (profile), Feb 20th, 2012 @ 10:52pm
Wow. Mike you didn't even come to the talk and then you rebut me?
what the fuck? i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?
You should change the article title to
"If you're gonna rebut someones talk, you might ought have heard it"
1. whatever you took from Facebook was some ramblings from a few weeks earlier and it was not my argument that i presented at sf music tech. One of the paragraphs did share the title. But otherwise IT HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT I TALKED ABOUT.
2. The talk I gave was based on a University of Georgia bit of academic research. I teach at University of Georgia when i'm not out touring. I teach music business finance. Unlike TECHDIRT I can't make up things out of my ass and just print them.
3. you didn't even present my actual argument. It's quite narrow comparison of the percentage of gross revenue that flows to the artist under the new digital model vs the old record label model. my tentative conclusion is that less revenue
4. I have shitloads of data. nearly two decades worth. hundreds of artists. all kinds of artists. hobbyists to platinum.
5. I like most of you here expected that although the overall revenue for the recorded music business is down (-64%) I expected artists would be doing better. Disintermediation etc. direct sales to fans. long tail revenue. It turns out the data does not agree. Don't shoot the fucking messenger.
6. How the fuck can you say the argument don't make sense? you didn't even hear it.
7. for those of you who think i somehow don't understand the digital world? I have a degree in mathematics and i've been programming computers since you had to RPG on punch cards. my first job out of college was as a CPM/MPM system operator. Since the early 1990's i've been operating a successful WEB based business. It's called being in a band. Don't fucking tell me I don't understand the fucking digital paradigm. Finally if you still don't think i have digital/web credentials just google "david lowery groupon"
I expect a retraction and an apology. fuckface.
You say that you "came away with much respect for Lowerly [sic]" --- from that I understand that your respect for someone is proportional to the number of times they gratuitously insert "fuck" into their arguments, added to the number of times they insult the people with whom they are arguing? I think I am understanding how you don't respect my reasoning. LOL
> Specifically, google and facebook are almost certainly the two worst offenders out there.
I'm curious. Do you think they are the worst because of their prominent market positions (i.e., from a quantitative point of view), or do you believe they are the worst because of their bad policies (i.e., from a qualitative point of view).
I might just agree with you with respect to Google, if you mean it in a quantitative way.
I hate google as much as anybody, and do not use their search engine because of their privacy-invading policies. I also do not run their tracking crap that's all around the internet, and recommend that NO ONE use them for these reasons: they are destroying the last shred of privacy that was left on the internet.
Let me give you a clue. It is possible to both use Google services and at the same time hide information from Google. And I rather doubt it's less convenient to do that than boycotting Google (and practically every other search engine, it seems) totally. It's silly to relate to reality as if it is one big false dichotomy.
To be a bit more explicit, you merely have to continue your style of private non-Google browsing in a second browser instance (e.g., in a VM) which also runs NoScript (to block all the Google+ Javascript associated with the buttons).
As to your somehow thinking that Google, and only Google, are evil demons destroying the privacy of the net, I am sorry to inform you that every commercial entity with which you interact, with or without a net presence, tries to maintain a database of information on you. Your use of the net must be very limited if you are trying as hard to prevent them from doing that as you are trying to prevent Google. Think: no using Microsoft/Bing, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Barnes & Noble, etc.
>> in either your business skills, your public relation skills, or both.
Lowery's posts are a total fail from a public relations point of view, which is why my post is modded to 5, contains data, and was composed in "snarky mode".
While burning up his PR karma, he unfortunately discredits his own arguments about the music business --- which is wrong, being an ad-hominem. However, your post, which dismisses Masnick's arguments with no analysis is equally flawed ("argument from authority of an AC on Slashdot"? Give me a break.).
Your post is a puerile attempt to save Lowery's image. I hope you're doing out of the goodness of your heart; I'd hate to think he's wasting money paying you.
The Internet is so, so sorry if you are having a harder time because it exists. However, in general, it seems that it is easier for many other musicians because it exists.
> I am pretty sure that it is illegal in all jurisdictions to even store child pornography.
You forgot to add the small detail that even if that is true, it is defined differently in different jurisdictions. And some jurisdictions define it in such a way that only a court can decide whether something is CP (e.g., those jurisdictions which include a qualification that it needs to not have any "artistic value").
Thanks for the link, I promise to "taste" your music! Might take a bit, my laptop's audio is currently broken (Oneiric) and my family doesn't leave me that much free time on the other public family computer.
Liked "Still Got Thunder" --- catchy lyric that, "still got thunder rumblin' in my soul". (It's just not fair, the asymmetry between how easy it is for Swedes to speak English versus the other way around --- I can't even count to 10 in Swedish!).
