Ask HN: German eng'd privacy first social network – what would you expect? - <AUTHOR>
 It seems like there is a window of opportunity with all the hate building up around facebook and it's privacy problems. I've been thinking about building a privacy first German engineered simple social network. Think facebook / instagram v1 without all the bells and whistles. Friend focused, no brands. Discovery via address book. Chronological timeline. No dark patterns (withholding likes etc). Verification via small ($1) initial payment (no bots).
To kick-start content I've been thinking about using human curated feeds per special interest group (like HN).
What would you expect from this, what would your concerns be? <comment><USER2> There's already 100s of social networks out there, what would you be bringing to the table?

Plus "German eng'd" throws up all kinds of red flags because they're part of five eyes and share all data with the US, so any German based site is going to be a complete non-starter for your presumed target demographic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Just to clarify: Germany is not part of the five eyes [1].

Nonetheless I'd build it privacy first so the network/company doesn't even have access to most user data. -> E2E asymmetrical encryption where the network does not have access to any of the private keys. Think Signal for social networks.

Moderation will be an issue this way but I'd want to limit individual reach by design to make it very real world contact focused. Kind of like contacts work in Signal/WhatsApp/etc.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes)

<comment><USER3> >>Just to clarify: Germany is not part of the five eyes...

It is one of the US's poodles though.

<comment><AUTHOR> While they are allies Germany is a sovereign country with it's very own (extremely) strict privacy laws (pre and post GDPR) that ask/require companies to implement what is called "Datensparsamkeit" \- principle of data parsimony.

That being said it would be implemented privacy first anyway. If you trust the ~tech behind signal you can trust this network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does it support itself financially?

<comment><AUTHOR> Initial cost will be more than covered from the $1 verification fee. Once growth stagnates that will depend highly on the user base. I could see it being a freemium model with a subscription for additional features (like Tinder Plus/Pro).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A social network that meets stated goals as well as GDPR cookie notices?

Seriously though, why do we in this global internet age need to have any national associations? State your mission/principles, operate to be compatible with similarly forward-thinking nations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, though thinking privacy first the site wouldn't use any cookies until you sign up and want to login. That's where the user should be asked for consent because the cookie is actually providing value for the user.

> global internet age need to have any national associations Generally I > agree, in this specific case I don't. Germany has a strong brand around > quality engineering, privacy and data security which is the main reason I'd > emphasize it. Also in the EU strong voices are starting to emerge that are > asking for a "local"/EU digital ecosystem since the US one based on data > collection and ads is hard to regulate.</comment></comment>


DoorDash Raises $40M, Led by Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.doordash.com/post/114687483313/doordash-raises-40m-led-by-kleiner-perkins <comment><USER2> My wife and I used DoorDash pretty extensively when we first moved to the bay area, we were living out of a hotel for a few weeks.

It was interesting how our reactions to the site differed. I was just happy to have a one-stop list of delivery restaurants with no phone calls, no complicated payment info, etc.

Her reaction was "There's no pictures! I just want someone to tell me what I want to eat!"

Now, whenever I go to their homepage I see a huge missed opportunity to sell advertising. As sites like DoorDash become well-known hubs for the logistics services they provide, I wonder if they will take advantage of the huge set of eyeballs landing on their homepage with open wallets. And for a restaurant, a well-done DoorDash campaign could be more effective than Facebook/TV/radio marketing.

I do see myself stuck with a bit of a paralysis of choice when I land on their homepage. Sure, there's 50 restaurants near me that I can order from, but all I really know is that I'm hungry right now. Some help choosing would be nice.

<comment><USER3> "I just want someone to tell me what I want to eat!"

"Sure, there's 50 restaurants near me that I can order from, but all I really know is that I'm hungry right now. Some help choosing would be nice."

We just linked to your comment on our YC application because we're solving this exact problem. Contact me (see profile) if you're interested in being part of the private beta.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In Palo Alto, there are DoorDash workers EVERYWHERE. Literally every restaurant you go into you see a bunch of people in red shirts picking up meals. I'm curious how this will do in other parts of the country.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow what a crowded space. This reminds me of the daily deals site era, but at least then there was some room to compete because there wasn't a $40 billion behemoth waiting to crush them. I suspect that at whatever point Uber Logistics (or whatever they choose to call this inevitable extension of their service) takes flight, DoorDash and its $40 million will quickly vanish. This definitely isn't a space I would be doing a startup or investing in at this point.

<comment><USER6> Many things look similar from a 1000 miles away. At the actual business level, Uber and DoorDash are different in almost every way. This is one advantage that investors close to these companies have, and one reason why it can be so hard to understand any of this just by reading blog posts. DoorDash has a great business, in many ways better than Uber's.

<comment><USER5> Whether carrying passengers or food, they are both in the delivery business. The primary difference is that one is worth $40 billion and one is not. Doordash may have some restaurant relationships that Uber doesn't, but that is ground that can be quickly made up with money. These VC's are merely hedging their bets with this investment.

<comment><USER6> In that case you should assume that FedEx will put them all out of business. There's a lot more going on than "delivery".

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't assume that. Fedex has many constraints on its business, and shares almost no core competencies with DoorDash or Uber. Its fleet consists not of nimble passenger cars, but of large, fuel guzzling trucks - making one-to-one pickups and deliveries inefficient and unprofitable. It also has no expertise in the area of recruiting independent contractors to perform work for it, which is one of the core competencies of both DoorDash and Uber.

I wouldn't turn to DoorDash to deliver live lobsters to me from Maine overnight, and I wouldn't turn to Fedex to get me food from down the street. Those are very different businesses requiring very different infrastructures. Therein lies the problem for DoorDash: they are not that different from Uber. They have similar core competencies, but Uber is vastly better known and financed.

<comment><USER7> I feel like your post highlights one of the glaring problems with the SV/SFBA echo chamber.

Uber, DoorDash, whatever, they're services glued together with server-side logic and mobile apps.

Fedex, UPS, and I'll even lump Amazon in there. These are logistics powerhouses. Their physical world equipment isn't a liability, its their advantage. Fedex and UPS have knowledge on how to manage a fleet of hundreds of aircraft, thousands of long-haul tractor trailers, tens of thousands of local delivery trucks, and hundreds of thousands of employees.

Your app does not have that. You have users. You have VC money. And while you might think you're more agile than logistics dinosaurs, they have the upper hand. Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's disappointing to see that the biggest "disruption" in the logistics space involves shifting risk further down the economic hierarchy. The most difficult part of last-mile logistics has been capacity planning, both human and infrastructure. And yet, much of this risk is now being pushed down to the entities least capable of absorbing it - what is the opportunity cost of being "available" as a DoorDash driver for a given shift with non-guaranteed compensation?

The message that is emerging loudly from the SV VC community is that they believe this model is one that should be pursued, aggressively. Let's be clear that in terms of labor and risk management, this is not innovation, it is a return to the status quo of a century ago - one that we as a society fought hard to change.

I fear that the plan is to just fight the legal and PR battles, and hope that the robots arrive fast enough and make the situation moot (aka the Foxconn gambit).

<comment><USER6> I've talked to the drivers for a lot of different services, and they seem to enjoy the work. In particular, these on-demand services offer a lot more flexibility than traditional jobs where you are expected to show up every day and sit in a chair for 8 hours.

<comment><USER9> Traditional jobs guarantee a wage for those 8 hours. Most on-demand services guarantee nothing. I'm glad DoorDash at least guarantees an hourly wage in some markets.

<comment><USER6> My brother-in-law quit a traditional job to drive for Uber, so he must think it's better. (also, he told me that for the first time, he's excited to work in the morning) It's a pretty competitive market -- if a service doesn't provide enough work, they won't be able to retain drivers (plus many people drive for multiple services, especially Uber/Lyft drivers).

<comment><USER10> This is a case where money and happiness aren't really correlated. Remember, people get addicted to variable reward schedules, and get bored of fixed reward schedules. Want someone to be more excited to go to work? Flip a coin to determine whether they get paid each day!

<comment><USER11> This is also why games put random drops in your grindable content.

And why despite the satiric premise behind [http://progressquest.com/](http://progressquest.com/) it is weirdly addicting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's interesting to see investors continue to pour lots of money into startups that classify their workers as independent contractors even though the risks of doing so are clear, immediate and growing[1][2]. The lines between employee and independent contractor _are_ somewhat blurred in _some_ cases, but given how important the cost shifting is to the economic viability of many of these companies, a lot of these investments are damn near binary. That's fine when you're investing a few hundred thousand or even a few million but not at all necessary in today's market when you're investing $40 million.

In this case, it's also somewhat ironic that Kleiner Perkins is the lead investor.

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber- lyf...](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-lyft-class- action-2015-03-12-story.html)

[2] [http://time.com/3748438/instacart- lawsuit/](http://time.com/3748438/instacart-lawsuit/)

<comment><USER13> Yup. The new bus service in SF - [http://rideleap.com](http://rideleap.com) \- classifies the bus drivers as independents. From their ToS (excuse the all caps) [https://app.leaptransit.com/webterms](https://app.leaptransit.com/webterms) \- LEAP DOES NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, AND LEAP IS NOT A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER. IT IS UP TO THE DRIVER OR VEHICLE OPERATOR TO OFFER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WHICH MAY BE ARRANGED THROUGH USE OF THE SERVICES

<comment><USER12> Hilarious. That's like United saying, "We aren't an airline. It's up to the pilot to offer a flight which may be arranged through united.com."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Surprised not to see a mention of Postmates here. At least in San Francisco I'd consider Postmates to be the front runner for door-to-door delivery services, followed by Door Dash (sort of an Uber v. Lyft dynamic).

