Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment This won't work in the US (Score 1) 418

His license restriction won't work in the United States. He says "USA has already been excluded from using Treefinder in February 2015," but his exclusion is ineffective in the United States. You can download his work without agreeing to any license, and under United States law, once you lawfully possess a copy of a protected work, you need neither a license nor permission to use it. 17 USC 106 lists the things you do need a license or permission to do, such as preparing derivative works or distributing copies. Mere use is absolutely not covered.

And it would be somewhat silly if it worked any other way. Say you bought a book at the bookstore. Do you still need a license to read it? If so, where is that license? What are its terms?

Under United States law, one who lawfully possesses a protected work is entitled to the ordinary use of that work.

Comment Re:Leftists are insane (Score 1) 585

I'm not sure I'd draw the line at just speech that calls for action. Defamation, for example, doesn't call for action. While I think it's probably better to permit defamation than prohibit it, I'm not a First Amendment absolutist who believes that the First Amendment should prohibit laws against defamation.

My point was only that fraud is not "just speech". You cannot commit fraud just by speaking.

Comment Re:Leftists are insane (Score 1) 585

No, I'm pointing out that fraud is not "just speech". I am not arguing that there are no circumstances under which a government should criminalize actions that are just speech. As you pointed out, slander is at least arguably one such example.

It's not hard to imagine others. For example, if I say publicly "I'm willing to pay someone a million dollars if they kill my boss", that should probably be a crime if it's reasonably foreseeable that it could result in someone killing my boss.

Comment Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88

"The Internet is a meet-in-the-middle system in which both sender and receiver pay to reach any of the midpoints where packets are exchanged. Regardless of any ratios, the packets transiting those interconnects have already been paid for in both directions."

No, it's not. That's what some people want it to be, but that's not what it is, nor has it been that way for many decades. A free market did *not* build a meet-in-the-middle system because that unfairly advantages business that can choose their endpoints over businesses that can't. The free market built an even cost split model.

If you want to argue that the Internet should be fundamentally changed to a meet-in-the-middle system, then do so honestly. But don't lie about what the Internet actually is. I know you know better.

Comment Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88

I agree, the benefit of all the packets is exactly equal.

I'm saying that because the benefits are equal, the costs should be equal too.

For example, say two national networks peer and there's much more outbound traffic from A to B than from B to A. That means that even though the benefits to both networks are equal the costs will be much higher to B because it has a larger length of travel. So thus it makes sense to equalize the costs by having A pay B.

Or say Google is going to exchange traffic with Comcast. The benefits are equal. But Google has lower costs because it puts its computers in well-connected datacenters while Comcast has to take its customers where they live. So Google should be Comcast to equalize the costs to match the benefits.

Comment Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88

Well, the packet benefits both the sender and the recipient. It makes sense that each of them should bear about half the costs.

When Google sends a packet to a Comcast customer, we presume that packet benefits both Google and Comcast equally. So Google should pay half the cost and Comcast should pay half the cost. With no settlement, Google will pay much less than half the cost, because Google can put their servers where it's cheapest and Comcast has to take their customers where they find them. So Comcast collects a settlement from Google to cover the balance of Google's half of the cost.

Comment Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88

Outbound traffic is much cheaper than inbound traffic. You can dump outbound traffic off at the nearest meeting point with its destination network. But you have to carry inbound traffic from wherever the source network gives it to you.

With a typical traffic imbalance, when a server on the West Coast is talking to a client on the East Coast, the client's network is carrying much more of the traffic across the country.

Think about it like the US post office and the German post office agreeing to exchange packages with each other. They might agree to not exchange any money so long as each of them carries about 50% of the packages across the ocean. But if the US post office carries 80% of the packages across the ocean, some money is going to have to change hands to keep it fair.

Comment Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88

It's not "somehow justifying", the justification is quite clear. We presume the traffic benefits both parties equally, thus each party should be about half the cost. Content networks put their servers wherever it's cheapest to put traffic on the Internet while eyeball networks have to take their customers where they find them. Thus, without settlement, eyeball networks would pay more than half the cost of the traffic, which would be unfair. Settlement-based peering splits the costs to match the benefits.

Comment Re:Human Shield? (Score 1) 160

Do you see how that position is 100% inconsistent with your original argument? By the logic of your original argument, a US company hosting a site for a US customer should be able to completely ignore UK law. But your original argument was that if they did so, they have no right to complain if that causes bad things to happen.

You wind up having to argue that every hosting provider everywhere in the world should take note of any content they may have that might be deemed unlawful or inappropriate in any jurisdiction and somehow segregate it. That's the total opposite of "each different country should be to follow its laws", that's, "everyone has to follow every country's laws".

Comment Re:CloudFlare *threatened* to disconnect the proxy (Score 1) 160

It is absolutely NOT the responsibility of a US company to follow North Korean law just because people from North Korea access their Internet services.

You're projecting when you say that, "Only the fucking Americans think their law applies to the whole world." You're the one arguing that a US company servicing US customers should follow the law of every single country from which they could possibly find their Internet site accessed.

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar