Re: we've seen it before
Title II means you're probably going to be stuck with Comcast forever. It'll be around in 100 years time, as a price controlled, regulated giant.
But that's OK. People love Comcast.
1126 posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
Title II means you're probably going to be stuck with Comcast forever. It'll be around in 100 years time, as a price controlled, regulated giant.
But that's OK. People love Comcast.
"Now Im hoping that increasing valuation of data is an indicator that the Tech giants are going to get a shock - but the realist in me suspects its going to be over a very long timescale."
What makes you think the value of that data will increase? Supply and demand tells me it will only go down.
The problem is that inferred data is nowhere near as valuable as revealed preference data. If I sell yachts, and I know you've bought two yachts in the past, I don't really care what your inside leg measurement is. It's the yacht purchasers that matter.
" It's just a pseudo-random figure that some "experts" pulled out of their backsides"
No, the figure is the selling price of that data, in an open transaction. It's what people said they would sell for.
Like Tim, everything is for the best and you just don't want to look the Gift Horse in the Mouth. You do sound very eager to rubbish any evidence that might contradict this view.
My position is not that "Google is evil", but that there are also many costs to the enormous consumer surplus generated Silicon Valley companies giving away services (and other people's stuff) for free. They don't do it because they're nice, you know.
People don't think about the value of the data most of the time Have a look what happens when they do:
"Survey respondents said the most valuable data was personal income, followed by the email addresses of close friends and family. Demographic data is less highly valued, although it’s incredibly valuable to fraudsters. The total value however is significant: £140 (€170) per consumer"
Tim doesn't want to look the gift horse in the mouth. But when we do just that, the proposition doesn't look like such a fabulous deal. And that's counting the opportunity cost of market destruction.
Do you mean like a specially provisioned SIM? No.
No, of course not.
But Ryan Heath (author of "Steelie Neelie: The Best of @NeelieKroesEU" and her spokesperson at the time) told me that any MEP who voted against the Telecomms Package would have to face to the wrath of the voters. He genuinely thought that when people vote in European elections, this is how they base their decisions.
I'm making the comparison to show the difference between how Eurocrats think the world works, and what really happens in real life.
"Fluffy Bunny" - your views are indistinguishable from fascism. As a rich white guy, the only you offer the poor are coercion or death.
Population falls to > below replacement levels < as soon as living standards improve - so why not just say you want the poor to stay poor?
"And for the last time, copyright infringement is NOT theft. Read carefuly, NOT THEFT."
Try infringing a dubstep album, then popping along to Tottenham or Peckham to tell the guys who made it what you did, and that it is harming them.
Please do that.
I'll hold your coat.
Hello, Jeremy. Shouldn't you declare your own dirty secret? You failed to mention it in your post.
First off - as you and Eben told me many times, the GPL depends on strong copyright law. The GPL would not survive if property rights could not be asserted, then defended, in Court. The GPL survives because of the respect Courts have for property rights. You also need strong contract law, which you don't get in a banana republic - but you can't even get into court without the property right.
In fact, I think you were the first to point this out. Or Eben. I can't remember.
I can think of a "shittier situation for all concerned" - and it looks like individuals losing control of our pictures and words - so that only giant corporations can profit from our work. "Copyfighters" can whine all day about the length of copyright, but if it can't be asserted, the law is merely decorative. It doesn't matter if copyright terms are 1,000 years or a million years - if they can't be asserted, they are meaningless. If you can't assert (C), then pop goes the GPL. Along with much else.
The Public Domain Day backfired badly, because no matter how you slice it, it means privileged white college kids want to stop paying black people. Living black artists.
The dirty secret of "Jeremy Allison" these days is that he works for Google. A corporation worth $468bn. The biggest corporate lobbyist in the USA. A corporation built on not paying other people for using their stuff. So I think you need to put in a disclaimer when you comment on copyright issues.
