I was originally going to do a Linux distribution review this month. However, when I tried a couple of distributions that I wanted to test, none of them would properly boot from a live USB, so I gave up on those. Instead, I wanted to use this space to ramble a bit on what the near-future of self-driving cars might look like. It comes from some conversations I had with my family last weekend while visiting California, after having seen the limited self-driving capabilities of a Tesla Model S (namely, its ability to autonomously pull in and out of a parking space). Moreover, as some of you who know me personally would know, I have a disability that prevents me from driving, so the sight of even minimally-autonomous cars as a present reality excites me, and I'm keeping an eye on current developments in that field/market. Given this, if you'll indulge me, then follow the jump to (not exhaustively) explore some possibilities for self-driving cars.
Showing posts with label DMCA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DMCA. Show all posts
2011-01-07
Homeless Radio Announcer Video Taken Down
If you've been keeping up with the news around the Internet, you know that there's a viral video of a homeless man named Ted Williams who has a great radio-announcing voice. The video spread everywhere, and within a day or two, he got dozens of offers for both local and national announcing gigs.
Unfortunately, as Mike Masnick of TechDirt reports, that video has been taken down from YouTube at the request of the Columbus Dispatch, an employee of which shot the original video.
The person who shot and posted the video online specifically asked for viewers to forward this to friends and contacts to spread the word and help the gentleman land a job. And yes, all the good things that happened to Ted Williams happened because of the video going viral and people taking notice. So now the employee's company is claiming copyright infringement/DMCA violations? What?
This is a huge slap in the face of all the people who did the right thing and let other people know to help this man. I have a feeling that someone higher up in the company said something along the lines of "the video served its purpose, so it's no longer needed, and keeping it up any longer would be copyright infringement." (I think the reason they can claim that is because anything the employee creates is the company's copyright (as it is a work-for-hire or something like that).) It reminds me of the part of Animal Farm by George Orwell where Napoleon the pig and new leader abolishes the old anthem (which extolled freedom, equality, and the like) and replaces it with a new anthem (extolling Napoleon, Napoleon, and Napoleon) for the reason that the animals are already free from the dictatorial farmer so it no longer serves a purpose.
If there are any readers from Ohio, can you please send the Columbus Dispatch polite angry letters asking for the video to be reinstated?
Unfortunately, as Mike Masnick of TechDirt reports, that video has been taken down from YouTube at the request of the Columbus Dispatch, an employee of which shot the original video.
The person who shot and posted the video online specifically asked for viewers to forward this to friends and contacts to spread the word and help the gentleman land a job. And yes, all the good things that happened to Ted Williams happened because of the video going viral and people taking notice. So now the employee's company is claiming copyright infringement/DMCA violations? What?
This is a huge slap in the face of all the people who did the right thing and let other people know to help this man. I have a feeling that someone higher up in the company said something along the lines of "the video served its purpose, so it's no longer needed, and keeping it up any longer would be copyright infringement." (I think the reason they can claim that is because anything the employee creates is the company's copyright (as it is a work-for-hire or something like that).) It reminds me of the part of Animal Farm by George Orwell where Napoleon the pig and new leader abolishes the old anthem (which extolled freedom, equality, and the like) and replaces it with a new anthem (extolling Napoleon, Napoleon, and Napoleon) for the reason that the animals are already free from the dictatorial farmer so it no longer serves a purpose.
If there are any readers from Ohio, can you please send the Columbus Dispatch polite angry letters asking for the video to be reinstated?
2010-10-15
KevJumba + The Amazing Race = CBS*(CwF + RtB)
I'm a fan of (and have subscribed to) KevJumba on YouTube. Recently, KevJumba and his dad made it onto CBS's TV series The Amazing Race, and KevJumba has made 3 videos out of this so far. The most recent one (which I will embed at the end of this post) details how they almost didn't make it because one of the tasks in the beating Ghanaian sun almost made his dad suffer a heat stroke (so his dad needed serious medical help); I was truly touched by this uncut show of mutual affection and support, and I was happy to see that this round was not an elimination round (more on that later) and that KevJumba and his dad can stay on the show.
