Christopher Weigel (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 3:18pm
Re: Too bad for Sony
"Judging by all these comments an entire organization is under fire once again and most likely because a handful of their many people failed"
Judging by all these comments an entire organization is under fire once again and most likely because their corporate policies make them as user unfriendly as possible
FTFY. Sony has a history of stupid, customer-damaging moves, this is par for the course with them. Hopefully this one actually will come back and severely bite them in the ass.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Apr 26th, 2011 @ 3:56pm
I wonder...
What's the typical cost to a company, in terms of class action damages, for failing to adequately protect user data in this manner?
Just thinking - if they were required to pay each victim (potentially every person who's ever purchased a PS3) $200, which I figure is a reasonable if not slightly small number to pay for this sort of irresponsibility...
Well, they've sold, as of Dec 31 last year, 47.9 million PS3s. So that's, ignoring 2nd-hand sales, 9.6 billion in damages.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:54am
Re:
Hardly "random". Eventually, sitting here saying over and over again "hey, Craigslist is getting shit from law enforcement for facilitating their jobs" gets old. So no, not random, and very tech-relevant.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 5:50am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...What?
Were you high when you wrote this? Because it sounds like you were high when you wrote this.
And please, do enlighten how you "built" the internet, like it's some sort of magical faerie dream land. The Internet is, by and large, a creation of the masses - My creation just as much as yours. And considering the jumble of components, ideas, etc. that went into building it, claiming there's some sort of grand "future" that's inevitable rings a little hollow.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 17th, 2011 @ 7:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes Techdirt different is:
1) They have actual reporters on staff who follow things up and actually get new information for stories. Further, as a specialized website, each of those reporters probably qualifies as a subject matter expert in the field they're reporting on.
2) They don't treat writing as a "collective" and understand that 2 mediocre writers (one writing, one editing) don't make one excellent writer.
3) They actually write their own content, they don't just copy it from other sites.
Yes, they use other websites and such. But they pay for that privilege. It's just that it's Attention instead of Cash (which, again, through advertising is about the same thing)
It's sort of hard to compare that to New York Times, which is a relic of a bygone era and very rarely does it's own proper "reporting". Unless you really want to claim that every independent writer they contract because he happens to live in an area of interest is the pinnacle of journalistic excellence?
Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 17th, 2011 @ 12:07pm
Re: Re: Re:
See, here's the thing. The internet is not, in fact, "free" for people. That's a misconception and precisely what drove the NYT (amongst others) to this massively ill-conceived paywall.
We, the common users of the internet, pay with our attention. We pay attention to the website, and therefore the ads on the site. If said ads are well built, we might even pay the owners of the ads with real money.
Vice-versa, the owners of said ads pay the owner of the site (in real money) for some portion of the attention they've collected from us. In this sense, content websites are nothing more than middlemen, trying to set up meetings between users and advertisers.
Buried in that is the reason why this paywall won't work. The amount of money these middlemen will be able to get from users is piss-poor compared to the amount they can get from advertisers.
Put another way, 100000 people who regularly visit your website (and pay nothing) are probably worth considerably more to your bottom line than 100 people who are stupid enough to pay for your content. It's the reason why newspaper printing operates at a loss.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 10th, 2011 @ 3:25pm
Re: Re: Re:
Widespread piracy creates an incredibly fair business environment that is short term good (for the people pirating) and long term good for those producers who are capable and willing to adapt.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Dec 15th, 2010 @ 3:46pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's this concept called a "grey area". And you still don't quite seem to understand the idea of a Presumption of Innocence. As in, when a case falls in a grey area, you presume people innocent until such time as they're found guilty.
Anyways, whether or not an individual is guilty, private organizations cannot and should not take the punishment thereof into their own hands. That's called "vigilantism" and (Gasp!) It's against the law.
Also, for the record, I have not pirated anything. Nor will I ever. I've downloaded cracks for legally purchased, broken software. I do, however, believe in free speech and due process. Which, apparently, are concepts too difficult for your feeble mind to grasp.
Christopher Weigel (profile), Dec 13th, 2010 @ 10:35am
Re:
So apparently you have no problem with me doing the following?
1) Making statements to the effect that you enjoy conjugal visits with local livestock
2) Walking into the local airport and yelling "I've got a bomb!" (not actually having a bomb, just claiming to have one)
3) Inciting riots
4) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building
5) Telling you, in highly graphic terms, that I am going to kill you
6) Blackmailing you with, say, an affair I claim to have seen you having (regardless of the truth of the statement)
All of these, by the mindset your statement seems to be espousing, are free speech (at least insofar as they are actions that can be completed using speech alone). And yet all have been declared to be against the law, in the greater interests of society as a whole.
That's the key - Certain types of speech are and can be restricted if doing so is in the interest of the citizenry as a whole. Without the ability to do so, I think "Anarchy" is the best way to describe the result.
