351–360 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In order to review, please reach the top of HN"
You do not have sufficient social credit to request a review, please become a better person and try again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cameras made it easy to copy things, so did printing presses, photocopiers Not at massive global scales. Not at negligible costs. Not with complete impunity. Not in a way that was accessible to everyone.
> printing presses, The arrival of mechanical movable type printing in Europe in the Renaissance introduced the era of mass communication, which permanently altered the structure of society. - Wiki > photocopiers A primary obstacle associated with the pre-xerographic copying technologies was the high cost of supplies: a Verifax print required supplies costing US$0.15 in 1969, while a Xerox print could be made for $0.…
The printing press changed the world but it was huge expensive hardware and if you had one it meant you were a major industry player and therefore an easy target for copyright enforcement.
Copiers were also expensive machines owned by businesses and they also worked with physical paper. There were inherent limits to the scale of any copying operation.
None of this is comparable to what we have today. Now everyone has a computer that fits in their pockets and is more than capable of instantly creating an unbounded number of copies of any data at nearly zero cost as well as transmitting those copies to anyone else connected to the global network. People infringe copyright every day, most of the time without even realizing it.
I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a commen…
“A review cannot be requested for this restriction.” Absolute madness cannot be reviewed… Reason cannot be applied.
Here for instance is a clunker I've had from Cash App support (I'm disputing a package I never received which was returned to the merchant and the merchant won't answer any communications):
"M.J. from Cash Support once more. To be clear, I am not misunderstanding the location of the package at this point, and understand that it has been returned to the sender now.
...
As I mentioned in my previous message, should FedEx update their delivery information to indicate a non-delivered status, we can then process a dispute on your behalf. You can reply back to me here directly should you file the missing package claim with FedEx, they conduct their investigation, and update the package status to reflect non-delivery. At that point we can then move forward on getting a dispute processed for you."
LOL. They know the package has been delivered back to the merchant but they still want me to file a missing package claim for it. The absurdity of the situation is lost on them. All these large companies hire now is soulless drones with no mind of their own.
"Follow the script on the screen, never deviate, even in the face of absurdity. Forever onwards, loyal drone."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without copyright you cannot write contracts about creative works, because there is no value to exchange. Creative works without legal protection are free and therefore cannot be investments or subscriptions. Just like I can’t get people to invest in or subscribe to the air in front of my house. I think you are headed down the wrong path here. You don’t need to eliminate intellectual property to preserve general purp…
> Without copyright you cannot write contracts about creative works, because there is no value to exchange. There is no value even with copyright. Its value is made up, created via artificial scarcity whose days became numbered the minute computers were invented. There's no point in perpetuating this system. The true value is the labor of creators. Data is abundant. Creators are rare. They need to somehow get paid fo…
You’re convinced that copyright industry has tremendous power; but apparently you are also convinced that the only way forward is to 100% defeat them. I’m just saying there may be more options than the extremes of total fail / total win.
Also, your ideas about investing in creators are orthogonal to copyright; you can do all of that today and copyright will neither help nor hinder. Commissioning creative works is great and in fact predates copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but it's harder to compromise a fully programmable device. In essence, you'd have to somehow prevent certain kinds of programming while still permitting all the rest. How is the device to know that flipping pin 121 and 122 in a specific pattern is actually clocking bits from a storage device? I think the web is broken (user-hostile) for the same reason. It's been made to support arbitrary programming, and now y…
You're right. I understand now that it could be a huge step forward. Not perfect but great.
"A review cannot be requested for this restriction" ML enforcing rules is bad enough, but not allowing false positives to be corrected is ridiculous. This is why I would never consider g-suite for any business application. Otoh, I think there is a legitimate business to be made helping small businesses and individuals secure themselves against arbitrary behavior from big tech. This kind of thing can have serious cons…
Given that going viral on Twitter is the only functional help desk for such situations, “Tweet storm as a service” would be a promising proposition.
I've had better luck lately just using contact services to find the personal cellphone and email address of high-ranking employees and contacting them to get escalation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just tested this myself. Got the same results as you while using different file names. Difficult to believe that Google has become so internally dysfunctional that it hasn't fixed this technical embarrassment twenty hours after first being being seen, and then five hours after being reported on front page of Hacker News.
At the scale at which Google operates, even if they fixed it within a minute it probably takes some time to test and roll these things out. Sometimes I wonder if people think that infrastructure for billions of people is some sort of magic where you push the fix button and magically everything's solved across the globe.
Sometimes I wonder if people will excuse anything Google does that hurts people and assume it is some sort of magic to not choose to do that.
If Google has the copyright on "1", they only need to get "0" as well and they'll have everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well as it turns out hash("0") == hash(pirates of the carribean) as well. Not sure how Disney is finding these.
Trying to hash to specific values explains how some direct-to-video stuff was created. The motivation certainly wasn't quality.
The fact that Google is scanning your files for "copyright infringement" is bad enough. They have no way of knowing that you don't legitimately own something. Then pair that with this example and if that isn't enough of a deal breaker for using Google drive I don't know what is.
Do they all do this? OneDrive, Drop, etc.?