* Posts by Turtle

1888 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2010

Own a drone: Fine. But fly a drone with a cam: Year in the clink

Turtle

@FutureShock999

"The only question is in how much licensing there is - in the US next to none"

Well, no. Firearms licensing is not a federal matter, but left to the states and local governments. Requirements for firearms ownerships varies greatly from one place to another and blanket generalizations are impossible to make.

John Lennon's lesson for public-domain innovation

Turtle

Goal.

"Clark Asay [...] has published a paper detailing why free and open-source software licences fall short of their goal, and how public domain could help."

Nowhere in the article is the question of the "goal" of FOSS broached, which might be just as well, because it is a *very* debatable subject.

Obama says patent trolls 'extort money', pledges reform

Turtle

Grammar

"Obama revealed he has spoken with Mark Zuckerberg [...] agreeing with the Facebook CEO that it makes sense for to learn programming."

Makes more sense for to learn grammar, though.

NBN Co coffee budget brews caffeinated controversy

Turtle

That's why people even drink coffeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

"The company felt the need to do so because members of Australia's opposition parties, after combing through NBN Co's finances, wondered why it had spent over $AUD100,000 on coffeee."

It could not have been put any better than that.

Kiwi Coroner says Coca-Cola helped kill woman

Turtle

Re: 9 litres of coke and 30 fags a day.

"I can see the dietary deficiency in there. No alcohol."

It is physically painfully to laugh that much. Funniest comment that I have *ever* read on this site.

Turtle

@Miek: Re: Then there is the local soda machine...

Thank you!

Turtle

Re: Diabetes

"How did she manage to avoid diabetes after consuming so much sugar ? ( I was under the presumption that large sugar intake and Diabetes (type 2) were related)."

Good question. But I don't recall seeing in the story the length of time she was on the, uh, training regimen. Diabetes does take some time to develop, so the "length of time on training regimen" x "percent of amount of Coca-Cola ingested compared to the quantity needed to induce diabetes in a smoker" further multiplied by an age coefficient probably equals a value under the necessary threshold.

Probably.

Turtle

@Thorne

"And with eight kids she can't even win a Darwin award...."

That's harsh. I upvoted it.

Turtle

Re: Then there is the local soda machine...

"Give me a break, any liquid in that amount on a daily basis would finish one off!"

There was some girl who dies as a result of a promotional contest to see how much water people could drink in a given amount of time (I'm too lazy to look up the details though).

Then there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo from which I cite:

Her medical chart contained a note that "she apparently has been trying to keep her weight down with dieting by herself, drinking liquids most of the time during the day and drinking about 10–15 glasses of iced tea." Upon admission to the hospital, she was noted as suffering from hypokalemia (low potassium levels): her serum potassium level was an abnormally low 2.0 mEq/L (the normal range for adults is 3.5–5.0 mEq/L). Her sodium and calcium levels were normal. Electrolyte imbalance is often caused by drinking excessive fluids. A serious consequence of hypokalemia can be heart rhythm abnormalities, including sudden arrhythmia death syndrome."

Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57367638-10391704/british-teen-stacey-irvine-hospitalized-after-eating-nothing-but-chicken-nuggets-for-15-years/.

Moral: Some people are so fucking stupid it isn't even funny.

Dish boss on ad-skipping service: 'I don’t want to kill ads'

Turtle

The Real Target.

Although I have no research to prove it, I'd bet that "targeted ads" are generally (but not always) pretty useless in increasing sales, brand awareness, and so forth. "Targeted ads" are *really* targeted at gullible advertisers.

Illicit phone rings in Sri Lankan inmate's back crack

Turtle

Nope...

It was the call of nature.

Boffins find RAT-SIZED bug-muncher links man to beast

Turtle

No peaceful co-existence...

"Boffins have figured out that primates and dinosaurs did not co-exist..."

This is presented in the story as though boffins have figured this out just recently whereas in fact, it was figured out decades ago.

Earth-like planets abound in red dwarf systems

Turtle

Lemme know...

"Slow-burning stars may host civilizations far more advanced than our own"

May not.

Lemme know when you actually find something. And it doesn't have to be a Dyson sphere under construction, either. Just anything artificial.

Quantum crypto still not proven, claim Cambridge experts

Turtle

Re: Is the error message only for me?

I see it too. Sadly.

Senators propose permanent ban on internet sales and access tax

Turtle

Evaorating Tax Revenue, Evaporating Jobs...

