This is like the internal campaign Dell had going several years ago while I worked there
An "internal" campaign doesn't include other companies in the same markets and "hired third parties"; when you add those in, it becomes more like a cartel or trust.
Shouldn't "better technology solutions" be secondary to education???
That depends on whether you want a narrow elite in control of the populace or an empowered populace that is resistant to being dominated by a narrow elite.
If you want the latter, sure, better technology solutions should be secondary to education. Not everyone's preference is in that direction though.
How does letting THEM, know who I am, make ME safer?
Because the bad actors are also "users"; reliably accountable online communication would make phishing and all kinds of other frauds much less viable. (Note that I'm not arguing that the benefits in that regard are necessarily worth the costs to privacy, or that getting really reliable accountability in place is necessarily feasible socially even if it is technically feasible.)
Here was an interesting one, [pcauthority.com.au] an old PC with a monitor in portrait format. It asks why they didn't catch on, and I'm not sure I know the answer. It seems like it WOULD be better, especially because you could look at an entire page on the thing. Now with 21 inch monitors I can do that anyway, but what was it that caused our landscape monitors to become standardized like they are?
The answer is because while "portrait" is very good for print page design at common print page sizes and orientations, its not a real natural viewing size for most other things (your field of vision is wider than it is tall), which is why TVs and movie screens are wider than they are tall, and why 4:3 monitors were dominant and 16:9 are increasingly dominant. Monitors with dimensions ideal for full-size single-page portrait layour were, for a while, somewhat popular with people doing page layout -- though even pricier, larger monitors sized and dimensioned for two-page side-by-side layout (which wouldn't make the monitor a "portrait" shape), were also popular for that.
Also, once LCD monitors became common with graphics drivers that support on-the-fly orientation changes, it was easy for people who would benefit from a dedicated portrait-orientation monitor to instead get a monitor which could be used in either the more typical landscape orientation or portrait orientation, and which could switch on the fly between them (I've actually got a 20.1" LCD that does this); since the essential hardware difference between these and an equivalent portrait-only device is a swivel on the stand, rather than a completely different, case--and because you can use them better for tasks where portrait orientation isn't convenient, broadening the appeal--they have a lot less of a relative cost premium vs. the dominant landscape or widescreen LCD devices than portrait-orientation CRTs did vs. the more common designs when CRTs ruled the earth. Also, now that really big screens are relatively inexpensive, there's less that portrait orientation is really a big benefit for, anyway.
Because the people it bothers are more likely to complain on Slashdot than to the FCC and their elected representatives, whereas the people who prefer this arrangement act directly, clearly, and forcefully in the political arena to protect their preferences.
Anyway my real point was we can't play the comparison game.
Its not a game, but certainly priorities are important, and that means comparisons.
It's quite pointless and gets bogged down in nitpicking and idiocy like "it's not as bad as North Korea or Cambodia under Pol Pot".
Yes, some people will make bad or irrelevant comparisons. But no matter what aspect is "acceptable" to discuss, some people will do it badly. That's not a good argument that that aspect should not be discussed.
You're going to go off on some completely unimportant minuscule semantic that holds no value in the topic of debate?
A reference to a website should either be a clear and accurate description or a hyperlink; I wasn't "going off" on anything, if anything the clarification to make a meaningful reference to the source of the information reinforced the credibility of the information taken from it rather than attacking it.
I would venture a guess that the vast majority of the US population believes HIPAA provides them with more privacy and control than it actually does.
And I would venture a guess that the majority of the US population wouldn't know what you are talking about if you mentioned HIPAA (or any other particular law.) And I would further venture a guess that while the majority of those who recognize HIPAA wouldn't know what protections its does and does not provide, there would not be a majority whose mistaken understanding of HIPAA's protection was strictly stronger than the actual protections. And I'd go even further, and venture a guess that the majority of those who do recognize HIPAA would strictly underestimate the degree to which laws other than HIPAA protect privacy of various health related records.
But, really, none of what either of us would "venture a guess" about is an argument for anything.
There are presently 3 "single payer" health care systems in the US: The VA, IHS (Indian Health Services), and Medicare.
Actually, there are precisely zero "single payer" health care systems in the US, since the existence of more than one payer in the same jurisdiction means you don't have a singly payer system, and there are, in the US, the three systems you mention, the joint federal/state Medicaid program, and thousands of ther payers, meaning that none of those payers is a "single payer" system.
