<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Comments by Andrew F</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<description>Easily digestible tech news....</description>
<item>
<title>Horses</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c453</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 11:51:23 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/06185923116/rice-university-professor-skynets-gonna-take-ur-jerbs.shtml#c453</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>When the automobile was invented, it isn't as though the buggy whip makers simply died off in unemployed starvation.</blockquote><br />
Horses did.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Can machines make rugs? Yup, yet there's a huge market in hand-woven rugs out there.</blockquote><br />
And some people enjoy riding horses -- that doesn't mean demand for horses is anywhere close to what it was in 1910.<br />
<br />
People aren't horses of course. As the economy changes, people can adapt to provide labor in a way horses can't. But people adapt slowly -- certainly not as quickly as automation replaces jobs. There's no Moore's Law for labor.<br />
<br />
And service jobs aren't really an answer. Wages for service jobs are low because there's excess supply in the labor market there -- that excess supply is coming from all of the manufacturing workers that have, essentially, been replaced.<br />
<br />
I don't think it's the end of the world, but it definitely deserves more of a response than simply dismissing the people raising those concerns as luddites. <br />
<br />
A short read on this topic that's neither dismissive nor neo-luddite: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-The-Machine-ebook/dp/B005WTR4ZI' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-The-Machine-ebook/dp/B005WTR4ZI</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Tax Code</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/16014423066/more-details-show-irs-targeted-groups-critical-how-government-was-run.shtml#c206</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 21:41:15 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/16014423066/more-details-show-irs-targeted-groups-critical-how-government-was-run.shtml#c206</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Non-profits claiming 501c3 status can lose their tax exemption if they engage in certain political activities. It's a fine line -- for instance, while it's okay to advocate for some particular legislation, it's not okay to advocate for a particular candidate. It's not a new development but rather a longstanding interpretation of the law.<br />
<br />
Given that, it's not surprising that the IRS would focus on Tea Party groups. Imagine if you saw a sudden surge in non-profit applications under a section of the tax code that prohibits lobbying for or against specific candidates and that these groups are associated with movements were explicitly organized to protest the election of a political candidate that now happens to be President. That would raise all sorts of red flags!<br />
<br />
That's not to say what the IRS did was legal or proper. But I'd chalk this up to overzealous enforcement of the tax code rather than any specific malicious or ideological intent.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Recent Techdirt Ads</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/07343022798/native-advertising-is-advertising-people-want.shtml#c586</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:02:18 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/07343022798/native-advertising-is-advertising-people-want.shtml#c586</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Can I complain about some of the recent inline advertising? A couple months ago, there were some Intuit ads that were designed to look like posts written by Techdirt staff. Although Techdirt had marked it as advertising, the markings weren't all that clear and the text within the ad itself was meant to come across as an "organic" post. That sucks.<br />
<br />
Also, a request: I want the ability to post comments on inline ads -- e.g. if I see an Intuit ad, I want to be able to post an angry screed about Intuit next to it for the benefit of other Techdirt readers.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Not Twitter</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/04412522739/double-blow-against-freedom-speech-twitter-users-turkey.shtml#c9</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:13:25 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/04412522739/double-blow-against-freedom-speech-twitter-users-turkey.shtml#c9</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The problem isn't that the Turkish government doesn't get Twitter. The problem is that "insulting religious beliefs" and "revilement crime" are illegal to begin with.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Reasons</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/17210122754/police-japan-want-isps-to-block-tor.shtml#c374</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:13:21 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/17210122754/police-japan-want-isps-to-block-tor.shtml#c374</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[From the original article:<br />
<br />
"Over the past several years, the Tor system was abused in a number of crimes including the posting of online murder threats on Internet bulletin boards, theft of money from accounts via illegal accesses to Internet banking sites, postings on dating sites by those seeking relationships with children, and leakages of security information from the Metropolitan Police Department."<br />
<br />