"states will fight it tooth and nail as they believe they are entitled to taxes that they are not."

They will also fight it because the tax-free status of most internet purchases puts locally-owned businesses at a considerable disadvantage. And if you consider how the internet is dominated by a very small number of companies, you will understand that we are talking about a considered number of local businesses throughout the country being driven to bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy for the sake of a few large online retailers. Obviously this effects the job market by reducing employment opportunities in retail sales and merchandising.

And it is not only and not merely and most of all, not really the problem they they can't impose a new tax, it is that the sales tax they now impose and on which state and local governments depend, are collecting less and less money.

YouTube's hilarious cat videos could soon cost you $5 a month

Turtle

@Andy Fletcher Re: I like the idea

"Clearly the onus is on the content creator to make stuff I feel is worth $5 a month to see. If they do that, why wouldn't I pay. It seems perfectly reasonable - I really mean it."

Think of the amount of content a channel would have to provide to justify merely $5. The point of comparison is what $5 will get you in other places, such as a video rental store, or Netflix, or anything like that. Let's say a triple-A Hollywood blockbuster will cost you $10 from Netflix (I've no idea what it really costs though) - how many YouTube channels are capable of delivering an equivalent to that Hollywood blockbuster every 2 months? What is one channel going to put up, month after month, to justify their monthly subscription price?

Generating interesting content on a regular basis is much, much harder than most people realize.

Turtle

Re: YouTube would need to offer a better way to find content

"I must admit, YouTube is my go-to place for tutorials when I have to learn a new piece of software; but I don't think I'd bother if I had to pay."

This. Very important point.

Possibly they need to start charging the uploaders. After all, some of the uploaders are businesses.On the other hand, it could prove difficult to catch businesses (generally small ones, most likely) pretending to be people: it could be difficult to separate a video done by a business from a video done by an enthusiast. Example: any piece of audio gear from, let's say, Roland, has both videos on the official Roland channel, and any number of videos done by reviewers and users, having no connection with Roland.

But that is direction in which YouTube might need to go.

Turtle

@Mark 65: The Competition

I'd have to think that YouTube's competition, which I suppose is primarily free and paid television along with other streaming services, would certainly be happy to see YouTube become a paid service

Turtle

@Francis Boyle

"Anyone can create a streaming video service. Not even Google can make money out of it by showing ads and page views. Just like no one can make a living out of ads and page views."

Basically, the whole "internet economy" is completely irrational and can not survive in the long run.

Turtle

Re: It's not entirely unreasonable

"Given how much I use YouTube for various things, I wouldn't object to some of the very high hit videos being part of a premium channel, as long as the creators of the videos got a slice as well."

This is kind of an odd comment. Possibly I am drawing a mistaken inference, but you seem to be saying that you would not mind if YouTube charged for videos that you yourself do not watch - possibly so that those paid channels will subsidize your usage.

If Google thinks they can monetize their videos via extraction of cash from the viewer (as opposed to just feeding their sleazy advertising business) they will find out what everyone else has found out: People are not going to pay for anything if there is any way to avoid it and they are going to gravitate, en masse, to what they can get for free, legally or illegally. Paid subscriptions will be the death of any YouTube channel that tries it.

Google wants to stop losing money on YouTube. It might not be possible.

Turtle

@Stephen 2 Re: If they really want to help video creators

"If they really want to help video creators then they could increase the amount of commission they pay them for ad clicks because right now its insanely low."

They don't want to help anyone but themselves. I do not know what percentage the video maker's commission represents, but the amount of income generated by each view is vanishingly small. I would expect that even if the video creators got all the revenue generated by each view, the income would be negligible except for perhaps a very very few people who could probably be counted on one hand.

Even if Google were to keep all the income for itself, YouTube is still bleeding money, has never turned a profit, and no one would be surprised if it never turns a profit.

(Incidentally, the articles you might have read lately about how much PSY's Gangnam Style have earned have nothing to do with reality. http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-real-gangnam-style-was-google-off-a-couple-magnitudes-on-earnings-call/ )

Feds slurping your private data? But that's OUR job, says Google

Turtle

@JaitcH Re: Pity Google does reeally push the issue by ...

"My employer owns it's own mail server and all records are deleted two days after it has been read."

I am pretty sure that such a course of action, for a business or corporation, is illegal in certain jurisdictions. Like the United States. (But I could be mistaken.)

Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be fine

Turtle

@snarf

"Axe to grind, much?"

Be more concerned with the BBC's decision to suppress all anti-global warming stories. But somehow I think that you won't.

Brit mastermind of Anonymous PayPal attack gets 18 months' porridge

Turtle

@5.antiago: Re: As an aside

"What's next down that line of reasoning? Getting thrown in jail for writing bad press on Nike or Apple about workers' right abuses? Getting jail time for fighting Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big etc etc etc?"

The only (recent) attempt of which I am aware, to stifle freedom of speech and restrict Americans' First Amendment rights for the benefit of large corporations, is Sen Ron Wyden's (Fascist-OR) IRFA bill, which would make criticism of direct licensing by music by tech companies an actionable offense. See for example a few of my posts on this site or more directly http://thetrichordist.com/2012/11/29/congressional-research-service-memo-on-constitutionality-of-irfa-section-5/

More generally, aside from Wyden's attempt to abridge the First Amendment, "speech" and "actions" are considered separate species of behavior.

'Op! Op! Op!' Gangnam Style earns Google $8m

Turtle

Re: That proves it (IMO)

" That proves it (IMO) You can make money in music by giving away your product for free."

Right. Provided it becomes the most popular YouTube video ever, with over 1.2 billion views. Because 1.2 billion views (or listens) is so typical of both YouTube videos and recorded music in general.

Raytheon to build low-orbit, disposable satellites for DARPA

Turtle

@Ian Michael Gumby

All SR-71's have been retired for years now, as I'm sure you know. And a difficult aircraft it was to maintain, too.

Maybe Aurora could launch them...

: )

Swartz suicide won't change computer crime policy, says prosecutor

Turtle

4 Simple Points.

1) What kind of moron thinks that it's a good idea to undermine a non-profit academic archive?

2) Offering Swartz a 6-month sentence is hardly "bullying".

3) The blame for any consequences suffered by Swartz as a result of hacking JSTOR belong to the person who hacked JSTOR: Swartz himself.

4) The people responsible for Swartz' suicide are his family and friends for not intervening in the life of this chronically-depressed individual who has been threatening suicide for years. I am sure that they find comfort in blaming Ortiz but the blame is theirs alone.

‘Anonymous’ hacks Oz Uni’s email to protest bulk iPad buy

Turtle

Not wrong.

"[The] 800-word rant ... suggests tablets have no proven impact on the quality of teaching or learning. The author also believes the decision to buy iPads was made by the marketing department after research found plenty of would-be students would like one. 'If only they'd have surveyed how many students own luxury cars,' the author wrote, 'they may have decided to gift students a free Mercedes-Benz SLK 55 AMG instead.'"

Insofar as the above statements go, they are not wrong. I have always felt that the idea of computers as educational tools is, except under very specific conditions, highly dubious, if not actually fraudulent.

Of course, if anyone can cite a large body of research suggesting that computers do improve the quality of teaching and learning, (as opposed to some one-off study that looks like the work of shills or Schneiderists) it would be interesting to read.

Swartz prosecutor: We only pushed for 'six months' in the cooler

Turtle

@austerusz

"I think you should read a bit more carefully, all the counts sum up to *over* 30 years. Not maximum, just the average sentence of each count against Aaron. Nobody said 30 is the maximum and exactly because it's not the maximum it's conceivable that Aaron would have spent around 30 years in jail."

Your reading skills are very impressive; you are able to read things not even in the article. Here's what it *actually* says, just to refresh you memory:

"Swartz faced 13 felony charges including counts of wire fraud, computer fraud and recklessly damaging a protected computer, which could cumulatively carry a sentence of more than 30 years."

Now I understand that you and others like you feel a compulsion to dramatize the matter in order to maximize its political and propaganda value, but out of curiosity, where exactly do you see anything about "average sentences" or any similar foolishness? A phrase like "more than 30 years" means "a maximum of 30 years and a few" and not 40 or 50 or 397 and why it is so opaque to you is a question worth answering. It is not a phrase difficult to understand, except, I have to suppose, if one's preconceptions do not let you understand very plain, everyday English.

Unless of course you want to cite a source that says that the sentences carried cumulative prison time of than, let's say 35 years.

That he would spend 30 years in prison may be "conceivable" to you and other loudmouths but not to anyone who actually knows anything about the court system and the rules governing judges and the sentences that they are permitted or required to impose.