I am not a frequent customer of either but I actually do occasional bike deliveries for Postmates (about 5 deliveries a week, on the weekends). Postmates has insane demand, whenever I sign on the deliver my phone is practically exploding with orders, even when they turn on 'blitz' pricing (and it's not cheap to begin with). The product seems simple but I am very impressed with Postmates' logistics.

Postmates basically has a comprehensive listing of not only all the places to buy things in the city (mostly food but not only) but they know the full menu, item by item pricing, if they accept cash/credit, open hours etc. So you can place highly specific orders. Postmates gives each courier a credit card which they load with about how much money you will need for a given delivery on demand so you can pick up an iMac or a burrito through the same process. They also have a 24/7 customer and courier support network. So if I get a flat tire on my way to deliver a sandwich they can actually try to get another Postmate courier nearby to come finish the delivery.

And recently Postmates has started working closely with some restaurants to provide "turbo" jobs, where the restaurant knows the order is for postmates, provides postmates with an ETA for when it will be ready, which means I can get an order saying "Go to XXX restaurant, the sandwich is already prepared and paid for" and pick it up and go. This enables me to get food to most customers about 30-40m after they order it from anywhere in town.

Anyway those are just some things that came to mind. There is a lot more to it (scheduled shifts, tipping, etc). It all goes to show how interesting these seemingly simple ideas are from the inside.

</comment><comment><USER15> My favorite part of DoorDash is how they got the tipping right. Add it upfront and then they just quickly drop off the food. Munchery is awkward because you're never sure if the person that ordered it included the tip and the driver is hanging around awkwardly making small talk.

<comment><USER16> Munchery is upfront in app too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I use doordash quite often. Their delivery process is excellent and if you get two meals out of a delivery of one meal (the portions at most places are pretty large) the costs are comparable to eating out.

I'm glad to see they've received more funding. In the south bay at least, doordash far exceeds the competition for the variety of restaurants they offer.

The startup class talk by one of the founders was also quite good.

</comment><comment><USER18> im just waiting for the promo codes that follow these funding rounds

</comment><comment><USER19> What's the key differentiator from Grubhub/Seamless, or is it simply a direct competitor?

</comment><comment><USER20> Waiter.com is pissed

</comment><comment><USER21> I always download stupid SF apps to do my part to throw off the numbers ;)</comment>


Huawei phones automatically deletes images downloaded from Twitter app in China - <AUTHOR> https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/01/22/huawei-phone-deletes-twitter-images-china/ <comment><USER2> Now thats insane, and really creepy</comment>


Oh no she didn't: Apple programs Siri to diss Google Glass - <AUTHOR> http://phandroid.com/2013/08/26/siri-disses-google-glass/

<comment><USER2> Pathetic.

I don't like Google or Apple that much, but this is just pathetic.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This makes Apple look childish. Tim Cook should really stamp out this kind of behavior.</comment>


Why I'm Suing the US Government - <AUTHOR> https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4782 <comment><USER4> Good.

My wife is a speech therapist and uses a system that is designed to help people who have had strokes regain their voice.

It comprises a piece of software that comes with a "specially calibrated USB microphone". The microphone is actually a Samson laptop USB mic that had the voice improvement systems logo stuck on it.

The system came with lots of legal warnings about not copying, not telling unqualified people about how it worked and not to use an unapproved microphone. The DMCA was specifically mentioned.

One day the mic failed (the program requires patients to shout aggressively at the mic) so my wife went off looking for a replacement. We had a few USB mics that we tried and and the application refused to acknowledge their existence even though they showed up in Windows. It became obvious that the software was checking the USB device ID. My wife went to the company that ran the system to get a replacement, but they said she had to buy a new copy of the software as well - total cost $659. So we took a chance and ordered a new Samson USB mic from Amazon for €30.00, but when it arrived it didn't work. It was the same model, but was a few generations ahead and therefore had a different USB device ID. My wife has some colleagues with the same package so I tested their mics and they had different USB device IDs and it became obvious that when Samson released a revision of the mic the company offering the system simply recompiled the code with he new device ID baked in and then re-branded the mic.

So, not wanting to shell out $659 for a whole new package I took the old and new mics apart desoldered the cartridges from both mics and put the new one in the body of the failed mic. It worked! Now technically this would be a violation of 1201 in the sense that the individual copy of the software they sold you was tied to the specific mic they sold you at the same time - <USER2> said so in the EULA. But lets be honest that's just nonsense. They were simply trying to sell more stuff - a tactic that seems fairly common in various fields of professional therapy.

This is the sort of problem caused by 1201. If we lived in the US we would have been in breach of the DMCA even though we copied nothing.

Also, the software is as ugly as sin.

<comment><USER5> Would be easier to do a hex search on the binaries, find the device id of the old mic, and patch in the device id of the new mic. I'd be surprised if they had bothered to obfuscate the id in any way.

<comment><USER4> Now you mention it I feel like I overlooked the obvious solution.

<comment><USER6> permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location. i presume your wife works with others that use the same platform.

<comment><USER7> >permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location.

No, as OP mentioned, the software was compiled to match the device ID of the mic it was shipped with. So it would only work with versions of the software that were the same as OP's.

<comment><USER8> I think you misinterpreted. It's the USB device ID, which contains a unique to the model ID and the vendor ID, so any software would work with any device if it has the same model ID. There isn't a such thing (at least not standardized) as a unique device ID.

<comment><USER7> I think you misinterpreted, because you repeated what I said.

>So it would only work with versions of the software that were the same as OP's

<comment><USER9> What he's saying is that there might be V1, 2 and 3 of the microphone in question. The software is tied to a single version of that microphone so any microphone of the same version is indistinguishable to the software.

>the software was compiled to match the device ID of the mic it was shipped with.

Since there isn't a "device ID", only a "Model ID", there isn't a new compiled version for everything being shipped. There's maybe 3 or 4 versions of the software total and there's probably one version that's more prolific than the others.

He may not have been able to buy one of those USB Microphones off of Amazon that had the same VID and PID but the old model that he repaired is one of the few versions that the manufacturer used so there's a pretty decent chance that the fixed one will work as is with another computer with the software on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This post about the damage inflicted by 1201 reminded me of another 1201: Halon 1201, banned because it depletes the ozone layer. A serendipitous coincidence, with this post talking about 1201 like an ecological threat.

More seriously, the GPLv3 contains an interesting provision. Search for "Anti- Circumvention" in this to find the section: [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html)

The second paragraph is probably enforceable, but I'd be interested to hear from someone suitably informed whether the first paragraph has any basis. How far can it be taken?

For example, one of the most insidious things about the Blu-ray format is that unlike DVD and HD-DVD, commercially pressed video Blu-rays are obliged to use AACS. Theoretically non-AACS discs could be pressed and work, but the replication plants aren't _allowed_ to print non-AACS video Blu-rays. This has caused some consternation where people want to distribute Creative Commons/etc. video on optical media, more than can fit on a DVD. I think I recall Archive Team talking about just having to resort to putting video files on a data Blu-ray instead.

If someone made a film, put "Neither this work nor any derived work can constitute an effective technological measure for the purposes of the WIPO copyright treaty or any corresponding legislation" in the credits, and then someone else got AACS'd Blu-rays made of it, would 1201 thereby not prohibit breaking AACS specifically in the context of that Blu-ray? It seems rather dubious.

<comment><USER11> I'm not a lawyer either, but I doubt that clause has much effect, if any. The DMCA defines "effective technological measure" as follows:

> [A] technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the > measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application > of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the > copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

This seems like an objective metric, not something the copyright holder can arbitrarily "deem".

However, in the usual case people worry about, where a user is "circumventing" by modifying software on their own device, one could argue that given the "Installation Information" clauses and the other parts of the GPLv3 aimed at ensuring the user has the ability to modify the software, it does not "in the ordinary course of its operation" require permission from the copyright holder. The "no covered work shall be deemed" clause could be seen to clarify intent.

There are other cases, like if the GPL software was, say, a web server that someone had configured to password protect files they had copyright over, and a hacker bypassed the password protection. This would normally be covered by the CFAA and other hacking statutes, but the DMCA could apply too. In this case, the GPL's "waive any legal power to forbid circumvention" clause wouldn't apply because the hacking wouldn't be "effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work". But if the "no covered work shall be deemed" clause is effective, it would close off using 1201 against the hacker anyway...

<comment><USER12> CSS encryption on DVDs doesn't "effectively control access to a work" because it is easy to crack. That doesn't stop copyright holders and the DMCA from deeming that DeCSS is illegal.

<comment><USER13> No, the law means "effective" in the sense of "has the effect of controlling access" not in the sense of "does a great job at it." CSS clearly does have an effect of controlling access to people trying to copy DVDs even if the encryption is weak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great to see the EFF on board: [https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff- lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit- takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate)

</comment><comment><USER15> Good luck!

