I hate this sentiment. If the game sucks then someone who choose to play it is every bit as culpable as the game itself.
You don't get a pass for being a bad actor because the system is bad. J.R. Salamander be a mensch! Engage the university, not the lawyers
The problem I have with the automatic calls for proxies and adblock / js blocking is that many of the same technologies can and often are very useful.
I design interfaces for a living and my emphasis is on making the experience better. A lot of the time this is made easier if we make a website that has some understanding of what the customer is doing. Amazon is the quick and easy example, with their recommendations and pages that collect what you have viewed and use it to suggest more stuff you might like.
While I don't imagine the FTC would end up doing much of a job with any rules to ban anything, the very idea of having some central body pouring scorn on the marketers who abuse these technologies seems like a good thing.
The point of copyright was that the public made a deal with the creator.
"Share you work and for a limited time you can mostly control what is done with it commercially"
In those terms the sharing mentioned by EdB is a sort of harm if the sharing is done on an "industrial" scale. The big problem is that copyright was born at the birth of the industrial era and is best suited to that world.
I think in this case he means accurate in the terms of the libel charge, as in "we were only covering what you guys said," not necessarily true, just accurate
So, I was going to comment on the techcrunch story but it was filled with commenters leaping to demand the EFF only support popular free speech.
That is the point really, popular speech doesn't need protecting, it is the unpopular which we need to protect. Especially because you never know when your words might become unpopluar.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by scottbp.
Re: hating games and players
I hate this sentiment. If the game sucks then someone who choose to play it is every bit as culpable as the game itself.
You don't get a pass for being a bad actor because the system is bad. J.R. Salamander be a mensch! Engage the university, not the lawyers
how about a music player
that works with MS plays for sure DRM?
usefulness
The problem I have with the automatic calls for proxies and adblock / js blocking is that many of the same technologies can and often are very useful. I design interfaces for a living and my emphasis is on making the experience better. A lot of the time this is made easier if we make a website that has some understanding of what the customer is doing. Amazon is the quick and easy example, with their recommendations and pages that collect what you have viewed and use it to suggest more stuff you might like. While I don't imagine the FTC would end up doing much of a job with any rules to ban anything, the very idea of having some central body pouring scorn on the marketers who abuse these technologies seems like a good thing.
Re: Re: Re:
The point of copyright was that the public made a deal with the creator.
"Share you work and for a limited time you can mostly control what is done with it commercially"
In those terms the sharing mentioned by EdB is a sort of harm if the sharing is done on an "industrial" scale. The big problem is that copyright was born at the birth of the industrial era and is best suited to that world.
Re:
I think in this case he means accurate in the terms of the libel charge, as in "we were only covering what you guys said," not necessarily true, just accurate
doing the right thing is sometimes unsavoury
So, I was going to comment on the techcrunch story but it was filled with commenters leaping to demand the EFF only support popular free speech.
That is the point really, popular speech doesn't need protecting, it is the unpopular which we need to protect. Especially because you never know when your words might become unpopluar.