But then again, "ignorance" the very hallmark of the people trying to make political capital out of this guy's suicide.

"The prosecutor could have recommended a lower sentence, sure, but it's highly doubtful a judge would have agreed to that."

This is yet another example of the ignorance being marshaled to make a martyr out of this guy when his real problem was psychiatric and was of his own doing (and more than likely the encouragement of his acquaintances such as Lessig and similar trash who either tacitly or explicitly encouraged stupid behavior like undermining a non-profit academic archive. What kind of asshole does things like that? JSTOR is NOT Elsevier for fucks sake.) You can think that it's "doubtful" that a judge would agree to a sentence of less than 30 years but just what are you basing that opinion on? Let's be honest: it's just something you pulled out of your ass. Find me examples of people who have committed non-violent crimes, with no profit accruing, who were first time offenders and received prison sentences of any appreciable length. And we can compare Swartz' case to whatever cases you come up with. I will be very surprised if you find *any*, but *if* there are, then they would be few and with circumstances making them very different than this case. (I.e. espionage, etc.)

One last word: if what USDA Carmen Ortiz says is true, and if Swartz' lawyer has been the source of all the misinformation and disinformation floating around, then Swartz' lawyer needs to be disbarred.

Phone hacking saga: 3 men cuffed over alleged plod bungs

Turtle

If I might be permitted...

Grassed!

(If I might be permitted to use an Anglicism or Gaelicism, possibly incorrectly.)

Fans of dead data 'liberator' Swartz press Obama to sack prosecutor

Turtle

@John Deeb

"If the library checkout would be the analogy of choice, perhaps it's more accurate to say ..."

If you want to be more accurate, why not just get rid of the analogies. Because attaching your computer to someone else's network is not like borrowing books from a library.

Turtle

@Trigun: Re: Time to get real

"I agree that he was guilty and should have been punished. Perhaps one or several of the following: - 6 months to 2 years in jail. - A moderate (uncomfortable, but affordable) fine passed to MIT as compensation.- Community work - again possibly at MIT as compensation The above is reasonable"

Well how the fuck do *you* know what the sentence would have been had he been found guilty? He could have wound up with a sentence far more lenient that what you are suggesting. And ALL of the prison terms - had any actually been imposed, which is, sadly, doubtful - would have been served concurrently. And *any* fine, no matter how big, could have been (and should have been) paid by Google, as Swartz was basically a Google Tool, and Google is the prime beneficiary of all the sleazy freetard/anti-social causes he promoted.

"He was a misguided guy who broke the law."

Discuss that with the people who egged him on.

Turtle

Re: Jstor question

"so how come they're non-profit and charge 10 bucks to get access to each article? AND, at the same time, proclaim to be all for spreading the knowledge as wide as possible?"

Right. Because IT departments and services have no expenses for personnel, administration, and hardware where you live.

Turtle

@Radbruch1929: Re: what I find bizzare

"the prosecution seems not only to have pushed for prosecution of the case but for maximum sentencing."

The prosecution can "push" for whatever they want but the judge decides on the sentence.

"In light that the aggrieved asked for the case to be dropped, it seems to have been a first time offender case and it does not involve actions for personal gain, the alleged push for a high sentence seems to be the oddity to be scrutinized."

This might be apposite or germane if a JUDGE had actually given him a lengthy sentence. But since a judge had not passed sentence, your statement is meaningless.

Turtle

Re: Terminological inexactitude

I am upvoting your post not merely because of its general content, but also because of your use of Churchill's "terminological inexactitude". Not as, well, "playful" as Churchill's original use but the reference was enjoyable.

Zuck on that! Instagram loses HALF its hipsters in a month

Turtle

@Andrew Norton: Re: Wydenism in the UK: "Wydening" the Loopholes...

Thanks for the incoherent reply. If you want to express your thoughts in a coherent manner, do not let me prevent you.

The only statement that makes sense is "since when is 'effort' rewardable?"

The matter here is not that people should or should be rewarded, but that their efforts as invested in the works that the Wydenists want to deprive of legal protection, should not be stolen. See the difference? People may or may not deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, but they should certainly be protected against having their efforts as embodied in the works they produce stolen.

Turtle

@David W: Re: @Turtle Addendum: Wydenism in the UK: "Wydening" the Loopholes...

Did you read my post?