So the originator should be the only one to produce that item and should have the market to themselves? Thats ridiculous.
Ridiculous or not, that the whole idea of patents, as a means of providing a reward for innovation and thereby encouraging innovation. To quote the provision of the US Constitution enabling patents and copyrights: "The Congress shall have the power [...] [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Thats like only have Ford cars
Well, if Ford had invented the car, sure, it would be like only having Ford cars for a brief period after Ford invented them.
HIPAA isn't an entity, and doesn't have "its own web site". You appear to be referring the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights web site about HIPAA.
Once your employer has your health information, they are not bound to the Privacy Rule.
OTOH, the privacy rule prevents them from getting the information without your consent from your insurer or provider. But, yes, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) applies almost entirely to health providers and insurers.
I'm not saying HIPAA is all bad, but a lot of people have the misconception that the "P" in HIPAA stands for Privacy and that HIPAA is designed solely to protect them.
IME (and I work directly with HIPAA rules a lot) more people, including a disturbing number whose jobs are touched by HIPAA, think that the acronym pronounced 'Hi-pah' is spelled HIPPA and have no idea what any of the letters stand for.
As the Privacy Rule is the only aspect of HIPAA that most people who don't actually work in a health care, health insurance, or in IT directly related to handling health insurance related transaction will ever actually deal with, thinking that the "P" stands for "privacy", while factually wrong, is hardly a big mistake.
Thinking that HIPAA is designed solely to protect them is not far from truth--its designed to protect consumers against: 1) Not being able to get new health coverage after losing eligibility for previous group coverage, such as through job changes. 2) Not being able to get the right health care even with coverage because providers can't afford to operate, or can only afford to operate with a single insurance carrier, because the cost of dealing with a multiplicity of different billing forms and systems mandated by different insurance, some paper and some electronic, is prohibitive. 3) Harms resulting from deliberate but unnecessary and unauthorized (by the patient) exposure of personal health information by parties that must have access to it in the health care and health insurance chain to others that do not need that access for that reason. 4) Harms resulting from accidental exposure of personal health information stored and transmitted in the health care and health insurance chain, due to lack of security.
The bigger problem than believing that HIPAA is focussed on "privacy" (which HIPAA rules actually do to a considerable extent) is mistaking the scope of their applicability; It's not that people get the "P" part wrong that misleads them as to the impact of HIPAA, but that they don't appreciate the significance of the "HI" part -- that HIPAA is focussed on health insurance industry, and has little impact outside health care and health insurance industry, even where it concerns health information.
Minors have been executed in Texas within the last decade.
The last minor executed in the United States appears to have been Leonard Shockley, in Maryland, in 1959, which is neither "in Texas" or "in the last decade".
Juvenile offenders (people under 18 at the time the crime was committed) have been executed in Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma in the last decade, though none were minors when executed (most recently, Scott Allen Hain in Oklahoma in 2003.) And execution of juvenile offenders was rule unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons (2005).
The "P" in HIPAA stands for Portability, not Privacy.
And the "A" stands for "Accountability" (which refers, in large part, to 'accountability for use of personal information'.) The major regulatorions under HIPAA include the Privacy Rule which controls use and disclosure of protected health information (PHI) by covered entities, the Security Rule which covers the required protection of electronic PHI held and communicated by covered entities, and the Transactions and Code Sets rule which establishes standards for how insurance-related transactions are conducted in electronic media. The first two of those rules are directed at protecting privacy.
HIPAA isn't all about privacy, but privacy protections are an important part of it (they were incorporated largely because privacy fears were one of the reasons people were resistant to the rest of the pieces aimed at acheiving efficiency by promoting and standardizing use of electronic transactions for health insurance billing and related activities.)
Why do people insist on demanding Microsoft live up to standards that Apple, and Linux arent asked to live up to?
They don't. Neither Apple nor "Linux" (which isn't an entity, in the first place) are permitted to use anticompetitive practices to illegally leverage a market position which meets the legal definition of monopoly.
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
Insofar as is legally relevant, Microsoft has been found to not only be a monopoly but to have been illegally abusing a monopoly position, in various jurisdictions.
As much as I like and respect Stallman's works, and his fight for digital freedom, I find this little snippet quite disturbing.
