one of many open windows . . .
Last edited by mouse; 11-20-2012 at 05:31 PM.
what are they photos of?
Pirate Bay
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...opyright-cops/As live streaming video surges in popularity, so are copyright “bots” — automated systems that match content against a database of reference files of copyrighted material. These systems can block streaming video in real time, while it is still being broadcast, leading to potentially worrying implications for freedom of speech. On Tuesday, some visitors trying to get to the livestream of Mic e Obama’s widely lauded speech at the Democratic National Convention were met with a bizarre notice on YouTube, which said that the speech had been blocked on copyright grounds.
On Sunday, a livestream of the Hugo Awards — the sci-fi and fantasy version of the Oscars — was blocked on Ustream, moments before Neil Gaiman’s highly anticipated acceptance speech. Apparently, Ustream’s service detected that the awards were showing copyrighted film clips, and had no way to know that the awards ceremony had gotten permission to use them.
“I thought it was a huge pity, and ridiculous,” said Gaiman in an e-mail exchange with Wired. “But I also think it highlights a potential problem that’s just getting bigger.”
Last month, footage from NASA’s triumphant Curiosity rover landing was blocked numerous times on YouTube, despite being in the public domain, because several companies — such as Scripps Local News — claimed copyright on the material.
Those incidents foretell an odd future for streaming video, as bandwidth and recording tools get cheaper, and the demand for instant video grows. Just in the last year, Google Hangouts, a feature of Google+ that allows multiple people to video conference, became a cult hit. Now it’s used by news sites, such as the Huffington Post, for live video interview segments. Ustream and Justin.tv have made it simple to livestream book readings, Meetups and the police siege of Julian Assange’s embassy sleepover.
Copyright bots are being wired into that infrastructure, programmed as stern and unyielding censors with one hand ever poised at the off switch. What happens if the bot detects snippets of a copyrighted song or movie clip in the background? Say a ringtone from a phone not shut off at a PTA meeting? Or a short YouTube clip shown by a convention speaker to illustrate a funny point? Will the future of livestreaming be so fragile as to be unusable?
Copyright to Class Notes: Do Students Own the Copyright to Their Notes?
http://blog.kunvay.com/copyright-to-...o-their-notes/
Soon your thoughts will be monitored.
not without your consent.
That would be infringement.
Unless you put those thoughts in an email...
Did you have my consent to quote me ?
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/p...quests-inquiryPrime Minister requests inquiry
Prime Minister John Key today announced he has requested an inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the cir stances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau.
Mr Key says the Crown has filed a memorandum in the High Court in the Megaupload case advising the Court and affected parties that the GCSB had acted unlawfully while assisting the Police to locate certain individuals subject to arrest warrants issued in the case. The Bureau had acquired communications in some instances without statutory authority.
After being informed about the matter by the Director of the GCSB on September 17, the Prime Minister referred the Bureau’s actions to the Inspector-General, Hon Paul Neazor. The Inspector-General is an independent statutory officer with the power to enquire into any matter related to a government intelligence agency’s compliance with the law.
Mr Key says he has also asked the Inspector-General to recommend any measures he considered necessary to prevent the issue from happening again.
Mr Key expressed his disappointment that unlawful acts had taken place.
“I expect our intelligence agencies to operate always within the law. Their operations depend on public trust.
“I look forward to the Inspector-General’s inquiry getting to the heart of what took place and what can be done about it,” says Mr Key. “Because this is also a matter for the High Court in its consideration of the Megaupload litigation, I am unable to comment further.”
Megaupload Readies for Comeback, Code 90% Done
...
“Quick update on the new Mega: Code 90% done. Servers on the way. Lawyers, partners and investors are ready,” Dotcom teases.
“Be patient it’s coming,” he adds.
From the brief progress update it’s clear that the site is on schedule for launch later this year. In addition, it’s interesting to note that despite the ongoing criminal case, partners and investors are happy to be involved.
...
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-r...0-done-120923/
Indirectly, yes.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-than-thought/Over two years ago, the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Commission awarded a €400,000 ($428,000) grant to CleanIT, a multi-party project that seeks to "counter the illegal use of Internet." As we reported last month, by February 2013, the group says it will produce a list of non-binding voluntary "principles" aimed at stopping terrorist content and activity online.