What's kind of cool about this issue is that it attracts support from citizens of all political stripes - whether you're a farmer who just wants to be able to fix his own damn tractor, or a hacker who wants to futz with proprietary hardware, the law is patently bogus.

Unfortunately, farmers and hackers have far less political influence than corporations. Hopefully by pursuing this through the courts and with adequate resources from the EFF some progress can be made that couldn't be in congress.

<comment><USER16> Just as a point of fact, farmers have huge political power. Look at farm subsidies, look at Ethanol mandates.

To be more accurate, I would say the number of farmers that want to work with code/electronics to fix tractors is a small subset of "farmers." Try cutting a farming subsidy and you'll quickly see how powerful farmers really are.

Ted Cruz was the only candidate who dared challenge Ethanol mandates -- while campaigning in Iowa. Most political pundits considered that suicide. He won Iowa despite that, but it does show that farmers actually have disproportional power in national politics. However, the "hack my tractor" crowd is not necessarily exercising that power. Perhaps in the 2020 election, this will become a marquee issue (as ethanol has been in elections past.)

<comment><USER17> No, farmers have very little power. Agri-corps, big business which collects the majority of those subsidies, have power. These laws keep little guys down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Circumvention by itself definitely shouldn't be illegal, and it's probably unconstitutional to make building and researching circumvention mechanisms illegal. But I don't buy Step 2.

> EFF is representing plaintiff Andrew "bunnie" Huang, a prominent computer > scientist and inventor, and his company Alphamax LLC, where he is developing > devices for editing digital video streams. Those products would enable > people to make innovative uses of their paid video content, such as > captioning a presidential debate with a running Twitter comment field or > enabling remixes of high-definition video. But using or offering this > technology could run afoul of Section 1201.

It definitely should be legal to _build those products_. Maybe it should be legal to distribute that captioned video as fair use. But why should Twitter profit from a user captioning a video CNN created?

That's the part I have trouble with here. Fair use is fine and good, but there is a large universe of very profitable companies that don't make content of their own, but profit from other peoples' content. Of course they have a huge interest in weakening copyright protections under the guise of promoting fair use.

<comment><USER19> The real problem, of course, is that the Internet today consists almost exclusively of private companies profiting from other people's content. Twitter doesn't pay its users, it makes money off their tweets AND by having them look at ads (yes, this is work). Similarly with Facebook, or with any review aggregator (Yelp, Amazon, Google+), monetizing the free labor of others.

The DMCA protects _certain forms of property_ very jealously, but other forms (e.g. a review) aren't even recognized as property, and the idea of users being appropriately compensated (as we'd expect each nickel to be accounted for a song owned by EMI) is practically absurd. (Note that I do not want the world where we monetize everything)

At the end of the day, which forms of digital property we create and enforce are going to be what determines who can amass wealth - the existing regime was obviously set in place to benefit corporations, billionaires, not joe user.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Twitter exists as a platform that allows politicians, entertainers, businesses and more communicate more quickly and cheaply with people interested in them than ever before. The profit a user gets out of Twitter depends on what is put into it.

<comment><USER19> What you're describing as profit is a diffuse social value, public discourse, not a narrowly-defined piece of property that can be monetized and sold (views/impressions/clicks).

I would like to suggest out that the latter is a heavily-defended form of property (belonging to the platform, not the user who does the work of viewing/clicking) that is monetized into the billions, while the former does not directly, probably just because it cannot be defined by terms of contract, and would be exercised on behalf of users, a diffuse unorganized source of power, and not the corporation, a narrow, organized source of power with specific intent.

We might despise users for not having their shit together, and watch happily while large corporations cart off billions and build giant systems of surveillance to further probe us, but this sort of 'vae victis' attitude is I think why 2016 is the debacle that it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What we need is the legal right to fork any IP. An open licensing model where no one needs permission. They just need to maybe pay an IP tax that trickles up to the previous contributors that helped produce what was forked.

IP is completely flawed because it grants a monopoly on the fruits of specific knowledge or a work as if they are static end products, whereas in reality anything that is not evolving is dying. So the law restricts progress to the owners of the IP even when we could all contribute. And when there is incompetence or negligence by the owners, we have a situation where something good is ruined or withheld, with anyone fixing it being illegal.

Removing IP is impossible because it's about profit, which is also a right. What we need is a new revenue system based on new principles of an expectation of progress and open contribution. Open source software and hardware is this, but just without any standard profit model backed by law.

<comment><USER21> who pays this tax? the person that forks the github repo?

<comment><USER20> This is just one scenario, but you can imagine a system where the person who profits over any IP would pay IP tax, which would then get distributed upstream to previous registered contributors. IP producers would need to be tracked, but this is something that systems such as github already do extremely well, and credit card companies already run systems that process fees for every single transaction.

Producers will announce themselves anyway, in hopes that their content will generate as much value as possible. Contributors would announce themselves in exchange for the right to use any IP.

So say DJ Foo remixes a Michael Jackson song and uploads it to YouTube. YouTube will withhold the IP tax from the ad revenue paid out, and hand it over to the IP revenue service with the copyright profile. Michael Jackson will get paid for DJ Foo's remix automatically.

Say DJ Foo does an original song and uploads it to YouTube. The same thing will happen, but DJ Foo will get paid from the IP revenue service since the IP is tied to DJ Foo as the originator.

And imagine if all this information was open and public. We could lookup any product or work and see all of its activity and history as if it were open source code on github.

In exchange for everyone paying an IP tax, anyone creating anything or adding something will be guaranteed to get paid for their contributions based on the maximum value society can generate from it. Violators will be shamed just by manipulating the system because they'd be doing it in public, and it would be in the IP creators best interest to police their work and report violations. Violations don't even need to be criminal. They just need to be fines that disincentivise those actions enough, much like parking tickets. An example violation would be uploading someone else's song without changing it or false claims regarding ownership.

<comment><USER21> Okay, now one more paragraph about how anyone is incentivized to create anything in this system

<comment><USER20> Ah... You miss an important point. There doesn't need to be an incentive to create anything. Creation is the reward. Creative minds will create no matter what.

The trick is to create a society where creators get fed, and that still remains compatible with capitalism because we are in love with capitalism.

<comment><USER20> Just to add, this is the creator's side. You can imagine a consumer side where everyone decides to put in X dollars like public radio, but watch their donation get equally distributed based on the content they consume. For both sides, the idea is to remove the profit motive from the platform itself, make it as automated and hands free as possible, make it fair, make it as open and data driven as possible, and to let creators focus on creating and nothing else.

And maybe just anyone who wants to join is good enough. By joining, creators will get paid automatically just by publishing content that generates income for themselves or anyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If something isn't done about this very soon, people will never remember or know what used to be. Most (many?) of us here have used VCRs, tape recorders and CD burners, etc, and understand what he is talking about when we remember the days when we had freedom to own information.

Today's kids have been well trained by Apple, Google and Netflix and hardly even understand what we are talking about.

"Oh, you don't have an iPhone anymore? Just buy it on Google Play and you will have it again on your Galaxy." is a quote I have heard more than once...

</comment><comment><USER23> Unfortunately I believe that even if the suit was successful, we would just see more purchases become 'perpetual licenses', skirting the updated law. IIRC, Tesla was very heavily against letting anyone tinker and went to some extremes to stop it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them make buyers sign a EULA in the future when you go to 'purchase' a vehicle.

<comment><USER24> I can imagine tinkering with a Tesla could cause some heartburn for Elon. There are safety issues, which are real. What happens when some maniac changes the software to make autopilot into full self driving, then plows into a minivan on its way to Little League practice? Also interesting, recently heard about a guy who can reprogram some diesel trucks to get better performance (probably at the expense of NOX emissions, like what happened with VW). Still thought it was pretty cool that the truck was not locked down to prevent tinkering in this manner.

NOTE: I am talking about what the company's perspective may be, not my own view of the risks.

<comment><USER25> > What happens when some maniac changes the software to make autopilot into > full self driving, then plows into a minivan on its way to Little League > practice?

We can't let these hypothetical worst-case scenarios be an excuse to stifle innovation.

 _What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses his to give kids cancer!?!?_

 _What if we let people tinker with their toasters and somebody uses one to electrocute a pool full of kids!?!?_

 _Please, think of the children!_

<comment><USER26> > What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses > his to give kids cancer!?!?

I know this was said in jest, but given the (generally unfounded) fears some people have about microwaves and cellphones I want to point out that exposure to unshielded microwave radiation isn't going to cause cancer (at least not any more than anything else that heats you up could somehow cause cancer) because microwave radiation is non-ionizing; you would need at least ultraviolet light for that (and UV-C or X-rays would be most effective).

The biggest danger with strong microwave radiation would be boiling your eyeballs as they lack the cooling most of your body has but contain significant amounts of water.

<comment><USER27> What about cooking the marrow in bone?

<comment><USER28> If that's not a weird joke, I really want to hear why you think marrow is going to absorb more microwaves than any other part of your body. Because it won't, it's an overall heat like sitting in a sauna. At low power it's warm, past that it's unpleasant, past that you have heat stroke.

