barrenwaste 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (95) comment rss

  • On the post: New York Tries To Rope Amazon Into Playing Tax Collector

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2008 @ 12:29pm

    Taxes?

    Hmm...personally, I figure I'll pay taxes when the state I live in starts using the money responsibly. State taxes have gone up on just about everything continuously for the last few years, yet, the things those taxes are supposed to pay for are getting worse. Education? Worse. Roads? Worse. You name it, Michigan fails at it with grandiose style.

  • On the post: Yet Another Author Discovers Giving Away Ebooks Increases Sales

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2008 @ 09:35am

    Free E-Books = Good Stuff

    There are multiple venues for sales outside of publishing available to authors. Conventions (public speaking), audio books, movies, and personalized editions being the most obvious. Will every author be able to make money off from these, no. But, then not ever music artist makes it big either. Baen has been offering free books for awhile, I read the free books when I don't have a physical copy to cozy up with, but I also purchase a large selection of thier books. I'm happy to hear that Tor is finally getting in on it. Like most people I want to know a bit about what I'm buying before I spend. It may only be eight bucks, but eight bucks can mean a lot of things.

  • On the post: Charity Threatened For Children Singing Without Paying Royalties; History Repeats Itself

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2007 @ 09:05am

    The money goes to the artists? Yup, that makes it perfectley legitiment to take money from a childrens charity christmas pagent. Don't they put people in prison for that sort of thing?

    As for charities being money makers, I work for two of them. I don't get paid a cent. In the one charity we have three full time staffers who are woefully underpaid. In the other, yes the charity is massive, yes they have many full time workers. Most of us still don't recieve payment. Do they make money? Of course, that is the point. To raise money to spend among those who need it. They give millions away each year. Thier workers make some of the lowest salaries in thier respective fields. My parents work for them full time and only make 10k a year. Yup, all charities are corrupt money grubbers just bilking human sympathy.

  • On the post: Congress Rushes Through Law To Protect The Children… And Make Open WiFi A Huge Liability

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2007 @ 07:59pm

    Yay!

    It is now illegal to surf the internet. What is considered appropriate veiwing material varies from state to state, county to county. This makes things hard enough, but now lets also consider the nature of the internet. At work I have to surf the internet to find new product and new suppliers. In the course of my searches I invariably find great sites for penis enlargement, dating, big breasted women, and any fetish you can think of. This isn't because I am looking for it, this is because many of the people running these sites associate them with words that have no bearing on the subject but because of the nature of search engines send the surfer blissuly into porn ambushes. Now, I also have WiFi, and yes, it is protected, but I also work in a college town. There are two campuses in town and both offer great tech courses. I get hacked everyday. Before this law I didn't really care as the hackers weren't malicious, just mischevious. They'd get a little free internet and some time to cruise an adult site or order 300 pairs of pink underwear for thier football coach. Since my money wasn't touched, my business wasn't touched, I didn't care. Now, under law I have to try to poilice an entire college town? I'm screwed.

  • On the post: Musicians Want To Be Paid Multiple Times If Concert Tickets Are Resold

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2007 @ 12:47pm

    You know....

    ...maybe it's time we banded together and refused to buy any of this crap. Let them taste a year of no profits or so and then see what all the fuss is about. I know I have enough music at home that I could go for a year without purchasing more. We could still get live performances from local and bar bands during that year, might even liven the music industry up a little. It's been stuck on rap and hip hop for about 10 years now. Time for something new and fresh. Like those kids playing modern music on violins and whatnot.

  • On the post: Being A Total Jerk Online Still Isn't Criminal

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2007 @ 09:42am

    RE: RE: posses by BTR1701

    It is illegal. Look at how many cases they get thrown out of court just because of that. If you look you'll find that more than 90 percent of the people they "catch" are either aquited or released due to the nature of the "capture". Not only that, but they are guilty of libel, loss of livelyhood, the very acts of pedophilia they accuse the "predators" of, and so on and so forth. They troll around all day pretending to be kids and try to engage others pretending to be kids in sexual chat. That means they are actually going to get messed up kids, as well as messed up adults. Thier defense is that they check the people in question out thouroghly before they engage in the sexual chat, but that's not truthful nor entirely possible. Now they are running into cases where other adults are doing the same as they are and the worst that happens is some role-play and the adults looking to collar the perverted justice people. Then you have to take into account that most of the people they "chat" with never end up doing anything. They chat some, getting more sexual and the "predator" becomes uncomfortable with it and leaves. The perverted justice people continue the chase though, often finding where the "predator" lives and leaving signs, threats, and telling neihbors. Even though no crime was comitted. Good thing that "predator" was stopped.

