Sera stationnÃ©e devant chez nous dans trois grosses semaines!
Merci Ã m’sieur Albi pour me laisser user une fantastique ProtegÃ© de courtoisie gratuitement en attendant!
Is this new?
Have I been living under a rock? Did I miss the product introduction? Are those things an old trick? Are such gizmos made by other people than MSR « makers of fine overpriced gear »?
My fear of beaver fever is somewhat smaller than my lazyness, but this could be a compromise: although the 4h sit-time to kill cryptosporidium is impractical, since it seems quite efficient for large volumes, it could be great for flat water canoe tripping.
Wait, my wallet is thinner than both the fear and the lazyness. I’ll hang on to the Polar Pure.
Lessig in Wired: Fiber to the People
For a long time now, the FCC has been pushing the idea that ownership matters. In the past four years, it has relaxed common-carrier-like regulations on cable and telecom providers on the theory that otherwise these companies won’t have enough incentives to deploy broadband networks. Common-carrier regulations, this view fears, would transform IP traffic into a commodity. And capital markets aren’t eager to fund commodity infrastructures.
That might be right about cable and telecom companies. Freeing AOL and Comcast from some regulation might be the only way they could afford to deploy high-speed access. But it doesn’t follow that AOL and Comcast are the most efficient providers of high-speed network access. They might not want to be in a commodity business, but commodities are precisely the efficiencies that drive economies. And as more firms persuade more municipalities to develop competing high-speed networks, then we might learn again why GM doesn’t own the highways, and why neither cable nor telecom companies should own IP access.
I have this irrational attraction for a model where connectivity is a public utility. It bugs me: I don’t think I’m able to see both sides of the debate equally well. What are the weaker points of this commodity model?
[via Lessig's news blog ]
Re:QuickTime hacked, not Apple DRM cracked (Score:2)
by seanadams.com (463190) on Saturday November 22, @07:27PM (#7539136)
What’s interesting about this (from a fair use standpoint) is that it only lets you get the AAC data if you have a computer that will play the protected file. This means that you can now play the AAC files with non-Apple hardware/software.
However, it doesn’t let you play someone else’s DRMed .m4p files. They person who is licensed to play them would need to decripple the files first using this tool.
Therefore, it’s questionable whether this is really circumventing a copy-protection mechanism, since this method only allows the « rightful licensee » to extract the AAC. If that’s not fair use, then I don’t know what is.
later: well, it « is » not fair use. But it could be an essential part of substantial activities that are fair use, DMCA nonwhitstanding.
Slashdot reports that someone was criminally charged for wardriving.
The slashdot article mentions Â§ 342.1 Unauthorized use of computer, of the Criminal Code. I think Â§ 326 Theft of telecommunication service, is what will be used here. Although the wording of 342.1 is general enough to apply to any telecommunication system offered through a computer system, like the WiFi router in this case.
It feels weird to see something like casual wardriving be criminalized (yes, there was nothing causal about the reason of the wardriving in this case, but Â§ 326 does not take that into account). I agree with this in principle, but it is still something I’ve been known to do myself from time to time…
The fact that this is a theft of service prevents the owner of the open access point from being charged as an accomplice to the other charges against the wardriver though. This might or might not be a good thing depending on your point of view on computer security and personal and social liability.
I knew about WIPO’s Collection of Laws for Electronic Access (CLEA), which is « a unique international electronic archive of intellectual property legislation« .
I just stumbled upon UNESCO’s equivalent: a collection of national copyright legislation translated in English. Not fully functional right now though…
C-36 est vraisemblablement mort au feuilleton. Le Lucy Maud Montgomery Act allait étendre le terme du droit d’auteur et ainsi assurer la protection des oeuvre non-publiées afin de protéger les publications posthumes de la manière suivante:
Le projet de loi propose de prolonger jusqu’en 2017 la protection des Å“uvres inédites dont l’auteur est décédé entre 1929 et 1949, afin que les héritiers aient le temps et l’occasion de les publier. Une Å“uvre inédite qui n’est pas publiée après cette période tombera dans le domaine public; si elle est publiée, elle sera protégée par le droit d’auteur pour une période additionnelle de 20 ans suivant la fin de l’année civile de sa publication.
(C-36: Résumé législatif).
La situation reste donc celle prévue par les ammendements de 1997 à la Lda, comme le mentionne le Globe and Mail:
[…] unpublished works by writers dead more than 50 years were to enter the public domain in January, 2004, whether they were represented by an estate or not.
Tu sais que tu pédales trop tard à la maison quand tu croises une paire de ratons-laveurs sur Van Horne…
As Frank points out, it is worth noting that the WIPO treaties are summarized as making copyrighted works easier to « use » legally on the Internet. While this could arguably be true according to a certain interpretation of the texts, it certainly is not the dominant idea I get while reading either the DMCA or the EU IP directive (or reading commentaries on the Japanese and Australian laws).
And you have got to admire the impressive mention of the 42 signatories… « Canada’s international commitments » makes it sound as though we’re a contracting party. We’re not, to either the WCT or the WPPT.
« Lab rat: Swapping gets legit » in the Red Herring discusses a system called LOCKSS.
LOCKSS mirrors the way the librarians share their print archives. Each library keeps its own collection but borrows from the others to make a copy if a particular publication is missing or replaces it if damaged. If a library wants to join LOCKSS, it only needs the software client installed on a PC and a network connection to both the library’s local network and the Internet. Once installed, LOCKSS automatically creates a permanent cache, or local database of the journal articles. Unlike other caches that are deleted after a day or so, the LOCKSS cache is never deleted. However, it can only store copies of the journals for which a particular library has valid subscriptions.
Interesting application of a P2P model. It does raise a number of questions, regarding IP but also regarding integrity of the content and auditing. I guess the advantage of a P2P model here is that it avoids the need for the central authoritative server used in a mirroring scheme.
I was waiting for a single link to post on the Broadcast flag decision. Thanks to Donna for providing me with one.
It is a debate I didn’t follow as closely as I should have. I’m still trying to find someone owning a HDTV set with a pair of « rabit ears » on top of it.
Via Frank: Digital rights management and the breakdown of social norms by Christopher May, on First Monday
The ITU’s SPU has a page where they highlight a few interesting applications of SMS or MMS.
From the point of view of my SMS deprived world, it’s interesting to see how this simple technology can be harnessed.
Ã‡a devait arriver, mais dix jours avant la sortie de l’album, je trouve qu’on abuse!
Pirater la relÃ¨ve, c’est pas fort.
J’ose espÃ©rer que les tÃ©lÃ©spectateurs de TVA sauront faire preuve d’un peu de jugeotte face Ã cette nouvelle…
Telecom strategy in the age of end-to-end networks. Fun stuff!