E. Zachary Knight 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1445) comment rss

  • On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 06 May, 2013 @ 05:57am

    A Bit Upset With Netflix Here

    I have had a love/hate relationship with Netflix for many years now. I love the service they provide and the content I can watch. The price is pretty good for what they offer. I have subscribed for many years.

    However, their stance on DRM is the primary focus of the hate part of the relationship. Their insistence on using DRM, driven mostly by their media partners, has prevented me from being able to watch online any content on my primary PC and my HTPC. The reason is that the DRM they use, Microsoft Silverlight, is not compatible with my operating system, Linux. It never has been and never will.

    Lucky for me, some clever users were willing to violate the DMCA and risk fines and jailtime to circumvent the DRM and allow Netflix's Watch Instantly software to run in Linux based PCs. It is absolutely insane that one must risk financial and social ruin to allow people to use services they are already paying for.

  • On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2013 @ 07:28am

    Re:

    That is a very good point. The FBI spent all that time creating its own terror plots that it failed to find any real plots. This needs to be shouted from the roof tops.

  • On the post: CISPA Passes The House, As 288 Representatives Don't Want To Protect Your Privacy

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2013 @ 11:38am

    Re:

    Really? My Representative has a long and deep history of voting for crap like this yet I still can't get him voted out of office.

  • On the post: Boston Officials Allegedly Shut Down Mobile Service In Boston To Prevent Remote Detonation (Update: Or Not)

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2013 @ 02:34pm

    In response to the Boston bombings, police have shut down one of the most useful and commonly used services for victims and those close by to contact family and emergency services. They have shut down the ability for media to communicate easily with one another. Shutting down the cell services of the Boston area will do nothing but spur more panic and frustration at the scene and around those trying to contact loved ones. Imagine being a parent or spouse trying to contact someone you suspect as having been there and getting nothing but a "Your call cannot be connected" message.

  • On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2013 @ 08:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright on clothes

    I am aware that they are not unique to the real world. My daughters have owned several pairs of "ruby slippers" but they were never called "Ruby Slippers" in any marketing materials. However, you cannot make a Wizard of Oz movie that includes Ruby slippers because those were a construct of MGM.

  • On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2013 @ 07:07am

    Re: Copyright on clothes

    While there is no fashion design copyrights, there is movie, and TV copyrights. Those copyrights extend their protection to anything uniquely identifiable to the movie. That is why no one by MGM can make Ruby Slippers or use the exact look for the Scarecrow and Tinman, as an example. That is why Fox thinks it is the only one who can license the rights to sell Jayne hats.

  • On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2013 @ 07:05am

    Re: THIS is what your Ivy League education comes to, Mike?

    I honestly don't get your doublethink. Do you even recognize it?

  • On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2013 @ 07:03am

    Re:

    Calling them "Jayne hats" and making them look exactly like the hat Jayne wore in the series could be copyright infringement. Kind of silly, but that is the world we live in.

    Now, the question then becomes, can you legally recreate and sell the hat without using the term "Jayne"? If people are selling replica's but not referring directly to the show, would Fox be in its right to send a C&D? I wouldn't think so. While the hat had a unique look in the show (did you see any other knitted caps?), it isn't unique in the real world.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2013 @ 08:50am

    Re: Did the university register the copyright on their survey?

    They can still sue over real damages, just not statutory. But since they probably weren't selling the survey or otherwise making money off it, they wouldn't be able to win any kind of award.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2013 @ 08:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Let me ask you this:

    I set up an HTPC to record shows that come on during hours in which I am away from the TV so that I can watch them at my leisure.

    Just last week, the CPU fried and my HTPC is dead.

    Is it infringement for me to the go to the pirate bay and download the very episodes I recorded, legally, so that I can still watch them?

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2013 @ 08:44am

    Re:

    I guess you missed the recent story about the author who made a million dollars over night by selling print and movie rights to his books.

  • On the post: Successful Self-Published Ebook Authors Sells Print & Movie Rights For $1 Million, But Keeps Digital Rights To Himself

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2013 @ 06:36am

    Re:

    For digital the benefit to the author of going with a publisher is nearly non existant.

    As a self published author, you get 70% of whatever you price your book at. As a traditionally published author with a digital release, I think it is around 12-25% of the profit. That is after the 30% the distribution service (Amazon) takes and whatever other expenses the publisher claims. Often this ends up as less than 10% the list price.

    So what do you want, 70% of a $3 book or 10% of a $10 book?

  • On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2013 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Mike clearly wants authors to have no exclusive rights whatsoever.

    Interesting, he has never said as much publicly or in private.

  • On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2013 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors. No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?

    That is not misleading. Mike was explicitly talking about the purpose of copyright. You are confusing the purpose of copyright with the method. The purpose of copyright is not to grant a monopoly, that is the method.

    Since the purpose of copyright is to promote science and useful arts, then we should be framing any and all discussions of the method of copyright in those terms. Is the approach we are currently taking or plan on taking going to promote the science and useful arts? IS there a better way to promote the science and useful arts?

  • On the post: Sega Offers Half-Hearted Non-Apology For Massive Youtube Takedown; Promises Not To Do It Again (With Caveats)

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2013 @ 09:56am

    Re: One problem though...

    It is nice and all that the claim they will "look into" any claims that a user's video was taken down under this campaign. However, that is a far cry from repairing any damage done.

  • On the post: Sega Offers Half-Hearted Non-Apology For Massive Youtube Takedown; Promises Not To Do It Again (With Caveats)

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2013 @ 09:50am

    One problem though...

    What about all those people who now have a strike against their YouTube account because of these takedowns? Will Sega work with YouTube and those users to remove that strike or will those users simply forever be branded because of this disaster?

  • On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Jammie Thomas Appeal

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 02:48pm

    Re: Re: Now

    How exactly does upholding these insane statutory damage fees actually support artists? Is all that money going to go to the artists who wrote and/or performed the songs she uploaded? No. None of it is.

    That is stepping aside from the real issue that these damages will actually erode what respect of copyright the average person holds. When they hear that uploading 24 songs will get you fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are just going to laugh and go right on doing what they do everyday with the addition of complaining about how one sided copyright law has become.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    Here is the latest update on that case:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/03284416803/court-tells-omega-copyright-is-not-sword-rejects-attempt-to-control-grey-market-as-copyright-misuse.shtml

    Basically, the ruling so far is that Omega was misusing copyright in order to restrict importation of its watches. Which means that Omega is ultimately losing that case.

    There is still one more appeal, but with this Supreme Court Ruling in play it is unlikely that Omega will prevail.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yep. Wiley will most likely raise the price in those markets to make buying, importing and selling much more difficult to do while making a profit. At the same time, they will be pricing themselves out of local markets resulting in more governments like Ghana resorting to piracy to stock their schools.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing

    E. Zachary Knight ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re:

    We don't have to think about copyright terms at all (except perhaps for things that should be in the public domain to begin with). All we have to consider is price. Is it cheap where you want to buy it? Yes. Will you make a profit selling here? Yes. Then you have a business model.

Next >>