If you read my post, did you notice that there was a long excerpt from the Congressional Research Service specifically addressing David Lowery's contention that Wyden's "Internet Radio Fairness Act" abridged the First Amendment rights of anyone who criticized direct licensing agreements?

If you DID notice such a section, did you actually read it?

If you actually read it, did you notice that the conclusion of the Congressional Research Service was?

Evidently not.

Let me put it here on the off-chance that maybe this time you will actually read it: "David Lowery, writing for the Thetrichordist.com, has argued that “Section 5 of IRFA is perhaps the most pernicious part of the bill, for it would make it illegal for anyone to criticize digital sound recording licensees. [...] Though this hypothetical presents a broad interpretation of the language of Section 5, it is not an implausible one. It is possible that the language may be broad enough to cover a blog post by a band expressing their opinion regarding contract negotiations between a licensee and a copyright owner.

Let me paste part of your post: "There are plenty of ways for big companies to manipulate the legal system to their advantage and use it to financially attack their opponents. This isn't one of them, and wasting your breath screaming about it only prevents you from defending against the real lines of attack." So not only is your understanding of the law better than that of the Congressional Research Service since, after all, the only people who would use that service are the actual people who write and pass laws for the whole nation - but your understanding of the law surpasses that of the people who run the multi-billion dollar corporations for whom Wyden works, and the armies of lawyers who advise them. And your understanding surpasses theirs to such a degree that you can safely say that, in having their hireling Wyden advance this bill, they have chosen a course of action which is such a trifle that it does not even deserve your attention.

If this is not a "real line of attack" ,what the fuck WOULD be? If this is not a "real line of attack" then nothing could be a "real line of attack".

You know, I can understand you thinking that you know better than me, because after all I am just a commenter here on this site. That's exactly why I cited the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. But that you think that you are smarter than congressional researchers, incredibly successful business moguls and the swarms of lawyers that they retain, then yours is a pathological case.

Oddly - and you might find this hard to believe - some people would think that an attack on the First Amendment by a US Senator meant to stifle criticism of multi-billion dollar corporations, even if doomed to ultimate failure, is a serious matter. You, for some reason, do not.

I don't think that I have ever come across anyone like you before. Luckily, people with your kind of, errrr..., "outlook" are not too common. It would be funny - and altogether appropriate - if someone were to find a photo of you, declare it an "orphan work" and then use it to make a poster advertising the Special Olympics.

Turtle

@Mark .: Re: 3 things

"Though I don't think their case is helped by using the same kind of language we get from the likes of the RIAA, regarding copyrights as being some god-given human right (as opposed to a state granted temporary monopoly - so the idea that the state might take that away shouldn't be inherently dangerous)."

As long as we understand that your right to get paid for your labor, to enjoy and dispose of your property (because the state will enforce your right to monopolize the use of your house, car, etc), all your legal rights, in fact, are granted by the state and not "god-given human rights". And therefore, as you so eloquently put it, " the idea that the state might take that away shouldn't be inherently dangerous".

Have an armband.

Turtle

@streaky Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"There's a reason the bill includes measures for orphaned works, they're orphaned - nobody owns them. If you owned it you'd be able to enforce copyright. Think about it. There's massive libraries of data that effectively nobody owns that can't be used because the owners are untraceable. These are orphaned works."

You do not have a good grasp of the issue. Example: first you assert that a work is orphaned because nobody owns it, and then you assert that the work is orphaned because the owner can't be found.

Your first assertion is wrong: a work which no one owns is in the public domain and anyone can use it for anything and need not pay anyone, or ask anyone permissions, etc etc.

But the idea that no one "effectively" owns particular "massive libraries of data" because the owners are untraceable does not at this point in time have any bearing on the matter. Even though the owner of this or that "massive library of data" (and who the fuck knows what such a bullshit euphemism stands for, anyway) might be untraceable for a prospective user, the "untraceable" owner STILL has the right to take action against the user should he find out about it. At this point in time that is the situation. It is the new Wydenist laws proposed in the UK that will change this, so that "being untraceable" - or, more importantly, being declared "untraceable" even if fraudulently or mistakenly - means that your work can be stolen by anyone who wants to take it.

Turtle

Addendum: Re: Wydenism in the UK: "Wydening" the Loopholes...