"These views do not reflect the view of my employer. It's just a coincidence that my employer, Google, lobbies to destroy your digital property rights, and your ability to control your identity."
So, how is life on the plantation, Jeremy?
Google funds far more lobbying and astroturf than its competition across various industries. Google is now the biggest corporate funder of political activity in the USA.
I doubt you would support a smear campaign against Hood and his silencing using lawsuits by Goldman Sachs, or Microsoft, but maybe you would.
I'm sorry I knocked your conspiracy theory over, I can see how that hurts, and that you want it back.
" The hacked emails provide a treasure map to where the bodies are buried."
Tinfoil in place. The emails *must* contain a treasture map because there *must* be bodies buried, because it's the MPAA, and they're mafia and they're always trying to break the internet, right? So all other facts, and all other ethical considerations become supernumerary.
We have a name for this paranoid psychosis: www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/10/pseudo_masochism_explained/
The NYT trawled through Hood's correspondence and found nothing. Google went through stolen documents and gave The Verge a conspiracy theory on a plate, and it doesn't stand up.
But a $60n a year corporation sues the democratically-elected Attorney of the USA's and "progressives" cheer?
“In my 10 years as attorney general, I have dealt with a lot of large corporate wrongdoers. I must say that yours is the first I have encountered to have no corporate conscience for the safety of its customers, the viability of its fellow corporations or the negative economic impact on the nation which has allowed your company to flourish.”
Hood's letter to Larry Page, Google CEO; 27 November 2013.
Mississippi voters are entitled to vote who the hell they want as their prosecutor, and Hood is democratically elected.
Do you remember voting for Larry Page?
Do you see the problem here?
A powerful multinational corporation doesn't like other people making the law. Hood is the most effective lawmaker it has encountered.
So Google is prepared to use stolen documents to take him out.
Did you really join The Register Forums just to say that?
Is there anything else you'd like to get off your chest?
Yes, you can hold down the shift and use the trackpad to select a sequence of emails. Then go back and unselect ones individual (trackpad click) you want to keep. Then hit Backspace to get shot of the others.
Sorry, daft omission. It's an X230, so it's 12" wide.
Don't get me started on Lenovo ruining the Thinkpad X series...
It would be nice to have that shape, but in practice, I am finding this is the best keyboard ever on a BlackBerry. They've really nailed this one.
Exchange email support in BB10 is excellent, other parts could be better.
Specifically, it doesn't support Tasks as well as it should (Categories are ignored by Remember) and Contacts doesn't respect Exchange contact groups. Which is incredible, the old BlackBerry did.
BB10 has done this from the start. Overall deleting emails s much easier now.
Articles can always be clearer. The Hub isn't a complicated idea, but it might be unfamiliar.
DNS is not a bad analogy. DNS is a service and a platform (ie, middleware). The Hub allows you to plug in metadata databases, and apps that allow you to use those metadata libraries for transactions. I don't think it specifies what they might be. Just like DNS resolves a name to a number and doesn't tell you what applications (http, ftp) are there.
"Hey, come down from your ivory tower, Mr Journalist! I dare you to show yourself below the line!"
"Oy. Stop engaging here we don't like it"
"Also, anyone with any understanding of the law knows that "people who create content" do not in general "have ownership of that content". "
That's your problem right there, anon. The law ensures the individual owns what they create, via copyright, automatically, for a limited period. Everybody knows this and understands this, whatever normative and political views they draw from that.
You, by contrast, have built an entire worldview on deliberately misunderstanding the law and the purpose of granting temporary exclusive rights to people. Your politics is founded on getting it wrong.
(In Germany, you can't even assign that ownership to anyone else. All usage by anyone who isn't an owner is done by contract. The world hasn't fallen apart.)
As a result of insisting that up is down, and black is white,
1) your arguments have become hysterical eg:
..."government-funded gangs that kidnap people internationally"...
...and 2), ethically unsupportable. A twice convicted fraudster was arrested for perpetrating a serious economic crime. He profited from the work of others without paying them a penny. Since black is white, he becomes the "victim". He becomes poor victimised Kim...