One might note that there is a vast gulf between stating "I am skeptical of the claims that X is true, and the evidence I have seen presented appears to have flaws A and B" and saying "I believe without question that not-X is true."
Personally, I'm not disturbed by people being skeptical of what most people believe unquestionably, especially on important issues. I am, OTOH, disturbed by people reacting strongly negatively to such skepticism, because it results in policy based on assumption and biases, not reality.
N.B., I think that Stallman's skepticism here is, in a sense, tangential to the question of legality, in that, while individual differences in development may make the legal presumption of a set age of consent a convenient fiction, there are real difficulties with the idea that adult-child interactions can in general be mutually "voluntary" in the sense that adult-adult interactions are, and that, whether or not the rare (if they exist at all) cases of truly voluntary interactions of the type prohibited are, in fact, harmful, it would be very difficult to accurately distinguish them in particular cases and any official tolerance for "voluntary" interactions that involved procedures that would have any practical effect at all would almost certainly do far more in practice to license interactions which were, in fact, involuntary.
One thing is spreading FUD. A very different thing is spreading the truth in a blatantly sensationalist manner.
Yes, they are very different, in that spreading FUD in a superficially rational manner often convinces people that the falsehoods presented are true, while spreading the truth in a blatantly sensationalistic manner often convinces people that the truths presented are false.
Businesses USED to see a real upside in treating their customers well, even at their own expense.
For online businesses providing free subscriptions and hosting of subscriber-generated content -- i.e., many of the prominent ones to which the DMCA's safe harbor is relevant -- the subscribers aren't paying customers, they are the raw material that the companies bundle and craft into the product they are selling to their main customers, who are advertisers (many of these companies also have other customers that pay for premium services, who are likely to be treated differently than the free subscribers.)
And a more expensive, risky raw material, when there is plenty of raw material available, isn't worth the hassle.
You don't need to be a team of high paid lawyers to determine that an obviously bogus (ie, fraudulent) DMCA notice is bogus and isn't coming from the people it claims.
You need to do more work to do so than to verify that it is correct in form, and the "benefit" you get from it is more exposure to potential litigation against which you cannot raise a clearly-demonstrable absolute bar to liability (even if you never screw up and get it wrong; you may not ever pay damages, but you still could end up eating costs of avoidable litigation.)
There is simply no upside to it under real world conditions as a business decision.
Go look up the 2 main ones used in the Fortune 100s - Websphere (formally) MQ Series and Tibco EMS and see how long they've been around.
Of course, those are also the reasons for all the new ones -- as asynchronous messaging becomes more important and more widely useful, event big, established customers for the big products in the field aren't happy with the existing options; after all, the AMQP protocol effort is essentially a collaboration of some of the biggest messaging users (particularly in the financial industry), and some tech firms that aren't TIBCO and IBM, to get an open protocol to better meet the customers' needs and eliminates vendor lock-in.
should just ignore you and let the mods put your post down where it belongs, but you missed the obvious. When a DCMA take down notice is issued, it is customary (and some have even suggested legally required) to inform the person whose work has been taken down why it was taken down.
It is not legally required to honor a takedown notice, to provide information about the notice to a subscriber, or to honor a counter-notice, but there is a legal shield from liability for hosting infringing content provided by a subscriber if you honor takedown notice, and a similar shield from liability for taking down the material as long as you provide the subscriber with the notice and honor a counter-notice. Thus, most of the really big entities covered by the applicable DMCA provisions seem to have adopted policies of honor DMCA takedown notice, providing notice to their subscribers, and honoring counternotices, because its a simple policy to adopt, and provides pretty ironclad immunity to liability from either side.
They are require to treat valid DMCA takedown notices as valid.
They are required to honor DMCA takedown notices that are valid in form.
They can and should throw out the obviously bullshit ones.
Not within the safe harbor, they can't. In order to remain within the DMCA safe harbor, they must honor any takedown notice that complies substantially with the requirements of 17 USC Sec. 512(c)(3)(A) (see also 17 USC Sec. 512(c)(3)(B), and Sec. 512(c)(1)(C)) which deal strictly with what the notice has to say. Now, of course, they may choose to risk venturing out the safe harbor if they are certain the notice is false despite being of valid form, but why take the risk of litigation (even when such litigation might be without merit) when they are also shielded from any liability for taking the material down so long as they provide appropriate notice of that action, opportunity to file a counter-notice, and properly acts based on any counter-notice received.
