In addition, it might be a good idea to display how much of the song got downloaded (ie: was the download 80 percent complete, 92 percent complete, 100 percent complete). So it may look something like this.
The URL with the click numbers shouldn't change and people should be allowed to copy and save them and post them on other areas of the Internet without violating any copyright or intellectual property rights. This way people can look for suspicious changes later down the line. This ensures transparency.
To address the simultaneous click problem we need to assign everyone a unique click number when they click to download/listen to a song. Then wee need a page that lists everyone's click number. Below the link that you click to listen to a song there is a link that has pages of peoples click numbers. Each page may have, say, 1000 click numbers and when you listen to/download a song you are given a specific click number and the page number that the click number will show up on (the last page of course). The click numbers are assigned sequentially. At the bottom of a page with click numbers there is a URL that says next page, previous page, it lists a couple of the next pages (like many forums do and as is done at the bottom of a Google search where you can jump to page 3 or 4 , 6, 10, etc...) and may have other navigation option links (ie: jump to last page, jump to first page, skip 10 pages ahead or behind, etc... just like many forums have at the bottom of their pages. Perhaps even a box people can type in the page number and directly jump to it).
Well, you may think, this doesn't really solve anything, the site may still assign two people the same number. The solution, allow each person to submit a short comment before downloading/listening to the song, that comment will appear next to the submitters click number. It's very unlikely two people will submit the same comment at the same time so the system can't simply assign two people the same click number since it must display both unique comments next to the click numbers (and anyone can then verify, from any computer, that their click number made it through at the correct page, at the correct location, with their unique comment next to it). So the page will look like this
Notice how click 02 does not show up. That's because, in this example, the person who was assigned that click number was interrupted by a phone call. He comes back and submits his comment and downloads the song (or listens to it). The page updates.
Each user can then go to the page with his click number (and he can do this from any computer) and ensure that his click number showed up with his specific comment. Also, it's not necessary for every click number to be there sequentially, some maybe absent if someone got a click number but never submitted it to download the song (ie: they closed it out before putting in a comment and downloading the song). In this case, click numbers will be skipped (ie: click number 05 may never show up). With millions of users verifying that their clicks show up it would be very difficult for the RIAA to cheat artists (since it would quickly make it on many blogs, there would be a huge backlash, and people would sue).
In this way, the artists can also verify how many people clicked on their song and ensure the appropriate royalties. If the RIAA and other collection agencies are serious about transparency and making sure artists get paid, this is the system they should adopt. The only reason not to is if they want to scam artists by lying to them about how many people listened to their song.
Mike posted a comment here http://www.bestnettech.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml where he said "Given the recording industry's history with not being able to "find" some big name musicians, just take a guess how well this will work here?"
Hephaestus posted a comment here http://www.bestnettech.com/articles/20090521/1714594965.shtml
Where he said
"The one thing I want out of this is ....
to know where the money is going. So my question is ...
will you open your books to the public and show that the artists are getting paid?"
I have thought of this and came up with a solution. The solution is
Youtube has a counter on their videos telling EVERYONE how many people played a video. Why not put that on downloads. If an artist puts his song on the Internet and wants to get paid per person who downloads, when someone downloads it he can go on the website (as can anyone else) and see how many people downloaded his song. Based on that he can asses how much in royalties is owed to him. He, and anyone else, can ensure that the counter works because the artist can go to the website on another computer and download and see the counter go up. If it doesn't go up, he knows he's being cheated and he can successfully sue for significant damages. If it does go up then he knows he will be payed royalties. Others who download can see the counter move up too and they will notice if there is something fishy going on if the counter doesn't move up when it's supposed to. Of course this could lead to other problems where people create worms that spread and click on a link (changing the URL of course would then be the solution) but these problems can occur with or without a counter. There could also be a problem where the RIAA may lie and say that worms and programs pretending to be users are responsible for a bunch of the clicks when they're not so that they can avoid paying royalties. A solution (for now), of course, is to put one of those art pictures with letters where people see an image of letters and have to type it in in order to hear the song.
