Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Farriers (Score 1) 194

Lots of ways that could be speculated as to why it failed. In general, the only time it will take days is in the event that the request is not perfectly readable by the automated system. Like I said, my requests and such are acted on within hours, and if you can qualify for ContentID, it's definitely a very good idea to do so. "Why should it take hours?" Because computers are not instant. Even just putting a video up takes hours for it to be seen in all the places, days for it to get into search systems in certain ways, and so on. Get the waterfowl lined up and the system works much better for you.

It would be nifty if more ISPs allowed that. These days, the vast majority of major ISPs in the US don't allow people to run their own servers unless it's a business account. Here, getting a business account with Comcast for example would bump a YouTuber's monthly cost to $250 up from $35.

That's not the problem though. Safe Harbor protects -all- pipelines from -all- user content. Take it away from one and you take it away from all of them. This means that if somebody posted something on their own personal server, the rightsholders can sue the ISP for not policing that. The likelihood of ISPs allowing any kind of hosting at all becomes even more slim than it is now, and the cost of just getting a normal connection would invariably skyrocket to make up for the costs of lawsuits over people who could potentially cause problems. So it comes back to a Baby, bathwater, out you both go situation.

A question begs here: If many people (myself included) make more money off what other people would normally perceive as their creations being stolen, what prevents that from becoming the standard? Folks are upset to a degree because the big studios and a lot of small creators want to continue running things the exact same way and have it continue to work, not adjusting to the reality. Then if the reality changes, fight that change to continue making money.

Imagine what the world would be like if...

Paved Roads Cost The US Farrier Industry $100,000 in Lost Revenue Per Year, Study Finds

Analysts have released a study that shows that farriers have lost significant revenue as a result of paved roads. "All these paved roads are great, I mean, they get people places faster and don't wear down, and yeah, they make it so the horseshoes wear down faster and need to be replaced sooner. But we're finding that more people are opting to skip the horses entirely and get their transportation from these horseless carriages and automobile things. People are using the roads to play games on in quiet residential locations and these car things go zinging down them faster than horses and without pooping. We've gotten laws enacted to ensure things like any car that scares a horse must be immediately dismantled there on the side of the road, in order to help protect and encourage the use of horses. As farriers were are very interested in the transportation and work industry and we want to be certain people get to their travel destinations and have good ways to handle their fields, and these paved roads are just not helping. They protect from wagon ruts, but they also make it far too easy to drive a car down. We figure if all those new cars had to buy horseshoes like a proper horse did, we'd be making a lot more money."

That isn't meant to be an exact same thing, so no need to pick apart differences. ;) The idea though is that instead of adapting to what is reality now, it's all working on keeping things as close to the way they were as possible. Their way is making lots of money, but they are sure they could make much more if they could just put a listening computer on every ear and extract $1.25 directly from every human's bank account if they hear more than 10 seconds of a song. Market rules no longer apply.

Take your videos for example. Thousands of views stolen? People making money often work off hundreds of thousands or millions of views. Is the video made in such a way that it's trivial to do a tiny thing to make people think it's somebody else's? Can that be changed? Make it more challenging for anybody on YouTube to try to claim it's theirs without wrecking the experience for your viewers? How many videos are you talking about being stolen? Have you made a DMCA template? How many stolen copies end up out there? It takes a few seconds for me to find and verify a stolen copy, drop the URL into a template for the source video, and send that off, resulting in a takedown within hours or less. Sure, if there were thousands of stolen copies going up every hour, I'd fall behind. There aren't though, so it's fine. :) Without a clear idea of what you have, what you are experiencing, and what you are doing about it, I can't give direct advice. However I can say that when my novels are "stolen" for example, it puts thousands of dollars into my pocket. So if people can succeed in the current environment, it's possible for other people to also. Adapt to what is happening in the market rather than trying to make horseshoe wheels and no permission for anybody to post anything anywhere because all the companies that own routers that it might go through could be sued for the stuff you put up therefore you don't pay them enough for that risk.

Comment For lawyers, by lawyers (Score 1) 194

Interesting situation. Actually I write and I have rarely done some video content, and also assisted some video content producers.