I wonder which of those triggered the request to block ...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/05150212950/dailydirt.shtml#c187</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:01:25 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/05150212950/dailydirt.shtml#c187</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[&gt;&gt;&gt; There are no innocents in war.<br />
<br />
Those folks at the marathon were.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130411/11122622680/oh-look-number-people-employed-movie-music-recording-business-just-hit-all-time-high.shtml#c418</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:35:16 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130411/11122622680/oh-look-number-people-employed-movie-music-recording-business-just-hit-all-time-high.shtml#c418</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Reminds me of that study that drastically inflated the size of the media industries.<br />
<br />
"Do you listen to music at work? Yes? Then you have a job in the music industry!"]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Pretty clear infringement on the bag</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/09473422634/copyright-maximalist-disney-accused-copying-artists-painting-cosmetic-bag.shtml#c193</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:38:50 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/09473422634/copyright-maximalist-disney-accused-copying-artists-painting-cosmetic-bag.shtml#c193</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Woodger's original image may borrow from a public domain work or Disney's own work, but she's added plenty of unique copyrightable elements of her own, all of which is copied on the bag image.<br />
<br />
Think of this way: fair use allows you to quote a book in a book review, but it doesn't allow the book author to copy the entire review wholesale.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Call her</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/18105622612/sen-feinstein-says-congress-ready-to-take-action-to-rein-violent-video-games.shtml#c983</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:27:09 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/18105622612/sen-feinstein-says-congress-ready-to-take-action-to-rein-violent-video-games.shtml#c983</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I suspect many of TD's readers are based in CA, so give her office a call: <a href='http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-dc' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-dc</a><br />
<br />
Those calls actually do work if enough people call.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Suggested Fix</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/02163322621/more-details-revealed-patent-lawyers-demanding-1000-every-worker-companies-using-scanners.shtml#c177</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:58:30 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/02163322621/more-details-revealed-patent-lawyers-demanding-1000-every-worker-companies-using-scanners.shtml#c177</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Easiest way to fix this: If the act of infringement consists solely of using a product as it was intended to be used (or as advertising depicts it being used), then the manufacturer or retailer of the product becomes a necessary party to the suit.  This forces trolls to face companies that can actually spend money on lawyers.<br />
<br />
It's not a complicated change to patent law and, for better or worse, wouldn't affect patent law except to discourage this type of trolling. I'm surprised Congress hasn't taken this up yet.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/02163322621/more-details-revealed-patent-lawyers-demanding-1000-every-worker-companies-using-scanners.shtml#c163</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:49:45 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/02163322621/more-details-revealed-patent-lawyers-demanding-1000-every-worker-companies-using-scanners.shtml#c163</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Unfortunately no. Patent law is not violated solely by market activities. For reference, here's 35 U.S.C. 271(a) of the U.S. patent laws:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.</blockquote><br />
<br />
MPHJ could try suing the scanner manufacturer on the grounds that the seller is "inducing" infringement, but there's nothing in patent law that keeps them from suing the end user as well.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/02163322621/more-details-revealed-patent-lawyers-demanding-1000-every-worker-companies-using-scanners.shtml#c126</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:40:57 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/02163322621/more-details-revealed-patent-lawyers-demanding-1000-every-worker-companies-using-scanners.shtml#c126</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[From the ArsTechnica article:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"99 percent of people are using it," says Rust. "You know it and I know it. So, yeah."</blockquote><br />
<br />
So yes, they really do intend to sue everyone.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: I liked this part</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130319/08094922377/supreme-court-gets-it-right-kirtsaeng-you-can-resell-things-you-bought-abroad-without-infringing.shtml#c738</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:25:46 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130319/08094922377/supreme-court-gets-it-right-kirtsaeng-you-can-resell-things-you-bought-abroad-without-infringing.shtml#c738</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Piracy isn't the only alternative to Wiley's books as well. I mean, a lot of these textbooks suck. Royally so, and the only reason anyone buys them is because their professor is a co-author and insists on it.<br />