<comment><USER29> bone marrow is one of the parts of the body that has high water content and thus would heat faster than others under radiation.

Sauna heat does not preferentially target liquid for heating.

<comment><USER28> Almost all of your body is high water content, and the heat will easily conduct the last little bit.

By the time you have to worry about specific non-brain parts being overheated, your overall temperature is such that you're braindead.

<comment><USER30> Actually, no, you can easily sustain heavy damage to certain organs without being brain-dead: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn)

<comment><USER28> I should have chosen my words to be more focused, I suppose. You can damage certain organs. You will not be cooking deep internal organs with an unshielded microwave. Not without cooking everything else.

Pretend my original comment ended with "Past that, you basically fell in a fire and it doesn't matter what is heating you." Is there anything wrong with that? Or the rejection of the idea that bone marrow is at risk?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you're in this thread to support this EFF-backed action, I would strongly consider donating to a cause you support:

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate/](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/)

<comment><USER32> Also be sure to click their Amazon affiliate link before buying stuff, it's an easy way to give for free.

<comment><USER31> You can also set them as your designated recipient for Amazon Smile and use a browser extension to put all applicable purchases through that program:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf?hl=en)

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/amazonsmilere...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/amazonsmileredirector/?src=search)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I am curious why, if they actually believe they have a good chance of success, this is only being filed now rather than in prior years? Has something changed?

<comment><USER34> > I am curious why, if they actually believe they have a good chance of > success, this is only being filed now rather than in prior years? Has > something changed?

You need standing and money to sue. Based on the EFF release:

[https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca- se...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca- section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate)

> EFF is representing plaintiff Andrew "bunnie" Huang, a prominent computer > scientist and inventor, and his company Alphamax LLC, where he is developing > devices for editing digital video streams. Those products would enable > people to make innovative uses of their paid video content, such as > captioning a presidential debate with a running Twitter comment field or > enabling remixes of high-definition video. But using or offering this > technology could run afoul of Section 1201.

> EFF is also representing plaintiff Matthew Green, a computer security > researcher at Johns Hopkins University who wants to make sure that we all > can trust the devices that we count on to communicate, underpin our > financial transactions, and secure our most private medical information. > Despite this work being vital for all of our safety, Green had to seek an > exemption from the Library of Congress last year for his security research.

They have two people with reasonable reasons for wanting the regulation changed and are affected by it now would be my guess. Oh, and these people need the EFF to cover the legal costs.

<comment><USER35> So you're telling me Andrew Huang's business model is to make derivative content devices, for profit, without permission or compensation from the original creators and/or rights holders?

I don't find this litigant to be sympathetic in the least (the second one, Green, is much more reasonable - though redundant to the John Deere case going on).

My initial impression is that I might actually want Huang to lose, if the implications of what he wants are as stated. He's trying to justify "remixing" for profit without compensation to the original rights holders. That's hot garbage in my personal opinion as a content creator.

<comment><USER36> I don't see the problem. I paid for some content, why shouldn't I be able to view it in my manner of preference? If I want to watch it mixed up with some funky third-party subtitles, or a chat window with my friends, why not? You're assuming that Andrew Huang's business model requires sharing content.

Here's a practical application: Due to travel, sometimes my wife and I are apart when the latest Must Watch Episode of something comes out. We will fire up skype and hbonow/netflix and watch it together. Dorky, yes. But also a pain in the ass to keep synced when pausing for bathroom breaks, snacks, etc. Someone should invent an app for that! Oh... but it would be illegal under DMCA.

<comment><USER35> The problem with your initial paragraph is that you assume making derivative content is legal in one's own home, DMCA not withstanding. Outside of "actual" Four-Factor Test Fair Use, it's infringement. Making a device to enable it is highly suspect as a motivation for an outright repeal of the legislation.

You do know the app you describe wouldn't be illegal under the DMCA if your program was licensed by the rights holders, right? That's what we're getting to here. If Huang's post described how he went about trying to negotiate and make deals with the content providers his device wants to piggy back on, and they were terrible in response, that's a different game - I'd be a lot more sympathetic then, no doubt. Show me where he did the due diligence and crunched the numbers, really!

It certainly doesn't change the basis of argument being asinine when realistically DMCA protections don't get in the way of day-to-day Fair Use. It just takes some effort, not buying some Bunnie Studios box off the shelf so he can make a profit. That's what is so stupid about trying to digitally steamroll protections - any time a human can SEE or HEAR something they can find a way to jack it and do something. It's just reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I fully support your cause.

I'm not an American and do not live in America but the problems with American (copyright) laws unfortunately affect the world on a global scale. I sincerely wish you all the best in your efforts and hope that other organisations as well as the (fantastic) EFF back you.

I stand behind you.

<comment><USER21> If only my precious American vote had any power over this whatsoever. (My foreign colleagues seem to think it does.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> A quick summary for those who don't want to click through without knowing what the lawsuit challenges:

Section 1201 contains the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions. These infringe upon fair use activities like format conversion, repairs, and security research.

</comment><comment><USER39> A related article by Matthew Green is at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12137437](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12137437), and by the EFF at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12136682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12136682).

</comment><comment><USER40> If only they were the bully on the school playground perhaps you could fight him. But they are the playground, i wish you the best of luck.

<comment><USER41> Suing the government to stop enforcement of some law is a pretty well established procedure at this point.

<comment><USER40> Yes and that should worry people, that so often laws are taking into effect that nobody wants and you have to sue to get it undone, correcting HOPE you can get it undone, which i don't remember many cases of that it actually worked out the way people wanted it.

Don't get me wrong, great that a person can, but that shouldn't even be needed... in my opinion, utopia

<comment><USER41> Which people are you talking about? This is done pretty regularly but generally judicial review tends to favor conservative interests.

<comment><USER40> The people, citizens. Though i'm curious what kind of laws are rolled back in the US because a citizen decided to sue to government. Do you have any nice examples (preferably of some law effecting many but sued by just one person?)

<comment><USER42> How about Roe v. Wade?

 _" Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother."_

<comment><USER40> ah yes that was a great case, thanks for the reminder. I'm not from the US but i have heard about that. But that does kind of shows what i meant, afaik that was a big and hefty case? And all because some people decided what another person could do with (mostly) her body. (hoping to get it undone).

But this one has economic (money) aspects, i fear this might be a bigger struggle (while people may differ about whats more important).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The UK government is trying to push for OSS as the default for all government software. As a default for all "societally beneficial"'software is a better goal and one highlighted here.

Now my attempts so far are stymied by this weird half world. Most government contracts basically want either bums on seats contractors or to fundamentally hire "someone who has done it before" (effectively the same as wanting to buy off the shelf)

So there is almost no way to seed fund the initial OSS development.

Down thread people talk about a fund for starting OSS projects to provide things like this. Plover is an example of people trying it on their own - <USER3> a funded system that basically follows current gov work seems better.

</comment><comment><USER44> Can someone do a tl;dr? This is upvoted very highly but it's assuming a _ton_ of context I don't have. All I get is that someone wants to be able to tinker, but today that necessitates breaking some legally-enforced protections on the product.

That's a valid point but I don't see how it's gotten to 1000 points, so I think I'm missing something. What's the lawsuit? What's the egregious use case?

<comment><USER45> DRM. I assume you know of it, and that it's massively hated. It's "copy protection" software mechanisms that is meant to control how you use and copy media that you have. It's a pain. Nominally, it's there to prevent you from copying the media in illegal ways, but it often also prevents you from doing perfectly legal things with it.

However, it's not just a pain to be worked around. In the US, since the DMCA section 1201 became effective in 1998, it is illegal to try to work around DRM. Mostly.

Every couple of years, the Library of Congress gets to make a list of exceptions to 1201, of specific situations where you can work around DRM without it being illegal. Most recently was October 28, 2015.

Many people still objected to section 1201 on principal that it prevents tinkering, but the Library of Congress' list of exceptions has generally kept people placated.

As for context of their specific case: I'm not totally sure. User csydas suggested that this case became possible because of certain exceptions being removed from the latest version of the list (then some time for the EFF to compile the case). This seams reasonable to me, but to know for sure would involve legal details about the case that we don't have yet.

<comment><USER44> I'm familiar with DRM and the related DMCA criticism. I just don't get what's so special about _this_ case. It's like when you see a really boring scene in a movie and everyone is laughing at references and subtext you're not getting, or on the edge in suspense.

Like, if the scene is some dinner party, but right before you started watching someone had set a bomb under the table or something. What's the bomb here?

<comment><USER46> You should be excited about this case because it seeks to overturn the anti- circumvention provisions of the DMCA. It is notable because it's backed by the EFF, notable researchers, and a top law firm. If it succeeds, it would be a huge win for our right to hack--many have posted stories about how those provisions affected them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> "Our children deserve better." If you take children - they indeed mix and remix without worrying about any (copy)rights...

<comment><USER48> Practically _all_ of mankinds knowledge is a result of freely mix and match creation and ideas of others, be it in the domain of language, arts, science or technology.

Copyright has gone out of control. Luckily not yet the whole planet bows to USA's demands. Let's hope that that will never be the case.