another solution is to change the URL every once in a while, the URL that the link links to (this won't affect the counter and won't ruin peoples ability to ensure its integrity). This will prevent bots from constantly "clicking" (or referencing or loading or whatever) on the same URL.
and this system even lets people run experiments to ensure integrity. Say an artist in Texas has a cousin in New York. He can call his cousin in New York over the phone, have him click on the link to listen to the music, and see that the click in New York registers on his computer (on the counter, ie: the youtube counter) in Texas. If it doesn't, then we know something fishy is going on and we can put it on blogs and sue. It would be hard for the RIAA to get away with this since everyone and their mothers can run experiments ensuring the integrity of the system with an open counter (like the one we have on Youtube).
After thinking about this for a while I realized there is an obvious loophole, if many people are clicking on a song at approximately the same time (ie: within a second) how do we know that the counter isn't going to count both of them as one person? I will address this problem shortly.
and I have often criticized evolutionists for censoring criticisms and opposing views in classrooms and from the mainstream media but I will also criticize Intelligent Design advocates/Creationists when they are guilty of such actions.
"So why is it that our innovation policy is still focused on enforcing scarcities when that's the exact opposite of what's needed to encourage innovation?"
Because artificial scarcity is what's needed to maintain the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations that lobby for that scarcity.
If someone wanted to get in your house badly enough they'll simply break your window or something. If someone really had something to secure they would spend more money on more reliable security. Locks aren't meant to be foolproof but neither are Windows and doors. People can kick doors down, etc... People shouldn't rely on a lock to protect them from a determined burglar.
So are you saying that every time someone wants to look at the data, unencrypted, they have to communicate with the backup facility (and have them send the data over)? With your method, having the data encrypted on my computer doesn't do me any good when I need it since I can't decrypt it. This almost defeats the purpose of keeping the data on me (unless the data, and not the private key, gets corrupt at the backup facility. Then your copy might help restore it in the long run). The purpose is to have the data on my computer encrypted in a manner that only I can quickly decrypt from my computer. The solution is simple, as the OP says, (use a strong symmetric algorithm and) don't put the decryption password on the drive with the encrypted info.
BTW, I think health insurance companies have a huge incentive to get a hold of health data. So perhaps they were behind it? I don't know. Who else might have an incentive? Perhaps employers?
Uhm... encrypting the data with a public key would be a SLOW SLOW processor intensive process. You use a pre shared key and you use public key cryptography to share the pre shared key. Then you use a symmetric algorithm, like AES, to encrypt the data with the pre - shared key. That's how it's always done.
""Well, it isn't about telling the big guy to get lost, it's about prior use,isn't it?""
Well, the thing is that every word has prior use and probably almost every useful two sets of words. So should we just make every word copyright? It's ridiculous. If a company uses a word to communicate what it's serving and another company needs to use the same word to communicate what it serves is the first company the only one allowed to use that word? Is no one else allowed to use the word? This paragraph is made of words that were used before, am I breaking copyright law?
"Didn't it used to be reading the newspaper at the table was bad etiquette?"
Perhaps T.V stations made this up because the newspaper was competing with television news programs. In response, newspapers blamed T.V for causing bad manners. :)
I forget my passwords all the time. I often end up writing them down and stuff, taping a password to the storage device sounds like something I'll do. I used to be paranoid with security but I forgot my passwords so often that I kinda just gave up. I figure if a malicious person really has enough access to get a hold of a password I wrote down it's already too late.