"These principles can be used as a guideline or gentleman’s agreement, and can be adopted by many partners," the group states on its website. "They will describe responsibilities and concrete steps public and private partners can take to counter the illegal use of Internet."
Setting aside the fact that there is no clear-cut, universal agreement about who is a terrorist or what defines terrorist content, CleanIT has continued to move forward. It is led by But Klaasen, the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism and security.
Since November 2011, CleanIT has published intermediary do ents on its website—the most recent one was released in May 2012. However, a Brussels-based Internet freedom organization, European Digital Rights, has recently published a leaked draft do ent from CleanIT, dated August 28, 2012.
An anti-terrorist browser? Huh?
The new 23-page do ent (PDF) includes many disturbing provisions, some of which are labeled as "recommendations," and others as "to be discussed." Many of those in the latter category are questionable at best, and at worst are ridiculous and likely verge on illegal. They include:
- "Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself"
- "Governments must disseminate lists of illegal, terrorist websites"
- "The Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (art 1.2) should be explained that providing Internet services is included in providing economics instruments to Al Qaeda (and other terrorist persons and organisations designated by the EU) and therefore an illegal act"
- "On Voice over IP services it must be possible to flag users for terrorist activity."
- "Internet companies must allow only real, common names."
- "Social media companies must allow only real pictures of users."
- "At the European level a browser or operating system based reporting button must be developed."
- "Governments will start drafting legislation that will make offering... a system [to monitor Internet activity] to Internet users obligatory for browser or operating systems...as a condition of selling their products in this country or the European Union."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...t-protections/Richard Posner, the federal judge who threw out the entire Apple v. Motorola patent battle in June, has penned a new blog post complaining about the proliferation of patents. "I am concerned that both patent and copyright protection, though particularly the former, may be excessive," Posner wrote on Sunday.
related, also from Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...patent-system/In 1972, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) got a new chief judge named Thomas Markey. At Markey's inves ure ceremony, patent attorney Donald Dunner spoke of the "anguish of the patent bar about the treatment of patents in various federal courts." The CCPA, a DC-based court that heard appeals from the US Patent & Trademark Office, was considered to be relatively pro-patent—but other federal appeals courts had jurisdiction over actual patent lawsuits and tended to be friendlier to patent defendants. Even worse, in Dunner's view, the Supreme Court itself seemed unfriendly to patent holders.
This sad state of affairs made it a bad time to be a patent attorney. Because patents were frequently invalidated by the courts, companies filed many fewer applications for them than they do today. Patents were seen as a backwater in the legal profession. Dunner urged Markey to inspire "his associates on this bench to spread the patent gospel to their sisters and brothers on the other federal benches."
A decade later, the patent bar's anguish would turn to joy as Congress merged the CCPA with another court to create the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit would be just as patent-friendly as the CCPA, but unlike its predecessor, the Federal Circuit was handed jurisdiction over all patent appeals, including the lawsuits that had previously been handled by other courts. On October 1, 1982, Judge Markey became the chief judge of the new court and set to work to remake patent law.
No ins ution is more responsible for the recent explosion of patent litigation in the software industry, the rise of patent trolls, and the proliferation of patent thickets than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patent court's thirtieth birthday this week is a good time to ask whether it was a mistake to give the nation's most patent-friendly appeals court such broad authority over the patent system.
hmm, 30 years ago? that would be the Repug Congress under St Ronnie giving all patent jurisdiction to a single, known-to-be-patent-friendly court.
aka, the VRWC henchmen gaming the legal system to their corporate advantage.
#Johnny One Note
dinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdinkdink....
yep, and that one note is right on tune, the Big Picture Tune.
Do you really think the last 30 - 35 years decline of the 99% while the 1% romps and stomps is totally random, just how the natural way of things are?
not totally random by any means, but ascribing the trend to an unvarying, monolithic right wing is moronic.
Easier than thinking.
what other forces, drivers are there that would counterbalance or augment the VRWC's well-financed, relentless, predatory, multi-front 35-year strategy?
tautology club. if you beg every question, all the answers are easy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
