anonymousanonymouscoward 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3524) comment rss

  • On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM Didn't Even Last A Decade… And Is Still Screwing Over Movie Fans

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 06:02pm

    Re:

    Therein lies the problem. Illusion. The movie studios are so enamored with illusion, and using it to portray reality, some better, some worse, that for them the illusion is reality. They imagine that they are in control, but reality says something different. Energize tantrums. Tantrums roll over into action, but the action they purport is MORE CONTROL, and the result is control that is not actually control. Then, years later when they find out they aren't in CONTROL, raise the tantrum level. Repeat ad nauseam. Frankly, I am sick of it.

  • On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM Didn't Even Last A Decade… And Is Still Screwing Over Movie Fans

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 05:56pm

    Re:

    That is until the DVD delaminates or whatever that illness is that comes to old disks. If you want to keep them till the day you die, then you best RIP them, and then make an Rsync backup to that. Oops, you don't use Linux...well now we know why you live in the constrained world of Windows, cause it is available on IOS as well.

  • On the post: Court: Qualified Immunity Protects District Attorney Who Lied To State Legislators About A Wrongfully-Convicted Man

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 05:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The right to have rights

    Thank you.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 05:43pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't think keeping the corporations out will make a better Internet. Keeping them from controlling the Internet will make a better Internet. I still want to contact corporations, even on the Internet. What might be a better rule is to not let corporations shield themselves in the Internet. Whereas they might be required to post an email contact that will be responded to, rather than not posting such a link or ignoring anything coming into whatever links exist.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 05:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How do you "adapt&q

    Is it possible that no one want to read the articles that newssites get listed to Google? Does that mean that Google isn't doing a good job, or that the Newssites are covering the wrong stories? Then there is the question, are any newssites actually making money? If they are, what is their business model? How does that differ from other newsites? With the answer to those two questions we might be able to have a discussion that will solve the issue of not just Google linking to headlines, but for every search engine linking to headlines. Blaming Google is because Google is big(er) than the others, but it does not exist in a vacuum.

  • On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 05:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Gasket

    He changes his name in the hope that he won't be recognized. The problem is that in his demented way of thinking he comes up with names that are easily recognized as him. That leads me to not reading his posts, because his inane login name regime makes him easily recognizable, and therefore easily flagable. So flag I do, read I do not. Waiting for his inane response where he tell me that common law and the 1rst Amendment require me to read his nonsense. They don't, and I won't.

  • On the post: Court: Qualified Immunity Protects District Attorney Who Lied To State Legislators About A Wrongfully-Convicted Man

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 05:01pm

    Re: Re: The right to have rights

    Does that mean he should have sued in state court, and not Federal court? Or he should have stated a different claim than 1st Amendment? Where does libel lie under the different constructions, state v Federal?

  • On the post: The Greatest Trick The NFL Ever Pulled Is Convincing The World It Holds Trademark Rights That Don't Exist

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 06:23pm

    You can beat the crime, but you cannot ignore the ride.

    The problem comes when the big bucks NFL takes the small time pub or restaurant owner to court. The costs (whether defending or settling) can be catastrophic, and business ending. That the NFL does not actually see it as advertising for their 'property' is not just amusing, but it is antediluvian to their cause. Don't they get revenue from venues that show the game? I mean, the bar/restaurant pays a service (cable, satellite, other) for the right to view the game, from which the NFL benefits. They may not get money per patron, but that was never the deal. 40 people over to my house to watch the game does not benefit them anymore than if I watch it alone.

    Which I won't be doing. I could care less about the NFL or any other professional sport as they seem to be able to pay players multi-million dollars per year but cannot afford to build their own venues. I have little patience, or sorrow for any woes they achieve, on their own or otherwise. As for collegiate or Olympic sports, they don't pay their participants, but are no less greedy when it comes to CONTROL or income.

  • On the post: Court: Qualified Immunity Protects District Attorney Who Lied To State Legislators About A Wrongfully-Convicted Man

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 01:21pm

    The right to have rights

    Although we conclude that Echols’s complaint states a valid claim of retaliation under the First Amendment, we agree with the district court that Lawton enjoys qualified immunity because Echols’s right was not clearly established when Lawton violated it. We affirm.

    I am having a hard time with this. Echols's has a right to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty. Then he was proven not guilty, most likely because the persecution did not do their job correctly. Then he was libeled by that prosecutor. What right was not clearly established?

  • On the post: Authors Guild Attacks Libraries For Lending Digital Books

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2019 @ 01:10pm

    Re: Re: Subject: Reading Glasses that aren't rose colored

    I do both. One for discovery, the other for retention. I am fairly certain that others do the same. I don't always finish reading what I get from the library, but I often re-read those that I buy, usually years later. I am also fairly certain that the Authors Guild just hates it when I re-read something I bought only once. Think how much they would hate it if I re-read something from the library.

  • On the post: Authors Guild Attacks Libraries For Lending Digital Books

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2019 @ 11:49am

    Subject: Reading Glasses that aren't rose colored

    Isn't it too bad that there isn't a library free zone someplace where an author might be able to judge differences in sales? I suspect that sales of a particular book might be higher in a library zone, than in a no-library zone (assuming all other factors ie. ecomonics, education, etc., are similar).

    But I keep coming back to Paulo Coelho and the benefits he captured by giving his book away on (OMG) bittorrent. Check this search for other related stories.

    Seemingly, the Authors Guild can't read, or they might have a different attitude. Their attitude seems to be absolute control. For that I recommend their members only sell their books from the garages attached to their houses, or go bookstore to bookstore with cases of books and see how many they can unload at each store. In that process, they can ignore all libraries, unless someone donates a copy of their book to one (which could mean they either didn't like it, or don't intend to read it again, or have no enemies they would wish that book upon). That should propagate the world wide community to talk about their works in a big way.