<comment><USER49> Unfortunately the TPP is enshrining the US copyright approach in other countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> You know, no one asked you tech people from getting involved in law making. Nowadays, a law maker can't seem to do anything at all without some techie crying foul. Their argument always is some nonsensical technobabble, which the courts can't really understand anyway, often giving in to their demands just to get them to go away.

And it's such a shame, too, since those laws were bought and paid for by lobbyists, and what does it say about the rest of the country if one can't expect to get what one pays for when lobbying at the highest level of government?

</comment><comment><USER51> Doesn't the US dismiss most lawsuits filed against it out-of-hand? Wasn't that why that class-action on behalf of the Japanese concentration camp survivors was such a landmark case?

</comment><comment><USER52> Great. DMCA-1201 was always unconstitutional and was in practice used to stifle free speech. Good to see EFF actually bringing it to legal fight. It should be repealed completely.

</comment><comment><USER53> The problem is this new business model where they don't just sell you things/stuff, rather they also sell you "specific rights" along with the stuff. The usual things like you cannot do this or that with the stuff that you bought from us. The sole purpose is to keep earning money even after the one time deal of buying the stuff.

</comment><comment><USER54> I've made an account just to wish you good luck! You're a great man for doing this and I'm glad EFF is on board.

</comment><comment><USER55> This entire cause is a sham, beyond belief, a cause that seeks to degrade the value of creative thought and intellectual property.

Before we get into socioeconomic barrier discussions I am a former disabled homeless person who is how the founder of one of the most powerful environmental activism groups in the country. I started out with nothing and worked myself to where I am, using original and creative thought and at no time have I ever needed anyone's intellectual property to build myself to where I am.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, that supports this complete bullshit erosion of the rights of content creators everywhere, does nothing in this world but fight for causes that continually reduce the market value of original ideas.

They claim to fight for things like "free speech" but what they really fight for is the rights of anonymous hate groups to steal your photos and write nasty messages on them. They fight for the rights of the meek to inherit the Earth so they can then destroy it with their abject failures.

Look to the recent lawsuit Google v Oracle, where Oracle sued Google over the use of their software in Android. Google avoided billions in liability and it was all thanks to the work of the EFF, who suck off the teat of Silicon Valley and protect their billionaire buddies from financial liability, and then they support "little guys" like this so they can continue their 1% supporting ruse.

I look forward to watching this mad grab at free intellectual property get slapped down by Washington DC. This is not about fighting the government, this guy is a puppet being used by the power that be in Silicon Valley in order to allow companies like Google to continue to rob, loot, and pillage other people's intellectual property without financial liability.

</comment><comment><USER56> IME many US people do not resonate with the creativity arguments, but do with the freedoms. The land of the free lately doesnt feel like it and I think many US people are feeling it too. It may help to phrase your arguments in the wording that the constitution is meant to protect -- in terms of freedom.

</comment><comment><USER57> I wonder how much he budgeted for this series of lawsuits.

<comment><USER58> I think he could be supported by EFF since they have released a press release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This reminds me of a new patent Apple filed to disable video recording on iphones. Would winning this suit prevent that from being enforceable?

</comment><comment><USER60> DJ Drama, the mixtape guy, was raided under the same law. It's an interesting story, google "dj drama raid"

</comment><comment><USER61> The whole DMCA is a steaming pile, but I guess I'm ok with piecewise dismantling.

</comment><comment><USER62> I cackled at the former, homeless vegan (or thereabouts) who started a shitstorm in the comments.

</comment><comment><USER63> I'll support;

</comment><comment><USER64> yes I agree, and also, what? why should PP's question be downvoted-to-hell?: He's entitled to defend the other side here.

Not saying you did it, but I had to comment someplace.

<comment><USER65> > HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn > valuations while disrupting industry.

I think the insulting tone towards those that disagree with him might have something to do with it. And the above statement is just plain absurd.

<comment><USER66> I did not intend for it to be insulting. I often see posters complain about laws that prevent them from shoehorning them into and industry start making money, and defending similar laws when it's in their best interests. My original comment was a merely to argue the other side of the argument because HN has a tendency to be two-faced when it comes to topics like this.

<comment><USER64> you were downvoted because HN is not the friendly place it pretends to be: they don't like what you said. You only get to sneer at people if you drink the KoolAid. They hide behind the "it was the way you said it" excuse when they don't share your POV.

I don't share your POV btw, but I got downvoted because they don't like that I defended your right speak because your POV is unacceptable here. And this, to move the topic further afield, is why codes of conduct don't work: it's just another flavor of Turkish Pres Recep Erdoğanian "thin skin to disagreement", or "I don't like your opinion in one area, so you'd better shut up about everything else"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit.

However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains.

One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who is "the Government"? Wait, ain't them the very candidates that you the people vote into offices?

Like this idea of "suing the US government." Who are you suing? The executive branch? Why are you suing them? This is over a _law_. It's a piece of _legislation_. The executive branch merely, you know, execute the laws. Why not sue Congress? Oh wait, why sue Congress when you can simply vote them out of office? Oh wait, why "stop enforcing" the laws when you can, you know, CHANGE the laws?

This kinda reminds me of the libertarians' ideas of obstruction of legislation so that "the government does not spend more." If not spending is the right thing to do, why not educate people that. Even if one believes that 47% of the population is "takers," 53% is still a majority. So teach, advocate, change minds. But no, they prefer to obstruct their country, risk the centuries of their national reputation, put t heir fellow citizens to starvation. You know, if this happens in schoolyards, we probably call it "bullying." But if a bunch of libertarians do it, it's "principles."

Obviously, I agree with the plaintiff here. However, the method is still wrong. And different from above, there are very few "takers" here. Mostly, it's faceless businesses that (let's be frank here) few people like. So why not take the high road? Why not educate your fellow citizens on the danger of the laws? Why not change minds? Why not raise money for candidates who will change the laws appropriately?

In short: why not be a citizen rather than a rebel? Why not change the system for the better rather than obstruct it? Why not make your society/country a better place rather than simply fight it?

<comment><USER68> > "Oh wait, why sue Congress when you can simply vote them out of office?"

That can be radically difficult because of gerrymandering.

That aside, launching a public campaign, garnering votes, and voting on a _single issue_ is often the wrong way to elect a representative.

For instance, I think the 2nd amendment is actually a good idea to prevent invasion of a foreign force (an armed population is very hard to rule over). However, I pretty much never vote for candidates that support the 2nd amendment because they often also deny climate change, vote for private prison control, etc. I can't go with their whole platform. I don't want them representing me.

So in those cases, when you have one issue - especially when it's just part of a whole (e.g. just section 1201) - it seems like the right approach, especially when you think there's a piece of legislation (like the Constitution) that supersedes and invalidates the legislation you're looking at.

<comment><USER69> > That can be radically difficult because of gerrymandering.

Duverger's Law also complicates things:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I studied section 1201 thoroughly during law school and I think this post doesn't give a fair characterization of it. The reason this statute exists is because companies were unable to devise protection for copyrighted works that hackers were not able to immediately circumvent. As a result, the government stepped in and created 1201 to make it illegal for someone to circumvent some form of access control that a company used to protect their copyrighted works. The purpose of the statute isn't to destroy <insert Internet activist claimed right> but is to make it much less expensive for a company to protect its products. I don't see anything wrong with that.

<comment><USER71> The _purpose_ of legislation isn't relevant, only the _effect_ of the legislation. And the effects are the problem; potentially any debugger could be considered a "circumvention tool". Just like scope creep has caused laboratory glassware to be considered illegal "drug paraphernalia" in places.

1201 also has the effect of banning circumvention that does not infringe copyright. Which is supposedly addressed by the weird adhoc Library of Congress exemption system, but only in a very limited set of cases.

<comment><USER70> Whether the purpose of legislation matters very much depends on a judge's beliefs regarding statutory interpretation. Enforcement of a statute is often all about the purpose of it. That said, I see your point and its a valid one. I'm just not sure I believe getting rid of 1201 will do less harm than good. I guess we'll see how the lawsuit turns out!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed, but suing the government is doomed to fail. The federal government has sovereign immunity, and you can't sue them unless they decide that you can. They usually decide that you can't. Most laws aren't changed in the court unless someone is criminally prosecuted. Then your appeal case can move through the higher levels of the court until it reaches a level that the law can be struck down completely, or what usually happens is a legal precedent is set regarding a specific portion of the law.

So unless Bunnie has been prosecuted for breaking the DMCA, this is likely going to be an ineffective move.

If you want to change a law without breaking it first, the right way to go about it is petitioning Congress, the lawmaking part of the government.

<comment><USER73> Not necessarily. It can influence the change in legislation or enforcement thereof. Case in point: DJB vs. United States

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Let's take a quick look at the understanding of Copyright law that this litigant seems to possess:

> _Before Section 1201, the ownership of ideas was tempered by constitutional > protections. Under this law, we had the right to tinker with gadgets that we > bought, we had the right to record TV shows on our VCRs, and we had the > right to remix songs._

Wait, before the DMCA "we" had the right to remix songs? Okay so this case is going nowhere because the person filing really doesn't quite understand the mechanics of basic Copyright. Just kind of throwing out the concept of "remixes" does a dis-service for the real nuances of how the rights/permissions/compensation system works, has been tested in court, etc.

