...WiFi operates on UNREGULATED spectrum, which means anyone can use, and anyone must accept interference from other users...
and we did EXACTLY the same thing that Mariott was doing, for just that reason.
According to that logic, I can come with a router backpack and prevent all users from connecting to YOUR university network. Well, it's unregulated, right? You should accept the interference and you cannot ask me to leave (in fact, I can be on a public place to cause you enough of a headache, so all is a fair game).
How did Google get charged exorbitant fees for briefly recording unencrypted wi-fi traffic from their street view cars while everything they did was on an unregulated spectrum?
"charge per photo" sign showing the cost per photo for licensing purposes -- i.e. you're allowed to charge for any commercial shot "license" and distribution rights are a part of that -- make sure you have them posted on all sides of your buses
The licensing contract that was not signed by the photographer will be null and void. Puff! This suggestion is equivalent of printing a t-shirt that says "anyone who looks at it owns me $100". Right, try enforcing that in court.
1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,
Detection of the camera pointed in the unknown direction on the bus will be impossible.
2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?
Nearly all SLRs are insensitive to IR light when recording. And almost no camera today (still or video) is using IR to autofocus. Illuminating the area with a powerful IR light is damaging to the eyes -- yes it is like regular light except in the dark when the pupils are be dilated any powerful light can cause a damage. I was working on a device that had 3W IR LEDs and after a few minutes the eyes begin to hurt even when I was not looking at the lights directly.
Music streaming services simply need to form an association so they can publish direct
This is very true. Recording and editing the music with the decent quality used to be very expensive. The analog consoles used to be hundreds of thousands of dollars producing similar quality what a thousand dollar computer with a decent audio card can do today. The studios nonetheless demand copyright ownership for offering studios (cheap now) and distribution service (also became cheap).
Similar state existed in photography where the equipment had astronomical cost and companies could offer equipment, hire photographers "for hire" and keep the copyright. Nowadays, is is nearly impossible to see contracts where the photographer does not retain the copyright on his/her images. Still, plenty of services are available that remove all the "negotiation" part when selling and advertising the images. The photographer is free to offer images for sale with multiple brokers and some have agreements where if an images available for sale on one service will be offered for sale on the other too. There's no reason the music industry cannot follow the same model. The musician will be in charge of the recordings.
What really is killing the development of this market is the fact that one can sell "the ownership" under the current copyright laws. Once the labels buy the "ownership" of the recording they haven't produced, they can also buy the laws that benefit them and no so much help the musicians or the music industry in general. Kill the labels and let the artists to be the deciders of where the music to be played and it will increase the competition among services too -- bringing the new and innovative distribution channels.
How would the same principle of overzealous punishing for "making available" work in the proposed case of personal data and DRM? Actually very simply. Only in this case the health care provider is the one who potentially "makes available" the personal data. Just as it doesn't matter whether the downloaded copyrighted material has ever been played/installed/used, the fact that it was made available is punishable. With personal data, once anyone's data is "made available" it would be irrelevant if it was used or misused, the mere fact of making it available should be punishable. And I don't mean a small fine. I mean jail time for those who approved the decision, the architecture, or made errors in code. As it is difficult to impose the same severity punishment that individuals face for sharing onto a corporation, it should be either a corporation to go bankrupt or responsible people going to jail. What will happen if such law gets passed? Since many executives will not like to end up in jail for proposing a stupid solution, the silly ideas will die out. So, if some provider decides to implement Microsoft's solution with DRM and an error in Microsoft DRM causes the data to be leaked, the Microsoft executives would face felony charges for not providing the appropriate safeguards and making the data available. Yes, I mean, you, Craig Mundie would become a felon! I completely support such a reciprocal implementation of the law.
Game money has to be converted to real money in order to have value. You would never try to pay for something outside of a game with game money, that would just be absurd.
Absolutely not true. When the number of players in a game is limited, then to reach the people outside of the game would require the "conversion" to some more accepted form of payment that is used by the outside group. Once more people start playing the same game, the conversion becomes less and less necessary. That is true for any type of monetary exchange.
Think of this as people in Europe are playing their game and exchanging Euros, but once a European comes to the US, using the same Euros is significantly more difficult without exchanging them to the US Dollars. However, if you find a person at the garage sale who frequently travels to Europe, he might be happy to accept your Euros without converting to dollars. The same becomes true of the Bitcoin, the more people join the "game" the easier it becomes to use it as real currency without doing any conversion.
The web is changing now. With every day we have less and less privacy. Large companies got to be very good at tracking everyone’s move on the web. Practically nothing remains anonymous on the web any longer. Getting an internet service in the US requires presenting a government-issued ID and SSN (wasn’t the case a few years ago). The ISP now start the deep packet inspection where everything becomes monitored and certain undesired connections are dropped. Welcome to the world of censorship where no lists will be provided of what exactly is censored. And that, not the “wild west,” will be one of the causes for the death of the internet.
There was an interesting article in Wired magazine on the topic: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/ It provides insights about how we, as users, choose the closed platforms (e.g. google, facebook). And the more we turn away from the true open and anonymous internet, the more irrelevant the internet becomes.
The hard part when anyone can publish anything is finding something worth reading.
Just have a
Even if the camera manufacturers are not making the camera with built-in encryption, having a public-key encryption can be achieved on a separate tiny device. With current technology the device could have a form-factor of an SD-card. Imagine you have an SD card to which you record a public-key. Every following write to the card will be done through a built-in encryption using that key. All reads will return the encrypted content and it will appear as garbage. But for the purpose of most cameras (that only need to be able to read directories and file names) this will work. If the device is not as small as the SD card, I’d be ok to have wires sticking out of the SD slot that go to my “encryptor”. I can totally see such card to be useful for general photography too.