http://www.techdirt.com/ Easily digestible tech news.... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/17551823088/floridas-redlight-program-designed-to-make-driving-more-dangerous-shortening-yellow-lights.shtml#c461 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:17:30 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/17551823088/floridas-redlight-program-designed-to-make-driving-more-dangerous-shortening-yellow-lights.shtml#c461
If you run a red light in front of a police officer, you can can explain what happened: maybe the guy behind you was tailgating and you couldn't stop safely, maybe it's an emergency, or whatever. In ALL cases, the police office can use his or her judgment to decide whether to give you ticket. Maybe you'll get a warning, maybe you'll get a reduced ticket, or maybe the full ticket. If you do get a ticket, there's information on the back about how you have the right to a court date, and if you don't pay the fine, you will be sent a summons from the local courthouse.

With a red light camera, there is no judgment call: the camera has a picture of your license plate, your car, and maybe your face, and it doesn't care why you did it. On the ticket itself is text explaining that you MUST pay the fine. (On a side note, the instructions say to send the payment to the company, NOT the local law enforcement.) There is NO information about how to fight or appeal the ticket.
And if you're good about paying on time, then you don't get any points on your license and the ticket is not reported to your insurance company.

If you do NOT pay the fine by the due date, you can have your legally-entitled day in court. However, you run the risk of getting a judge who sides with the ticketing company. (Put more bluntly: a judge who has been told by the state that the red light camera company is giving money to the state, so the judge should throw the book at anyone who argues against a ticket.) Now, sure, maybe you'll get a judge that agrees with you about the evils of red light cameras, but are you willing to take the risk?
Like other posters have said, the fine doubles (or more) if you go to court. And if you lose, you have to pay the full fine AND court fees AND get points on your license, which could lead to higher insurance rates... not to mention any income you might lose by taking time off work to go to court.

Yet politicians like these cameras because of the quick infux of income. But how many accidents do these cause and how long will it be until the expenses of sending police and rescue services to the accidents overtakes the income?]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c59 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:16:05 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c59 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1098 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:14:14 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1098
Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.

The second part of your statement must be argued for the initial postulate to be valid. In other words, you must first explain how making circumvention of protections for non-illegal uses of copyrighted material in any way affects the rights of copyright holders.

For example, let's take another set of laws. It is illegal for you to break into my house. It is not illegal for you to enter if I give you permission, and it is always legal for me to enter my own house barring something like a restraining order. Let's imagine it is also illegal to climb into a house through a window since that is circumventing the security of the house.

Now, as a homeowner, I have the right to prevent unauthorized entry to my home. If I accidentally lock myself out of the house, and climb in through a window, should I be prosecuted for breaking and entering under the clause of the law that states going through the window is illegal? And if that law were removed, so it is now legal for *me* to enter my house, but still illegal for an intruder, does that diminish my homeowners rights in any way? Either way the right to enter my house is unaffected...someone entering illegally is illegal, regardless of the method, and someone entering legally should not be a criminal for entering through an "illegal" method.

So what Mike stated is correct...the actual copyrights of copyright holders are unaffected by this change. The ability to take legal activity and treat it as illegal simply due to the method would be removed. This may help reduce the abuse of copyright law for non-copyright purposes but does nothing to diminish the copyrights themselves.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/19190923142/if-youre-going-to-illegally-seize-citizens-cell-phones-least-make-sure-youre-grabbing-right-ones.shtml#c823 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:12:34 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/19190923142/if-youre-going-to-illegally-seize-citizens-cell-phones-least-make-sure-youre-grabbing-right-ones.shtml#c823 Why would it matter.

Physical NAND Flash Security: Preventing Recovery of Deleted Data, presentation by Michael Abraham, NAND Solutions Group Architect, Micron Technology, August 2011.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#c554 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:12:26 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#c554
Where did they say "thanks for being a fan"?

Also, can we please, please stop with the "overzealous lawyers" and "third-party affiliates" nonsense. The company HIRED these lawyers to issue takedown notices, and I'm guessing without the oversight of the company. In turn, the lawyers make money by billing the company for all the hours they spend finding sites and taking down notices- it's not their job to decide which sites are good or bad.

The company should he held MORE responsible when something like this happens.

Who's up for starting "Protest Nutella Day"?]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c46 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:11:49 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c46
They're just a bunch of pirates.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1085 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:07:56 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1085 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c36 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:07:42 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c36 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c118 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:04:49 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c118
Is that you name or what you do?

Oh and look. I'm just as on topic as you are! Yay me!]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/07475922914/why-even-good-hospitals-doctors-are-obstacle-to-better-cheaper-healthcare.shtml#c347 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:04:02 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/07475922914/why-even-good-hospitals-doctors-are-obstacle-to-better-cheaper-healthcare.shtml#c347 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15583223111/congress-grandstanding-over-google-glass-privacy-concerns-next-up-privacy-concerns-over-your-eyes.shtml#c2437 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:03:10 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15583223111/congress-grandstanding-over-google-glass-privacy-concerns-next-up-privacy-concerns-over-your-eyes.shtml#c2437
You are your data: The scary future of the quantified self movement | PandoDaily]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c1130 Tue, 21 May 2013 15:02:48 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c1130 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1075 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:59:38 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1075
And restoring rights to consumers, boy.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1064 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:59:30 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1064 Currently, copyright holders have a legally enforceable claim against those that circumvent access controls

True, and that would disappear, but it isn't a COPYRIGHT claim. It's just a claim the copyright holder has as an extension of a law put in place to protect copyright.

