Brian Schroth 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (103)

• On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 10:44am

  Re:

  Didn't I already respond to your ridiculous "COW" argument?
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/02282913648/do-we-really-want-judges-determining-what-art-says.shtml#c293

• On the post: Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 09:56am

  Re: Re:

  THAT'S THE JOKE

• On the post: Jawa Threatens Blog That Accused It Of Cramming, Gets Blog Taken Down By ISP

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 09:25am

  Re: A sucker punch to the good guys....

  The marketing industry doesn't have a reputation to soil. Everyone hates marketing, and always will.

• On the post: The Great Language Landgrab… A Result Of Misunderstanding Trademark Law

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 06:43am

  Got any good sources

  Hey Mike, random favor to ask.
  
  I've recently been in a discussion with an educated and reasonable gentleman who mostly agrees with me on the philosophy of imaginary property. However, he made the claim that trademark law's purpose was not, as you claim, to protect the consumer, but instead to protect the producer. I pointed out that a quick search of "trademark law purpose" reveals a page worth of sources all stating the purpose is consumer protection. However, this reasonable gentlemen responded with "I do disagree about the original purpose (not any modern stated purpose) of trademark, but that's of minor consequence. Thanks for the research regardless".
  
  Do you know of any sources you could recommend that might change this gentleman's mind? Perhaps a source that mentions the justifications the folks who actually proposed original trademark laws in the US used, since he seems to think that somehow modern sources are not talking about the original purpose of the law and instead talking about how the law is used today.

• On the post: Is It A Privacy Violation For Companies To Make Inferences About What You Might Like?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2011 @ 06:28am

  Re: Re: Inferences or Context

  Your phone's dialog is a poor example, that is an opt-in scenario. You have to explicitly select "Allow", otherwise you will not be opted in.
  
  An opt-out scenario would be if the phone automatically assumed it was allowed, but if you chose to go into some settings menu somewhere you could choose to turn that off.

• On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2011 @ 12:07pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: I am finally starting to understand the appropriation argument

  What's really funny is that you're proving yourself wrong here.
  
  The guy you are replying to had a point to make, and he made it. You had a point to make, and you made it by appropriating his post and making very minor changes. Both of these were valid things to say and your right to free speech means you can make your point even though it is just "stealing" the words of someone else and adding "COW".

• On the post: Drop In P2P File Sharing Due To Limewire Shutdown A Pyrrhic Victory For The Recording Industry

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2011 @ 09:45am

  Re: The music war is over...

  Yeah, I'm really going to want to be tied to a data connection to listen to my music...Wait, no, that would be awful. Even when wifi access becomes ubiquitous I'm still not going to want my music to suffer from outages when I could have it all with me without that hassle.

• On the post: Drop In P2P File Sharing Due To Limewire Shutdown A Pyrrhic Victory For The Recording Industry

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2011 @ 09:43am

  typo alert, Phyrric -> Pyrrhic

• On the post: The Changing Way That Math Is Taught To Children

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2011 @ 06:59am

  Re:

  You couldn't prove it?
  "How did you get this answer for 5476 * 126?"
  "I calculated it in my head."
  "I don't believe you."
  "OK, ask me to multiply 2 different numbers."
  "3748 * 424"
  "1589152"
  "Oh, I guess you can do it. OK."

• On the post: 'Privacy' The Latest Tool Being Used For Censorship

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2011 @ 01:22pm

  Why do the law's authors stop at the internet? I should be able to demand the erasure of any information about me, no matter whether it's on the internet or not. If a newspaper publishes an article about me, I demand the right to destroy every copy of that newspaper after the designated time-to-forget it. And if anyone writes a book about me, I really ought to have the right to have a good ol' fashioned book burning after enough time has gone by.
  
  Hell, what if someone out there just has a good memory, and remembers what I did? They'll have to be lobotomized, of course. I have a right to make them forget.

• On the post: 'Privacy' The Latest Tool Being Used For Censorship

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2011 @ 01:15pm

  Re:

  whoops, that was me who posted this. And I'm not trying to justify these "Right to forget" laws- they're ridiculous.

• On the post: The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2011 @ 07:24am

  It's pretty funny to say "the buyers don't seem to feel like suckers" when not realizing that you're a sucker is essentially the core part of the definition of being a sucker. The only time a sucker feels like a sucker is when further information comes to their attention that reveals to them the way they were duped.
  
  In this case, if the buyers ever grew brain cells and realized there is no such thing as celebrity mojo, they would feel like the suckers they are.

• On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2011 @ 06:53am

  Re: Re: Re:

  copyright and trademark definitely do NOT have "pretty much the same effect" except the effect of "confusing people who don't know much about copyright and trademark".

• On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2011 @ 06:37am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Maybe you had difficulty reading it, but this article is about comments made by George Bush. This is why comments are about George Bush. When an article is posted about Barack Obama, comments will be about Barack Obama. See how that works?

• On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2011 @ 08:43am

  Re: Re:

  have Bush apologetics gotten to the point where the best you can do is "Yeah, he may have lied to the country to send us into a failed war that cost trillions of dollars and killed countless people, but he was President of the United States, so that's got to count for something!"?

• On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2011 @ 07:37am

  Well, I know when I look for who to trust, a guy whose biggest claim to fame is lying to the whole country in order to send us into a unnecessary failed war. So whatever Bush is saying about Assange, it has to be trustworthy.

• On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2011 @ 07:34am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Well, unless you believe that we all should have the right to own nuclear missiles, you probably agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give a right to bear any and all arms. So it seems like drawing arbitrary lines not explicitly in the Constitution is exactly what you want the court to do.

• On the post: Derivative Artwork Inspiring Derivative Artwork — But Will The Lawyers Ruin It?

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2011 @ 01:37pm

  The term "Derivative Artwork" is a bit redundant, isn't it? All artwork is derivative.

• On the post: NY Times Lawyers Shut Down Blog Promoting The NY Times

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2011 @ 01:10pm

  Re: Re:

  Content can be advertising, advertising can be content. That slogan is silly.

• On the post: Hackers Claim They Can Unban Banned PS3s While Banning Unmodded PS3s

  

  Brian Schroth ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2011 @ 11:05am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't know much about it

  back when I played a lot of Battlefield 1942, I don't remember noticing any cheaters. But I do remember getting falsely accused of cheating on a regular basis.

Next >>