The subject of ownership and repair is extremely complex and this lawsuit is frivolous when the matter is being actively tested by John Deere and various farmers. Maybe this person could assist in funding that challenge to 1201. There are some glaring flaws in this whole approach, from what I understand about Copyright law and the DMCA.

Also, I don't know why the EFF continues to push erroneous information regarding how Copyright, the DMCA, and Fair Use actually work:

> _This ban applies even where people want to make noninfringing fair uses of > the materials they are accessing._

Fair Use always trumps the DMCA; the nature of Fair Use, however, is subject to four factor tests, if an IP owner should feel compelled to assert the Fair Use was not in the spirit and letter of the law. Sometimes it seems like the EFF and TechDirt try to claim things that aren't true just to make a point. It's something that bothers me routinely in this subject in particular.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Fair Use always trumps the DMCA

This is not necessarily the case.

> However, in a number of cases involving DVD decryption courts have held that > there is no fair use defense in circumvention cases. In Universal City > Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court > stated that "[i]f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such > actions, it would have said so."[5]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti- circumvention#Fair_Use_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti- circumvention#Fair_Use_and_Circumvention)

<comment><USER35> Okay, that's a reasonable point. I recall that issue too, but forgot they used the DMCA as the lock-up point, re: copyright. I think the scope is extremely limited in that case though, which is an excellent point of contention (because I don't agree with DMCA > Fair Use in principle).</comment></comment></comment>


QIP = PSPACE  - <AUTHOR> http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/12/102144-qip-pspace-breakthrough/fulltext

<comment><USER2> A link to the actual paper for those interested: [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/hits09/jain-ji-upadhay- watro...](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/hits09/jain-ji-upadhay-watrous-QIP- equals-PSPACE.pdf).

</comment><comment><USER3> People wondering how IP = PSPACE can delve further into the free draft of this great book on the subject: <http://www.cs.princeton.edu/theory/index.php/Compbook/Draft>

</comment><comment><USER4> This news (although not this particular link) was posted over a year ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=729335>

</comment><comment><USER5> Does this mean quantum computers can't do anything classical computers can't? Does it let the air out of quantum computing? Or am I misreading?

<comment><USER6> No. It means that for the complexity class of interactive proofs quantum and classical are the same (when you ignore the number of rounds involved.) This doesn't tell us anything about whether quantum polynomial time equals classical polynomial time. The "IP" classes have problems that are very intractable...this basically says that for these very intractable problems quantum won't help (with the caveat that the quantum seems to allow fewer rounds in the interactive proof.)

<comment><USER7> _the quantum seems to allow fewer rounds in the interactive proof_

This seems important. What if IP -> QIP is like O(N) -> O(log N)?

<comment><USER6> The result, IIRC, is that all of QIP can be done in three rounds, whereas if the same held in the classical world the polynomial hierarchy would collapse (which is considered about as likely as P=NP). Not of practical value, but it does point out that QIP is a slightly different beast than IP when you include the number of rounds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_(complexity)>

Buh? Anyone care to explain what sort of problems would fall into this description?</comment>


Meraki marks Windows store/updates with a false positive - <AUTHOR> https://community.meraki.com/t5/Security-SD-WAN/W32-779C90C974-100-SBX-TG-ArchiveFile-Disposition-Changed/td-p/56215 <comment><AUTHOR> >Just Got off the phone with Meraki Support.

>Representative said that it was a False Positive and AMP was blocking windows updates. Engineering was working to get it resolved. I had already opened a ticket so he posted the below information to the ticket and said the ticket would be updated when engineering had more information.

PROBLEMS DISCUSSED: AMP blocking Windows update.

ACTIONS TAKEN: File in question: W32.779C90C974-100.SBX.TG

NEXT STEPS: Further investigate this malicious activity. Keep the customer posted with updates.

>Only 480 events in the last hour from my network on the first email. I called support and they were about worthless until I got to the supervisor. I also emailed my sales person and the vendor I purchase it through.

VirusTotal Scan - [https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/779c90c974a4f1d927070cbf...](https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/779c90c974a4f1d927070cbff0d17f5d1daf7bd631603530a408c15ba7bd534b/detection)</comment>


Show HN: Here's our take – the 20 most trusted crypto's? - <AUTHOR> We have just launched a new product called Alpha on producthunt. https://www.producthunt.com/posts/alpha
It is a trusted index of cryptocurrencies and we want the HN community to challenge our assumptions around the coins of choice. What do you think of our trust index? <comment><USER2> There isnt really any information on how you chose the crypto currencies in the index. Why are these coins trustworthy? Why 20 coins? What does "project" mean in the scores?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey - good point... Here is our medium post where we explain in a bit of detail: [https://medium.com/@alphareserve/introducing-alpha-where- tru...](https://medium.com/@alphareserve/introducing-alpha-where-trust-comes- first-79f298a84f9d)</comment></comment>


DB-less blog engine made with Elixir - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/dashbit/status/1224301360654495744 <comment><USER2> If the data structures can be traversed with a single or a couple of indexes then why the hell not. File systems are also implemented using BxTrees under the covers. Such a platform may perform no worse than being ran off RDBMS. In some cases likely better.</comment>


Yahoo Implements OpenID; Massive Win For The Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/17/yahoo-implements-openid-massive-win-for-the-project/

<comment><USER2> Well, it could be that my skepticism about OpenID will ultimately prove unfounded. It would hardly be my first mistake, nor will it be the last.

But then I read this:

 _"... he would not confirm when (or if) Yahoo would also allow become_ [sic.] _what is called a "relying party" (allowing users with third party OpenIDs to log in to Yahoo). He did say that the goal was to move in that direction, but gave no further guidance."_

OpenID! Where all IDs are equal, but some IDs are more equal than others!

Yahoo is hardly alone. I can't find an OpenID login on AOL or Facebook, either. Blogger (aka Google) supposedly "supports" OpenID, but their login page doesn't let me use one.

These big "adopters" sure are happy to _provide_ OpenIDs, in exchange for detailed information about which sites you log into and when. But they're understandably reluctant to _accept_ OpenIDs, because what's in it for them but a support headache, a loss of control over the customer relationship, and more data for their competitors?

Remind me again why this isn't just the Mexican-standoff version of Microsoft Passport, with a soundtrack by Ennio Morricone? I guess it's nice that I can now _choose_ , site by site, which of my corporate overlords is going to own all my login data. And we get to watch as Mike Arrington and Tim O'Reilly force Google, Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, and Facebook to play chicken, a spectacle which will sell a few banner ads.

In other news, there are now 360 million OpenID holders, just as there were once 360 million AOL CD owners. [1] Do OpenIDs make good coasters?

[1] _Note: one of these statistics was made up for entertainment purposes. Do not cite on Wikipedia._

<comment><USER3> I actually (partially) agree. I think that any company that wishes to be a OpenID provider should also be a relying party. I wouldn't use Yahoo or any of the other big guys as my provider anyway, though.

I don't think sites should be reluctant to accept OpenID. It's more convenient for users to sign up, so if OpenID catches on (which obviously Yahoo thinks it will), they would likely get more (and happier) users. I'm not sure why you think support costs would be higher, since the OpenID provider is responsible for managing the user's account (lost passwords, etc...)

OpenID is very different from Passport, namely since OpenID is _open_ , not controlled by Microsoft. As I've said before, if you're so worried about "corporate overlords" spying on you, there's a simple solution: be your own Open ID provider. It's very easy if you've every set up a simple website before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems that Yahoo is allowing users to use their Yahoo IDs as OpenIDs. This will make some other sites want to use OpenID for authentication, because who wants to manage credentials if you don't have to?

However, if I'm understanding it correctly, this will not allow people to use OpenIDs that are not obtained from Yahoo to log in to Yahoo.

It seems to me to be solving half of the problem (needing new credentials for every website) but not the other half (having a corporation be the repository for those credentials).

If anyone with more of a clue can explain to me how this is not a base perversion of one of the major ideas behind OpenID, I would be obliged. ("You get to choose the OpenID Provider that best meets your needs and most importantly that you trust," from openid.net/what/)

<comment><USER5> > It seems to me to be solving half of the problem (needing new credentials > for every website) but not the other half (having a corporation be the > repository for those credentials).

Your second half has been solved for a long time, anyone can run their own OP [http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/03/OpenID-for- non-S...](http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/03/OpenID-for-non- SuperUsers)

Your first half is the unsolved problem. There seems to be a lot of reluctance to be an RP (possibly for the reasons mechanical_fish has stated)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yea... another half-assed attempt of delivering news from techcrunch.</comment>


Cyberpower crushes coup - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@thegrugq/cyberpower-crushes-coup-b247f3cca780#.zhc8scqqo <comment><USER2> Very interesting write-up.

My concern with this coup is that the results of it failing are going to be worse for the Turkish people than if it had succeeded.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4t4ke5/pro_erdogan_is...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4t4ke5/pro_erdogan_islamists_torture_and_lynch/d5evqol)

<comment><USER3> My Turkish friend told me the Turks have been aware of attempts of destabilize their country. It was mostly the general population that came out and stopped the military coup.

