Josh In CharlotteNC’s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the the-two-big-themes dept
If I had to define a theme for Techdirt, it would be something like: "Technology constantly evolves: get it, some don't."
So, first up for my favorites this week are stories about the ones that don't get it:
Working in computer security at a major bank (note, everything I say is my own opinion and should not reflect on my employer, just as the stupid things my employer does should not reflect on me), the top story that caught my eye is how the politicians trying to tell the country how to do computer security have no idea how to do it themselves. A far-reaching computer security bill needs vigorous debate among experts and policymakers, and slow, careful consideration. Having a few elected officials who know nothing about computer security rush it through is not what we need, nor will it make anyone safer.
A decade ago in college, I wrote a paper about the problems of faulty filtering and censorship systems, and the "Scunthorpe" problem, which was already well known at the time. So I was surprised that Facebook, one of the top tech companies today, still can't get it right, and was censoring comments involving a major newspaper simply because of a (defunct) domain name in the story. If we're going to have spam filters, let's not use them to censor news stories or discussions.
How publishers keep making the same mistakes the recording industry did is mind boggling. Basic economics might not be taught in elementary school, but you'd think it would be a requirement for any college degree involving a business major. Yet they keep on insisting on higher pricing (which will mean they sell less), while at the same time increasing their own costs and customer anger by putting in DRM. What this tells me is how intellectual monopoly rights are nothing like real property and we need to stop treating (and calling) them as such. Pop quiz: If you came up with a foolproof way for a manufacturer of a physical good to reduce their manufacturing and distribution costs by 99%, would the price to the customer go up or down?
But all is not lost, there do happen to be people and companies that do get it:
Kickstarter is now the 800-lb gorilla for raising money for just about anything, and it is only getting bigger. From smartwatches, to documentaries, to medium budget video games, if you've got an idea, you can get money to try to make it happen. How soon before we see studio budget movies and video games, or a soon-to-be-major tech company get Kickstarted? I'm thrilled to see this growth, as it shows that people are willing to pay for things and don't want it all free. And even when they can get something free, they'll still pay to support it. My favorite project so far: over a million dollars was raised to reprint books of a free webcomic, Order of the Stick.
Next up we've got a guide on how to beat a patent troll from Drew Curtis. In simple terms, make it so the troll winning is much more trouble than they could ever get paid to be worth it. Not exactly a new strategy, as we've seen it work years ago, but it is always good to have refresher courses.
And finally, some good news in politics from two stories: some politicians understand issues regarding the internet, while the public is becoming engaged and demanding "life, liberty, and blazing broadband." And from Austria, where a Pirate Party candidate won a local seat. These two stories should remind those of us in the US that our votes really do matter, and we have an election coming up in about six months. So don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't get it, and don't waste your vote on the "least bad" major candidate. Vote for someone who respresents your values, even if you have to write them in. That will really start scaring those politicians and their whole parties.


Re: Re: Re:
These threads always turn into a referendum on me personally
There's a few sayings about heat and kitchens and cooking implements and their colors that would fit as a reply.
Hilarious. You're remarkably thin-skinned when the first thing you do in nearly every story is to attack the author with a slew of personal attacks.
Hypocrisy, can you spell it? Even in your complaint about being attacked personally, you find the time to throw some insults in Mike's direction.
Re: Re: Re:
that the registar knows is criminal,
Do you have a plausible way for the registrar to determine that in advance of the site existing? Something that doesn't involve time-travel, perhaps?
"the Pirate Bay" is just a name. Are you arguing that simply having a domain name that includes words that might indicate referral to a previously criminal action is in and of itself illegal? Are you implying that if Bernie Madhoff writes a book, he can't register berniemadhoffponzischeme.com to promote it, because it might refer to something illegal?
Two words:
Prior Restraint
Re: Re: Re:
15 "vast"s? Weren't you just accusing me of hyperbole last week? Keep up the hypocrisy Joe, you're amusing me.
Re:
Why don't you ever mention the millions and millions of valid takedown notices that reflect a pirate getting nothing but a slap on the wrist.
Why do you continue to willfully ignore the thousands of abusive DMCA notices that reflect abusive lawyers causing damage to free speech rights and not even getting a slap on the wrist? If you really support the rule of law, the huge numbers of these abuses should interest you. Yet, you turn a blind eye to them. Don't keep spreading FUD, as you're really bad at it and it is as transparent as glass. Just keep trolling and evading questions, cause we all know how useless you really are.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in general, transparency is a good thing, except when it's too hard. That sure sounds like an ideal to strive to. /s
So if the text is public, I think it would have been a good thing for Mike to post it. But instead of adding something useful to the discussion, such as the text in question or a link to it, all you're doing is complaining that Mike didn't include it. Why don't you put forth an opinion and support it with evidence instead of just whining?
Re:
CCTV camera + facial recognition (not great yet, but improvements keep coming)
Re:
is it your position that registrars should be able to register domain names to sites that they know are committing criminal acts?
Is it your position that someone accused or convicted of a crime should not be able to register a domain?