A password? A password which you presumably initially set from a computer booted from a burned disc, or some other trusted system. Actually, I don't think that the system would have to be very trusted as long as it wasn't one of the computers you usually use with this drive. Setting the password via Bluetooth from your phone might be interesting, for example, even if your phone isn't very trusted.
A burned optical disc cannot be modified by malware --- which is, simultaneously, its strength and also weakness (since the OS burned on it will always boot unpatched).
I'm still waiting for the USB sticks with the true write-protect switches to become available again --- but I'm not holding my breath. Know of any solution for this need? It would be even better if there was some open interface which could lock some partitions while leaving others writeable!
Slashdot Mirror
As a critical thinker, I speak for everyone when I say:
"Never believe effectiveness reports made by industry groups who lobbied for the change in question, without actually reviewing the report methodology (which, BTW, is hardly ever disclosed in these so-called "reports")."
For there to be negligence, there must first be a duty of care to even be breached in the first place.
Not to forget that defining "duty of care" in US tort law falls under the jurisdiction of the State governments, which would diminish even further Joe Average's ability to figure out if he has significant liability under copyright law (this ability already being close to zero anyway except for really blatant infringing activity).
And if I am not mistaken, there is no way to be excused from paying damages for infringement, no matter how impossible it was for you to know that your actions could lead to such liability --- i.e., fulfilling this hypothetical "duty of care" is not a valid defense from monetary liability. (The amount of damages awarded, however, can be affected by how your actions are perceived).
Thanks for the info, but this only confirms that the explanation is making a salad of the two different kinds of hashes used in the protocols: the hash function used for the data chunks and the hash function used to produce unique fileset IDs.
My guess is that the software is OK and the explanation is garbled; however, in a court document, that is not going to (or rather, should not) fly very well.
On page 7, RSA public key encryption is described, but it claims that it has "a public key with which decoding or signature checks are made possible". The typical way asymmetric encryption is described is that the public key is used for encoding and the private key for decoding. And even if somehow the broken English has inverted the two keys, the paragraph claims that both keys are used for decoding, which is silly, at least one of them has to be used for encoding. Possibly too minor an error to make a big deal over, since the algorithm seems to actually be used in this software for digital signatures, not encryptions.
A blaring error is on page 13, where (based on my understanding of the bad English) the data-block hashing algorithm of BitTorrent is claimed to be "BITH" (which I have never heard of, as far as I know BT uses SHA-1), and the hashing algorithm of Gnutella is claimed to be "SHA1" when a Tiger tree hash is used. Kind of hard to rely on a program designed to monitor P2P transfers when the description of the P2P technologies contain such errors.
Ah, he may have meant "btih" --- but my understanding is that that's used by BitTorrent to identify the whole file or fileset, not the individual chunks.
> to "correct" people when they use the "wrong" terminology.
I typically only correct people when they get the wrong answer, as opposed to the wrong terminology.
Or do you believe the poster I originally corrected has a "correct" answer, even if the unit he used was totally bizarre?
> why not cede it and make the old prefixes mean 1024 and the
> new ones mean 1000 in the context of computer storage
> and transmission rates?
You get points for originality --- that's the first time I've heard someone suggest that.
You know what? I'd be willing to press a magic button which would set the world to that state, if I became convinced that the uses of the prefixes would actually be unambiguous. The problem is that I'm not sure that's possible. I would codify your suggestion as "when applied to information, SI prefixes are binary and vice versa", but I'd need input from physicists working in information theory to know if there is actually a way to distinguish unambiguously between information and other physical quantities. If there was, I'd be willing to pay the price that various edge cases, like calculating the mass of a flash drive given the mass used per bit, would not work out nicely "in one's head".
> 3. The average person has no idea what you're talking about
What else is new? This wouldn't exactly phase me. Color me Aspie, I suppose.
> (2.5. In certain fonts, the i is hard to see)
That is a problem with the font, then, not the idea.
> 2. They take longer/are more complicated to type if you have to keep repeating them
I can't seriously think that this is significant for most people. The only item which is measured in binary units which is bought by non-technical people is RAM, and they usually don't write about it. Electrical engineers, computer scientists, and programmers are the only people I can think of who deal with binary quantities on a day-to-day basis. Even for them, the extra letter doesn't seem like a lot of overhead, considering that for most of them typing is a fundamental skill.
> 1. They sound ridiculous
As they say: "First they laugh at you, ...". Most novel things seem strange, mainly because of their novelty. In this case, however, I'm not sure we're ever going to get over the hump of the chicken/egg problem with respect to the novelty wearing off.
I'm perfectly aware that it's unlikely that I'll live long enough to see the binary prefixes come into everyday use even within the professions where they would have the greatest impact. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy being pedantic and pointing out that that "Utopia" would have its advantages.
> I grew up on binary inspired units of measure and computers STILL care about these units.
Which is why they deserve their very, own names.
> Forget about killing Hitler
Er, never mind... you have invoked Godpoe's law... or is it Poewin's law...
> 3005 GB
Nope. You got it wrong. Thanks for being a poster child for why it would be better if we properly distinguished between kilo- and kibi-, mega- and mebi-, etc.
Unless, of course, you actually meant to use a peculiar GB which is 1000*1000*1024 (a kilo-floppy-disk-mega)?
The real answer is 3078 GB or 2866.6 GiB.
> Child porn is the reason I can't in good conscience run a tor or freenet node.
In the near future, then, you should consider not running any kind of website which allows user content to be posted. Steganography exists and can be undetectable at low enough data rates (that only means that people using it as a covert channel will need to spread their information over multiple websites).
Would you be willing that, for example, 1KB of CP would be transmitted using your website? 10KB? Take into consideration that even a just a few bytes could be significant (it could be a password to a file uploaded to a shareable file locker provider somewhere).
> If Masnick didn't "create" this metric, which is faulty, it doesn't absolve him from using it to justify his
> claim that "the sky is rising" for music content creators.
Why should he need "absolution"? He qualifies his use of the data immediately after presenting it --- I even quoted the text of where he does that.
> This contradicts Lowry's observation, based on his wife's recording business, that music production has decreased.
Well, if you prefer to rely on someone who is basing their arguments on their wife's recording business rather than the reports of companies like Neilsen and industry groups like IFPI, I suppose we don't have to continue this discussion any longer. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
> Not mentioning the drop in live music revenues in North America
Looks like Lowery isn't quite up to date, there: from January 2012:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2012/01/06/live-music-in-2011-revenues-up-attendance-down/
Of course, as Masnick emphasizes, "live music" is an enormously wide range of activities not all of which are covered by Neilsen SoundScan. You must forgive me for refusing to believe Lowery has reached his conclusion by gathering more data or different data than them; however, if Lowery would actually cough up the data in a way which could be reviewed, I could possibly be convinced.
> How exactly is his criticism "feeble"?
OK. I understand that you've checked all Lowery's criticisms by yourself, so we can discuss them, one by one:
The only place I see in Masnick's report where income from video games was included in the music section was when he reports the results of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, as far as I can tell, verbatim (let me know if you found a different place during your review).
Hmm, what have we here? Seems to me that Lowery is misrepresenting the lumping of that income to Masnick trying to disguise something else, rather than it being a lumped metric reported by a respected industry group, the IFPI. I guess Lowery knows better than all of those deadheads at IFPI who decided that "Guitar Hero"-like game income should be attributed to the "broader" music industry.
OK, I cannot judge anything about this one, except that Lowery doesn't post any data backing his claim. He could be right.
This criticism address the data Masnick reports from Neilsen Soundscan:
Masnick didn't "create" this metric. Those idiots at Nielsen, who obviously don't know squat compared to Lowery, did. Masnick does address various problems using the metric:
If you want, we can segue into an argument over the article, too. However, from my cursory perusal of it, I get the impression that it largely reflects Lowery's self-image; it starts with several slides solely about himself, rather than the topic --- in order to set himself up as an "authority". He throws around all kinds of anecdotal numbers and talks about "14 academic papers", but doesn't give us any references or actual access to his data or data collection protocol, so we cannot actually judge to what degree his adamant backing of his argument is due to confirmation bias rather than him actually being correct. Because of his Techdirt run-in, he feebly tries to discredit Masnick's report on the music industry:
When he dismisses Masnick's report, his main argument in doing so is because it is sponsored by a particular group (it's rather typical that people who argue from authority use ad-hominem attacks to discredit other points of view). He continually calls it various names, like "fake", "propaganda". His actual attacks target a few specific points without quoting the paper itself, and are largely specious (if you want, we can address them in further discussion). In comparison, the paper's intro to the music industry section starts with this paragraph:
Personally, I find that so refreshing compared to Lowery: "reality is complex and hard to understand" vs. "I'm an expert and you can rely on my understanding of the music business".
Within the context of Lowery's emphasis of his own expertise, the Techdirt post is actually cogent. He complains that "he gets the digital world" while at the same time he laughably threatens "i mean if i wanted to fucking sue you i could?" --- even more pathetically, he's threatening to sue Mike Masnick, coiner of the term "Streisand effect". Riiiight.
> what's that supposed to prove? That Lowery can use non-censured language? That's it? I read the whole 5-part article
I didn't, and none of this discussion is about that article. You fail, interestingly in exactly the same way Lowery did.