    No, the true predators are the Perverted Justice people. I've done a little looking and they are being sued, by a couple hundred people. GOOD! Now we just hope the lawsuits are succesful and the those people are stopped permanently and required to pay heavy fines and jail sentences.

  • On the post: Being A Total Jerk Online Still Isn't Criminal

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2007 @ 11:53pm

    First, if you feel the neihbors were at fault, then you probably shouldn't read this. Better yet, read this and develop something akin to moral fiber.

    Now, the neihbors didn't break any laws. If you read anything that deals with the online conversations not a single sexualy inapropriate thing was said by the Josh persona. In fact, the people operating the Josh persona intentionally lead the conversations away from that sort of thing. So, no law broken.

    Also, it is indeed against the law to say certain things about people....unless those things are true. From what I can dig up, they only accused her of things she did. Once again, not illegal.

    Finally, people can be sued for "causing" another to commit suicide (stupid law if ever there was one), but there has to be shown cause. The worst that was said were a few vulgarities and the phrase "would be better off without you". Not exactly motivation to kill ones self.

    The neihbors did something rude, but if you listen to all of what was going on you find nothing more than people being people. No criminal intent, no sexual assault, no grounds for suicide. The worst that happened were a few obscenities and the Josh persona saying he was better off without her. Hmm, sounds like a normal day in any American city to me. The only person at fault was the girl who killed herself and, if you insist on pointing fingers, her parents. Though I would have to say that thier actions were typical of the american family as well.

    In the end, the neihbors have more cause for lawsuit than the "victims" family. They were absolved of culpibility and yet they are still recieving threats via the internet and "outraged" citizens. Nice to know that america can stand up for something, to bad it isn't for what is morally right.

    On a seperate, yet related topic, it's about time that "virtual posses" like the one that threatened the neihbors and, most especialy, the "To Catch a Predator" people were prosecuted. What they do is illegal and yet people praise them. Look into the statistics, the numbers, the facts, and you find that they help virtually no one and ruin the lives of a great many. If you want an internet crusade then take them to task. All the things said, incorrectly, about the neihbors CAN be laid at the feet of these people and yet the public hail them as heroes. That's irony for you.

  • On the post: The Competition Is On: How Many Companies Can You Sue In A Single Patent Infringement Lawsuit?

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2007 @ 06:22am

    Hunh?

    The retailers and wholesalers? Retailers and wholesalers, for the most part, have no clue who holds patents on what. If the judges allow this to happen, the retailers and wholesalers being sued, it will be extremely bad precedent for business everywhere. Take for example the store I run. We are a small business, but we offer something in the neihborhood of 50 thousand different items. If I have to track each of those items for patent infringement as well as the new items I pick up, nothing will make it to the shelves before the public has moved on to something else. Not only will it potentially take years just to find the patent holders for that amount of product but patents are often in dispute. Even if they aren't in dispute at the moment, I may check, find it legal, and two weeks later get hit because the patent is now in dispute. In either case, I am not an expert on infringement. How am I to know which way the wind will blow in any particular case? This isn't just rediculus, it's very potentialy a business killer. These people are out of control and need to be stopped before they destroy the economy. Don't think they will? What happens when the dust settles and all the small businesses are gone and only one or two multinationals are left?

  • On the post: New Report Claims Violent Video Games A Huge Public Safety Threat… But Fails To Actually Provide Evidence

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2007 @ 08:50am

    Re: William Tecumseh Sherman

    Funny you should say that. I grew up much the same way your children did, with the exception that every member of my family owns at least one gun. If you are tought right from wrong, then you know that it applies to guns as well.