    Is there a list somewhere of authors who are so profit driven that they contribute to this organization, so that we can avoid them? I used to like Scott Turow's writing, but I won't be reading anything of his anymore, even if borrowed from the library for free.

  • On the post: How My High School Destroyed An Immigrant Kid's Life Because He Drew The School's Mascot

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2019 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Good old 'zero tolerance/thinking'...

    I think I have zero tolerance for 'zero tolerance/thinking'.

  • On the post: Study Again Finds That Most VPNs Are Shady As Hell

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2019 @ 02:19pm

    Re:

    Are you suggesting that Most VPN's are paid VPN's, or is the title actually accurate? Could it be that 'free' VPN's need an income source, which would lead, some at least, to believe that the accusations are accurate. Which leaves us with most VPN's are not only free, but acting badly? On the other side of the coin,not all paid VPN's are scions of virtuosity, here are some that are.

  • On the post: Independent Musician Explains Why Article 13 Will Be An Utter Disaster For Independent Artists

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2019 @ 10:17am

    Re:

    At what point in your brainwashed adolescence did you get trained to believe everything any government tells you?

    So far, the government has failed to provide any logical evidence of what they say Article 13 will do, and what it will actually do. For that reason your otherwise unsupported acceptance of their doctrine means nothing to any person who has some critical thinking capabilities.

  • On the post: NY Governor Offers Journalists A Gift No Journalist Would Be Interested In Receiving

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2019 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Equality under the Law

    To be fair, overzealous reporters (and/or paparazzi) do exist. What is a person to do when they get up in your face with their microphones screaming their questions, impede your progress, or in other ways violating your personal space and/or privacy?

    The 1st Amendment does not require someone to answer ones questions. There are some other laws that require public officials to answer questions, and sadly public officials seem to find more and more ways to avoid that responsibility. Private citizens, whether celebrity or head of a corporation, or someone accused of some crime are not required to respond, no matter how badly the press wants a response.

    In some cases members of the press needs to learn some manners, and in others some form of assault and/or battery charges should be laid.

  • On the post: French Defense Secretary Says Country Is Willing To Fire First In Cyber Wars

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2019 @ 01:08pm

    Re: French cyber war

    Sorry, but the Right to be Forgotten has removed that notion from the communal knowledge of the entire world. They are so serious about that that they are pre-eminently requiring that their next surrenders be forgotten in advance. Therefore, you, nor I, nor anyone else will remember the word surrender in relation to France...ever.

  • On the post: NY Governor Offers Journalists A Gift No Journalist Would Be Interested In Receiving

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 25 Jan, 2019 @ 06:47pm

    Press, how we like it, as we like it, oh, and here's a cookie

    Cuomo is not just taking the position to determine by fiat who is and who are not journalists, he is trying to suck up to a press who might not like him very much, or at least some of them. While the former might be a boon to some journalists, it most certainly is not to others. As to the latter, I don't think it would be hard to determine that the press will not be impressed, whether they are deemed press by Cuomo or not.

    U.S. Constitution

    Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Funny thing. I just don't see any definition of press in there. Now some will argue that the 'press' were people with printing presses at the time the Amendment was written and should exclude all others. Yet we have precedent that radio and TV and goodness forbid Cable reporters are also press. That means that the concept grew as technology grew. So with the advent of the Internet they want to exclude, well lets face it, bloggers, or others who might be pigeonholed into that category.

    So that leaves the reason government wants to control who is or is not 'press' is because there are more people willing to speak their minds and are not 'controlled' by some editor, who in turn is controlled by some publisher, who in turn might be controlled by some corporation. In fact, the government thinks these 'members' of the press are out of control. But isn't that the pure basis of that 1st Amendment? The whole Raison d'etre of the Fourth Estate, which is also not strictly defined.

    The 'press', however defined gets to tell the government what they think of the governments performance, whether the government likes it or not, and the government trying to 'control' who is or is not press certainly seems like some toddlers arguing whether it is bedtime or not. Oh, and the rest of us peons get to do so as well.

    Now as to the revelation of sources, why would the government have any interest at all? Oh, right, they might try and change the conversation from whatever they were called upon to 'whistleblower' or 'traitor' or anything other than the substance of whatever what published that they don't like. Far be it for government to actually listen and take responsibility and corrective action on whatever blunder caused the press person to cause them some heartburn. Wave hands, change the subject, make the reporter the bad person and ignore the wrong doing.

  • On the post: Arizona The Latest To Explore Dumb Porn Filter Law, This Time To Help Fund Trump's Fence

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2019 @ 08:20am

    Short Sighted

    Maybe they should have let him marry his computer. The offspring would have been awesome, and seriously outdated by now.

  • On the post: FBI Forensic Experts Claim Mass-Produced Jeans And Shirts Are As Distinct As Fingerprints And DNA

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2019 @ 10:23am

    When fiction becomes real, for someone else

    Given that the FBI is well known for making up conspiracies to commit terrorist acts, why wouldn't someone believe they could make up 'scientific' evidences? It must be they sound so convincing on the witness stand.

    1 in 650 billion shirts sounds so...emphatic. Has there even been 650 billion shirts made, in the history of earth?

  • On the post: There Was Heavy Tech Lobbying On Article 13… From The Company Hoping To Sell Everyone The Filters

    anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2019 @ 07:35am

    The Good Thing about High Prices for Faulty Works

    There is an explanation for the high prices Audible Magic is charging. They will take fiscal responsibility for each and every false positive and false negative that the hosting company gets charged with. In addition, when some rightsholder giant claims ownership of an independents work, they will compensate that independent with an annual income for life that would make the most highly paid artists in the world envious. That's in their contract...right?

    /s

Next >>