Fiercedeity’s Techdirt Profile

fiercedeity

About Fiercedeity




Fiercedeity’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 21st, 2009 @ 12:14pm

    Re:

    I'm also pretty sure that's the case with her. "Infringing" comes naturally to all humans, regardless of background. It's just something we do. It's how our culture expands, improves and grows. The medium that this takes place on isn't as important. So to try to suppress it is really height of ignorance. It's going to happen whether or not they want it to, and that's a GOOD thing.

  • Aug 31st, 2009 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re:

    I think we need to distinguish between downloaders and uploaders here. I think this arrangement wouldn't work against pure downloaders. But if they download and then upload to others, as is what happens when you use P2P, they might be liable.

  • Aug 31st, 2009 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing wrong with trademarking quacking #17

    Right, because everyone who visits this blog leaves a comment... You shills are so out of touch with people it's rather amazing.

  • Aug 28th, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm not very knowledgeable about encryption, but I believe I read once of a product that can easily create an undetectable encrypted partition. So basically, even if you were looking for it, you'd still never find any evidence of it. I can imagine that if someone *really* wanted to get something across the border, they could do that and the searchers would never know.

  • Aug 26th, 2009 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except the banks job should be to verify IDENTITY, not simply that you have the right "keys". Even if someone stole someone else's credentials, the fact remains that the bank incorrectly IDENTIFIED the person and released funds (or whatever). However you spin it, the bank still shares responsibility for that specific incident.

    I'm not saying that users aren't responsible, they are. And there are a lot of stupid people out there. And they pay for it through the hell you have to go through to sort everything out (sometimes takes years). I think that's punishment enough for someone to learn from their mistake.

    The problem is that many banks don't take their own security seriously (at least when it comes to customer security). If the bank does EVERYTHING reasonably possible to ensure customer security, goes to every length possible to resolve reports of fraud, then at that point if a breach occurs I will say the bank is clear. However, most banks don't even come close to this. And as the backbone of the country's financial well being (maybe lol), they have a responsibility to be that secure.

  • Aug 26th, 2009 @ 10:36am

    Re: I remember this!

    You should call your theater and tell them to carry it. You never know, they might do it :)

  • Aug 26th, 2009 @ 10:11am

    Re:

    What evidence do you have that Nintendo actually used Hillcrest's work to create the technology for the Wii? That's right, none. Because they didn't. Nintendo developed their tech without using anything from Hillcrest. The problem was simply that Hillcrest got a patent earlier. That's it.

    Why should anyone have to pay up to someone simply because they had the same idea, but just later? It makes no sense. Hillcrest contributed nothing to Nintendo's success, so they should not be able to profit from it.

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re:

    Well, unlike a financial institution, Ford has nothing to do with your car's security after you purchase the vehicle. Now, if Ford was required, somehow, to verify the owners identity every time the key was used to open the door or start the engine, then yes, Ford would be at fault if someone other than the owner stole the car.

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh absolutely, I agree. The bank is holding my money. I don't care if it's my damn twin... they give my money away THEY should take responsibility. Of course, if I was negligent, then I share responsibility, but now days with how sophisticated scammers are, that's not usually the case.

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Sharing...

    That's because you couldn't. Now if such a thing were possible, I guarantee you that you would be the first kid on the block with his own underground toy store.

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re:

    It's exactly the same thing.

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 10:28am

    Re: Everything old is new again

    Yes. Even though this method is clearly working for this musician, detractors well simply say, "Sure, he's making money, but he should be making more."

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: This isn't any different...

    No. Corporations can charge anything they desire. Anything at all. However, consumers may or may not buy their product based on that. That is the free market at work.

  • Aug 19th, 2009 @ 10:15am

    Re:

    For the web,
    -customer selected image to help identify the correct website (prevents phishing)
    -password for identifying your computer (needed when you use a computer for the first time)
    -Then your regular username/password.

    Every banking website I've used (not credit card sites though) has used this process. I don't know about you, but I take great comfort in the fact that my bank requires those measures... I mean, you can do pretty much ANYTHING to your account once logged in, so I don't really think it's and inconvenience.

    My current bank site requires me to type in my account number and password. The account number isn't very long like some banks, so it's quite easy to remember. Then you answer two security questions (Name of your first pet, etc. Stuff you choose beforehand), then verify that your chosen security picture and quote is shown. If you use cookies you can allow your computer to be verified, and then you only have to answer one security question. It's not foolproof, but it's a great system overall.

  • Aug 18th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

    Re: Shortsighted

    If I purchase a DVD, yeah I own it. I don't care what some packaging says, I OWN IT, and I should be able to reasonably do whatever I want with it. That includes sharing it with others.

    The fact that there should even be any question about that fact, especially among lawmakers, just shows how far down our society has plunged.

  • Aug 18th, 2009 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Ustream is a flagrant copyright violator

    Ustream doesn't violate anything. All those streams are uploaded by users, not Ustream.

  • Aug 12th, 2009 @ 2:43pm

    Re:

    And what arguments do you present to support your claim?

  • Aug 10th, 2009 @ 3:16pm

    Re: RE: IP Addresses...

    Your IP is public information. I don't really see a problem there.

  • Aug 7th, 2009 @ 3:32pm

    Re:

    the problem with you candy argument is that the child steals the candy, and thus the store cannot sell that particular batch of candy. That can be proven.

    In Joels case, nothing was stolen and the RIAA's ability to sell what Joel obtained cannot be provably demonstrated to have been negatively impacted.

  • Aug 7th, 2009 @ 1:22pm

    Re: If Then Else

    In your statement, the Record Label still is not entitled to anything from that person, unless they are the ones who provided the copies to that individual.

More comments from Fiercedeity >>