    Every holiday my family gets together, has a meal, catches up, shoots skeet and trap, and then the kids go to bed while the adults play cards and have a few drinks. There is not a single alcoholic in my family. With the exception of one or two, we all know some form of hand to hand combat. And every single one of us knows the proper ways to handle firearms. Most of us can do everything but make our own firearms. That said, not one of us has been jailed because of violence and there have been no accidental shootings. Guns are dangerous if proper care isn't taken while handling them, but so are cars. In fact, most everything is dangerous if proper care isn't taken. It's not the games that are dangerous, it's the parents neglecting the children that is dangerous.

  • On the post: The Fourth Amendment Two-Step

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2007 @ 08:31am

    Re: 10

    You are correct, it doesn't mention your privacy at the mall. What it does say is that you and all of your posessions are protected under the law. No qualifier. If it were meant to only be protection while you are in your home, it would say that. There was distinction between the two at the time of creation, so it was an issue then as well as now. They didn't quilfy it, therefore the protection offered is absolute regardless of where you find yourself in the country. The statement of probable cause is vague enough. If law enforcers cannot find "probable cause" then perhaps they are looking in the wrong places and at the wrong people. Or to put it more simply, yet acerbicly, if they can't find probable cause then they are either lazy or wrong.

  • On the post: New Report Claims Violent Video Games A Huge Public Safety Threat… But Fails To Actually Provide Evidence

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2007 @ 06:45am

    Violence

    Violence is part of human nature. We all have the fight or flight reflex that can kick in at any given time under the right stressors. One of the ways that psychologists tell you to deal with this is to go outside and beat a tree with a bat when your violent urges get to strong. How is this different from blowing up a thousand pixelated images? Both are safe conduits for the violence that end with no person being hurt. Both release the urge in order for you to continue on your way safely. If anything, psychologists should be pushing violent games on us. "Here, take this, kill twenty nazi's and call me in the morning." I know I often feel better after beating hell out of the baddies for an hour.

    It's also a safe outlet for realizing fantasies. The game doesn't judge you. It doesn't castigate you on the basis of what your fantasy is. People need this as well. It's nice to have a time where you can do something without your "peers" making judgements on every action you do or do not take.

    You don't hear any of this in the reports the psychologists make and there are many more "good" aspects to games. This said, how can anybody seriously think that games are a threat to our society?

  • On the post: The Fourth Amendment Two-Step

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2007 @ 10:54pm

    Re: RevMike

    Well written, and well reasoned. However, I believe it fails on certain key points.

    The amendment does not mention merely privacy at home, nor do I believe that was the expectation. It specifically mentions person, house, papers, and effects. I believe that was done on purpose. Take, for example, your office at work. You take steps there to secure any personal property. In many cases the entire building and all it's contents are personal property. That was definately meant to be included, but does not fit your model. No, it states them seperately because it does not matter where your person, house, papers, and or effects are, they are still protected by the Amendment. This is because simply becoming a citizen and agreeing to abide by the constitution is taking steps to secure your person, house, papers, and effects.

    The amendment also specifically states papers, not mail. Mail would fall under this, of course, as it was seperated even back then. However, it was not meant to only include mail and makes no mention of the adress being other than part of the protected papers. The entirety of the constitution is very precisely worded, I cannot believe they would forget to say that who your papers are from or to is exempt from this protection. Similarily, as they are just extensions of your mail, should not your phone number and IMs be protected by this?

    And finally, intended or not (our ancestors were anything but all seeing) taking information in such a way does violate the intent of the amendment. Now, I realize that it could be argued that I don't know the true intent because I was not there for the amendment's creation. Still, having read, and disected the amendment it has become clear that where you are within the country doesn't matter in regards to the protection granted by this amendment. Just because I can see you pay with a credit card does not give me the right to monitor your card number. It is an action taken in a public place in full view of others and yet still personal.

  • On the post: Harry Potter And The Doctrine Of Fair Use

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2007 @ 09:54pm

    This one is a bit slippery. On the one hand, many authors find it flattering and do in fact encourage fan fiction as fair use. For examples see the Baen Free Library. On the other hand, I can also see the point of the authors who do not want fan fiction produced and discourage it as an aspect of fair use.