Then, after watching the video, I realized something: he has been putting clips (each a few minutes long) of the show in his video. That's copyrighted material. Yet, CBS isn't going after him for it. Now, I don't know if that's because he's using his own footage (but considering that he shoots almost all of his own videos (except when he's collaborating with other people on projects), I don't think he's shooting his own video this time, so this must be footage from CBS), but in any case, CBS isn't going after him for it, and I think that's great.
[speculation] What if CBS decided to be anal about it and send his channel DMCA takedown notices? Well, of course, he would have to comply or risk being sued; the former is far more likely. Keep in mind that while his audience is quite diverse, the largest portion of his viewers is probably of East Asian origin. Many of these viewers probably did not watch the show on CBS prior to his selection to participate in the show; hence, thanks to him, the show now has an entirely new (and quite significant) viewing demographic. If CBS really did send out takedown notices to KevJumba, while there would be a few people who are now interested enough in the show to continue watching, many more would be angered by the removal of the YouTube videos, and not having this alternate avenue for keeping up with KevJumba's progress through the show (because YouTube videos, unlike TV without a DVR, can be watched at any time), these viewers will likely stop watching the show altogether. [/speculation]
But CBS hasn't done this. In fact, I and many other YouTube commenters suspect that this round was made to not be an elimination round on purpose to keep KevJumba and his dad on the show. Why would CBS and the show producers do this? I think they recognize and appreciate the great service KevJumba has done in terms of increasing the size of the audience. Thus, not only has CBS allowed KevJumba to post clips of the show in his videos, but they have kept him on the show specifically to let this continue and thus let the viewers (and, by extension, the money) keep flowing in. In TechDirt parlance, this would be an example of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy (CwF + RtB): the CwF is CBS allowing KevJumba to bring viewers in by showing his viewers clips of the show, and the RtB is CBS keeping him on the show, giving viewers a reason to continue watching. Eventually (though this will take a little time), these new current viewers will probably form a more permanent portion of the audience who will enjoy watching the show regardless of KevJumba's presence on the show. Bravo, CBS, for doing the smart thing (so far), and keep it up!
Then, after watching the video, I realized something: he has been putting clips (each a few minutes long) of the show in his video. That's copyrighted material. Yet, CBS isn't going after him for it. Now, I don't know if that's because he's using his own footage (but considering that he shoots almost all of his own videos (except when he's collaborating with other people on projects), I don't think he's shooting his own video this time, so this must be footage from CBS), but in any case, CBS isn't going after him for it, and I think that's great.
[speculation] What if CBS decided to be anal about it and send his channel DMCA takedown notices? Well, of course, he would have to comply or risk being sued; the former is far more likely. Keep in mind that while his audience is quite diverse, the largest portion of his viewers is probably of East Asian origin. Many of these viewers probably did not watch the show on CBS prior to his selection to participate in the show; hence, thanks to him, the show now has an entirely new (and quite significant) viewing demographic. If CBS really did send out takedown notices to KevJumba, while there would be a few people who are now interested enough in the show to continue watching, many more would be angered by the removal of the YouTube videos, and not having this alternate avenue for keeping up with KevJumba's progress through the show (because YouTube videos, unlike TV without a DVR, can be watched at any time), these viewers will likely stop watching the show altogether. [/speculation]
But CBS hasn't done this. In fact, I and many other YouTube commenters suspect that this round was made to not be an elimination round on purpose to keep KevJumba and his dad on the show. Why would CBS and the show producers do this? I think they recognize and appreciate the great service KevJumba has done in terms of increasing the size of the audience. Thus, not only has CBS allowed KevJumba to post clips of the show in his videos, but they have kept him on the show specifically to let this continue and thus let the viewers (and, by extension, the money) keep flowing in. In TechDirt parlance, this would be an example of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy (CwF + RtB): the CwF is CBS allowing KevJumba to bring viewers in by showing his viewers clips of the show, and the RtB is CBS keeping him on the show, giving viewers a reason to continue watching. Eventually (though this will take a little time), these new current viewers will probably form a more permanent portion of the audience who will enjoy watching the show regardless of KevJumba's presence on the show. Bravo, CBS, for doing the smart thing (so far), and keep it up!