I can't believe you agree with this person. If the laws in place can hold a company accountable if someone else misuses its service or product and the company thinks that providing such a product is too risky then why should they provide it? Google is not morally obligated to provide anything anymore than you are. If you think that Google has a moral obligation to provide uploads than I'm going to say the same thing about you. Provide us the uploads you think Google should provide. For YOU (not Google) to avoid the costs and penalties by simply not providing those uploads, "means that the rightsholders lose out on payments which are an important part of their livelihood. Don't they have a right to be reimbursed for their hard, thankless work? To anybody who believes in the morality of Intellectual Property rights, this is simply unacceptable." That makes no sense. Google is no more obligated to provide uploads than you are and as such, in as much as there is nothing wrong with you (or anyone else) not providing such uploads, there is nothing wrong with Google not doing so.
"For Google to avoid the penalties simply by blocking such uploads"
Google has ZERO obligation to provide anything. If the laws in place make it too burdensome and risky for Google to provide uploads should they make bad business decisions, pay penalties, and go out of business as a result? Then no one would be able to upload anything. This isn't Google's fault, it's the fault of the stupid RIAA and MPAA for their lobbying efforts. Google did nothing wrong.
We have a more efficient way of managing this. Perhaps it's much more economically efficient for one entity, Google, to take care of the fixed costs of hosting and spread the benefits across all the users than to have each and every single user individually pay for hosting. You want us to adopt an economically inferior infrastructure just to make the MPAA and RIAA happy.
As for anyone who claims that patents are necessary for the advancement of pharmaceuticals see this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2541736281918823479
Go about 40 minutes into it and he addresses this issue (about how most of it is government funded).
Re: Re:
BTW, this ideas is NOT patentable, DO NOT patent it.
Re:
In addition, it might be a good idea to display how much of the song got downloaded (ie: was the download 80 percent complete, 92 percent complete, 100 percent complete). So it may look something like this.
01 - 6/12/2009: 9:30PM 06 sec - 90% - Hello!
02 - 6/12/2009: 9:32PM 05 sec - 100% - Hello!@
03 - 6/12/2009: 9:31PM 02 sec - 100$ - HELLO@!
04 - 6/12/2009: 9:32PM 06 sec - 84% - Hi!@
Of course those who downloaded the song know how far along the download process they reached.
Re:
The URL with the click numbers shouldn't change and people should be allowed to copy and save them and post them on other areas of the Internet without violating any copyright or intellectual property rights. This way people can look for suspicious changes later down the line. This ensures transparency.
To address the simultaneous click problem we need to assign everyone a unique click number when they click to download/listen to a song. Then wee need a page that lists everyone's click number. Below the link that you click to listen to a song there is a link that has pages of peoples click numbers. Each page may have, say, 1000 click numbers and when you listen to/download a song you are given a specific click number and the page number that the click number will show up on (the last page of course). The click numbers are assigned sequentially. At the bottom of a page with click numbers there is a URL that says next page, previous page, it lists a couple of the next pages (like many forums do and as is done at the bottom of a Google search where you can jump to page 3 or 4 , 6, 10, etc...) and may have other navigation option links (ie: jump to last page, jump to first page, skip 10 pages ahead or behind, etc... just like many forums have at the bottom of their pages. Perhaps even a box people can type in the page number and directly jump to it).
Well, you may think, this doesn't really solve anything, the site may still assign two people the same number. The solution, allow each person to submit a short comment before downloading/listening to the song, that comment will appear next to the submitters click number. It's very unlikely two people will submit the same comment at the same time so the system can't simply assign two people the same click number since it must display both unique comments next to the click numbers (and anyone can then verify, from any computer, that their click number made it through at the correct page, at the correct location, with their unique comment next to it). So the page will look like this
CL = Click number
D = Date/Time
C = Comment
CL - D - C
IE:
01 - 6/12/2009:9:30PM - Hello!
03 - 6/12/2009: 9:31PM HELLO@!
Notice how click 02 does not show up. That's because, in this example, the person who was assigned that click number was interrupted by a phone call. He comes back and submits his comment and downloads the song (or listens to it). The page updates.
01 - 6/12/2009: 9:30PM 06 sec - Hello!