    In so much as fan fiction does not claim to be original work nor written in conjuction with the author I can see how it would fall under fair use. After all, if the authors didn't want people to read thier works and incorporate them into thier own fantasies then they wouldn't write fiction. In that sense, fan fiction is indeed fair use. After all, fan fiction is in reality only somebody saying, "Wow, that was awesome! Hey!! What if this happened? That would have been cool, too!" I can't see that as being an infringement, can you?

    That said, I can also see the other author's point. If they had wanted the characters, world, whatever to evolve like that then they would have written it that way. In that sense they could say that it is infringing on thier rights to have thier created work remain a certain way.

    This one, I think, falls down to interpretation of the work and laws, both. In the end I would rule that fan fiction is fair use were it my decision. First, any work can be interpreted multiple ways. This means that author's realy have no control over what thier work means and never have. And second, people should have the right to imagine thier own twists and permutations to great stories. If the fan's attempt to make a monetary amount of the fan fiction, then it should be illegal if the author says they do not want it done, but simply telling people about thier fantasy and then showing them by means of a written piece? No, I don't think that should ever be illegal.

  • On the post: If Online Harassment Is Harassment… Why Does It Need A Special Law?

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2007 @ 09:32pm

    Re: Civil Action

    First I would like to state that I detest most civil action suits. Having said that, yes, they can bring about a civil action against the neihbors. But doing so would be no more moraly upright than the neihbors actions. I understand the grief the family of the girl is going through, and I sympathise. That shouldn't give them the right however, to compound the grief of the neihbors nor blame them for thier daughters actions. Ok, say they do bring civil action against the neihbors. Now say that the neihbor kid, out of "shame and mortification" due to the public censor and humiliation commits suicide. Are the family members of the girl now liable for the neihbors tragedy? After all, by this thinking, thier actions brought about the suicide. No. No matter how you look at this the neihbors are not at fault and should not be found so. Bringing an action against them would be legalised revenge, not justice. This is simply, and sadly, a case of a child unable to cope with life. Think about it. Do you want your child dating and or intamately involved with a suicidal individual? No, because you don't want them to go through the pain and emotional distress this individual will bring them. In that sense, a relationship with the girl would be "bad". I am not defending the actions taken by the neihbors, but the people of the area are taking a tragedy and performing the American Two-Step with it.

  • On the post: The Fourth Amendment Two-Step

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2007 @ 08:04pm

    Re: Privacy

    Does it say privacy? No. What it does say, and I quote

    "The right of the people to be secure in thier persons, houses, papers, and effects...."

    What does that mean? We have to look at the definition of secure, especially as used during the time frame of when the amendment was written. Well, the technical definition, as used by the time, states secure as being protected from loss(1). That would mean that we have the right to conceal or hide our posessions, making them private, or unavailable to the commons. A more update definition has it as, "A condition that results from the establishment and maintenance of protective measures that ensure a state of inviolability from hostile acts or influences."(2)

    "..., against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...."

    That is worded complex, as most things were at the time, but simply broken down means no warrent no stuff.

    "..., and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    That means that the warrent has to specifically state who, what, and where. If they want papers they have to state that they want papers and where these papers are. Now, since paper work is done electronicaly nowdays that should mean that electronic data falls under this protection. It is, afterall, personal property no matter where it is kept.

    The Fourth Amendment is a privacy law. It was always meant as a privacy law. The US has no privacy law, ergo the US government is acting in defiance of the Constitution. I can't see any other conclusion after breaking down the amendment, can you?

    *1 as defined by websters dictionary
    *2 as defined by wickpedia

  • On the post: If Online Harassment Is Harassment… Why Does It Need A Special Law?

