Pitabred 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (242) comment rss

  • On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 10:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, it is. From the DMCA:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#United_States


    Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states:
    No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
    The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):
    (3) As used in this subsection?

    (A) to 「circumvent a technological measure」 means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

    (B) a technological measure 「effectively controls access to a work」 if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.


    There are some exceptions in section 1201, but they are limited to interoperability and educational or law enforcement use, and since ripping and transcoding movies to a hard drive isn't for interoperability but a derivative use, it's still illegal under the DMCA.

  • On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 06:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    See the problem here is that you're just being obtuse. You're asking for more rights above and beyond copyright. Copyright holders have very, VERY strong rights under the current system. To say so otherwise is a blatant lie.

    The DMCA, PIPA, SOPA, those are all WAY above and beyond copyright, and they're effectively shutting off huge swaths of legitimate technology because an industry is seeing their stranglehold of being broken. If I LICENSE a movie (as I've been told I do), I want the ability to use my licensed content for private consumption as I see fit. The problem is that shit like the DMCA, PIPA and SOPA take away that right. It's currently illegal for me to take my movies and copy them to my hard drive to watch, thereby keeping the discs out of my kid's hands and making the media much easier to access. Tell me... how is that promoting the progress of sciences or useful arts? If anything, it's just holding them back.

    Go ahead and sue someone who misrepresents themselves as the author of your work. Or someone who makes copies of your work and sells them. Or even gives them away for free. None of that takes SOPA, PIPA or the DMCA. If that's too hard for you to do, well... that's your problem.

  • On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 06:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I take it you haven't actually been in many fights. Yes, you should generally walk away, but if you walk away from someone intent on beating you all you'll get is a punch to the back instead of the front.

  • On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 06:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Saying Mike is a "little man" is certainly name-calling. I'm not sure there's any other way to take that, unless Mike happens to be abnormally short. And even if he were, it's not germane to the discussion.

    As for your second assertion, that the current landscape is a "mockery" of copyright law, that's BLATANTLY false. Bordering on maliciously so, so that you could add on that rider about a mockery of all of society's laws to make it seem like more than it is. It almost sounds like you're a lobbyist, and even worse, you believe your own bullshit.

    Copyright law has been religiously extended since 1976, with nary a push back from Congress... how can you, with a straight face, claim that in it's current form it still "promote[s] the progress of the sciences and useful arts"? Current copyright law is it's own mockery. It needs no external influences to add to that.

  • On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 05:42pm

    Re: Re:

    You know, I've found when people stoop to name-calling it's because they don't have anything else.

    I'm sure PIPA punishes those engaging in trafficking illegal goods. That's not the question. The question is whether it unduly punishes those engaging in trafficking LEGAL goods and content, and it certainly will.

    When did America forget that "innocent until proven guilty" used to be a cornerstone of our justice system, a differentiation from the rest of the world?

  • On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 05:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps you should go reread Orwell's 1984. I think you missed large parts of it. Or read it as a how-to.

    Censorship is when the government keeps people from having the right to speak freely. This bill's stated purpose is not censorship, but it's side-effects most certainly are. It allows mass shutdowns of legal content at the private insinuation that there might be protected content (which I contend shouldn't be protected to the degree it is, but that's a separate discussion). If you can't see that, there's no amount of anyone saying anything that will change your mind because you've obviously closed it to facts.

  • On the post: Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2011 @ 04:50pm

    Re:

    The solution is not more legislation. The solution is to get rid of the DMCA and the way that copyright has become a crutch for many industries that keep trying to hold progress back.

    Remember, copyright is not a natural right. If you show a kid a drawing, they don't automatically think it's wrong to copy it. Copyright wasn't really even conceived of until about 300 years ago, and EVEN THEN it was to benefit everyone by giving creators LIMITED rights. Not automatic and in perpetuity as we effectively have now. Copyright is a tax on society, one that we're not getting any returns for. It seemingly only exists to centralize money into the hands of management organizations, because there are a lot of people that still create things without copyright protection.

  • On the post: DOJ Two Step: It Should Be A Criminal Offense To Lie About Your Age On Facebook… But We Probably Won't Go After You For It

    Pitabred ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2011 @ 03:26pm

    Not now

    ?The DoJ is in no way interested in bringing cases against people who lie about their age on dating sites, or anything of the sort. We don?t have the time or resources to do that,?