For example, here in California cable TV is not a state-granted monopoly. And yet, you will find close to zero overlapping cable TV regions. Why?
Because, until fairly recently, it was, in most parts of the state, a local government granted monopoly, and while the local carriers have changed hands (largely to consolidate regions and create bigger regional monopolies), there are significant barriers to entry in any local market, which means that the monopoly carriers are pretty well entrenched, with the main competition coming from alternatives to cable (satellite, services delivered over internet, though the cable providers themselves are also some of the biggest broadband providers) rather than alternative cable providers per se.
The reason HTTP was successful rather than Gopher (which had features like search built in) was because HTTP was graphical.
The reason HTTP was successful rather than Gopher is that the University of Minnesota, which was the copyright owner of the dominant Gopher implementation, announced that it would start charging licensing fees for the Gopher server in 1993 and two months later CERN announced that HTTP would be free for everyone.
Both the Gopher protocol and HTTP can be used to transfer arbitrary content, neither is inherently either "graphical" or not.
Of course, people are going to claim that IPV4 depletion is always 700 days away - this is true. But what they're missing is that IPV4 depletion is like peak oil
Its something that may have already happened and which can't certainly be determined, in any case, except retrospectively?
The problem is, some of the tricks used to save addresses, like NAT, are really bad for the internet - NAT traversal difficulties make it much harder for two computers to connect.
Nothing is good or bad for "the internet", which doesn't have desires, which is the only thing by which good and bad can be evaluated.
NAT may be bad for certain classes of internet users (e.g., most of them), but making it hard to do arbitrary client-to-client communications on basic connections is good for both major ISPs, as it enables market segmentation, and for established providers of services over the internet (as increasing the cost of hosting accessible services or providing peer-to-peer services poses a barrier to competition.)
If the world could switch to using water as an energy source just by changing a protocol, you wouldn't see much opposition at all.
Yeah, you would; from powerful entrenched interests whose power is dependent on the current energy markets.
legally you are correct but remember that flickr, google etc. have a history of assuming a DMCA takedown is valid before checking the actual validity of the notice to save themselves.
They are required to treat the DMCA takedown notice as valid to remain within the safe harbor provision of the DMCA; they are likewise required to forward the notice to the person who posted the allegedly-infringing material, who is entitled to file a counter-notice.
Copyright as envisioned by the authors of the US Constitution was written to law as the Copyright Act of 1790.
No, it wasn't.
Copyright as envisioned by the 1st Congress of the United States was written into law as the Copyright Act of 1790. The authors of the Constitution were a distinct, though in part overlapping, body from the 1st Congress.
At any rate, even if it were valid to conflate the 1st Congress with "the authors of the US Constitution", it would still be invalid to conclude that the Constitution should be interpreted so as to admit only the actual way in which the 1st Congress exercised the powers delineated in the Constitution as appropriate uses of the those powers. The Constitution defines what the government has the power to do, the particular laws implemented by the first Congress (or even those supported by those of the authors of the Constitution in the first Congress) represent how those legislators felt that the powers should be exercised in the particular circumstances at hand at the time.
They were answers to two very different questions.
Under that act protection was 14 years with a 14 year extension available if the copyright holder was still alive and it was renewed. So... that's what they meant by "for limited times".
If the 1st Congress and the authors of the Constitution were the same people, and if they were acting at exactly the same time (neither is true), then it would be reasonable to conclude from the mere fact of those two acts occurring together that the 14 year base + 14 year extension was within the scope of what they meant by "for a limited time" in the Constitution (which is, of course, a reasonable conclusion on its face anyway), but it would not, even in those circumstances, to interpret that as the outer boundary of what was meant by "for a limited time".
Slashdot Mirror
An "internal" campaign doesn't include other companies in the same markets and "hired third parties"; when you add those in, it becomes more like a cartel or trust.
That depends on whether you want a narrow elite in control of the populace or an empowered populace that is resistant to being dominated by a narrow elite.
If you want the latter, sure, better technology solutions should be secondary to education. Not everyone's preference is in that direction though.