02 - 6/12/2009: 9:32PM 05 sec - Hello!@
03 - 6/12/2009: 9:31PM 02 sec - HELLO@!
04 - 6/12/2009: 9:32PM 06 sec - Hi!
06 - 6/12/2009: 9:34PM 07 sec - Hi!*
Each user can then go to the page with his click number (and he can do this from any computer) and ensure that his click number showed up with his specific comment. Also, it's not necessary for every click number to be there sequentially, some maybe absent if someone got a click number but never submitted it to download the song (ie: they closed it out before putting in a comment and downloading the song). In this case, click numbers will be skipped (ie: click number 05 may never show up). With millions of users verifying that their clicks show up it would be very difficult for the RIAA to cheat artists (since it would quickly make it on many blogs, there would be a huge backlash, and people would sue).
In this way, the artists can also verify how many people clicked on their song and ensure the appropriate royalties. If the RIAA and other collection agencies are serious about transparency and making sure artists get paid, this is the system they should adopt. The only reason not to is if they want to scam artists by lying to them about how many people listened to their song.
Mike posted a comment here http://www.bestnettech.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml where he said "Given the recording industry's history with not being able to "find" some big name musicians, just take a guess how well this will work here?"
Hephaestus posted a comment here http://www.bestnettech.com/articles/20090521/1714594965.shtml
Where he said
"The one thing I want out of this is ....
to know where the money is going. So my question is ...
will you open your books to the public and show that the artists are getting paid?"
I have thought of this and came up with a solution. The solution is
Youtube has a counter on their videos telling EVERYONE how many people played a video. Why not put that on downloads. If an artist puts his song on the Internet and wants to get paid per person who downloads, when someone downloads it he can go on the website (as can anyone else) and see how many people downloaded his song. Based on that he can asses how much in royalties is owed to him. He, and anyone else, can ensure that the counter works because the artist can go to the website on another computer and download and see the counter go up. If it doesn't go up, he knows he's being cheated and he can successfully sue for significant damages. If it does go up then he knows he will be payed royalties. Others who download can see the counter move up too and they will notice if there is something fishy going on if the counter doesn't move up when it's supposed to. Of course this could lead to other problems where people create worms that spread and click on a link (changing the URL of course would then be the solution) but these problems can occur with or without a counter. There could also be a problem where the RIAA may lie and say that worms and programs pretending to be users are responsible for a bunch of the clicks when they're not so that they can avoid paying royalties. A solution (for now), of course, is to put one of those art pictures with letters where people see an image of letters and have to type it in in order to hear the song.
another solution is to change the URL every once in a while, the URL that the link links to (this won't affect the counter and won't ruin peoples ability to ensure its integrity). This will prevent bots from constantly "clicking" (or referencing or loading or whatever) on the same URL.
and this system even lets people run experiments to ensure integrity. Say an artist in Texas has a cousin in New York. He can call his cousin in New York over the phone, have him click on the link to listen to the music, and see that the click in New York registers on his computer (on the counter, ie: the youtube counter) in Texas. If it doesn't, then we know something fishy is going on and we can put it on blogs and sue. It would be hard for the RIAA to get away with this since everyone and their mothers can run experiments ensuring the integrity of the system with an open counter (like the one we have on Youtube).
After thinking about this for a while I realized there is an obvious loophole, if many people are clicking on a song at approximately the same time (ie: within a second) how do we know that the counter isn't going to count both of them as one person? I will address this problem shortly.
and I have often criticized evolutionists for censoring criticisms and opposing views in classrooms and from the mainstream media but I will also criticize Intelligent Design advocates/Creationists when they are guilty of such actions.
"So why is it that our innovation policy is still focused on enforcing scarcities when that's the exact opposite of what's needed to encourage innovation?"
Because artificial scarcity is what's needed to maintain the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations that lobby for that scarcity.
Re: Re:
Exactly my point.