2010-07-27
FOLLOW-UP: Truly Competitive Cell Phone Markets
The US government has had an unprecedented bout of sensibility (Joelle Tessler, Associated Press via Yahoo! News) of late. It covers quite a few areas, so I'll try to go through each point one-by-one. In general, the new statement says that breaking technological locks on devices is not in itself illegal unless provable copyright infringement is committed.
The biggest news is that anyone can unlock their cell phone to work with any service provider or to use any application developed for that phone. The phone most affected by this news is, of course, the iPhone (which has thus far been locked to AT&T and can only run apps approved by Apple).
Now, anyone can run any app they want and use it on any network (supported by the hardware) that they want. Prior to this, Apple claimed that under the provisions of the DMCA, jailbreaking iPhones and iPod Touches is illegal (and they threatened to sue jailbreakers). Now, this can't happen (unless, of course, the third-party apps are guilty of copyright infringement).
The reason why I made this a follow-up post to this post is because although phones are not likely to be sold unlocked from the start, users now have the choice of moving their phone to any carrier (provided the phone's hardware supports calls on that carrier). Now, cell phone markets can be more competitive (though the situation isn't quite ideal yet).
Along with the new rules regarding cell phones, people can now break controls on video games to patch security issues. This is almost an open-sourcing of video games, which is great (though this circumvention of technical restrictions is pretty specific).
People can break locks on DVDs and use clips from these DVDs "for educational purposes, criticism or commentary." This is a huge victory for fair use; that really is what fair use is about. This could also mean that the arrest of a European cryptography professor for breaking, analyzing, and publicizing some encryption scheme at a conference will never happen again. Also, people can now make their own videos with clips from movies without fear of being sued for copyright infringement (or so I hope).
Finally, blind people can break locks on e-books to use them with any text-to-speech software. This is a huge step forward, as I have reported in the past cases of publishing houses refusing to release books in formats friendly to blind people for fear of "potential copyright infringement".
Could this be true? Could we actually have a government that cares more about the rights of ordinary citizens than about the "rights" of vested interests? WOW!
The biggest news is that anyone can unlock their cell phone to work with any service provider or to use any application developed for that phone. The phone most affected by this news is, of course, the iPhone (which has thus far been locked to AT&T and can only run apps approved by Apple).
Now, anyone can run any app they want and use it on any network (supported by the hardware) that they want. Prior to this, Apple claimed that under the provisions of the DMCA, jailbreaking iPhones and iPod Touches is illegal (and they threatened to sue jailbreakers). Now, this can't happen (unless, of course, the third-party apps are guilty of copyright infringement).
The reason why I made this a follow-up post to this post is because although phones are not likely to be sold unlocked from the start, users now have the choice of moving their phone to any carrier (provided the phone's hardware supports calls on that carrier). Now, cell phone markets can be more competitive (though the situation isn't quite ideal yet).
Along with the new rules regarding cell phones, people can now break controls on video games to patch security issues. This is almost an open-sourcing of video games, which is great (though this circumvention of technical restrictions is pretty specific).
People can break locks on DVDs and use clips from these DVDs "for educational purposes, criticism or commentary." This is a huge victory for fair use; that really is what fair use is about. This could also mean that the arrest of a European cryptography professor for breaking, analyzing, and publicizing some encryption scheme at a conference will never happen again. Also, people can now make their own videos with clips from movies without fear of being sued for copyright infringement (or so I hope).
Finally, blind people can break locks on e-books to use them with any text-to-speech software. This is a huge step forward, as I have reported in the past cases of publishing houses refusing to release books in formats friendly to blind people for fear of "potential copyright infringement".
Could this be true? Could we actually have a government that cares more about the rights of ordinary citizens than about the "rights" of vested interests? WOW!
2010-02-24
Apparently, IP-Protection Exists for Its Own Sake
This article's (Bobbie Johnson, Guardian) news astounds me.
It's no news to me that there are groups that have lobbied vigorously for intellectual monopoly (aka "IP")-protection and against free software.
But, it seems like one particular group based on the US has taken it farther than it has ever gone before.
It is recommending the inclusion of Indonesia on a list of countries to pressure to change IP-protection laws due to the mere encouragement of the use of open-source software.
What?
The funniest (and saddest) part is that this group is supposed to be pro-free market and pro-competition.
This is exemplified in...open-source software. Companies like Red Hat and Canonical have developed new business models around open-source software.