Because the bad actors are also "users"; reliably accountable online communication would make phishing and all kinds of other frauds much less viable. (Note that I'm not arguing that the benefits in that regard are necessarily worth the costs to privacy, or that getting really reliable accountability in place is necessarily feasible socially even if it is technically feasible.)
The answer is because while "portrait" is very good for print page design at common print page sizes and orientations, its not a real natural viewing size for most other things (your field of vision is wider than it is tall), which is why TVs and movie screens are wider than they are tall, and why 4:3 monitors were dominant and 16:9 are increasingly dominant. Monitors with dimensions ideal for full-size single-page portrait layour were, for a while, somewhat popular with people doing page layout -- though even pricier, larger monitors sized and dimensioned for two-page side-by-side layout (which wouldn't make the monitor a "portrait" shape), were also popular for that.
Also, once LCD monitors became common with graphics drivers that support on-the-fly orientation changes, it was easy for people who would benefit from a dedicated portrait-orientation monitor to instead get a monitor which could be used in either the more typical landscape orientation or portrait orientation, and which could switch on the fly between them (I've actually got a 20.1" LCD that does this); since the essential hardware difference between these and an equivalent portrait-only device is a swivel on the stand, rather than a completely different, case--and because you can use them better for tasks where portrait orientation isn't convenient, broadening the appeal--they have a lot less of a relative cost premium vs. the dominant landscape or widescreen LCD devices than portrait-orientation CRTs did vs. the more common designs when CRTs ruled the earth. Also, now that really big screens are relatively inexpensive, there's less that portrait orientation is really a big benefit for, anyway.
Because the people it bothers are more likely to complain on Slashdot than to the FCC and their elected representatives, whereas the people who prefer this arrangement act directly, clearly, and forcefully in the political arena to protect their preferences.
Its not a game, but certainly priorities are important, and that means comparisons.
Yes, some people will make bad or irrelevant comparisons. But no matter what aspect is "acceptable" to discuss, some people will do it badly. That's not a good argument that that aspect should not be discussed.
A reference to a website should either be a clear and accurate description or a hyperlink; I wasn't "going off" on anything, if anything the clarification to make a meaningful reference to the source of the information reinforced the credibility of the information taken from it rather than attacking it.
And I would venture a guess that the majority of the US population wouldn't know what you are talking about if you mentioned HIPAA (or any other particular law.) And I would further venture a guess that while the majority of those who recognize HIPAA wouldn't know what protections its does and does not provide, there would not be a majority whose mistaken understanding of HIPAA's protection was strictly stronger than the actual protections. And I'd go even further, and venture a guess that the majority of those who do recognize HIPAA would strictly underestimate the degree to which laws other than HIPAA protect privacy of various health related records.
But, really, none of what either of us would "venture a guess" about is an argument for anything.
Actually, there are precisely zero "single payer" health care systems in the US, since the existence of more than one payer in the same jurisdiction means you don't have a singly payer system, and there are, in the US, the three systems you mention, the joint federal/state Medicaid program, and thousands of ther payers, meaning that none of those payers is a "single payer" system.
Ridiculous or not, that the whole idea of patents, as a means of providing a reward for innovation and thereby encouraging innovation. To quote the provision of the US Constitution enabling patents and copyrights: "The Congress shall have the power [...] [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Well, if Ford had invented the car, sure, it would be like only having Ford cars for a brief period after Ford invented them.
HIPAA isn't an entity, and doesn't have "its own web site". You appear to be referring the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights web site about HIPAA.
OTOH, the privacy rule prevents them from getting the information without your consent from your insurer or provider. But, yes, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) applies almost entirely to health providers and insurers.
IME (and I work directly with HIPAA rules a lot) more people, including a disturbing number whose jobs are touched by HIPAA, think that the acronym pronounced 'Hi-pah' is spelled HIPPA and have no idea what any of the letters stand for.
As the Privacy Rule is the only aspect of HIPAA that most people who don't actually work in a health care, health insurance, or in IT directly related to handling health insurance related transaction will ever actually deal with, thinking that the "P" stands for "privacy", while factually wrong, is hardly a big mistake.
Thinking that HIPAA is designed solely to protect them is not far from truth--its designed to protect consumers against:
1) Not being able to get new health coverage after losing eligibility for previous group coverage, such as through job changes.