The Turks don't want another Syria or Libia where western backed rebels have made those places no-go countries. Turkey at least has a very friendly and thriving tourism eco system.

<comment><USER4> Yet they voted the same type of guy/party who ru(i)ned syria or libia to power?

And enough of that evil western/jew outsiders scapegoats conspiracy theory's to avoid the realization that a whole culture produces failing governments on a regular basis.

Those rebels are mainly backed up by local powers- Saudi arabia, Iran and yes turkey.

Something in these cultures is unable to keep institutions and democracy alive. And the scapegoats all sound so old, shall i list them? The western media, decadence, capitalism, socialism, christianity, judaism, budhism, sports, TV, music, the internet the list of evildoers is endless. They where all eliminated in experiments, and the evidence is there, that they are not the things holding these societys back.

Why not for once, own these mistakes and realize all those creepy crawly's from outside are just fleas biting a already diseased dog.

And yes, its everywhere the same symptom, in every country that becomes islamic. And the deflection-method that the social reality produced by a cultural system are not connected to the very system, has gone out of the window too by the way.

Here is the question wanting a answer:

What in these culturs undermines institutions to work correctly?

What destroys the ability of judges to oppose governments?

What creates this wish to go back towards a perfect time- and time where the lack of modern medicine would have killed half of those wishing back to these times?

What undermines the concept of a human live being sacred?

I hate cheering for the military here, but they released turkey back into democracy several times. Islamic dictators did this nowhere.

<edited to be less inflamatory.. i really want this discussed>

<comment><USER5> Poverty, lack of education, and lack of opportunity would be my trio of undermining traits. It's a lot harder to convince someone with a 9-5 job, a family and a mortgage to overthrow the government.

If we think of this as _Islamic nationalism_ , it fits the pattern where things get really bad for common people, and _someone_ rallies them against a perceived _other_ in order to consolidate his own power.

Be wary of anyone who wants to blame an out-group for your economic issues, be it Muslims, Mexicans, infidels, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. (Why I'm afraid of Trump).

I think sitting at our cushy desk jobs in the west it is hard to empathize with the real hardship people have been experiencing in that region for a long time.

I have no knowledge of the causal direction here, honestly. I think there's an assumption by some vocal pundits that it's Islam -> holy war -> poverty.

I don't think that's clear. More likely it's poverty -> malleable population -> some cause promises to make things good again (Like they were in the caliphate, like they were in any fabled past) -> people believe it and fight for it. There's historical precedent for this.

(Which of course exacerbates the poverty because of wanton destruction of capital/infrastructure, people not being able to leave home, intelligentsia flight, etc). Eventually you get some version of an autocracy. The type of autocracy is to some extent irrelevant, although theocratic autocracies appear to be disproportionately brutal...

<comment><USER4> Other parts of the world had the same loop and broke out of it. Money exists, and even poverty is not universal to the region. Why is there no middle- eastern- tiger state? Lack of Education is unconvincing, the Internet is now available for 20 years. Education is in parts of the region actively rejected as western influence. Late-Medieval Peasants where poor. Yet, in the citys the Renaissance could happen. There is not even this "aristocratic" attempt for improvement by "showing off" intellectual achievements or art showing in Saudi Arabia. No "big familys" trying to outdo one another with the fame of there universitys. And they could have done so.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/491501/will-the- middl...](http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/491501/will-the-middle-east- ever-be-secular/)

<comment><USER6> Israel is a relatively rich middle-eastern democracy. Jordan should probably count too (it has its problems, yes, but so do most of the tiger states). Qatar too, to a much lesser extent and esp. if you prioritize wealth/stability over democracy per se. And Saudi Arabia is at least stable and wealthy, if not ticking off the other boxes.

But it's also worth pointing out that outside of the west and regions where the local population was so thoroughly decimated as to make the population effectively European (e.g., US and Canada), free market secular democracies are pretty rare.

<comment><USER4> Actually Iran and Turkey would be on my list for close but not yet "Tiger States"\- Israel falls under "displaced, but Europe", even in the DVD-Release market.

I know some pretty awesome Pakistani programmers- but they all left there home-country to live somewhere else. They had some "doing well" family background though.

If poverty eats it all, via corruption, would it help to help founders in these states to hide there (relative) "wealth", and the existence of there company/products? Could IP be protected from illegal seezing of governments, by market pressure? Is that even possible - a stealth startup?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ataturk must be rolling over in his grave. It's a damned shame that the coup didn't succeed - Turkey has been one of the few reasonably successful Muslim countries at Westernizing, brought about because of the colossal failures of the old Ottoman Empire. Erdogan's backsliding into the same theocratic-tinged islamist government is especially troubling for a NATO member, and one that is slated to join the EU eventually.

<comment><USER8> I hope that the EU will stop all proceedings on this now that it's crystal clear Turkey cannot be a candidate. You can't have an EU country that can't even govern itself as part of the EU. Turkey is neither free nor stable. It's arguably not even in Europe. If the coup had succeeded, maybe it could eventually have been a country worthy of EU membership, but I'm pretty sure Erdogan is not going to lean back towards liberty after these incidents and make the country even worse. Not to mention the extreme unpopularity of this idea in Europe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some political analysts are saying that this coup was staged by Erdogan to get rid of the remaining opposition.

Basically the theory is that there was a very weak plan in effect that the government knew about, and helped move it along (to get it started). While being completely prepared to deal with it.

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-16/erdogans-counter- co...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-16/erdogans-counter-coup-begins- turkey-purges-2745-judges-prosecutors-arrests-hundreds)

<comment><USER10> Another possibility is "he was about to do a mass purge of military & judges, & some of the military revolted in desperation". ([https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/754417469641617412](https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/754417469641617412))

Could also be a hybrid: anyone in power in Turkey who pisses off enough people would expect a coup at any point, and therefore not only protect against it, but have a few ideas on how to greatly benefit. Like Saddam Hussein after failed coups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In the age of the internet, you can't simply act when the leaders are outside the country. It's far too easy to rouse the populace from wherever you are. You have to have physical possession of the political leadership -- ideally the top 3-5 people (as many top folks as the average person could easily identify with)

For a NATO-trained military, this was a horrible coup. It was so bad that I seriously wonder if it's not a false flag operation. I doubt it, but I wonder.

The NATO allies have a real mess on their hands. If the people of Turkey truly support an endless reign of a single party that's slowly causing more and more destabilization in the region, and is purging the courts and military of educated, secular actors? This is about as bad as it gets long-term. Turkey is slowly ditching Attaturk.

Oddly, because of the coup failure, assuming we have a Chavez-style "democracy" now, the only recourse for social change is assassination. So there'll be a bloody purge, and then social change, when it does happen (from either outside or inside factors), will be much more bloody than this simple coup this time around would have been.

This is all kinds of bad. Very sad for the people of Turkey.

</comment><comment><USER12> Even the though the Title is a bit more strong, the coup in turkey would be successful if the entire army acted in unison, its a faction of army that acted and they do not have good allies outside of it.

There are multiple factors here.

This is article does wear some rose colored glasses given the info sec background of the author about the prominence of cyberpower (he may have a point, but that is not primary point of failure).

Coups are possibly in modern day, take a look at Egypt.

</comment><comment><USER13> The medium that seems to have been most effective in getting people into the streets was the public address systems of mosques. The traditional call to prayer involved a muezzin in a minaret (that's what minarets on mosques are for). But now mosques use a PA system, often with considerable audio power. That's available for other purposes.

</comment><comment><USER14> Great article from Grugq. He's main focus is opsec if you don't know who he is.

I agree with most points and I'd say that simply cutting power to major cities in Turkey during this event could have changed the outcome. It would have provided a total communication blackout which would have neutralized social or 'cyber' as he calls it and would have created fear (more than pre internet because we're so reliant on it) which would have put the military in a position to 'restore order'.

</comment><comment><USER15> Considering it was the response of the people that was a large factor in the coup failing, there's a lot of people here wishing the Deep State (a name which was coined to describe the situation in Turkey) succeeded, against the will of the people.

But on other days, people here are concerned about interlinked security and military liaisons constituting a Deep State in their own countries, limiting autonomy and democracy.

Have you considered that the rise of Islamism is in part caused by the fact that secular military and security services in Islamic countries were coopted to some degree, and that religious-based politics is harder to subvert in that way?

<comment><USER16> You're right, it is an interesting conundrum.

<comment><USER15> What's sauce for the Turks is sauce for the Swedes. The Deep State in Sweden seems to make their security services and at least some prosecutors an arm of the US hunt for Assange. If you would support greater autonomy among US allies, so they behave less like vassals, it's hard to support the Deep State in Turkey.

Anyway, the Deep State has proven to be brittle, unreliable, and prone to blowback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes with big political events one sees something that just does not sit right with one's overall understanding of events. If the events were a movie or teevee series you would consider these things to be flaws in the plot.

Initially I was open to the idea that the coup was what the mainstream media said it was, however, the internet has opened me up to the idea that the whole thing was staged. This analysis better fits my earlier private observation that things weren't quite what they seemed to be.

So, my thinking is that the new internet medium (new for coups) will work against the 'President' because word on the street will be that he faked the coup. This word on the street will be spread by internet and messenger chat. If this becomes all pervasive then the 'President' really does end up getting himself killed, his regime completely overthrown, game over. I also believe he is one of those leaders that the U.S. can let go of, Turkey may be NATO but the leader is interchangeable.