I neglected to mention that Wydenism can also include legislative measures that curtail the (in the USA specifically) First Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association) and other civil rights of anyone criticizing tech companies as written in the IRFA, a bill which Wyden has sponsored:

IRFA would make it a violation of the Sherman Act for “any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing.

http://thetrichordist.com/2012/11/29/congressional-research-service-memo-on-constitutionality-of-irfa-section-5/ :

The following is an excerpt from a memo by the Congressional Research Service on The Constitutionality of IRFA Section 5:

"David Lowery, writing for the Thetrichordist.com, has argued that “Section 5 of IRFA is perhaps the most pernicious part of the bill, for it would make it illegal for anyone to criticize digital sound recording licensees. If IRFA becomes law, artists and artist organizations will need to watch what they say in public in opposition to [certain licensees’]direct licensing efforts.” It seems that Lowery takes issue with the use of the words ”any action” that would ”prohibit, interfere with, or impede ”negotiations.

He argues that these terms are too broad and could apply even to those who would criticize licensees for attempting to negotiate direct licenses with copyright owners. Another concern cited by Lowery in opposition to Section 5 is the ambiguity inherent in the language “any copyright owners acting jointly.”

This language does not necessarily seem to be limited to large member-based royalty collection organizations like SoundExchange. It may be broad enough to encompass, for example,the members of an individual band, who might be considered to be individual copyright owners, acting jointly. Under this broad reading of the language, an argument could be made that a band, posting its criticisms of direct licensing negotiations between a licensee and a copyright owner, would betaking an action that would interfere with a direct licensing negotiation, thereby violating Section 5.

Though this hypothetical presents a broad interpretation of the language of Section 5, it is not an implausible one. It is possible that the language may be broad enough to cover a blog post by a band expressing their opinion regarding contract negotiations between a licensee and a copyright owner. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that, in practice, Section 5 would impinge upon First Amendment rights" (Emphasis added.)

Again, that long citation is from the Congressional Research Service Memo on the Constitutionality of IRFA Section 5.

Sadly, the Congressional Research Service neglects to say exactly *why* Section 5 would be "unlikely in practice to impinge on First Amendment rights". Because, considering the amount of money at stake, and the ease with which these large and wealthy companies could subject any critics to crushing lawsuits and their crushing expenses, and the fact that the bill PERMITS legal action against any speech that "interferes" with their business - I think that the bill's "impingement on First Amendment rights" would be "guaranteed".

Turtle

Wydenism in the UK: "Wydening" the Loopholes...

"'there is NO standard of what constitutes a good-faith or diligent search'. Well it would be for a court to decide and given Berne they'd have to have a damn good reason on newish data."

So every time someone wants to use any digitized or digital work, all anyone need do is claim that they conducted a "good-faith and diligent search and that it is - we promise, guv, really - an "orphan work", and wait until, firstly, the rights-holder finds out about it (and of course to do this, the rights-holder must spend time, money, and effort constantly scouring the internet for instances of his work or works being fraudulently listed as "orphaned"), then wait 'till the rights-holder spends the time and money to start a lawsuit, and then wait - possibly for years - until that lawsuit is adjudicated.

I.e. having created something and obtained a copyright, the creator must now spend the rest of his life having to defend his right to be protected by that copyright. He needs to keep heaven only knows whom constantly apprised and informed of his whereabouts and ways to contact him. And he must be prepared to legally contest any number of fraudulent (or even mistaken) "orphan declarations" in who knows how many jurisdictions - a task that would quickly bankrupt most copyright holders. In the end this would only play into the hands of Google and its allied parasites.

In fact, it is easy to imagine Google or similar thieves setting up (many) entities with the specific task of declaring works to be "orphans" - and applying this to both as large a number of works as possible, and to any given work as many times as possible, because they have nothing to lose, and eventually, most copyright holders will have to choose between going bankrupt or surrendering their rights to any number of avaricious and dishonest entities. And of course if the rights-holder does not find out about and can not contest, or is not informed (either intentionally or by oversight) of just one such "orphan declaration" then he loses his rights. So once again, this can only work to the detriment of the copyright holder and in favor of the tech companies and allied parasites.

From an American perspective, the "Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill" can be seen as a manifestation of "Wydenism", a phenomenon named after Sen Ron Wyden (Fascist-OR), and which describes any legislation aimed at depriving vast numbers of people of legal and property rights for the benefit of a very small number of very wealthy corporations and the very wealthy people who own those corporations or significant blocks of shares in them. Wydenism, which as the preceding sentence clearly shows, is a form of fascism, often uses the tactic of erecting new barriers that make the enforcement of property and legal rights even cumbersome, burdensome,and onerous than they already are, so that even more people will voluntarily surrender their rights due to the new barriers that the Wydenist wants to erect to complicate the procedures for obtaining legal relief.