2) Not being able to get the right health care even with coverage because providers can't afford to operate, or can only afford to operate with a single insurance carrier, because the cost of dealing with a multiplicity of different billing forms and systems mandated by different insurance, some paper and some electronic, is prohibitive.
3) Harms resulting from deliberate but unnecessary and unauthorized (by the patient) exposure of personal health information by parties that must have access to it in the health care and health insurance chain to others that do not need that access for that reason.
4) Harms resulting from accidental exposure of personal health information stored and transmitted in the health care and health insurance chain, due to lack of security.
The bigger problem than believing that HIPAA is focussed on "privacy" (which HIPAA rules actually do to a considerable extent) is mistaking the scope of their applicability; It's not that people get the "P" part wrong that misleads them as to the impact of HIPAA, but that they don't appreciate the significance of the "HI" part -- that HIPAA is focussed on health insurance industry, and has little impact outside health care and health insurance industry, even where it concerns health information.
The last minor executed in the United States appears to have been Leonard Shockley, in Maryland, in 1959, which is neither "in Texas" or "in the last decade".
Juvenile offenders (people under 18 at the time the crime was committed) have been executed in Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma in the last decade, though none were minors when executed (most recently, Scott Allen Hain in Oklahoma in 2003.) And execution of juvenile offenders was rule unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons (2005).
And the "A" stands for "Accountability" (which refers, in large part, to 'accountability for use of personal information'.) The major regulatorions under HIPAA include the Privacy Rule which controls use and disclosure of protected health information (PHI) by covered entities, the Security Rule which covers the required protection of electronic PHI held and communicated by covered entities, and the Transactions and Code Sets rule which establishes standards for how insurance-related transactions are conducted in electronic media. The first two of those rules are directed at protecting privacy.
HIPAA isn't all about privacy, but privacy protections are an important part of it (they were incorporated largely because privacy fears were one of the reasons people were resistant to the rest of the pieces aimed at acheiving efficiency by promoting and standardizing use of electronic transactions for health insurance billing and related activities.)
They don't. Neither Apple nor "Linux" (which isn't an entity, in the first place) are permitted to use anticompetitive practices to illegally leverage a market position which meets the legal definition of monopoly.
Insofar as is legally relevant, Microsoft has been found to not only be a monopoly but to have been illegally abusing a monopoly position, in various jurisdictions.
One might note that there is a vast gulf between stating "I am skeptical of the claims that X is true, and the evidence I have seen presented appears to have flaws A and B" and saying "I believe without question that not-X is true."
Personally, I'm not disturbed by people being skeptical of what most people believe unquestionably, especially on important issues. I am, OTOH, disturbed by people reacting strongly negatively to such skepticism, because it results in policy based on assumption and biases, not reality.
N.B., I think that Stallman's skepticism here is, in a sense, tangential to the question of legality, in that, while individual differences in development may make the legal presumption of a set age of consent a convenient fiction, there are real difficulties with the idea that adult-child interactions can in general be mutually "voluntary" in the sense that adult-adult interactions are, and that, whether or not the rare (if they exist at all) cases of truly voluntary interactions of the type prohibited are, in fact, harmful, it would be very difficult to accurately distinguish them in particular cases and any official tolerance for "voluntary" interactions that involved procedures that would have any practical effect at all would almost certainly do far more in practice to license interactions which were, in fact, involuntary.
Yes, they are very different, in that spreading FUD in a superficially rational manner often convinces people that the falsehoods presented are true, while spreading the truth in a blatantly sensationalistic manner often convinces people that the truths presented are false.
For online businesses providing free subscriptions and hosting of subscriber-generated content -- i.e., many of the prominent ones to which the DMCA's safe harbor is relevant -- the subscribers aren't paying customers, they are the raw material that the companies bundle and craft into the product they are selling to their main customers, who are advertisers (many of these companies also have other customers that pay for premium services, who are likely to be treated differently than the free subscribers.)
And a more expensive, risky raw material, when there is plenty of raw material available, isn't worth the hassle.
You need to do more work to do so than to verify that it is correct in form, and the "benefit" you get from it is more exposure to potential litigation against which you cannot raise a clearly-demonstrable absolute bar to liability (even if you never screw up and get it wrong; you may not ever pay damages, but you still could end up eating costs of avoidable litigation.)
There is simply no upside to it under real world conditions as a business decision.
Of course, those are also the reasons for all the new ones -- as asynchronous messaging becomes more important and more widely useful, event big, established customers for the big products in the field aren't happy with the existing options; after all, the AMQP protocol effort is essentially a collaboration of some of the biggest messaging users (particularly in the financial industry), and some tech firms that aren't TIBCO and IBM, to get an open protocol to better meet the customers' needs and eliminates vendor lock-in.
It is not legally required to honor a takedown notice, to provide information about the notice to a subscriber, or to honor a counter-notice, but there is a legal shield from liability for hosting infringing content provided by a subscriber if you honor takedown notice, and a similar shield from liability for taking down the material as long as you provide the subscriber with the notice and honor a counter-notice. Thus, most of the really big entities covered by the applicable DMCA provisions seem to have adopted policies of honor DMCA takedown notice, providing notice to their subscribers, and honoring counternotices, because its a simple policy to adopt, and provides pretty ironclad immunity to liability from either side.
They are required to honor DMCA takedown notices that are valid in form.
Not within the safe harbor, they can't. In order to remain within the DMCA safe harbor, they must honor any takedown notice that complies substantially with the requirements of 17 USC Sec. 512(c)(3)(A) (see also 17 USC Sec. 512(c)(3)(B), and Sec. 512(c)(1)(C)) which deal strictly with what the notice has to say. Now, of course, they may choose to risk venturing out the safe harbor if they are certain the notice is false despite being of valid form, but why take the risk of litigation (even when such litigation might be without merit) when they are also shielded from any liability for taking the material down so long as they provide appropriate notice of that action, opportunity to file a counter-notice, and properly acts based on any counter-notice received.
Because, until fairly recently, it was, in most parts of the state, a local government granted monopoly, and while the local carriers have changed hands (largely to consolidate regions and create bigger regional monopolies), there are significant barriers to entry in any local market, which means that the monopoly carriers are pretty well entrenched, with the main competition coming from alternatives to cable (satellite, services delivered over internet, though the cable providers themselves are also some of the biggest broadband providers) rather than alternative cable providers per se.
The reason HTTP was successful rather than Gopher is that the University of Minnesota, which was the copyright owner of the dominant Gopher implementation, announced that it would start charging licensing fees for the Gopher server in 1993 and two months later CERN announced that HTTP would be free for everyone.
Both the Gopher protocol and HTTP can be used to transfer arbitrary content, neither is inherently either "graphical" or not.
Its something that may have already happened and which can't certainly be determined, in any case, except retrospectively?
Nothing is good or bad for "the internet", which doesn't have desires, which is the only thing by which good and bad can be evaluated.
NAT may be bad for certain classes of internet users (e.g., most of them), but making it hard to do arbitrary client-to-client communications on basic connections is good for both major ISPs, as it enables market segmentation, and for established providers of services over the internet (as increasing the cost of hosting accessible services or providing peer-to-peer services poses a barrier to competition.)
Yeah, you would; from powerful entrenched interests whose power is dependent on the current energy markets.
They are required to treat the DMCA takedown notice as valid to remain within the safe harbor provision of the DMCA; they are likewise required to forward the notice to the person who posted the allegedly-infringing material, who is entitled to file a counter-notice.
No, it wasn't.
Copyright as envisioned by the 1st Congress of the United States was written into law as the Copyright Act of 1790. The authors of the Constitution were a distinct, though in part overlapping, body from the 1st Congress.
At any rate, even if it were valid to conflate the 1st Congress with "the authors of the US Constitution", it would still be invalid to conclude that the Constitution should be interpreted so as to admit only the actual way in which the 1st Congress exercised the powers delineated in the Constitution as appropriate uses of the those powers. The Constitution defines what the government has the power to do, the particular laws implemented by the first Congress (or even those supported by those of the authors of the Constitution in the first Congress) represent how those legislators felt that the powers should be exercised in the particular circumstances at hand at the time.
They were answers to two very different questions.
If the 1st Congress and the authors of the Constitution were the same people, and if they were acting at exactly the same time (neither is true), then it would be reasonable to conclude from the mere fact of those two acts occurring together that the 14 year base + 14 year extension was within the scope of what they meant by "for a limited time" in the Constitution (which is, of course, a reasonable conclusion on its face anyway), but it would not, even in those circumstances, to interpret that as the outer boundary of what was meant by "for a limited time".