The reason your arguments have become hysterical and morally dubious is because you've rejected the facts. Your political arguments aren't reality-based - they're based on a wierd sense of justice (a political foundation) and are then selectively chosen or misrepresented to support that judgement. Your political views *require you* to misunderstand the intent and expression of the law.
That way madness lies - and it sounds like you're halfway there.
"A better idea would be a site where people who have ideas/designs/creations that they want releasing into the wild can do so that nobody else can monopolise them."
You've just invented copyright. Congratulations.
@Velv No - that ship has sailed. Google actually went to great lengths to structure itself so it could evade rulings like this. The Court judged that if it does business here and crunches data here, it must comply with the law here.
It's all because Google doesn't want to be classed as a publisher. In an alternative history, Google could have begun to minimise the risk as soon as it entered Europe, by arguing for special "search engine" exemptions, for being a "special kind of publisher," if you like. Given its lobbying muscle, it would have probably got them by now.
It's easy to look up the CJEU Gonzalez ruling - but since you were in a hurry, I'll help you.
Tim: "The legal jurisdiction something takes place in is the legal jurisdiction where the browser being used to view the intertubes is. It is not where the server is, it is not where the company owning the content or the search is located, nor where the person who prepared it lives nor any other variation."
This is what the court said :
Google does business in the member state and "possesses separate legal personality. Its activities are targeted essentially at undertakings based in Spain, acting as a commercial agent for the Google group in that Member State. Its objects are to promote, facilitate and effect the sale of on-line advertising products and services to third parties and the marketing of that advertising."
Google agrees, apparently, when it suits Google:
"Google Inc. designated Google Spain as the controller, in Spain, in respect of two filing systems registered by Google Inc. with the AEPD; those filing systems were intended to contain the personal data of the customers who had concluded contracts for advertising services with Google Inc."
Tim: "...paedophile mass murderer but it was only the once and I've been to confession now so nobody should know about it)"
Only information that is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing" [92-94] maybe considered a breach of privacy and eligible for a deletion request.
If there is "a preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question…" then the request for deletion should be rejected.
There is quite a lot of UK case law relating to interpeting what this means: the courts are not in unchartered territory.
Tim: "However, the way that this has been extended does rather leave the impression that there's some airbrushing of history going on."
Yes, and Google is doing so quite deliberately. The strategy is non-compliance. Google is entitled to bounce a request for a deletion up to the information commissioner - and let them sweat over it. If you look at the Telegraph's list you will see Google has now made hundreds of deletions of stories about criminal convictions which it did not need to make. All could, and should,have been bounced up to the ICO - we would expect a search engine that blathers on about freedom of information and "the public's right to know" to do just that, wouldn't we?
(As a digression - who but a numpty would rely on a search engine to be their "historian" - rather than a specialist information service? This actually looks like a market opportunity for LexisNexis to me. Nothing in this ruling airbrushes anything from real archives).
Ultimately, we may actually agree that privacy laws are awful and our lives as journalists would be so much easier without them. Or we may disagree. But if Europe is to have a law, then the Court rules that it must apply to everyone, not just the wealthy who can afford superinjunctions. The Court notes that the internet has a massive reputational impact, and so constantly republishing irrelevant information breaches a citizen's fundamental rights. Google wants an exemption from that law.
In answer to your question: "Who stands to gain if Wikipedia slips off into the night?"
Wikipedia badly needs competition. It isn't hard to imagine an open access, free Wikipedia that simply prohibited anonymity (the single biggest cause of grief) and funded some fact-checking. Only ideology prevents Wikipedia doing this tomorrow, even though the quality would improve enormously, and the reach (into schools, for example) would also expand.
Nothing convinces me the world needs another monopoly.
"As soon as an artist signs to a label then they no longer own their own work (much like any job)."