Just because it's an issue covered in a bill that protects copyright (among other things) doesn't mean it's copyright issue.

Therefore, "fixing" (liberal usage of the word) the issue has no effect on copyright. That's the point you're failing to understand.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1050 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:59:21 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1050
DMCA is a US law. US laws are valid only the US.

Send your data to China or India. They can legally extract it, they can do it much cheaper than you can, you can spend the day sleeping while the data is processed, and helps the Indian economy which makes the elitists happy.

See solution simple.

Everyone happy.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#c552 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:59:21 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#c552 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1041 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:58:44 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1041
I bought the damn thing and so long as I'm not 'stealing' content with it or causing physical/mental distress to someone else with it, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. If I want to move to another carrier with it, so be it. If I want to install apps that the almighty Apple doesn't like, go me. If I want to sell it to my mother-in-law for $20 I should be able to do that too.

If you disagree with the idea that what you buy (not license or rent a service/product) is YOURS and not "yours until we say so" then you've got problems, period. I didn't lease a phone, I bought one.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c106 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:58:18 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c106
Next time, try reading. I know, I know, that involves actually understanding the issues at play -- and that's not the sort of thing you do -- but it might help you not sound so completely confused all the time.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c82 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:58:11 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c82
The principle is that derivative artists have rights to their fruits of labour.

Telling different versions of Star Wars, or The Lord of the Rings, or The Lion King IS "doing your own work". And copyright deprives artists of the right to do that.

What do you think websites like deviantArt and fanfiction.net have been doing for so long? Unless you want to really be consistent and say that these websites should be shut down, you're going to have to step back and see how copyright is AGAINST the principles of John Locke, not for them.

Crowdfunding, whether its through the many tried and tested examples of collecting tickets for gigs, or through Kickstarter, or pre-ordered copies of DVDs, is superior to copyright in every way because both original and derivative artists have their fruits of labour protected. It makes copyright discreditable from every angle.

You are not entitled to say how you are best defending the "rights of artists". So many markets have been wiped out as a result of the communist-tendencies of copyright and the life, liberty and property has been sucked out of derivative artists for too long. Crowdfunding gives us no excuse for it.

There. And I didn't have to mention how you've exculpated the accountability of corporations for what they do through using pirates as scapegoats. "Since the pirates are running riot, why should be do anything about privacy invasions?" I think there are even many principled copyright maximalists who could call you out for this nonsense. It is a matter of principle. The Patriot Act is to be opposed unequivocally, and I say this as somebody who supports the fight against Islamic fascism. It's the same thing.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml#c107 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:56:17 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130521/12175523157/nyc-says-renting-out-your-place-via-airbnb-is-running-illegal-hotel.shtml#c107 I've been reading Techdirt for a long time now, and I really enjoy most of the articles, but you have a *massive* problem with not being able to admit when you're wrong.

Just because you have a different *opinion* does not mean I was "wrong." In this case, I stand by my opinion. When I am shown to be factually incorrect, I have no problem at all admitting to the mistakes.

Uber has been thoroughly discredited ever since it came out that the company is 1) run by an Objectivist who 2) engaged in massive, illegal price gouging in the Sandy flooding and then 3) tried to use ridiculous Objectivist rhetoric to paint a smiley face over the whole thing and make it look like what he was doing was good for everyone involved, when five seconds of critical thinking tears the entire argument to shreds.

None of that has anything to do with what I stated. It appears you hate Travis because of his views. So be it. But that's got nothing to do with the key point, which is that his service -- which is innovative and useful -- is getting hammered due to ridiculous regulations designed to protect cabs.

So the people who have been around for long enough to garner several good reviews end up rising to the top.
If you're new, you don't have any reviews, meaning that no one is going to want to choose to stay at your place when there are more attractive places with lots of good reviews competing with you.

That doesn't seem to be a problem on AirBnb that I can see, so, no.

And once people start understanding how important reviews are to getting business, managing reviews starts becoming an important part of the business model. Then you get people writing fake reviews of their own place, (or fake *bad* reviews of the competition,) and people starting to take steps to coerce the sorts of reviews they want out of their customers. (See: the case of that one dentist suing people who wrote bad reviews.)

And there are easy ways to deal with that as well. Besides, for the most part, in exploring airbnb, there's little issue about "competition." People have spare space, and they rent it out when people need it. No one seems to be all that concerned about competitors.

But, more to the point, faking reviews is fairly difficult (and expensive) since you'd have to actually book the room first, and AirBnB seems to have a pretty extensive system in place to deal with any problems that arise.

So... okay, you hate these new services. That's your opinion. I disagree. Why the hate?]]>