On the lines of the fourth group, it's an "if things are done right" situation still. In the situation you described, there is no safe harbor involved. If such a thing were posted on YouTube, for example, and they were taking payment via PayPal, YouTube is not the proper target. Rather, file suit and discovery against the entity that is directly accepting/charging money for the material. It's not a trivial matter. The material needs to be registered with the copyright office and such, which for some reason, even a lot of prolific smaller creators rarely do. Yes, there are things that can throw a wrench in the plans (out of country thieves), but historically I've had compatriots that were successfully making a living off nothing but lawsuit revenue from people who stole their otherwise-free work to sell.

I'm not certain what causes discrepancies in YouTube experiences. Really, we can only give anecdotal information. What we claim happened to us, or to somebody we know. So if we take it on good faith...

In general, a properly-filed DMCA takedown on YouTube will "officially" result in a removal of the infringing content within 72 business hours. In my experience, a perfectly-formatted DMCA takedown that successfully goes through the automated system will result in a removal within about 36 business hours and often within five. From personal experience (and again, anecdotal, so you'll just have to trust me or not as you see fit), the vast majority - or possibly all - of people I've spoken to who have not had success with takedowns encounter problems because they don't do it right. Mind you I don't believe that something made "By lawyers, for lawyers" is exactly easy to do right anyway. If I polled ten random people and said "Follow these directions and create a takedown notice", I'd expect zero of the resulting notices to be fully correct. The takedown has a very specific format, headers should be included, and information should be precise and verifiable. If a human needs to go into it to figure out the data, it slows stuff down.

If you can qualify for Content ID, that's generally the best. That system is automated and takes things down proactively, or allows you to monetize or fully-remove things that it discovers.

In general though, I've given up on giving advice. There's upsides and downsides to all the things and they are decidedly complicated. For a lot of people, the cost of registering pieces can exceed the revenue for example, but that registration can be necessary for certain actions.

For your situation specifically, I'd suggest looking at content type (Exclusive rights or no? Registered if so? Is it cost effective to do so? - Any "no"s? Then it might be an issue) and the filing process (Ducks. Every quacker in a row precisely. Zero quack-stacks.) because if filed "properly", no human ever looks at it and it's 100% automated, so you can't get a rep phoning it in. Start at this page on protecting your copyright on YouTube and remember that the initial learning is the hard part.

Aside from personal experiences and advice and such, really the main article seems to be more pointing to the fact that the big labels are trying to capitalize on experiences like yours to drum up support despite not really being on your side at all. They want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For example, if YouTube lost Safe Harbor, chances are pretty high that you would never be able to put videos there. Nor would most of anybody else. YouTube would likely cease to exist, as would all of the other video sharing sites, because the moment somebody posts something that somebody decides is infringing, YouTube/Google get sued over it. It's not worth the risk, so, no more YouTube at all and every place that does accept video will likely require you to pay them to post your video there because if you post something bad, they get in trouble for it.

Comment Re:My how have the tables turned (Score 1) 194

The fourth group doesn't exist if things are done right. They end up falling into the first three. The ones in group one find it and buy it. The ones in group two discover it's too much of a pain to buy/use/etc based on how it's sold. The ones in group three still are in group three. Take this from somebody who made tens of thousands from publishing a hard copy of a novel posted in its entirety and DRM-free online. Then the places that charge for it are not covered by safe harbor. Plus how can you tell if somebody would pay you for your song before they heard it if they found it on YouTube instead? (Generic "You") Of my published novels, every single one that was published officially without any free online version ended up getting existing-fan traffic only. As soon as I put a free version online, my sales skyrocketed and any time I had a surge in sales, I could easily find the repost that generated it.

Read the horror stories of people who have been wrongly hit with account loss for falsely-claimed infringement and you'll know that they absolutely do handle repeat offenders. Are you certain you're seeing the same account put your music back up after you have it taken down, over and over, more than three times? Or are you seeing multiple people, new accounts, and/or not taking the basic steps of filing the DMCAs (don't ask about them. Just file them and watch the results. Trust me, I've filed plenty on YouTube and the results are very swift.) and, if applicable, submitting your content to the music DNA system to look for signatures automatically and proactively for you?