    Yet.

  • On the post: Author Puts Article Online, Insists That Due To Copyright, You Cannot Link To It

    Pitabred ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2011 @ 06:37pm

    Re:

    Wait... what? Of course they go over copyright's bounds. The point of the GPL is that you get a lot MORE permissions if you follow the terms of the license. The L stands for license. If you don't follow those terms, then things revert to standard copyright, and you're a copyright infringer. It's not terribly hard to understand.

  • On the post: When Even The Librarians Are Against SOPA…

    Pitabred ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2011 @ 01:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wait... so if what they're doing now is already against the law, why do we need to change the law?

  • On the post: California Politician Discovers That You Can't Ban Specific Type Of Music; Admits 'I Didn't Know What Was Going On'

    Pitabred ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2011 @ 08:55am

    Re:

    For a lot of older voters, that strategy actually works.

  • On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain

    Pitabred ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 09:28am

    Copyright to... heirs?

    Why in the hell should copyright pass on to heirs as any kind of property? The point of copyright is that it is to encourage new works... the heirs didn't do that work. Copyright should at minimum die with the author.

  • On the post: TSA Force Breast Cancer Patient To Submit To Patdown, Refuse To Let Her Show ID Card About Implants

    Pitabred ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2011 @ 03:50pm

    Re:

    Good, it's not just me. I always wondered what they thought they were protecting against, because there were lots of ways I could think of to easily get weapons into those parks.

  • On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting

    Pitabred ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2011 @ 04:05pm

    Grammar nazi here again

    Hordes are large groups. Hoards is when you gather things.

    That said, I'm part of the hordes of cable cutters ;) I have an antenna hooked up to my MythTV PC, and I have Netflix on my PS3. No cable.

  • On the post: FOIA Info Reveals That BART Shut Down Cell Service With One Email To Telco Partner

    Pitabred ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 03:09pm

    Re:

    So... because it didn't directly affect you it's not a big deal?

    I'm gonna have to Godwin this thread and reference Martin Niem?ller.

    You should care because what they did was absolutely wrong. Not because it affected you directly.

  • On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count

    Pitabred ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2011 @ 01:53pm

    Re:

    Just because it's standard doesn't make it right. Especially considering the subject matter the contest is about, it makes the inequity and abuse that much more glaring.

  • On the post: Massive Exodus From Netflix Over Fee Increase

    Pitabred ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2011 @ 07:44am

    Pass the buck

    It's sad that Hollywood has so much pull in the government... in any other industry, Netflix would have been able to push back and place blame appropriately.

  • On the post: Thou Shalt Not Sue Sony

    Pitabred ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2011 @ 07:41am

    Re: The sad truth

    If you don't read TOS contracts, and I don't read TOS contracts, and the VAST majority of people don't read them, are their terms still binding? They make them so easy to click through because the know people won't read them. They force you to scroll to the bottom, but that's no guarantee of reading, comprehension, or even the user being of legal age to agree to such terms. TOS "agreements" are almost always unfair to the consumer, and there should be a guarantee of an acceptable level of service in return for the rights you give up. Otherwise the courts should see them for the scams they are.

  • On the post: Federal Courts Making It More Expensive To Access Records, Even As They're Swimming In Cash

    Pitabred ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2011 @ 07:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Why does it have to be a battle? Perhaps that fee is more than I'm willing to pay to satisfy my curiosity, or want to learn. Or even better, some school kid's.

    But even more importantly... how can you defend any increase in fees that's not directly tied to administration costs that makes it more difficult for you to know what laws you're expected to obey? The US wasn't founded as a nation of "secret" laws. We shouldn't have to pay to know what is and is not legal.

  • On the post: Printing Error Shows Flaw In 'Lock-It-Up' Video Game Business Model

    Pitabred ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2011 @ 02:37pm

    Re: Resale value

    Ubisoft's mistake in this whole thing is their hubris in thinking that they are irreplaceable. That people won't go elsewhere if they feel abused enough. That line is different for every person, but it's still a line. It's the same line the music and movie industries have run into... you abuse your customers enough with inferior product and try to lock them into that, and they will go elsewhere.

Next >>