This particular discussion is about whether Lowery manages to project an image of someone who deserves respect, in those particular Techdirt posts. I understand that you are free to disagree. What bothers me doesn't have to bother you, and visa versa.
> That criticism contains nothing persuasive for me and no real data.
Actually, I was curious enough to look for your 5-part article. Is it the one linked in the summary? Posted almost a month after Lowery's Techdirt escapade? I find it silly that you're dissing Masnick for not having good arguments against something which was obviously posted after Masnick's Techdirt post.
Looking at the article which impressed you so much, I don't see a lot of data in it either (it is, I admit, chock full of claims --- but that's different from data.). One statement did impress me with its honesty, though:
Yes, that is exactly the impression one gets from Lowery's Techdirt post. Someone who believes he is uniquely qualified, in fact, so uniquely qualified he couldn't possibly be wrong --- in fact, people should apologize for disagreeing with him.
OK, I'll bite: I repost Lowery's first reply post on that Techdirt article:
You say that you "came away with much respect for Lowerly [sic]" --- from that I understand that your respect for someone is proportional to the number of times they gratuitously insert "fuck" into their arguments, added to the number of times they insult the people with whom they are arguing? I think I am understanding how you don't respect my reasoning. LOL
> Specifically, google and facebook are almost certainly the two worst offenders out there.
I'm curious. Do you think they are the worst because of their prominent market positions (i.e., from a quantitative point of view), or do you believe they are the worst because of their bad policies (i.e., from a qualitative point of view).
I might just agree with you with respect to Google, if you mean it in a quantitative way.
Let me give you a clue. It is possible to both use Google services and at the same time hide information from Google. And I rather doubt it's less convenient to do that than boycotting Google (and practically every other search engine, it seems) totally. It's silly to relate to reality as if it is one big false dichotomy.
To be a bit more explicit, you merely have to continue your style of private non-Google browsing in a second browser instance (e.g., in a VM) which also runs NoScript (to block all the Google+ Javascript associated with the buttons).
As to your somehow thinking that Google, and only Google, are evil demons destroying the privacy of the net, I am sorry to inform you that every commercial entity with which you interact, with or without a net presence, tries to maintain a database of information on you. Your use of the net must be very limited if you are trying as hard to prevent them from doing that as you are trying to prevent Google. Think: no using Microsoft/Bing, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Barnes & Noble, etc.
>> in either your business skills, your public relation skills, or both.
Lowery's posts are a total fail from a public relations point of view, which is why my post is modded to 5, contains data, and was composed in "snarky mode".
While burning up his PR karma, he unfortunately discredits his own arguments about the music business --- which is wrong, being an ad-hominem. However, your post, which dismisses Masnick's arguments with no analysis is equally flawed ("argument from authority of an AC on Slashdot"? Give me a break.).
Your post is a puerile attempt to save Lowery's image. I hope you're doing out of the goodness of your heart; I'd hate to think he's wasting money paying you.
Dear Mr. Lowery,
The Internet is so, so sorry if you are having a harder time because it exists. However, in general, it seems that it is easier for many other musicians because it exists.
Details can be found at the Techdirt article where you prove, in your reply posts, that you're an idiot, in either your business skills, your public relation skills, or both.
Oh so sincerely,
The Internet
> I am pretty sure that it is illegal in all jurisdictions to even store child pornography.
You forgot to add the small detail that even if that is true, it is defined differently in different jurisdictions. And some jurisdictions define it in such a way that only a court can decide whether something is CP (e.g., those jurisdictions which include a qualification that it needs to not have any "artistic value").
So, good luck with your "no-brainer".
Thanks for the link, I promise to "taste" your music! Might take a bit, my laptop's audio is currently broken (Oneiric) and my family doesn't leave me that much free time on the other public family computer.
Liked "Still Got Thunder" --- catchy lyric that, "still got thunder rumblin' in my soul". (It's just not fair, the asymmetry between how easy it is for Swedes to speak English versus the other way around --- I can't even count to 10 in Swedish!).
> ""WHMCS was an all-in-one client management, billing & support solution for online businesses.
FTFY
This interface might be a second, physical USB connector for example?
A password? A password which you presumably initially set from a computer booted from a burned disc, or some other trusted system. Actually, I don't think that the system would have to be very trusted as long as it wasn't one of the computers you usually use with this drive. Setting the password via Bluetooth from your phone might be interesting, for example, even if your phone isn't very trusted.
A burned optical disc cannot be modified by malware --- which is, simultaneously, its strength and also weakness (since the OS burned on it will always boot unpatched).
I'm still waiting for the USB sticks with the true write-protect switches to become available again --- but I'm not holding my breath. Know of any solution for this need? It would be even better if there was some open interface which could lock some partitions while leaving others writeable!