Violynne’s Techdirt Profile


About ViolynneTechdirt Insider

Violynne’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 12:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think people need to read the statement for what it really says:

    "As theater owners, we can't dare risk upsetting the MPAA and our movie distributors, who hate, and we mean hate, Netflix with a passion. Since Netflix wants to contend for next year's Oscar awards, we have no choice but to deny Netflix permission to our theaters. Unfortunately, this means we lose revenue, but the MPAA couldn't care less. Enjoy the movie in the comfort of your own home. PS: we do this to indie movie makers too, because the MPAA hates them as well."

    Now, what makes more sense: theaters purposely killing a revenue stream or appeasing the man-devil called "Dodd"?

    As one who used to work in a theater, the atrocious tactics done by the MPAA and movie distributors is guaranteed to close theaters as the model did with Blockbuster.

    Don't take my word for it. Do a search on how many theaters (including the one I used to work at) closed over the past 10 years alone.

    Though, a word of caution: this may prompt you to go out and buy a big screen TV to make up the loss of the soon-to-be-closed big screens in theaters.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 6:51am

    (untitled comment)

    If you want to know why Comcast isn't supporting HBO Go on consoles, all one need do is compare its price for HBO service on its cable bill to, well, common sense to see why the company is afraid of the app's potential impact to its revenue stream.

    Fear not, Sony console owners and revenue providers to future SOPA bills, HBO Go, when released to the public, will play on all consoles without need of a cable subscription, provided you subscribe to the possible $15/mo subscription instead.

    These apps have been updated for the new non-cable subscription model (and giving you one more reason to drop Comcast's cable).


  • Mar 3rd, 2015 @ 11:08am

    (untitled comment)

    Disclaimer: not defending Clinton.

    While the White House's email system may be clunky and annoying to use (as I've heard repeatedly), there's simply no excuse for Clinton not to have used it at all

    I vehemently disagree.

    Ever try to use tools which don't work well enough to conduct your job? Consider yourself lucky.

    Imagine, briefly, if every TD employee was forced to use IE6 as a must-use program.

    How's that for clunky and difficult to work with, and yes, the government's email system is actually as bad as using IE6.

    If you've never used it, it's easy to criticize those who don't use it, but I guarantee one week of trying to use it will have you using an alternative as well.

    I also dislike the notion email systems like Gmail and aren't as secured as a government's system. I've yet to see any government system in use be reliable in this regard, even if such compromise came within from a consultant.

    As long as HRC didn't delete emails and archived them, there's no reason why she couldn't easily hand over the credentials to turn them over for proper categorization, which is most likely what she did when she left her post.

  • Mar 3rd, 2015 @ 9:15am

    (untitled comment)

    You cannot prevent collisions if the data that can prevent them is still making its way through the network.
    Then the following ISPs should NOT be used for self-driving cars' WiFi systems:

    ... you know, it'll just be easier to say "Do NOT use any WiFi service offered by ISPs in the United States."

    Better safe than sorry, because you can bet I sure as hell wouldn't want a company throttling traffic because cars take up too much bandwidth without paying for it.

  • Mar 3rd, 2015 @ 3:20am

    (untitled comment)

    ...there would likely be much head-scratching over how this whole thing could have gotten so misused.
    This isn't true. The Founding Fathers knew damn well how copyright could stifle innovation and be abused. Lest ye forget, they left a country which was abusing the very law they didn't want in the Constitution.

    The reality of the situation is much more grim, and definitely reminiscent of today's "lobbying" in that the wealthy, who had power over government, refused to invest in the "New World" unless provisions of copyright and patent were guaranteed.

    This withholding of "crucial funds" kept ratification of the revised Constitution from occurring, and it's why the document took years to get all the signatures.

    Remember, kids: since we absolutely, positively refuse to learn from history, we're guaranteed to repeat it.

    Enjoy those nastygrams from Google. They're not going anywhere anytime in your lifetime, thanks to copyright.

  • Mar 2nd, 2015 @ 10:46am

    (untitled comment)

    There's nothing Purdy about shutting down VPNs.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 3:29am

    (untitled comment)

    One of these days, we'll get an edit feature.

    It means cable "stations" was to be written as It means internet "stations"...

    It's morning.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 3:28am

    (untitled comment)

    I agree with Verizon, though certainly not for the same reason.

    This law is a bad law because it's taking rules for an infrastructure that no longer exists and applies them to a new infrastructure which is being abused.

    Everything is digital now. This means everything is being transferred over the same line. Television, "radio", movies", hell, even books. Phone calls are now digital and many people have taken to using the internet for their everyday tasks, such as paying bills.

    So why is it we're still regulating this as a communication platform? It's absurd. It needs to be regulated as a digital transfer platform, whereas nothing can be "held back".

    Because of Title II, the age-old (and yes, they are terrible) laws now regulated how that information is transferred to us digitally.

    It means cable "stations" have to pay far more for the exact same content as other avenues.

    It means fees can be assessed unnecessarily because "this portion of the communication platform says they can be applied".

    It's a ridiculous and stupid decision to use Title II, a law written when Morse Code was the communication platform, to regulate what comes across the digital line.

    This may be a step forward, but that's just it. It's a step, and one that'll take years to show fruits of its labor.

    The FCC should have reclassified the structure by writing a completely new law from scratch, safeguarding our privacy from government and corporate spying, preventing companies from selling our information, and of course, getting rid of the stupidity of charging people up to 3x for the same goddamn service.

    So... hurray. Verizon may be joking, but they're spot on. It's just too bad we have a corrupt government which doesn't service the people.

    Enjoy that $200+ cable bill. It's not going anywhere. Ever.

  • Feb 26th, 2015 @ 12:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    Hear that?

    It's the world's smallest violin playing for Apple, a company notorious for trolling themselves (including the ITC).

    This isn't a call for patent reform when the "victim" is often an abuser.

    Worse, these same "victims" also go after smaller businesses in other arenas, such as Disney going after a day care center for a painting on a wall or, more often than not, trademark "violations".

    As far as I'm concerned, this summary judgment wasn't high enough.

  • Feb 24th, 2015 @ 7:59am

    (untitled comment)

    FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Is Leading An Incoherent, Facts-Optional Last Minute War On Net Neutrality...For The American People

    Should be...

    FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Is Leading An Incoherent, Facts-Optional Last Minute War On Net Neutrality... For His Future Seven Figure Salary

    Because that's the truth

  • Feb 23rd, 2015 @ 8:24am

    (untitled comment)

    By all means, please get rid of the Oscars.

  • Feb 23rd, 2015 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re:

    This is the apologist thinking of people who don't understand how Google works (as well as other companies).

    Let's get something clear: I don't use Google services but I'm still being tracked.

    In fact, Techdirt uses the same tools offered by these companies which tracks me. Google analytics is nothing we can "stop using", nor does the FB API prevent it.

    That's the problem, and you need to know this because while you're defending "my" problem with Google, it underscores the true issue.

    Do you really think it matters that Google isn't "breaking into" networks or circumventing security to achieve the same goal of abusing our right to privacy?

    That's absurd. Yes, I know other companies are doing the same thing, from my ISP to Microsoft, but therein lies the problem the public excuses because it's NOT the government doing it.

    It's the same dichotomy as screaming "FREE SPEECH!" as companies shut down the conversation because it's NOT the US government.

    You can pretend all you want that our choices are based on usage service (or the lack of not using them), but what goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant.

    Try to remember this the next time a company decides to stick in a "super cookie" into a service you AREN'T EVEN USING because a third party is.


    That's why I said it was hypocritical of Google to be calling out the government for doing the same damn thing and that's INVADING OUR PRIVACY.

    How one invades the 4th Amendment should be the scope, not who is doing it.

  • Feb 23rd, 2015 @ 3:22am

    (untitled comment)

    There's a great deal of hypocrisy coming from Google.

    "We don't want the government intruding on our services, bypassing security, and invading the privacy of our millions of users.

    Instead, they should just pay for the data we capture like everyone else does, as we waste little time tracking each and every one of our users."

    Furthermore, if Google doesn't like what you do with its services, they'll be more than happy to give this information to the very same entity it's screaming about.

    Google can go straight to hell.

  • Feb 20th, 2015 @ 11:57am

    (untitled comment)

    Lenovo just insured I will never buy a product from them.


    I certainly hope this denial was worth it.

  • Feb 19th, 2015 @ 3:23am

    (untitled comment)

    This scorecard is meaningless.

    If Congress really wanted to fix the problem, they'd allow consumers full access to their phones, which means rooting (jailbreaking) isn't illegal.

    Just another damn example of "You don't own what you bought" in the USofA.

  • Feb 17th, 2015 @ 10:02am

    (untitled comment)

    AT&T, I liked you so much better when you were a monopoly.

    Now, you're just an asshole.

  • Feb 17th, 2015 @ 9:59am

    (untitled comment)

    What good is back door encryption when the front door is wide open.

  • Feb 12th, 2015 @ 7:09am

    (untitled comment)

    An Apple consumer pissed at Apple.

    Why is this news not upsetting me?

  • Feb 12th, 2015 @ 3:15am

    Re: 'It's only wrong when other people do it'

    Not surprising, given the same thing was done when copyright was being rewritten into draconian rules.

    Just ask William Patry, who one day woke up to find his 4 clauses, a draft, found their way into the law under Fair Use.

    It's atypical of those who abuse copyright: what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.

  • Feb 11th, 2015 @ 11:49am

    (untitled comment)

    Perhaps I'm confusing something here.

    The article says both Smart TVs should be dumb but 50% of people disable the feature.

    How is this Samsung's fault again? If the APP being used is running NOT on the TV and is displaying a Pepsi ad, I'm extremely confused how Samsung is inserting the ad on a TV that supposedly has its "smart" disabled.

    Because if the "smart" is disabled, and the ad was injected regardless, this presents a much, much, much more damaging problem about to befall us consumers.

More comments from Violynne >>