The status quo (i.e. Microsoft) is antithetical to that.
The worst part of its recommendation is that it wants to force stricter IP-protection laws down Indonesia's throat for the sake of...stricter IP-protection. There appears to be no other reason for this - i.e. intellectual monopoly for its own sake.
The author of the article also points out that often, open-source licenses are stricter in ensuring that the license (to promote free use) and original authorship are retained in all derivative works; one could thus argue that a beneficial form of IP-protection (one that actually fosters further creation and use while maintaining attribution to the original author) is what is needed - not the draconian measures of laws like the DMCA.
I would have laughed out loud if I forgot that this was actually happening; I am sick to my stomach and proceed to vom - [bleccccccccch].
It's no news to me that there are groups that have lobbied vigorously for intellectual monopoly (aka "IP")-protection and against free software.
But, it seems like one particular group based on the US has taken it farther than it has ever gone before.
It is recommending the inclusion of Indonesia on a list of countries to pressure to change IP-protection laws due to the mere encouragement of the use of open-source software.
What?
The funniest (and saddest) part is that this group is supposed to be pro-free market and pro-competition.
This is exemplified in...open-source software. Companies like Red Hat and Canonical have developed new business models around open-source software.
The status quo (i.e. Microsoft) is antithetical to that.
The worst part of its recommendation is that it wants to force stricter IP-protection laws down Indonesia's throat for the sake of...stricter IP-protection. There appears to be no other reason for this - i.e. intellectual monopoly for its own sake.
The author of the article also points out that often, open-source licenses are stricter in ensuring that the license (to promote free use) and original authorship are retained in all derivative works; one could thus argue that a beneficial form of IP-protection (one that actually fosters further creation and use while maintaining attribution to the original author) is what is needed - not the draconian measures of laws like the DMCA.
I would have laughed out loud if I forgot that this was actually happening; I am sick to my stomach and proceed to vom - [bleccccccccch].
2010-02-21
The ACTA, Not Counterfeiting, Terrifies Me
It comes from this (Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing) post.
Basically, the ACTA is forcing the DMCA down the throats of all other countries.
Some of you know that around 2002, a professor gave a lecture in Europe on cryptology and current technology and reverse-engineered a particular technology (protected in the US under the DMCA) in order to analyze its cryptological safety (or something like that). When he flew to the US, he was arrested for violating the DMCA, even though what he did was solely to promote learning for his cryptology students. Of course, he would not have been arrested in the country where he gave this lecture.
So what does the ACTA mean? It means that he could have been arrested anywhere had the ACTA been in place at that time. Even though the reverse-engineering was done purely for educational purposes, as reverse-engineering, it was against the law.
What?
The incidence of these stupidly-made arrests will only go up in the future.
What's worse is that while the DMCA at least makes clear its intentions in its names, the ACTA conflates counterfeiting with copyright, patents, and reverse-engineering.
Counterfeiting is a serious problem; many people get sick and die every day from shoddy-quality counterfeit drugs being passed off as the real product.
Reverse-engineering? If the US, UK, and Poland had not reverse-engineered the German Enigma Machine, we may have lost WWII.
Basically, the ACTA is forcing the DMCA down the throats of all other countries.
Some of you know that around 2002, a professor gave a lecture in Europe on cryptology and current technology and reverse-engineered a particular technology (protected in the US under the DMCA) in order to analyze its cryptological safety (or something like that). When he flew to the US, he was arrested for violating the DMCA, even though what he did was solely to promote learning for his cryptology students. Of course, he would not have been arrested in the country where he gave this lecture.
So what does the ACTA mean? It means that he could have been arrested anywhere had the ACTA been in place at that time. Even though the reverse-engineering was done purely for educational purposes, as reverse-engineering, it was against the law.
What?
The incidence of these stupidly-made arrests will only go up in the future.
What's worse is that while the DMCA at least makes clear its intentions in its names, the ACTA conflates counterfeiting with copyright, patents, and reverse-engineering.
Counterfeiting is a serious problem; many people get sick and die every day from shoddy-quality counterfeit drugs being passed off as the real product.
Reverse-engineering? If the US, UK, and Poland had not reverse-engineered the German Enigma Machine, we may have lost WWII.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)