Many artists retain master rights, and this is standard practice for independent contracts. In Germany it is not possible to assign copyright at all.
You claim to be the director of a label. I would advise artists to steer well clear of your company, if this reflects your understanding of music rights.
That's if your label actually exists.
@FluffyBunny Something like UV, where you pay once for lifetime access to a movie? What a good idea.
You're arguing for better licenses.
"Not sure why Mr Orlowski's comments above were so heavily downvoted"
It's expected - people confuse the law with a license. The law merely sets the boundaries for trade, but it's the licensing permits what people can do with the stuff in the real world.
Pretty much everything is permissable with a license and two willing parties. The GPL wouldn't exist without very strong copyright law setting the boundaries.
Entitlement culture and Big Tech propaganda have done their job. And I'm still waiting for my "legal p2p file sharing".
Because you didn't buy two copies.
(And don't blame me, or the musicians or the composers- that's the law).
Funds/levies compensate a fraction of the value of two copies, because not everybody likes something enough to buy two.
"The fact it is now in two physical locations is not relevant. I bought the right to listen to it (or at least, that's how it should work)."
It's relevant in so far as you are not actually allowed to make a copy of something without a license to do so. The EU's 2001 directive sets out exceptions where this might be permitted. Personal use (of lawfully acquired etc etc) is one of themonly permitted where compensation is also introduced. It doesn't say what this compensation should be.
Would it make more sense to offer a "license to hear it anywhere" or even a "lifetime license"? Undoubtedly yes, and we're moving towards that.
"This won't solve the issue for piracy, as that would still be illegal if I chose to make my "copy" available to others."
Yes, spot on.
"Also, doesn't blank media have a so-called subsidy for the assumed copying that goes on? It used to if I recall."
Not in the UK. It's not a levy-friendly country which is why nobody is calling for one. The Copyright Minister:
"The Government do not believe that British consumers would tolerate private copying levies. They are inefficient, bureaucratic and unfair, and disadvantage people who pay for content."
"Here we are talking about charging twice."
You might be - nobody else is.
A lot of the 3m+ were from a petition that opposes Government regulation.
Fewer than 1,000 of the 3m+ are actually substantive.
You can see all this for yourself.
No, my job isn't to "incite emotion". I'll leave that to people who claim the internet has broken, or who compare regulation to Obamacare :-)
That's a long post - I am not sure what you are trying to say? The burden of proof for new regulation, or regulatory reform, is always on the people who want to introduce it. In this case, they're struggling to agree on basic definitions ("net neutrality") and coming up with assertions that don't map onto reality ("any packet discrimination is bad") and metaphors that are plainly absurd ("outlaw fast lanes"). Nor is the precautionary principle (eg, "if we don't do X something really bad might happen") particularly convincing: biofuels and the invasion of Iraq were both advanced using this.
My point is that if you want better broadband and a more competitive broadband market, you might want to think hard about how the market works. Structural reform of the wholesale market and enforcing strong business competition and consumer legislation may almost certainly be part of this. This is not the first time I have pointed out that people are lazy and prefer bumper stickers to engaging in real grassroots citizen activism, or thinking about the market.
And yours is...?
"It doesn't make sense for a Senator to be opposed to the idea of net neutrality, only certain aspects of its implementation."
Not if he has been informed, by "the fathers of the internet", that the internet has never been neutral.
You're making a fairly transparent attempt to move the debate on from "do you Unicorns exist?" to "are Unicorns vegetarian?"
Personally I think Cruz may have overbaked his pudding: either way, we're talking about a regulated market. The degrees and nature of the regulation differ. But the red herring of neutrality causes far confusion than it brings clarity; "discrimination" and "fast lanes" are slogans for the technically illiterate.
I don't understand. Where's the evil, exactly?
"Re: "direct peering arrangement" == That's simply another way of saying: "We'll throttle traffic on your current transit provider unless you pony up for a 'direct peering arrangement'" -- and that's _exactly_ what happens."
