http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_hi_te/internet_names;_ylt=AigZH5XMJFKsXNmkG1oTfuz6VbIF
The first expansion of domain names since 2000 could happen soon.
This brings back the debate of domain name specifically catered to poronography. This could prevent children from reaching porn online. Child locks could be put on browsers to not allow any .xxx adress to be reached without a password. This would be an easy solution to children getting pornography online. However, moving all the explicit content to a new domain name would prove a difficult task for the vast internet.
The issue of cyber squatting could be visited again. I would argue that cybersquating is a legitimate practice, though. Obtaining something of value that you think will be worth more as time goes on is a legitimate practice in many other buisnesses. The only thing that should be protected are people's personal identities. For example, Mike Chin.com could be only allowed to be bought by someone named Mike Chin. Just like in buisness, it is unlawful to decieve people, which would happen if someone not named MikeChin registered that domain to make a profit off of my name.
The expansion of the domain names is a good thing. Allowing for more possibilities, allowing more companies to have a personalized web site. As technology and the internet becomes more and more part of our society the reliance of .com, .net, and .org becomes less important. People have more knowledge of the internet now then they did 5 years ago.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Virtual Rape
http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/04/24/open-roundtable-allegations-of-virtual-rape-bring-belgian-police-to-second-life
This article sparks the debate if it is possible to rape a person virtually, that is though text messages, video games, instant messaging, or other digital means. Obviously forcing anyone to do something, or read something that makes them physically or psychologically harmed should be a crime. But is it possible to force someone that is miles away? Are both people not freely at their computer? How does one attempt to have sexual intercourse over the internet? A physical rape can occur when a man jumps a woman and forces her to the ground then rapes her. But how do you force a person to stay in their seat and read your virtual rape?
"If it is a criminal offense to sexually abuse a child on the internet, how can we say it is not possible to rape an adult online?"
Although I agree with the first part, I do not believe that it is possible to rape someone through virtual means. It is possibly to psychologically harm someone online, which might constitute another, different crim, however the stigma of the physical violation that rape constitutes is not there. Rape is: "In most jurisdictions the crime of rape is defined to occur when sexual intercourse takes place (or is attempted) without valid consent of one of the parties involved." In researching my project on MMORPGs, I realize that people spend a lot of time on their online personas. As much as 100 hours a week, and it that character has an emotional attachment. Another person violating that extension of you has to be hurtful, but as my mother has said to me when i got aggrivated at video games as a kid, "its just a game".
This is more of a debate of, "is destroying someones virtual property (A character in a MMORPG in this case) a crime?" Should we as a country place the same punishment and protection of rights for a digital citizen as we hold for an ordinary citizen? Could murder be a protected right in a MMORPG? Is an extention of someone's personality constitute themselves? or is a digial representation in a completely different ballpark?
The use of MMORPGs is on the rise, and as with any new area with people interacting on a large scale, there is room for legal discussion. I believe that we cannot protect people's digital characters as we protect the rights of citizens. It is on the game developers to deal with legislation of their created digital realm.
This article sparks the debate if it is possible to rape a person virtually, that is though text messages, video games, instant messaging, or other digital means. Obviously forcing anyone to do something, or read something that makes them physically or psychologically harmed should be a crime. But is it possible to force someone that is miles away? Are both people not freely at their computer? How does one attempt to have sexual intercourse over the internet? A physical rape can occur when a man jumps a woman and forces her to the ground then rapes her. But how do you force a person to stay in their seat and read your virtual rape?
"If it is a criminal offense to sexually abuse a child on the internet, how can we say it is not possible to rape an adult online?"
Although I agree with the first part, I do not believe that it is possible to rape someone through virtual means. It is possibly to psychologically harm someone online, which might constitute another, different crim, however the stigma of the physical violation that rape constitutes is not there. Rape is: "In most jurisdictions the crime of rape is defined to occur when sexual intercourse takes place (or is attempted) without valid consent of one of the parties involved." In researching my project on MMORPGs, I realize that people spend a lot of time on their online personas. As much as 100 hours a week, and it that character has an emotional attachment. Another person violating that extension of you has to be hurtful, but as my mother has said to me when i got aggrivated at video games as a kid, "its just a game".
This is more of a debate of, "is destroying someones virtual property (A character in a MMORPG in this case) a crime?" Should we as a country place the same punishment and protection of rights for a digital citizen as we hold for an ordinary citizen? Could murder be a protected right in a MMORPG? Is an extention of someone's personality constitute themselves? or is a digial representation in a completely different ballpark?