<br />
I imagine this is less true in markets where Wiley charges a low price, and that professors there might be open to, e.g., teaching a course using free alternative materials found online.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: I can see it now...</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/16453322344/prenda-law-tries-to-close-barn-door-after-horse-has-lawyered-up.shtml#c576</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:46:11 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/16453322344/prenda-law-tries-to-close-barn-door-after-horse-has-lawyered-up.shtml#c576</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Most grammar and style guides have accepted the split infinitive. There's no compelling justification for the rule against it. In fact, it's liable to increase ambiguity as people try to rewrite what was otherwise fairly straightforward.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/12234722314/warner-bros-lets-veronica-mars-crew-prove-demand-movie-via-kickstarter.shtml#c966</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:33:45 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/12234722314/warner-bros-lets-veronica-mars-crew-prove-demand-movie-via-kickstarter.shtml#c966</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It'd be interesting if individuals could actually get a share of the profits. There are sorts of issues with securities laws, but there has been some push to change this -- e.g. with the JOBS act.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Take away copyright!</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/06175522320/modder-makes-simcity-capable-offline-play-which-works-flawlessly.shtml#c168</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:25:40 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/06175522320/modder-makes-simcity-capable-offline-play-which-works-flawlessly.shtml#c168</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[EA's name has been less than mud for a while. They've gotten away with this an absurd number of times.<br />
<br />
Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me. Fool me thrice? I'm a gullible schmuck TAKE MY MONEY.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean relying on FREE products is risky?</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/17262322315/killing-google-reader-highlights-risk-relying-single-provider.shtml#c1736</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:13:22 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/17262322315/killing-google-reader-highlights-risk-relying-single-provider.shtml#c1736</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You can technically put banner ads into RSS, and some sites do. There's no rule against including images. And there's no rule against counting reader views when giving the number of impressions your content gets.<br />
<br />
A number of popular ad-driven sites also don't make their full content available via RSS, and require the reader to click through to see more.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Advertising</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130301/01541322166/crowdfunding-picks-throw-trucks-with-your-mind-other-cool-control-interfaces.shtml#c232</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:03:34 PST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130301/01541322166/crowdfunding-picks-throw-trucks-with-your-mind-other-cool-control-interfaces.shtml#c232</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Also not a fan of the 15 second ads. At the very least, I should be spared an ad if I'm clicking a link to read sponsored content.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Advertising</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130301/01541322166/crowdfunding-picks-throw-trucks-with-your-mind-other-cool-control-interfaces.shtml#c222</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:02:26 PST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130301/01541322166/crowdfunding-picks-throw-trucks-with-your-mind-other-cool-control-interfaces.shtml#c222</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Off-topic, but can I complain about the Intuit advertising post? Although the content was clearly written by Intuit, the language is written in the third person, to give the impression that someone from Techdirt is actually writing the content. I doubt it'd fool anyone, but the ad comes off as douchey.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/15093722002/arthur-conan-doyle-estate-sued-to-show-that-sherlock-holmes-is-public-domain.shtml#c51</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew F]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:46:06 PST</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/15093722002/arthur-conan-doyle-estate-sued-to-show-that-sherlock-holmes-is-public-domain.shtml#c51</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[(1) This is exactly why characters alone should be outside the scope of copyright. Imagine if someone wrote a sequel to Harry Potter way off when books 1-6 are in the public domain but 7 is not. The author would be allowed to use Harry but couldn't make any reference to Harry's defeat of Voldemort at the end.<br />
<br />
(2) To the extent that authors want to create an official canon and prevent knock off sequels that confuse readers, trademark law is sufficient to do this.<br />
<br />
(3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this book non-fiction? There's no infringement because the Holmes character is not actually being used as a character.<br />
<br />
(4) Even if this non-fiction book would otherwise infringe, how is this not fair use?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>