Is it your position that the government can determine what legal products and services a company can offer to those accused or convicted of crimes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that's you, Joe, those are weasel words. Answer the question.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see the proposal. Let's see the exact text they are taking issue with. Let's discuss it on the merits.
Never thought I'd see you say that. It's pretty much a staple complaint on Techdirt that the public never gets to see the text of the various treaties and international agreements.
So Joe, here's a question. Are you agreeing with Techdirt and most of its readers and commenters that these agreements should be open and transparent to the public?
Re:
There are legitimate reasons for reducing timings on yellow lights in very heavily congested areas. Under some circumstances increasing timing by half a second can cause gridlock and other congestion problems. Reducing timing can sometimes resolve traffic problems.
Those may be reasons, but I'm gonna disagree with the "legitimate" part. Removing all speed limits everywhere would also help some commuters stuck in traffic to have a shorter commute time, but that doesn't mean we should do it.
There are better ways to resolve congestion - more lanes, rerouting roads, better alternate routes, adding and encouraging mass transit options, and plenty of others. Those solutions are far more expensive, so lowering a few yellow light times might get some people re-elected on the cheap, but it makes the roads less safe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone fond of saying others run away from reasonable debates, you haven't answered me above^. Of course, that was about hypocrisy, so it's kind of fitting.
You've espoused your support of six strikes for copyright infringement. Would you be in favor of a similar strikes system regarding DMCA notices? Something that included assumption of guilt, limited appeals routes, and little oversight or public scrutiny?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
Nice waffling. You should be a lawyer. I also notice you've moved the goalposts from "they should be punished" to "you can't prove they knew it was wrong" and therefore can't be punished.
We see "bad faith" notices all the time that are not punished. Can you name any case other than Diebold (which is the only one this not-a-law-student can name)? I don't see you advocating for penalties to be enforced on the thousands that are sent and you disagree any time Techdirt decides to highlight a few.
Anyone setting up a system that automates the sending of notices on the basis of keywords has to know that there will be false positives. So, under the same legal theory that holds the creator of a website liable for user submitted infringing content, why wouldn't someone operating such an automated system be operating under de facto bad faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
And if someone sends an improper DMCA notice, they should be penalized, too?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
As always, AJ, you miss the entire point. Right in the article Mike mention it was probably just a paperwork screwup. What it shows is that like so many other organizations that have taken a maximalist approach to copyright enforcement, they are hypocrites. It is complete hypocrisy to hold everyone else to intolerantly high standards of being on the right side of the law and then failing to follow the laws yourself. It is complete hypocrisy to cry "theft" everytime a pirate downloads something while at the same time "stealing" someone else's work for commercial gain yourself. How can you possibly miss such inherent hypocrisy?
Re: Give them credit
Yeah, I'll give them that. They could have secret interpretations of laws like we have in the US.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The contortions you make trying to justify this would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SCOTUS did not rule that agricultural breeding is patented.
It ruled that the process of isolating a patented agricultural product from a group of assorted products and purposefully reproducing it so that you can have more copies of it is infringement.
Those statements are mutually exclusive. SCOTUS ruled that you cannot perform breeding on a living organism that contains patented genes. That is ruling against performing breeding.
There was nothing accidental about Bowman's conduct; he purposefully controlled which seeds were allowed to grow and which ones were not so that he could have a population of patented seeds he could call his own.
I never said it was accidental. Of course he selected for crops that did better. That's exactly what breeding is - selecting for certain traits over others to get the desired result.
You seem to want these words to mean something different because you recognize that this really is crazy, but you can't admit it.
We're not arguing on the facts of this case. I don't dispute what the facts are, or what SCOTUS ruled on. I'm saying the ruling is insane. I'm arguing patents on genes or living organisms are insane. I'm arguing the entire patent system is bat-shit crazy, bonkers, unhinged, nutty as a cargo ship full of fuitcake, insane.
You want this crazy. I don't.
I will not pretend to be stupid. I will not pretend that insanity at this monumental level is a good thing. I'm going to call it out as the utter ridiculousness that it is. I looked at a thesaurus writing this. There aren't enough synonyms for crazy to cover this nonsense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Says who? A book of bronze age myths compiled thousands of years ago by ignorant savages? Even that book doesn't agree with itself - many of those powerful men featured in it had multiple wives, slaves and concubines.
It's nowhere near one and the same.
But it is. You think of them as somehow different and not deserving the same rights you take for granted, just as was done with women and other minorities.
Re: Why not follow private sector's lead?
The government is already following the private sector's lead. Just not the "white hat" side of it. Sure, they're paying bounties for exploits - but they don't end up in public databases, they are not reported to the software company, and are not fixed or patched. This isn't new. Remember the HBGary hack? Similar presentation slides were found boasting of knowledge of exploits that were not public knowledge and able to be used for offensive purposes.
Re: Re: Re:
So Bowman specifically signed some agreement when he bought the seeds from the grain elevator saying that he wouldn't plant them?
Oh, he didn't... so what's your argument? That no one can ever buy something and use it in a way that the manufacturer or seller didn't intend?