Ever since FB stopped listing FS checkins, and the world stopped noticing who checks in where on FS,
it really means they can arrange their data any way they like.

Perhaps this is their method of convincing their investors they have some Imaginary Property or something.
I can't imagine another reason to pretend they have relevance. Like SnapChat, they're a temporary "service"
that has nothing but temporary eyeballs.

E

Dirtbags who represent the special interests that pay them.

The NSA tracked it.

They just responded to the Mexican's request for information with a redacted report saying:
It's located right [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX].
Good luck [XXXXXXXXXXXX] your [XXXXXXXXXXXX].

NSA

I fly helicopters. With the doors off when it's hot. The first solo was... terrifying :)
Now it's the greatest thrill in my life.

Great post comparing the things that matter,

E

Yeah, they can.

We've watched our server purchases go from 100% Dell to 50% Dell/ 50% HP to 100% 3rd party in the
last four years as Dell has become 100% wintel and HP has ratecheted up their pricing without a
commensurate increase in performance or reliability.

This happened despite our being a Dell Premiere client, having "direct access" to get bulk deals,
delivery, and sometimes even pricing. Dell turned into a Microsoft shop around mid-2012 -- long
before it was clear they would eventually be seeking Microsoft "approval" (ownership). We warned
them. We pleaded with them. We tried to bargain with them. In the end it was all just stages of
coping with the grief as we watched our old friend Dell succumb to dying a slow Microsoftian death.

So _NOW_ they want to introduce a laptop running a 1.5 year old operating system? Anyone thinks
this is a great idea? Of course not. They're doing so in order to bid on some government contract
that says they have to have diversity. They don't expect to sell any of these -- see the marketing
hype around it. It's just there because they need to have such a product.

Best

E

MS has the LICENSE to use BSD code.

They don't owe BSD anything.

Next time you're thinking of whether to license YOUR code using GPL or using something
that allows MS to use your stuff and give nothing back in return... remember this.

Ehud

$ mc opccrash

E

That's what illiterate people always say.

/trans=(conc)

The original post begs the question of "DOES DRM actually deliver revenue to the content owners." It assumes that it does and that therefore there needs to be some mechanism to enable DRM to do so.

As has been pointed out numerous times here on /. as well as techdirt and popehat and reddit and other places, that is NOT the case. The revenue that is gained goes to ENFORCEMENT, goes to HARASSMENT of "illegal downloaders"[sic - downloading is not illegal], but NEVER to the artists who created the content.

A better refinement of the question should read:
"What mechanisms could be used to ensure that the creators of content are compensated and their rights are not taken nor abused?" There are quite a few examples (in the sources previously cited) where artists put their content for downloads, and VOLUNTARY DONATIONS bypass the hoarde of middlemen thieves to make the artist wealthy. There are no "technical" mechanisms that can let someone read a book, listen to a song, or view a video that they cannot then make a copy. If you don't allow them to backup that copy, watch/listen/view it on multiple devices including car-audio or smartphone, they will make their own copy and no revenue will be afforded the creator.

A second mechanism is one where the content is EASILY made available for these uses, but incrementally the value-add is to the buyer who chooses to buy that other copy. For example: if I buy a Blu-Ray of BestMovieEver and for another $2 I can download it to my smartphone with chapters, subtitles, and all the features I'd want to see in an original creation (but won't get in a BR-rip) that's worth it.

If I buy a book from AMZ and for another $0 I can get it for my Kindle [reader on my smartphone] for ALL titles and it will NOT be pulled away later [like 1984] then that's a great value. Maybe for another $5 I can get a second copy stamped "Office Library" in big red letters on the softbound cover, so I can keep that in the office to read.

If I get an MP3 or two or three or an album, and for $5 I get a jewel box with a CD for the car, or a poster of the band... those are also value adds.

Key 1: technology will not prevent copying
Key 2: giving the content creator the revenue means removing all the thieves from the middle of the process
Key 3: getting "revenue" to exist means giving the buyer a "value-add" to purchase more, and thereby an incentive to purchase, rather than today's attempts to dis-incent the copying.

Good luck.
E

None of your answers are correct under current US law,
and you didn't cite a single law or statute as requested.

Merely asserting something doesn't make it so. (I stand
by that same standard but since I'm asserting THERE IS
NO LAW being broken, there's nothing to cite.)

E

You are misstating the way laws work and "vertical law" or "horizontal law" are as such aspects of property law which is not relevant here.

Contract violations are not a violation of a law and are therefore not unlawful or "illegal."

Again: There's no such thing as illegal downloading. That means there is no law which is broken by the mere act of downloading.
If you think differently I ask -- again -- provide such statute or law citation.

E

>> This is why nobody is arrested for downloading files

> Aaron Swartz says hello...

Aaron Swartz wasn't arrested for downloading files. He was arrested for violating computer access laws. Strike 1.
I asked if anyone responded to include a law citation. You didn't. Strike 2.

NB the CFAA has no section on "downloading."

E

Illegal requires a violation of a law. There is no law preventing downloading of a file.

This is why nobody is arrested for downloading files. Some have been charged
with CIVIL suits for MAKING AVAILABLE these files.

Is it unlawful to download a file? No.
Is it unlawful to upload a file? No.
Is it unlawful to back up your DVD to a file? No.
Is it unlawful to take that backup file and place it on the Internet? No.

Before you turn on the flamethrowers, I ask that if you disagree with any of these
statements above, KINDLY include a direct link to a current statute or law that
makes any of those four things violate a law.

Regards and happy easter

Ehud
Tucson AZ US