The use of MMORPGs is on the rise, and as with any new area with people interacting on a large scale, there is room for legal discussion. I believe that we cannot protect people's digital characters as we protect the rights of citizens. It is on the game developers to deal with legislation of their created digital realm.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Soccer league sues YouTube
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070504/wr_nm/youtube_lawsuit_dc;_ylt=AqCpTJ.mq40jP.TJWZKnkQX6VbIF
Another case of copyrighted material surfacing on youtube. Personally, I see little wrong with soccer clips being shown on Youtube. Homemade highlight videos of players, 10 top goals, or bloopers are all material that promotes the league itself. I do not see how a soccer league has anything to lose by having clips on youtube. A whole match would be different, but clips only drive the interest in the league further up.
"the Premier League has been forced to send time-consuming and ineffectual notices of infringement to YouTube."
A solution, much like the one that was brought up in class would be to treat Youtube the way that Myspace is treated. That is, having a quick and easy way to report copyrighted material. Although as the poitn was brought up in class, most people won't report something they are actively looking for (a copyrighted simpsons episode, for example) but would report Pornography on Myspace. Google owns Youtube, but Google Video and Youtube are treated differently. To put a video on Google Video, the video must be watched and approved to appear on the site. Implimenting a system such as this would help stop the influx of copyrighted videos from appearing on Youtube.
Another case of copyrighted material surfacing on youtube. Personally, I see little wrong with soccer clips being shown on Youtube. Homemade highlight videos of players, 10 top goals, or bloopers are all material that promotes the league itself. I do not see how a soccer league has anything to lose by having clips on youtube. A whole match would be different, but clips only drive the interest in the league further up.
"the Premier League has been forced to send time-consuming and ineffectual notices of infringement to YouTube."
A solution, much like the one that was brought up in class would be to treat Youtube the way that Myspace is treated. That is, having a quick and easy way to report copyrighted material. Although as the poitn was brought up in class, most people won't report something they are actively looking for (a copyrighted simpsons episode, for example) but would report Pornography on Myspace. Google owns Youtube, but Google Video and Youtube are treated differently. To put a video on Google Video, the video must be watched and approved to appear on the site. Implimenting a system such as this would help stop the influx of copyrighted videos from appearing on Youtube.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Internet and presidental debates
taken from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070422/ap_on_hi_te/online_debates;_ylt=Akid5ydh9ufYclaFfwvxcLcjtBAF
Technology is becoming a bigger and bigger part of our everyday lives. Now it is being a big part of the political world. An online debate forum for political candidates is the next logical step in the technology world. An online forum allows viewers to both spectate and participate in the debate. Allowing people to watch and submit questions, allows an interactivity that is currently missing in the debates. Each party has a chance now to win new potential voters. A more interactive debate might be what the country needs. Allowing the voters to feel connected to their candidate is only a good thing.
The last time new technology was adapted into political debates it was the adoption of TV in the Kennedy/Nixon debate. As the article states, the viewers of the TV debate voted Kennedy the winner, while radio listeners thought that Nixon had won. This opens up a new skill set of debating, preparing for questions on the fly that an average viewer can submit. Allowing voters to communicate with a candidate that they wouldn't normally be able to communicate with.
The only question I would like answered is how they are going to select questions taken from the viewers. As a debate, questions need to be equally spread out to both the candidates. Next, is the question of censorship. Many people want many tought questions answered. Will this technology answer those questions? we will have to find out.
Technology is becoming a bigger and bigger part of our everyday lives. Now it is being a big part of the political world. An online debate forum for political candidates is the next logical step in the technology world. An online forum allows viewers to both spectate and participate in the debate. Allowing people to watch and submit questions, allows an interactivity that is currently missing in the debates. Each party has a chance now to win new potential voters. A more interactive debate might be what the country needs. Allowing the voters to feel connected to their candidate is only a good thing.
The last time new technology was adapted into political debates it was the adoption of TV in the Kennedy/Nixon debate. As the article states, the viewers of the TV debate voted Kennedy the winner, while radio listeners thought that Nixon had won. This opens up a new skill set of debating, preparing for questions on the fly that an average viewer can submit. Allowing voters to communicate with a candidate that they wouldn't normally be able to communicate with.
The only question I would like answered is how they are going to select questions taken from the viewers. As a debate, questions need to be equally spread out to both the candidates. Next, is the question of censorship. Many people want many tought questions answered. Will this technology answer those questions? we will have to find out.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Apple Anti-Trust?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20070408/tc_nf/51252;_ylt=AvblDy1CfkupO0JouQTK1cMjtBAF
Since the emergence of digital music stores there has been much debate on their role in the music industry. Some view online music stores as the next big change in the music industry. While others view music available to download online as a a threat to the music industry, even if offered with the backing of the record labels. Most agree it's something that needs to be monitored and regulated closely. With this new anti-trust probe, it enables the European Union(EU) to regulate their record sales closely uniformly among the EU countries. Much like the US record labels want to keep their online sales closely monitored.
Unlike the shift from Tape to CD, I-tunes and the very few other online music stores prevent any sort of competitive buisness. Each store has ties to different record labels, thus different product. When the shift from Tape to CD happened, there would be different stores carrying most major music, allowing different prices and competitiveness. This is what the suit is aiming at, and I believe what the EU is doing is a very smart concept. This prevents I-tunes from locking prices at a fixed rate and having a strangle hold on the market.