If someone wanted to get in your house badly enough they'll simply break your window or something. If someone really had something to secure they would spend more money on more reliable security. Locks aren't meant to be foolproof but neither are Windows and doors. People can kick doors down, etc... People shouldn't rely on a lock to protect them from a determined burglar.
What part of keep knives away from two year old's is so difficult to understand? This isn't rocket science folks, it's common sense.
Re: How about PKI?
So are you saying that every time someone wants to look at the data, unencrypted, they have to communicate with the backup facility (and have them send the data over)? With your method, having the data encrypted on my computer doesn't do me any good when I need it since I can't decrypt it. This almost defeats the purpose of keeping the data on me (unless the data, and not the private key, gets corrupt at the backup facility. Then your copy might help restore it in the long run). The purpose is to have the data on my computer encrypted in a manner that only I can quickly decrypt from my computer. The solution is simple, as the OP says, (use a strong symmetric algorithm and) don't put the decryption password on the drive with the encrypted info.
BTW, I think health insurance companies have a huge incentive to get a hold of health data. So perhaps they were behind it? I don't know. Who else might have an incentive? Perhaps employers?
Re: How about PKI?
Uhm... encrypting the data with a public key would be a SLOW SLOW processor intensive process. You use a pre shared key and you use public key cryptography to share the pre shared key. Then you use a symmetric algorithm, like AES, to encrypt the data with the pre - shared key. That's how it's always done.
Re: Re:
""Well, it isn't about telling the big guy to get lost, it's about prior use,isn't it?""
Well, the thing is that every word has prior use and probably almost every useful two sets of words. So should we just make every word copyright? It's ridiculous. If a company uses a word to communicate what it's serving and another company needs to use the same word to communicate what it serves is the first company the only one allowed to use that word? Is no one else allowed to use the word? This paragraph is made of words that were used before, am I breaking copyright law?
Re: etiquette
"Didn't it used to be reading the newspaper at the table was bad etiquette?"
Perhaps T.V stations made this up because the newspaper was competing with television news programs. In response, newspapers blamed T.V for causing bad manners. :)
I forget my passwords all the time. I often end up writing them down and stuff, taping a password to the storage device sounds like something I'll do. I used to be paranoid with security but I forgot my passwords so often that I kinda just gave up. I figure if a malicious person really has enough access to get a hold of a password I wrote down it's already too late.
Re: Re: Contempt Of Law
I can't believe you agree with this person. If the laws in place can hold a company accountable if someone else misuses its service or product and the company thinks that providing such a product is too risky then why should they provide it? Google is not morally obligated to provide anything anymore than you are. If you think that Google has a moral obligation to provide uploads than I'm going to say the same thing about you. Provide us the uploads you think Google should provide. For YOU (not Google) to avoid the costs and penalties by simply not providing those uploads, "means that the rightsholders lose out on payments which are an important part of their livelihood. Don't they have a right to be reimbursed for their hard, thankless work? To anybody who believes in the morality of Intellectual Property rights, this is simply unacceptable." That makes no sense. Google is no more obligated to provide uploads than you are and as such, in as much as there is nothing wrong with you (or anyone else) not providing such uploads, there is nothing wrong with Google not doing so.
Re: Contempt Of Law
"For Google to avoid the penalties simply by blocking such uploads"
Google has ZERO obligation to provide anything. If the laws in place make it too burdensome and risky for Google to provide uploads should they make bad business decisions, pay penalties, and go out of business as a result? Then no one would be able to upload anything. This isn't Google's fault, it's the fault of the stupid RIAA and MPAA for their lobbying efforts. Google did nothing wrong.
Re: Re: Re:
"Why the several thousand dollars?"
We have a more efficient way of managing this. Perhaps it's much more economically efficient for one entity, Google, to take care of the fixed costs of hosting and spread the benefits across all the users than to have each and every single user individually pay for hosting. You want us to adopt an economically inferior infrastructure just to make the MPAA and RIAA happy.