Or to put it slightly differently, Wydenism seeks to "widen" the loopholes in the law that allow the tech oligarchs to get their filthy paws on other people's property, labor, effort, livelihoods, and lives.

Turtle

@heyrick: The Instagram Expropriation Fiasco

"It seems to me that it isn't so much a matter of copyright so much as 1, somebody else profiting from your work (I wonder how many would stay if they were offered a slice of the action), and 2, the work may be used in a way or for a cause that the creator disagrees with. Thankfully the creators have copyright on their side..."

See, the thing is, that what is used to prevent others from profiting from your work, and what is used to prevent your work being used in ways that you don't want, is... copyright. And you seem to know that, too.

So your statement that the Instagram Expropriation Fiasco isn't a matter of copyright is mistaken. And if it wasn't for copyright, Instagram could just take your work. And in fact, *anyone* could just take your work no matter what Instagram said about it. "Copyright" is the reason why Instagram had to ask at all.

So your post is very puzzling.

Turtle

Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

"The orphan works situation applies only where the copyright holder cannot be easily identified."

Not true. Any work whose rights-owner can not be *contacted* is subject to loss of protection. And there is NO standard of what constitutes a good-faith or diligent search. I read of a case recently where a writer who had a NY Times best seller a few years ago, and has an agent, and is in the phone ffs, had his best seller classified as an orphan work BY AN AMERICAN LIBRARY. (I wish that I could recall the writer's name but it escapes me. I believe it was something like "salamander" but I can't find it.)

Also bear in mind that the BBC routinely, as a matter of policy, strips all the metadata from all images it receives (or nicks from the web.) So anything that the BBC holds is automatically an "orphan work" - even if it was the BBC itself that killed the orphan work's parents...

Also, I think that the question "How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?" is not meaningful. While most of works will indeed be void of all value and so the orphan works law will have no impact on them. But obviously this law is for enabling commercial exploitation of those works which do have value. And of those who either have "accidentally" produced a work of value, or who are capable of producing works of value thanks to skill or practice or just thanks to having a "knack", which of them should *ever* have to hear something along the lines of "Say, that was a work of real value that you produced there; so our corporation took that valuable work and used it for our own benefit and now it's not got any value anymore. Thanks!"?

Security audit finds dev outsourced his job to China to goof off at work

Turtle

@AC: Re: The only reason anyone is angry at Bob...

"oh, yeah, and the ethics, this was another strong factor to dissuade me. NOT."

You know, on this site, there are plenty of people who post as AC because they are drama queens and somehow think, for example, that if they criticize this or that politician or institution or policy then either the CIA or FBI or MI5 or MI6 or the Mossad is going to, well, you know. And so they post as AC's. And it's kind of pathetic, really, because they seriously believe they are "that important". And some people post as AC just to avoid having mean or insulting or silly posts tied to them specifically. I've done this myself, actually.

But your post might be the first post that I have seen on this site for which posting as AC is appropriate. And it was a good post! : )

(Obviously that's hyperbole but sometimes only hyperbole gets the point across....)

Turtle

The Bob In Question is...

The "Bob" in question is Microsoft's Bob.

Lynch mob of bankers say they'll stump up cash to take Dell private

Turtle

@wowfood: What Bankers Do For A Living.

Note the following passage: "Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Barclays and RBC are all willing to finance any buyout of the firm, according to the loquacious yet anonymous sources, who also speculated that a deal could be done soon, but they're not sure." That tells us that the banks are not buying Dell for themselves, but that they are willing to finance the deal if someone else wants to buy Dell.

"Lending money" (and getting interest payments from it) is pretty much what bankers do for a living.

As an aside, I would not be surprised if those "loquacious yet anonymous sources" turned out to be Michael Dell and members of his immediate family.

Anger grows over the death of Aaron Swartz

Turtle

Re: Great shame

"Stories like Aaron's should be taught in schools and held up as an example of 1 person can make a difference."

The difference he made, is that he's dead at 26. Do you want all kids to be taught that they too can end up dead by suicide at 26 if they don't get their depression treated? Although, you know, that's not too bad an idea of what kind of examples to hold up to kids. Yet I have a feeling that that's not what you had in mind.