This sort of thing should be carried over to the US. I believe if more online music stores opened up i.e. Best Buy selling digital music online or even a digital music kiosk in the store that one could bring an IPod to. SOmething that would allow people to buy and own the rights to a copy of music, and allow a competive arena for the comsumers benefit.
Since the emergence of digital music stores there has been much debate on their role in the music industry. Some view online music stores as the next big change in the music industry. While others view music available to download online as a a threat to the music industry, even if offered with the backing of the record labels. Most agree it's something that needs to be monitored and regulated closely. With this new anti-trust probe, it enables the European Union(EU) to regulate their record sales closely uniformly among the EU countries. Much like the US record labels want to keep their online sales closely monitored.
Unlike the shift from Tape to CD, I-tunes and the very few other online music stores prevent any sort of competitive buisness. Each store has ties to different record labels, thus different product. When the shift from Tape to CD happened, there would be different stores carrying most major music, allowing different prices and competitiveness. This is what the suit is aiming at, and I believe what the EU is doing is a very smart concept. This prevents I-tunes from locking prices at a fixed rate and having a strangle hold on the market.
This sort of thing should be carried over to the US. I believe if more online music stores opened up i.e. Best Buy selling digital music online or even a digital music kiosk in the store that one could bring an IPod to. SOmething that would allow people to buy and own the rights to a copy of music, and allow a competive arena for the comsumers benefit.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
False advertisement in misspelled domain names
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17762760/
Companies are fighting back people who register domains that are misspellings of popular sites. Neiman Marcus is starting to target the companies themselves, rather than the individuals. The article states that individuals in the companies, rather than the company itself, were the ones who used the domain registering system illegally. Targeting the companies who register the domains and offer the services is a way to skip out on the individuals and get all the offenders. Already Microsoft is following and suing another company for the same reason. More cases are likely to follow for other popular websites.
Anyone who has browsed the web is likely to have come across one of these fake sites designed to advertise. I believe that all these sites are in violation of copyright law. They all are designed to trick people looking for a specific company or product into a site that makes money solely on this deception. There is no substance on any of these websites that could be considered to be a different type of business, thus making it a legal use, i.e. old navy clothing store and old navy model airplane store.
People who are looking for Neiman Marcus's site want to be directed to that site and should be able to be directed without false advertisement. If a site such as "NeimuMarcus.com " was the personal web page or a person of that name, then there would be an argument for the legitimacy of the website. However since the premise of the site is purely to advertise via deception, this is nothing more than glorified spam.
Companies are fighting back people who register domains that are misspellings of popular sites. Neiman Marcus is starting to target the companies themselves, rather than the individuals. The article states that individuals in the companies, rather than the company itself, were the ones who used the domain registering system illegally. Targeting the companies who register the domains and offer the services is a way to skip out on the individuals and get all the offenders. Already Microsoft is following and suing another company for the same reason. More cases are likely to follow for other popular websites.
Anyone who has browsed the web is likely to have come across one of these fake sites designed to advertise. I believe that all these sites are in violation of copyright law. They all are designed to trick people looking for a specific company or product into a site that makes money solely on this deception. There is no substance on any of these websites that could be considered to be a different type of business, thus making it a legal use, i.e. old navy clothing store and old navy model airplane store.
People who are looking for Neiman Marcus's site want to be directed to that site and should be able to be directed without false advertisement. If a site such as "NeimuMarcus.com " was the personal web page or a person of that name, then there would be an argument for the legitimacy of the website. However since the premise of the site is purely to advertise via deception, this is nothing more than glorified spam.
wireless leeching
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070326/tc_afp/technologysingaporesecurityinternet;_ylt=AkDn8JumKf9ixBW.QRxGxcgjtBAF
Something that many students in umass do, might start to become illegal; leeching off others wireless internet. Many people take their laptops to class, to a common room, or just around campus and sit down and connect to whatever network they find in range. It seems like a harmless crime that could now start to be cracked down.
Something that many students in umass do, might start to become illegal; leeching off others wireless internet. Many people take their laptops to class, to a common room, or just around campus and sit down and connect to whatever network they find in range. It seems like a harmless crime that could now start to be cracked down.
The average user does not secure their wireless network, or even know they can. The average user is also very unlikely to know their internet is being leeched off of. Which makes it hard to find offenders. The average internet user also is unlikely to use all their bandwidth, making "piggybacking" seemingly harmless.
In the USA the only problem that could arise when people abuse "piggybacking", commonly called wardriving. Which is driving around with a computer looking to find open, unsecured wireless to connect and download large files. Otherwise, this isn't likely to make a huge splash in US law. Most likely it will give attention to this issue to common internet users who will secure their home networks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)