Comment Re:Sweet I can cancel Comcast! (Score 2) 92

It's okay.

Cost for me for Internet (Very Fast) + Cable TV == $270 a month, plus $22 cable box rental plus $15 for HBO + $15 for Showtime. == $322 per month.

Cost for me for Internet alone: $150. $10 Netflix. $12 Hulu. $15 HBO, $11 Showtime. $10 one time OTA antenna of 3-day delay for CBS Online (Which is fine for me ), and of course Amazon Prime, which costs me $8.25 a month and saves me hundreds a year in shipping fees. But yeah, folks who like to watch sports are screwed, with NFL games online starting at $50 a month for four months and then getting worse.

Mind you, the vast majority of the people I've done the math for get things cheaper online, but that's not everybody. There will always be some folks who have no choice but to get the TV service.

Comment Re:Use tip jars (Score 1) 160

This is an excellent point. Further, the subscription costs are nuts compared to what most people actually consume.

For example, if I had to pay, say, $4.99 a month for each site that I look at some things on from Google News, I'd be spending several hundred a month on news.

Let's take a look at the situation. If I don't block ads, I see about ten ads per page. Let's take a generous $10.00 CPM rate (I'll ignore any CPC because I'll be damned if I'm going to click any of that cruft). That means my viewing the article is worth "ten cents" to them. None when I block the ads. In a given month, I might look at five to ten articles from a given site, perhaps an average of seven from each site I view. Thus, if I'm paying more than $1 a month for their internet drivel, I'm spending way more than my eyes and private information would be giving them.

Since they won't deal with not accosting my eyes with ads in favor of a dime per article I view -at absolute most- (I'd be willing to toss in a nickle maybe honestly for most of this junk), they get adblocked instead and get diddly squat from me. Don't like my adblock? Too bad, I'll find the same article elsewhere, and when I post the link for people who don't block ads to look, it won't be yours. Chasing away my ad-blocking view means the loss of potentially hundreds of non-blocking views I'd drive their way.

I guess the real downside is that advertising is all about scamming everybody with their product anyway. The user's eyes are the product. The "articles" are just bait for the product, like we're fish. The advertisers pay for the product. The publishers then try to milk as much money out of the advertisers as they can with clickbait junk and a page crammed with dozens of ads. Then they complain that their bait is getting eaten off the line without hooking a fish as the fish are getting smarter. If they want the users to be their customers and the content to be their product, they're gonna have to have fish food, not bait, so to speak.

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 534

There is a fine balance in the value of your existence on Facebook. You are not a customer. You are an income source. You exist to make the company money directly or indirectly. For Facebook, it's game token revenue and advertising, mostly the latter. People buy advertising and data because the net result is more people buying their product, thus money in return for the advertising or data purchase.

Your information and existence is sold to advertisers whether you have an account or not, even if it's only in summary.

You may post content that brings other people to Facebook to have their data collected and their eyeballs used to advertise to.

By their basic logic, if you are not looking at ads, not providing good data, and not bringing in other people to look at ads and buy, you are a broken product and not a source of income. If what they lose (content that brings in viewers) is not as great as the cost of having you there, they have every logical right to want to throw you aside and get you gone. Why not throw away "broken product"?

It makes me wonder... If enough people suddenly became click-through views of ads with zero intent to purchase, the advertisers would see their costs go up (due to clicks as opposed to just impressions) and their revenue not match it. There is still the malvertisement issue, but those often come in the ads rather than the destinations. Makes me wonder if there could be a reasonably-secure way to automate click-through-spam aggressive advert sites as a way of protest.

Comment The digital addiction and EMP (Score 1) 537

All this work and cost he went to and the digital addiction will likely win over. The bar will get a reputation for having horrible signal and people will find other bars that don't. Unless he has really awesome drinks and everything else to overcome the need for data. Even then, you'll see many people convening outside to get their information fix or make calls to the S/O. Worse, how will people be able to fake receiving phone calls to get out of creepy bar conversations?

Makes me wonder if his bar is sufficiently EMP-proof now.

Comment Re:What Happens When you Forget Your Password? (Score 1) 388

There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea that if they ever forget their password, their phone is bricked. So what do they do when the owner contacts them asking for a password reset?