And frankly, it might be better if that lesson was exemplified by someone who did something with greater societal meaning than contributing to the RSS spec, and who wasn't thereafter primarily a Google tool, advocating the right of huge and obscenely wealthy corporations to expropriate the labor of huge numbers of creative and intellectual workers.

Couldn't we find, let's say, someone who was in the Peace Corps, who went to some grotesquely underdeveloped area and helped the impoverished people who live there to dig wells and so obtain clean water, but who, after coming home, became depressed and committed suicide?

That would be a much, much better story, don't you think?

Turtle

Re: @Graham Dawson @John Deeb

"That logic doesn't even remotely follow. Blaming the judicial system for being the causative agent of his depression is constructive in that it identifies the most likely source of his illness. His parents and his family were not acting in ways that could trigger depression; they were passive participants at best, and unaware of his mental state. The judges and the judicial system were active participants in the events and did not need to be aware of his mental state in order to cause it."

Sorry but that's pure bullshit. As others have stated, he suffered from depression and made threats of suicide well before he got caught up in the legal ramifications of his own actions.

And it is certainly not the case that the the possibility of the onset of depression, or the actual onset of depression, should shield and free a person from having to answer for their actions in a court of law. Anyone who can not answer or can not be expected to be answerable for their actions needs to be isolated from society for both their own good and the good of society. Anyone not in actual custodial psychiatric care should be and needs to be held responsible and answerable for their actions.

As a sidenote: you have NO idea what the "causative agent of his depression" was. How do you know that it wasn't genetic? How do you know that it wasn't due to a poor diet? How do you know that it wasn't due to brain trauma? Or a botched delivery when he was born? Or a brain insult while in utero? Or that he grew up in a psychologically-harmful environment? Maybe he was abused or sexually abused as a child? How do YOU know how his family was acting towards him, or if it could have caused this episode? Maybe his family was angry with him for having gotten into this much trouble with the law for essentially trivial and idiotic reasons and juvenile actions? Maybe he had been depressed because he was fixated on some individual who did not reciprocate his feelings, or who rejected him? That you are going to determine what "the causative agent of his depression" was shows that you have a well-developed ability for projecting your ideology onto reality in the most ideologically-satisfying way - in spite of having no facts to support it.

Well, in short, your apologetics need some work.

Turtle

@C-N

"Theft by definition requires that someone is wrongfully deprived of their property."

So I must assume that you've never heard of "data theft", or "theft of services".

And as far as what "theft" is "by definition", then whose definition are you talking about? The one definition out of all possible definitions that most appeals to you?

"Schwartz (sic) seemed to think that academic work belongs in the public domain; most especially, academic work that was financed by the public. I completely agree."

1) As you seem to realize, not all of it was publicly funded, and how anyone other than the people who financed the research and, secondarily, the people who did the research, lost the right to decide what is to be done with the research that was the product of their investment of time, effort, money, and labor, I'd like to know. And more specifically, how did the right to decide what to do with that research devolve on Swartz and you?

2) You might completely agree with Swartz about academic work belonging in the public domain but if you think that that interests anyone but you, or if you think that that is enough to absolve Swartz of legal responsibility for his actions, then you do not really understand how the world works.

3) Here's an explanation of JSTOR by commenter Ian Johnston, on page three of this comments thread and which I am going to cite here because you seem like the kind of person would would not bother to find it and read it if I merely gave the url::

Both the article and the comments show a profound ignorance about JSTOR. It is not a publisher; it is a non-profit group run by a consortium of universities to make research papers available at minimal cost to the academic community - which effectively means to anyone with a university affiliation. That's not a cheap thing to do. As well as the storage and bandwidth costs, there is subscribing to current journals and negotiating access agreements with the publishers (who often are rapacious, I agree), and also the costs of scanning in older printed papers which would otherwise be extremely difficult to access for anyone not at an institution which subscribed at the time.

To access JSTOR, institutions pay a significant but relatively small annual fee. In return there are terms and conditions of service, one of which says, in effect "though shalt not download the entire archive and then make it available for free". Had Swartz succeeded he would have undermined the basis for JSTOR and made access to research papers, both now and in the future, considerably more difficult and more expensive. His beliefs may have been passionate and sincere, but they were also misdirected and stupid. (Note that Ian Johnston later disavowed the use of the word "stupid" in this post, but in my opinion, it is far too weak a descriptor in the first place.)