On the post: Sony Admits That Playstation Hacker Got Tons Of Info, Including Passwords
Re: Too bad for Sony
Judging by all these comments an entire organization is under fire once again and most likely because their corporate policies make them as user unfriendly as possible
FTFY. Sony has a history of stupid, customer-damaging moves, this is par for the course with them. Hopefully this one actually will come back and severely bite them in the ass.
On the post: Sony Admits That Playstation Hacker Got Tons Of Info, Including Passwords
I wonder...
Just thinking - if they were required to pay each victim (potentially every person who's ever purchased a PS3) $200, which I figure is a reasonable if not slightly small number to pay for this sort of irresponsibility...
Well, they've sold, as of Dec 31 last year, 47.9 million PS3s. So that's, ignoring 2nd-hand sales, 9.6 billion in damages.
...Sony made $893 net income in Q3 2010...
On the post: The Emperor's New Paywall
Hmm
That's pretty much the only explanation I can come up with...
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re:
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
You mean "Can you imagine when the jury actually gets to see *all* of the evidence without filters?"
Yes, I can, and it's beautiful. I'd much rather gather information from many diverse sources than from simply 2 biased ones.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Were you high when you wrote this? Because it sounds like you were high when you wrote this.
And please, do enlighten how you "built" the internet, like it's some sort of magical faerie dream land. The Internet is, by and large, a creation of the masses - My creation just as much as yours. And considering the jumble of components, ideas, etc. that went into building it, claiming there's some sort of grand "future" that's inevitable rings a little hollow.
And drug-induced.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) They have actual reporters on staff who follow things up and actually get new information for stories. Further, as a specialized website, each of those reporters probably qualifies as a subject matter expert in the field they're reporting on.
2) They don't treat writing as a "collective" and understand that 2 mediocre writers (one writing, one editing) don't make one excellent writer.
3) They actually write their own content, they don't just copy it from other sites.
Yes, they use other websites and such. But they pay for that privilege. It's just that it's Attention instead of Cash (which, again, through advertising is about the same thing)
It's sort of hard to compare that to New York Times, which is a relic of a bygone era and very rarely does it's own proper "reporting". Unless you really want to claim that every independent writer they contract because he happens to live in an area of interest is the pinnacle of journalistic excellence?
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re:
We, the common users of the internet, pay with our attention. We pay attention to the website, and therefore the ads on the site. If said ads are well built, we might even pay the owners of the ads with real money.
Vice-versa, the owners of said ads pay the owner of the site (in real money) for some portion of the attention they've collected from us. In this sense, content websites are nothing more than middlemen, trying to set up meetings between users and advertisers.
Buried in that is the reason why this paywall won't work. The amount of money these middlemen will be able to get from users is piss-poor compared to the amount they can get from advertisers.
Put another way, 100000 people who regularly visit your website (and pay nothing) are probably worth considerably more to your bottom line than 100 people who are stupid enough to pay for your content. It's the reason why newspaper printing operates at a loss.
On the post: Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
Re: Re: Re:
Fixed that for you.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re: Bias Detector
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
On the post: A Lesson In Venn Diagrams... And Who Gets Paid To Touch Your Junk
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The better question - If you think someone committed murder (but have no proof and have not subjected it to due process) is it ok to shoot them?
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyways, whether or not an individual is guilty, private organizations cannot and should not take the punishment thereof into their own hands. That's called "vigilantism" and (Gasp!) It's against the law.
Also, for the record, I have not pirated anything. Nor will I ever. I've downloaded cracks for legally purchased, broken software. I do, however, believe in free speech and due process. Which, apparently, are concepts too difficult for your feeble mind to grasp.
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can [b]say[/b] that you're breaking the law, at this moment, by harassing us. So, obviously, that means you're breaking it.
That's why there's a such thing as a "trial" and a "presumption of innocence", you hypocritical prick.
On the post: Congressional Research Service Notes That There Are Serious Challenges To Charging Assange
Re:
1) Making statements to the effect that you enjoy conjugal visits with local livestock
2) Walking into the local airport and yelling "I've got a bomb!" (not actually having a bomb, just claiming to have one)
3) Inciting riots
4) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building
5) Telling you, in highly graphic terms, that I am going to kill you
6) Blackmailing you with, say, an affair I claim to have seen you having (regardless of the truth of the statement)
All of these, by the mindset your statement seems to be espousing, are free speech (at least insofar as they are actions that can be completed using speech alone). And yet all have been declared to be against the law, in the greater interests of society as a whole.
That's the key - Certain types of speech are and can be restricted if doing so is in the interest of the citizenry as a whole. Without the ability to do so, I think "Anarchy" is the best way to describe the result.
On the post: Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop whining!
Apparently, that I'm trying to explain quantum physics to a 2-year old.
Go back to your blissful ignorance, I'm done trying to penetrate your shell of stupidity.