Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Algorithms Kill (Score 1) 343

by ikegami (#38619036) Attached to: French Court Frowns On Autocomplete, Tells Google To Remove Searches
The difference is that committing a murder is illegal, but reporting that "escroc" is commonly associated with "Lyonnaise de Garantie" is not. If someone said Lyonnaise de Garantie is a crook, and if that person was wrong, then Lyonnaise de Garantie should be going after that person.

Comment: Re:Is that fraud? (Score 1) 250

by ikegami (#35954438) Attached to: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

Dropbox, as the service provider, does NOT have the right to say what is or is not copyrighted content

Of course they can. It's not libel, slander or otherwise illegal speech.

If you meant they don't have the right to take down content, that's not right either. The DMCA safe harbours make clear that a site isn't responsible for the actions of 3rd parties, but that doesn't prevent sites from policing their users if they want to, and it doesn't prevent sites from taking down any content they want to from their own sites.

What they can't do is send DMCA takedown requests for content to which they down own the rights. If they did this here, they are in the wrong. Unfortunately, very few face the consequences of sending false DMCA takedown requests.

Comment: If it's too big of a burden, rethink your business (Score 1) 197

by ikegami (#32172328) Attached to: TV Networks Don't Want DMCA Protection For YouTube

It also goes on to say the if safe harbor were given to these sites, it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material.

So what if it's a big burden for Viacom? That's Viacom's business problem, not Google's. It's just as laughable as hearing an entrepreneur say "it's too big of a burden to find costumers".

But let's say that "it's too big a burden" is a valid argument for a second. Viacom is known to intentionally hide the fact that its the one uploading its own material to Youtube. This has led to Viacom mistakenly sending takedown requests for material it itself placed on Youtube. If Viacom can't get it right with regards to its own material, it would be downright impossible for Google to get it right for Viacom's material, much less everyone's material. It would be an even bigger burden for Google, thus the status quo imposes the least burden.

Finally, what differentiates "these sites"? Their size? Their success? By that argument, Apple should be responsible for preventing bank robbers from using an iPhone to organize their crime. That's nonsense. Liability must lie with those who actually perform the illegal act.

The argument is complete garbage.

Comment: Re:Geroge Carlin (Score 1) 367

by ikegami (#30991396) Attached to: Super Strong Metal Foam Discovered

Minimize the chance, yes. Earlier, you said the accident could have been avoided.

No matter how clear the weather and how much you pump the brakes, the teenage driver behind you still can't see through her coffee cup.

And you have no control over the deer completely hidden in the ditch, that decides to run into the side of your car.

Note that (2) is illegal, and will prevent the triggering of the light change at traffic activated lights (which is pretty much every light around here).

Comment: Re:Hmm... (Score 4, Insightful) 278

by ikegami (#30109026) Attached to: New Dating Sites Match People Through DNA Tests

But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE?

Information wants to be free. The claims refers to any and all of the following facts:

  • When information is shared, the sharer loses none of the information.

  • The cost of sharing information information is next to nil if not nil. It is an infinite good. In a free market, it's price WILL go down to zero (regardless of whether you think it SHOULD or not).

  • Information sharing almost always benefits society.

But must information be free? No, not always. There is value in privacy, for example. So while your DNA information "wants to be free" doesn't mean you should "let it free".


You might be wondering how there can exist privacy if information wants to be free.

Notice that I said the cost of information will drop to nothing in a free market. Privacy can exist by hindering the market for information deemed private. One means of achieving this is through the creation of laws that (artifically) raise the cost of the information (by imposing penalities for inappropriately sharing and using the information).

Unfortunately, the legal landscape has not yet dealt with DNA sharing in any serious manner. For now, all you can do is hide your DNA. Once it's known by someone else, it's outside your control.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen