|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
The Australian Federation Against Copyright
Theft (AFACT) is
ramping up the pressure on the government
to act. It said today's judgment
exposed the failure of
copyright law to keep pace with the online environment
and
the need for the government to act.
Out of all the
material in that article, I chose to
highlight the above. I guess they have an
unique problem
there in Australia, with people not just copying movies, but
actually stealing them. Wow. In most other countries, people
just copy stuff
from the internet, but you can see from the
name of this organization,
Australian Federation Against
Copyright Theft, that the problems with
theft of
movies must be so serious they need an organization
dedicated to
fighting theft. That's a fact, it says.
Now that wasn't even the
reason I chose to highlight that
passage. The reason I chose it was because
they are
complaining about "the failure of copyright law to keep pace
with the
online environment". Now it seems to me we had an
"online environment" before
people ever began to employ it
to distribute music and video. In fact, it all
began in the
academic world as a platform for email, and uses for it
expanded
from there. Then one day the entertainment industry
discovered they could use
the medium of the internet to sell
there content, and the result was a
multi-billion dollar
windfall for them. The internet was not created for them,
but turns out it serves them very well indeed. So now they
want to take it
over, as if it was made for them. They want
to reshape the internet so that it
will on one hand,
continue to be a wonderful distribution platform for them,
and on the other hand, have it locked down so that their
copyrighted material
can't escape their bounds.
What absolute unmitigated gall they have! If
you read
that article, you will have noted all the plans they have to
continue
pursuing their dream of locking down the internet
and reshaping it just for
them. It is outrageous! Why would
they think they can make ISPs monitor their
customers on
behalf of the copyright industry, forcing ISPs to spend
money on
behalf of the wealthy and powerful copyright
industry while at the same time
harassing their own clients.
Do any of these copyright advocates ever stop and
listen to
themselves talk? Of all the nerve!
If anybody from Australia
happens to be reading this,
please tell me if that is true - that people
actually steal
entire movies in Australia, as opposed to just copying them.
...and what happen to these film companies when they wake up
one day and find
their movies stolen. Don't they keep back
up copies in a vault down there? I am
very confused. I live
in North America, and I have never heard of any one
actually
stealing movies, though I suppose it may have happened once
or twice,
somewhere, some time. People just take copies of
movies here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 02:41 AM EDT |
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer touts
innovation, mobile, Windows 8
"They're pushing on little
icons, accusing each of stealing from the other," he noted. "Our UI never copied
anybody."
Not even, what was it, 1996 AOL? It's hard to
find things truly original. That's why Apple resorts to trademark registration
of icons.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
| Draft
Bill to "Fix" CFAA Won't
CFAA parts of interest is where "unauthorized
use of a
computer or network" is being looked at differently by
different
appeals courts, meaning to clear it up, the
Supreme Court will have to step in
at some point.
Some have an understanding that even (clicky) violating an ISP's
TOS where
the user violates the "restricted use" policy of the
ISP, puts the user in
the sights of prosecution under
the CFAA.
Note that this was written in a
previous comment, where two
ISP TOS "restricted use" areas are highlighted,
where almost
all computers users (clicky -
where millions
of web users, who via
their ISP internet connections, are
using FTP, peer to peer, torrents, email,
even maybe some
VOIP apps, depending on type of application and scope)
are
violating the TOS while innocently involved in their
seemingly normal, natural,
daily uses of their computer(s)
on the internet. A violation of the ISP TOS,
is, literally
a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
This
CFAA, is a very dangerous LAW. Not many are aware of
how dangerous. In fact,
100% of the people I ask, tell me
that they never have read the TOS for their
ISP. Same as
they never have read a Microsoft EULA click thru agreement.
This
lists of those who have not read the agreements,
includes computer techs (many
who due to the CFAA, also do
not get "written permission" to access the
computers and
networks that they are charging money for to fix or build, a
clear violation of the CFAA - if not in writing authorized,
then the access is
unauthorized).
They will wake up quickly to the ISP TOS details, when
facing prosecution for what seems like an innocent computer
activity, and are
facing a minimum prison stay (mandatory
under the law).
This CFAA is very
dangerous, see clicky links above in this
comment, for how
dangerous it is,
where innocent people, millions of them are
breaking the law every
day.
Note - Congress, and the lawyers/judges, with the CFAA, have
created
another mess that they don't fully understand the
scope of (and they want to
fix the law again, per the
article, only make it more restrictive)? They just
think
that creating laws will fix security issues. The sooner
that they
understand that:
Com
puter Security is an Oxymoron (clicky)
,
... and, that a law or two will not
fix, the better we citizens
well be (as these laws Congress
is creating, are harming real people in many
ways, and do
nothing really to fix what they want to be fixed).
The more
that the lobby industry and their lawyers, has to
do with influencing the laws
in congress (written again
mostly by the high percentage of computer illiterate
lawyers
in congress, and their staffs), the further backward our
management
of digital solutions ends up.
Where is, at least, the proper use of the
Socratic Method
these days, even if it is used to look into what is digital
and what is not (much of what is being sold as digital these
day, really is
not, it's just a warmed over version of
analog, that is being sold, and
re-patented as new and
digital). The US Patent office is filled with the same
level of ignorance (do they hire flunky lawyers at the
patent office, those
who can't get a job anywhere else)?
When are all these lawyers going to wake
up and do
the right thing for a change? They mess up everything they
touch,
including the economy. We almost are at the point
where if they met in
Washington every 2 years, we might be
much better off (where they could do less
damage, if given
the ability to meet less often).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
From the article:
He said that this
lets whoever creates a document or other material define who can see it, how
they can use it and even how long it lasts.
Here's a question for
Mr. Ballmer:
Does that include the Consumer?
Am I able to create a
document, and tell my service provider: No, you're not allowed to see or make
use of the contents of said document. You're not allowed to harvest my contact
information from my resume so you can spam me with advertising!
Or is it
just the "Content Production Industry" that has access to such features? And is
it "protection from the consumer" that the security is implemented
for?
I have to use information rights management on everything I
create
I gather the consumer benefits based on that
statement.
What features are built in for disaster recovery? If
something fails and I have a protected document stored in the cloud. And I pull
it down to a new device, am I able to read it or is the protection mechanism
designed that only the original device has full access?
And can I use it
with any Cloud platform I want? Or am I limited to using it with a Windows
Cloud platform? Most importantly to myself: Do I have the option to not use the
Cloud?
And if I decide I want my document unprotected... do I have that
choice? Or does the "information rights management" choices automatically
preclude one from sharing if one wants?
RAS
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