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2007 @ 07:33pm

    Re: My Opinion

    The mother is not responsible for a neihbor girl comitting suicide, no matter what the mother said. You cannot "make" a person comitt suicide. Someone CHOOSES to, or they don't. That you consider this akin to murder is indicative of our societies "blame everyone" psychosis. Yes, psychosis. Everyone gets insulted and humiiated. It is a part of life, often enough a powerful motivator to conforming to societal mores. That this girl was not strong enough to cope with it or did not have a strong enough support base is not the neihbor ladies fault. Was it a nasty thing they did to her? Yes. But not criminal, despite what the laws may say. They lead her on, which was a despicable act, but if it is ilegal then most every american should be imprisoned. I know I've been lead on a few times, I'm sure everybody else has as well. We just mark those people in the asshole column and move on. The reality of it is that most likely they normally aren't bad people, just people doing something petty. People are only outraged now because she killed herself. Tragic, but not the neihbors fault. Anybody who would kill themselves and cite this as the catalyst clearly has psychological problems. To be honest, anybody who would comitt suicide has massive psychological problems. These problems are generaly in the persons inability to cope with NORMAL daily life, not in the actions of those around them. Life is not all roses and candy canes and it isn't meant to be. Without problems to overcome we can not discover self worth nor develop a sense of pride and accomplishment. I do not advocate what they did, but neither can I call it criminal. It was simply an act in bad taste, and we are all guilty of that.

  • On the post: The Romantics Suing Over Cover Version Used In Guitar Hero: Apparently, It's Too Good A Cover

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2007 @ 07:38am

    People have gotten away with this?

    Once they license the song they have the right to recreate it however they choose. They can make an exact duplicate using different band memebers or turn a polka into a rap. That's why they had to pay the licensing fee rather than just the royalties of using a copy.

    It sounds to me like the band is trying to use the legal system to renegotiate thier fees. In some cases, I would have to say that was quite right, ie. a college student gets snookered out of rights for couple hundred bucks, but these are well seasoned vets of the music wars. This being the case the Judge should almost immediatley hit them with contempt of court and fines, including any lost revenue due to the court case delaying production and distribution of the game. Usually I do not condone stiff penalties in court cases, especially considering what society seems to think is leniency these days, but it's time that the courts smacked the stupid out of our more sue happy brethren.

    It's rediculous what I have been seeing hitting our courts. "He kicked my cat!", well stupid, you shouldn't have let it wander onto the guys property and scratch his kid. "This coffee is so hot it burned me!", well moron, you did order hot coffee. The courts are not a substitute for common sense, or they shouldn't be at least.

  • On the post: Moller Flying Car May Be Grounded Permanently

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2007 @ 11:46pm

    Re:37

    During the last years of World War 2 and into the Korean war the American government experimented with VTOL. The experiments eventualy lead them to the helicopter, but one prototype in particular was notable for it's shape and propulsion. It was shaped like a flying saucer and powered by fans. It never amounted to much because at the time they couldn't solve a particualar problem they had with the gyroscopes. However, they did achieve tethered VTOL with the one man prototype.

    A few years ago scientists developed a computer system capable of driving vehicles along a predetermined path. A few months later they achieved much the same thing, only the program could choose it's own path.

    Add the two together, now that we can reliably achieve VTOL and the subsequent flight with fans, and you have a flying car. It isn't impossible. From what I have read the biggest problems have been keeping the price down on the vehicle and working out a few quirks in the pilot program. Well, that and fuel efficiency. Takes a lot of juice to power something like that, but it can be done.

  • On the post: Moller Flying Car May Be Grounded Permanently

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2007 @ 12:23pm

    The technology is there

    The technology to make a self piloted flying car is there. However, due to it's cost and falibility, it'll be a few years yet before the private sector will see them. I for one, would love one, though I can see the arguement about the idiots who can't drive now and will insist on driving them. That said, I can't see it being anymore dangerous than the idiots make the roads now. About once a month I see a car parked in somebodies house and most every week I see somebody exploring the roadside in new and unusual methods. I think it's a shame that Moller is considering quiting, there is so much good that an affordable flying car could do.

  • On the post: The Infringement Age: How Much Do You Infringe On A Daily Basis?

    barrenwaste ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2007 @ 10:13am

    Irony

    You do all realize that a big part of this country was founded by criminals? Many of our ancestors were sent here to free up space in debters prison. After the revolt they swore that such an institution should never poison our shores....

    I have been saying this for years, when the majority of the population comitts multiple crimes simply going through thier daily life, then there is something wrong with the laws, not the people.

    Look at the sexual misconduct laws, the copyright laws, and the alcohol laws. It is possible to rack up a life sentence and untold millions simply going to a nightclub, trying to pick up a chick, failing, retreating with wounded dignity to your pad, and finding solace in a good first person shooter. That is flipping outrageous.

Next >>