<comment><USER18> Don't underestimate his supporters unwillingness to hear anything that doesn't align with their beliefs.

He went against his best ally at the time, the fallout was both sides having their secrets made public by the other. However, he increased his votes in the next election as his supporters, with his leadership created a nation-wide "OMG he's being framed please ignore all the evidence saying otherwise" campaign.

He is also missing a university diploma without which he can't be the president and the one he has used till the news broke has been shown to be fake (dates, signature and department do not match). The government's TV channel removed all the videos of him talking about his university days and no news channel other than the ones who are labeled as "conspiracy theorists" dared to publish anything about it.

And some of my friends still ask me if I want to go back to Turkey...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> So? It's not surprising that the internet played a significant role in the coup. It plays a significant role in everything.

The only evidence I see here of "cyberpower" stopping the coup is Erdogan having given a statement via FaceTime on television. Yes, that's amusing to see, but it doesn't tell us anything about coups.

</comment><comment><USER20> Cutting power? Hmmm, not so much.

Batteries, generators and wi-fi, coupled with low-power operation modes for modern equipment, are going to be a quick answer to that strategy.

Cutting power will buy less than a week of opportunity, and piss off LOTS of other ordinarily unmotivated, apolitical people.

<comment><USER21> I was in TH for latest coup, took under a couple hours to happen, less than a day to be enforced across country en mass.

And I live in the oppositions main stronghold when it happened.

Couple hours of lack of information is all you need, and is easiest way to cut all with a single switch.

If your power cut out right now, how long till you have net? Your neighbors? Your block? Weeks.

<comment><USER21> YouTube video of start of TH 2014 coup.

Was rather brilliant to be honest.

[https://youtu.be/BWoKTEPF5nk](https://youtu.be/BWoKTEPF5nk)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article (1) calls it "an attempt to grab the reins of a complex society with the almost quaintly antediluvian tactics of seizing the state television station and rolling some tanks on to the streets. It is as if the plotters had never heard of social media"

so what would be modern coup tactics? The medium article mentions that there are more communication channels that need seizing in order to be effective.

1) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/turkey...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/turkey- coup-army-erdogan)

</comment><comment><USER23> Various Forms of Media Crush Coup

FTFY

</comment><comment><USER24> Lesson learned specific to Turkey: Don't try that again.</comment>


Blinkx to IPO - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/04/blinkx_to_ipo.html <comment><USER2> The reception this gets from the market will be an interesting indicator for all you bubble watchers out there (ok, so it's the LSE, but it should still tell us something).

Blinkx looks like it has revenues, though, so even if the market reception is positive, it doesn't mean you can slap a "Web 2.0" label on something and IPO it (yet).</comment>


Show HN: I'm writing a leanpub book about Common Lisp web programming - <AUTHOR> http://lispwebtales.ppenev.com/ <comment><USER2> Wow, definitely something I am going to check out. From a quick look, it seems that your Lisp code for the example looks a lot like HTML itself. For example:

      (defun blogpage (&optional (posts *posts*))
           (html-frame
            "Restas Blogdemo"
             (<:div
           	     (<:a :href (genurl 'add) "Add a blog post")
      	     (<:hr)
      	     (render-posts posts))))

I don't know much about functional programming though, so sorry if that's an incorrect assumption.

<comment><USER3> Most of the Lisp web frameworks look like that, taking advantage of Lisp's flexible syntax.

Here's a Racket example. If you download <http://racket-lang.org>, you can just run this (no extra libraries or anything) and a browser window will pop up for you.

        #lang web-server/insta

        ;; A "hello world" web server
        (define (start request)
          (response/xexpr
            '(html
               (body (h1 "Hello, world!")
                     (a ([href "http://google.com"]) "Google")
                     (br)
                     "I hope you like my site!"))))

This example renders as:
Hello, world!
Google
Google
I hope you like my site!

See also: <http://docs.racket-lang.org/continue/>

<comment><USER4> I need help understanding one thing. This code generates HTML code. Fine. But how come code and declaration (web designer and developer) are separated with this. Is this a good practice? I've been reading about lisp for a long time, not in depth, but I keep stumbling similar snippets a lot. Are there any good examples out there? I am teaching myself Clojure (reading the book with the bird cover) these days.

<comment><USER5> They are not separated. This approach appeals to geeks/programmers, but is completely impractical, as I've learned the hard way in several projects.

In a practical setting you will get a set of pre-cut HTML/CSS and images. Good luck splitting that into semantic markup and styling. And good luck teaching a designer how to work with it afterwards.

Because of hard-earned experience I try very hard not to put any HTML into my code, keeping it all in templates, which are much more accessible to designers and easier to modify.

<comment><USER6> Yes, this is exactly why I stayed away from things like this, despite my love for Racket and Clojure, until someone above pointed out the Enlive library. It lets you use normal HTML files as your templates but requires no code in it (not even for loops!) Basically, you use CSS-style selectors to replace the contents of elements, giving you the full power of Clojure but without having to either put code in your templates or put HTML into your code.

<https://github.com/swannodette/enlive-tutorial/>

<comment><AUTHOR> I have decided to investigate the possibility to include a sub-chapter to chapter 3 to discuss Caramel for people who like enlive(me included). I didn't already do so because caramel is brand new, and I haven't had the time to try it out beyond a few simple examples.

The choice to use s-expressions was made because It makes it easier to just type code in a repl and experiment, without having to worry about dealing with templates, and also because I wanted the first example to fit in a single file.

<comment><USER6> Oh, I was addressing the Racket example and the response to it, as opposed to your book; I'm not familiar with what you are doing in the book. I am still going to look into your book, as I have no CL experience, only Racket/Clojure. But adding a sub-chapter on Caramel would be really nice!

<comment><USER3> Enlive looks great!

If you prefer, Racket also includes a templating library that lets you compile arbitrary HTML from separate files right into your application:

[http://docs.racket-lang.org/web- server/templates.html?q=in-t...](http://docs.racket-lang.org/web- server/templates.html?q=in-template)

It's not as fancy as enlive though (for example, because it's not sensitive to the structure of XML, user input isn't escaped automatically, which is quite an awkward tradeoff)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there any Django/Jinja-like templating engine for CL or Clojure?

...this way or the Clojure Hiccup way is cool for an ubergeek doing full-stack development, but in the real world you'll want your HTML templates separate and in a designer or front-end-coder friendly format. Otherwise, you may have the full power of Lisp at your fingertips, but you'll need to have your entire team used to this workflow and knowledgeable of Lisp, and by having logic in templates and such you're dangerously close to leaning towards the "PHP way".

...the only realistic "homogenous" solution for one language on the server and the client are the Javascript based way, in the Node ecosystem. Good designers or good front-end guys in general will also have coding skills, some will be Javascript gurus, but by doing things this way and writing Javascript code in Parenscript/Clojure script you'll have to force them to learn Lisp in order to work at 100%. And my bet is that they're not gonna like it, so team-wise, you'll lose all the productivity increase you gain in the first place by using Lisp.

 _IF you can find a team of lispers that also have webdesign and frontend coding skills, great, but this will be fucking hard as far as I know it. I would just love working in such an environment, but it seems like a non- existent Nirvana right now..._

<comment><USER8> > but in the real world you'll want your HTML templates separate and in a > designer or front-end-coder friendly format.

For Clojure - it sounds like you're looking for Christophe Grand's work on enlive: <https://github.com/cgrand/enlive>

You can read a tutorial here: <https://github.com/swannodette/enlive- tutorial/>

<comment><USER6> Note that you'll need to change (def _base-url_ "<http://news.ycombinator.com/>) to (def _base-url_ "<https://news.ycombinator.com/>) in the first example in order for it to work properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great! When you're done with this, can you be persuaded to write one about Weblocks?

I'm kidding, but not entirely. Weblocks is an extremely powerful and sophisticated framework, but it has a bit of a learning curve. It desperately needs a good tutorial.

</comment><comment><USER7> What would the case for CL+Hunchentoot+... vs. Clojure+Noir+... sound like?

<comment><AUTHOR> In general if you prefer FP, clojure is a great choice. If you like multi- paradigm, and mixing up OO with FP, and procedural as you see fit, go with CL. I'm a multi-paradigm kind of guy, but clojure remains my second favorite language :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can actually get quite far just with Hunchentoot (and even its built-in "easy handlers"), CL-WHO and some Parenscript.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many lispers prefer to roll their own thin layers on top of hunchentoot, or even use it raw, but I prefer the slightly ticker layer of restas.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Link to leanpub page: <https://leanpub.com/lispwebtales>

</comment><comment><USER11> An incredible coincidence -- I was starting to look into common lisp web programming just this morning, for a personal project. Do you have any estimate on when the book will be finished?

</comment><comment> Su-Shee You should add a section about how a beginner is supposed to install all the components you're using.

Right now, you're treating it like they're all "just there".

<comment><USER12> I also want to put in a plug for my site: <http://articulate-lisp.com/>

:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Clojure buster? Great!

</comment><comment><USER14> Why not use Thinatra?</comment>