|You're viewing br3nda's journal|
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More
Over in the UK - Record industry targets Google for linking to infringing songs
Let's say you were accused of copyright infringement. Let's also include that your ISP made a mistake. Their logging server had the clock wrong, or daylight savings not applied, or some other mistake. They matched up an IP to you, but they got it all wrong. they're a small ISP and they don't have much money to spend ensuring their system is correct, and there's no real incentive to make sure it is. they don't care.
You were home at the time, infact you were online chatting to your sick grandma on skype. You did not download the files you are accused of downloading.
Now, prove it wasn't you that downloaded 3 Lady Gaga albums?
Hard ask, isn't it? How do you prove you didn't? The copyright holder claims you did, the ISP claims it was you. The ISP doesn't, and shouldn't, record what you did online. How are you to prove it wasn't you?
Is the claim "it wasn't me, i didn't do it" enough? How does that hold up?
Maybe the copyright holder made it up? Maybe they just put together big giant lists of random IPs - what's the stop them doing that? They then sit back and collect the money from damages, from people in countries that have streamlined automated copyright accusations like New Zealand is in the process of doing. Move over patent trolls, here come copyright trolls.
Let's complicate it further - you're living in a student flat with 5 other students. Your flat has been accused of downloading the last episode of Lost, illegally. Everyone says they didn't do it, and you know you didn't either. What do you, the account holder do? Do you start logging everything your flat mates do? Is it any of yoru business? It's not even possible because a simple use of SSL and you have no idea what your flatmates are doing. Do you refute the accusation with "everyone living here says they didn't do it" - does that hold up through the process of notice¬ice? Does that defence work in the copyright tribunal? You have no idea if the copyright holder's agency got it wrong - or your ISP got it wrong - or if one of your flatmates is lying - maybe it's your flatmate's boyfriend who did it? When the fine arrives, who pays it? Or does the whole flat get disconnected from the internet for 6 months. Try completing your assignments without internet access.
What is the end result of this? The Creative Freedom Association asserts this is bad for copyright, as it foster bad will and dislike for artists and copyright holders. Being punished for something you didn't do and being punished for the acts of your flatmate, or a visitor, or someone you kindly shared internet with, means yet more disrespect for creative works and copyright.
How do we prove or disprove accusations? Is privacy in citizen's private communications something worth giving up for the sake of protecting copyright? I personally support artists right to own works, and the rights of those who buy copyrights from artists. I don't however value that over citizen's privacy in their own homes.
Danah Boyd says "just because we can, doesn’t mean we should" http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/
"Being socially exposed is AOK when you hold a lot of privilege, when people cannot hold meaningful power over you, or when you can route around such efforts. Such is the life of most of the tech geeks living in Silicon Valley. But I spend all of my time with teenagers, one of the most vulnerable populations because of their lack of agency (let alone rights).
Of course, teens are only one of the populations that such exposure will effect. Think about whistle blowers, women or queer folk in repressive societies, journalists, etc. The privileged often argue that society will be changed if all of those oppressed are suddenly visible. Personally, I don’t think that risking people’s lives is a good way to test this philosophy. There’s a lot to be said for being “below the radar” when you’re a marginalized person wanting to make change.
How Cul-de-Sacs Are Killing Your Community
The theory behind cul-de-sacs was that they lessened traffic, since they change the primary function of local streets — rather than offering a way to get anywhere, now they simply provide access to private residences. The problem is that this design inherently encourages car use, even for the shortest trips. It also limits the growth of communities and transportation options...... The argument that cul-de-sacs increase safety because they limit traffic is also misguided — the more empty and desolate a suburban (and often affluent) street is, the more likely crime is to occur. Also, it’s much harder for emergency vehicles to reach these homes if they’re sequestered in the belly of a web of disconnected dead-ends.
How CNN turned me into a sex scold
And then, there it was. I was on-screen for the span of exactly one sentence -- a sentence used so entirely out of context it sounded like I had done the exact thing I had spent 20 minutes refusing to do:
Facebook's Gone Rogue; It's Time for an Open Alternative
Facebook has gone rogue, drunk on founder Mark Zuckerberg's dreams of world domination. It's time the rest of the web ecosystem recognizes this and works to replace it with something open and distributed.
Body scan got a little too personal
A TSA worker at Miami International Airport in Florida was arrested for allegedly assaulting a co-worker who had repeatedly teased him about the size of his genitals.
The insults stemmed from an X-ray of the accused captured during a training exercise with the airport's full-body scanning machines, the report said.
Canada to get a USA style DMCA yucky copyright act.
Color Survey Results from XKCD
So I was feeling pretty good about equality. Then I decided to calculate the ‘most masculine’ and ‘most feminine’ colors. I was looking for the color names most disproportionately popular among each group; that is, the names that the most women came up with compared to the fewest men (or vice versa).
Here are the color names most disproportionately popular among women:
Okay, pretty flowery, certainly. Kind of an incense-bomb-set-off-in-a-Bed-Bath-&-
Beyond vibe. Well, let’s take a look at the other list.
Here are the color names most disproportionately popular among men:
i don't have any problem with people who only want to know "press this button, it will do xyz", step on the accelerator and the car goes fast..... people who don't want to know how things work are welcome to continue their merry and ignorant* existence.
when those people feel they need to rant about how their way of using tech is better... that's annoying
but way beyond annoyance, is the few who claim we need to legislate to protect corporations from those evil tinkerers in our communities who do bad things, like reverse engineer something - or jail break their iphone - or inspect the bits and bytes in a file format.
The defence of the rights of companies to sell use some hardware and then restrict how we use is, I find that position abhorent.
By all means, live in your world of the appliance -- of not understanding how a toaster gets hot and makes your bread crispy - but don't outlaw people who do want to understand ohms law, change the input to their software - to people who want to be more than "consumers". I want to participate, i want to create - I AM NOT A PASSIVE CONSUMER, AND I'M PROUD OF IT.
* is there a more positive word than ignorant i could use???