> It's not as if a "big company" using the public domain in any way diminishes anyone else's ability to do so nor the original work.
Not OP, but big companies tend to abuse public goods after they use them. Think of all the DMCA takedown notices that these companies made for people playing classical music.
This is strange conflicted space for me. Were this the case, Disney would have had to produce nothing but original work, which would probably benefit us today but would leave us without the eventual cultural heritage that they produced (if it can ever be pulled from their claws). I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that public domain is very much like other idealogical freedoms I was raised to believe in, which is to say beautiful conceptually but possibly messy and requiring potentially painful sacrifices on the part of individuals if consistency with the ideal is the goal.
Thing is, Disney has profited immensely from public domain, and then they have done everything in their power to restrict public domain as much as possible.
Works have to be released into the public domain, or there will be nothing but licensed regurgitation of the same things.
Indeed Disney is a great example. It is because of them and their greediness that copyright protection was extended so past reasonable duration in US and other countries...
Downside existed before Let's Encrypt, it just got amplified with it.
General public does not differentiate between the SSL certificate validation level.
Let's Encrypt provides domain validation certificates, which only validates that one owns the domain in question.
There is another level - Organization Validation SSL certificates, which involves manual checking that this is the legal entity it claims to be. I would expect the financial institutions to use this kind of certificates to avoid phishing, but sadly I've seen some of them use Let's Encrypt.
Browsers don't differentiate between the SSL certificate validation level. Because it has been shown that the higher validation levels aren't actually significantly more secure, so the distinction is pointless.
I don't think this is an issue with LE or the implementation. Maybe we need different policies for such organizations, but this is for sure not a LE issue
My view here is that crypto-currency doesn't have to be better, but it has to exist so that fiat currencies have something to compete against, and then the users have a choice. It should be guided by normal market laws as any two financial products, e.g. if your view of insurance proves a valuable market insight, I am sure that insurers will consider doing it for crypto.
News like this are common for any emerging markets and technologies. Same amount of volatility was probably present in the first years of dollar, and same amount of insecurity was present while banks and credit cards were still being established.
I wonder how much different the crypto-currency conversation would have been if they appeared around the time when dollar lost its gold convertibility.
Not OP, but big companies tend to abuse public goods after they use them. Think of all the DMCA takedown notices that these companies made for people playing classical music.