Nobody is throttling. A modern packet switched network is a contested resource in which the greediest application wins.
... "it is always contested even when it is not congested"
... "other internet users are not neutral to you. Every packet is pollution to someone else and the polluter doesn't pay. So really it's a war, a battle for resources, in which the greediest application over the biggest pipe triumphs. The strongest will always win"
You don't understand how the internet works. When you do, we may then agree or disagree about what regulation it needs. (And in that article I raise genuine competition issues they're just not the ones people talk about very much).
"You can manage the packets by type all you want. Doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality."
So "net neutrality" was never about packet discrimination or service discrimination, as everyone thinks. Including the person who coined the phrase "net neutrality". And the people who wrote the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order. ("blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices") Or the EU's neutrality consultation aka "traffic management investigation".
It was always about regulating peering arrangements?
@noominy.noom: "He's redefining terms in sneaky ways"
It isn't me who's redefining terms in sneaky ways. Neutrality means whatever neutrality activists want to mean, and that depends on whatever they want to regulate this year. I wonder what "net neutrality" will be about next year? It's anyone's guess.
(And remember: we have always been at War with Eurasia.)
But who's whining? Netflix spent two years "whining" that it couldn't do direct peering with ISPs (or if you prefer, arguing that its CDN is super-duper and good enough). It produced a shit list that was very misleading, to help it.
This year direct peering is fine, Netflix signed direct peering deals with major ISPs.
Remember: we have always been at war with Eurasia.
"Telenor wants to offer "TelenorFlix"
Do you mean like BT spending billions buying football rights and bunding it with their network?Please explain why that is evil.
"What the ISPs want is to get paid yet again to deliver the packets they already get paid to deliver."
Er, no. ISPs aren't asking to get paid twice, because they haven't been paid once. It's simply a row about how two businesses divvy up the costs.
"No one else does"
But they do, everyone who needs to move large amounts of video reliably does it. They either use L3 or (better) a direct peering arrangement, or build their own private network (Google). Video traffic is not like email. Conventional reciprocal pubic peering doesn't cut it.
The personal value judgment argument ("I don't like X so I don't think it is worth very much") is fine - but not the point here. It's whether money follows popularity, as it does everywhere else. Sell a lot of cars, you get a lot of money. Sell a lot of insurance policies, you get a lot of money.
1 in 4 people on the planet can sing Gangnam Style. And he didn't even pocket enough to buy a decent yacht.
Try rearranging them, Tiles in folders obey different rules to Tiles at "root level".
Accurate simulators have been helping people learn for a long time. Flying instruction has used these since the 1960s. I would put a medical simulator in the same category.
Gamification means something completely different.
Good post Jeffy - but nothing will happen unless the congestion problem is cracked. I went from 20mbit/s to 120mbit/s here in London and I can't tell the difference. The network is still a scarce resource.
All good, but p.29 (The "investment cycle of doom") describes why Comcast, Verrizon and Google should keep their money in their pockets until this can be fixed.
Title II means you get Comcast forever - a nice little collusion between regulator and regulated. I doubt that's what you really want.
IPR is there to encourage the free market - without it, we can see what happens. Without the temporary exclusivity, everyone profits from that invention or creation except the inventor or creator.
Personally I'm looking forward to an African or an Indian kid making a brilliant invention that I can 3D print at home - and getting millions in tiny payments for it from around the world.
Justice Arnold discussed the whack-a-mole question - the whole thing is well worth a read.
"Am I alone in thinking that it's time goods whose only intrinsic value is their branding and not their materials should not be defended by the state?"
Design is protected and brands are protected by IP. Whether you like the brand/poem/song/manbag in question is good or bad is irrelevant - protection means that things you don't like get protected along with things you do like. The idea being that you will get the same protection if you ever invent something that needs protection.
And I'm sure you can find another idiot - it's the internet.
Ahem, Ewan: I think it would be fair to declare your interests in this subject with the readers. Over to you.