If they forget their password, all the data on it is (theoretically securely) erased and the phone is factory reset.

But what if the phone was the only source of that information?
Then what if the phone got sat on wrong and broken? Much worse than losing the password, but the same loss of data.

And to the original observation...
There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea that their phone would not be usable if they forgot to charge it for a whole week.
There is no way that any apple owner would be OK with the idea if it falls out their window on the highway and gets run over three times, their phone is bricked.

However since it's not bricked if they forget their password, it's a moot point. Though sometimes I think that more people would be more careful with their passwords if more bad things happened when they forgot them or accidentally gave them to other people. Like if peoples' bank accounts got drained or people got fired for... oh... wait...

Comment Re:Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score 1) 388

I would create multiple usernames/passwords that are allowed to unlock the system. E.g. Multi login. They keystore that secures the encryption on the device would then have to be doubly encrypted with two seperate encryption keys on the device using a public key of the 2nd user available on iCloud. The second encrypted store could be uploaded to iCloud and only decoded by that 3rd party who would then have access to decrypt the duplicated information.

You could do PK key exchange via bluetooth or something more personal to prevent against MITM attacks.

The device would then need a time delay to prevent that designated user from logging onto your phone through casual day to day usage. The device should only be accessable 30 days after not being used and would require the user to access iCloud to fetch and decrypt the store. The device would still be protected by encryption but may be decrypted by a designated person(s) so long as the designated person is nominated upfront.

I feel that there are a lot of holes in this plan...

Comment Re:joek (Score 1) 101

A different consideration can be summed up in the idea that PCI Compliance makes a company "impossible to be hacked" in the same sense that being an "important and secure government agency" makes the FBI "impossible to be hacked". A frequent view is that PCI DSS means nothing at all because even fully-compliant companies can be hacked.

The middle ground is the concept that PCI Compliance just makes the company less likely to be breached and the recognition that common sense isn't all that common (despite the sads this causes for people who would think "don't store PII unencrypted" should be akin to "don't stab yourself in the eye with a fork in an attempt to improve your vision"). PCI compliant companies can (and will) still be hacked. This is more of a question of "Is the PCI standard a proper balance to reduce the threat, and were these companies -really- PCI compliant, or just saying they were and so we need to revisit how we are addressing this one way or another?"

Comment Re:The deed is done (Score 2) 610

From one point of view, it could be said that I did not say the encryption scheme would be broken in that case. It would be the misappropriation of "legitimate" keys used to access the back door of the encryption system.

From another point of view, if the point of the encryption is to prevent any but explicitly-authorized entities - as defined by the data holder and assumed to not include the pool of "and whoever has backdoor keys to the encryption system" - from accessing the data, the very existence of a backdoor breaks the encryption scheme (though not the cipher-generation algorithm) to a degree as it both creates an unknown third party "authorized entity" and a larger attack surface against which a successful attack can compromise the security of your data.

The encryption scheme, taken as a whole, is the entirety of everything from the key storage to (in)secure hardware to the strength of the key against various attacks to the cipher algorithm and stuff in between and around. So the algorithm that generates the encrypted result and reverses that process may be "very secure", but the scheme as a whole can have other faults. Like "password written on a post it note and stuck to the back" or "intercept the self-destruct process to be allowed to brute-force 10,000 4-digit possibilities" to "offload the stored key and use knowledge of the pin-to-key process to extract the key by brute force on an external system".

Encryption cipher algorithms as we know them today is not "unbreakable". It's just "currently so hard to break that it cannot feasibly be assumed to be doable in a useful time period." But a sticky note with the password renders even an "unbreakable" quantum cipher useless in short order. So you protect the key.

If you are the only one in control of the key, you can make your own choices (within some limitations) on where that key exists and who/what has access to it. The moment there is a back door, you no longer have control over the fully-inclusive key set to your data and the people who do have proven that there is a strong potential for their backdoor key to become compromised, thus compromising the security of your data.

Slashdot Top Deals

The IBM purchase of ROLM gives new meaning to the term "twisted pair". -- Howard Anderson, "Yankee Group"