Ben’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster

Ben ( profile ), 18 May, 2012 @ 12:28pm

Re: A loss

People/companies invested in Facebook to provide the capital they needed to really get started. They invested for a percentage of the company with the expectation that the company would someday go public and allow them a chance to recoup their investment (and then some).

This IPO allows the investors to sell some of their shares and make some/a lot of money. Usually an IPO is a means for the company to raise capital to expand their operations, but I don't think that really applies to Facebook; they don't really need the money except to buy out innovative start ups.

On the post: When Games Allow Mods, Beautiful Things Can Happen

Ben ( profile ), 16 May, 2012 @ 04:00pm

Re: Re: and ... better?

offer it on good old games

Which has been bought out by GameFly with annoying spam mail that I can't seem to get out of.

I liked gog.com; the prices were nice, and the lack of DRM made the games worth a try. I have no interest in GameFly

On the post: Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government

Ben ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2012 @ 11:31am

Re:

Molinari was a House representative from 1990 to 1997.

So after 15 years she shouldn't be allowed to lobby? What time limit do you propose? The examples from the graphic are much quicker turnaround. I suspect Dodd was still receiving his paycheck from the Senate when he accepted his position with the MPAA.

On the post: Does A 'Don't Mess With The Internet' Billboard Violate Texas' Trademark?

Ben ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2012 @ 05:48pm

Crowdfund the defense?

I wonder if Texas does sue if these guys will need to crowdfund the defense fund?

On the post: Authors Can Sleep Easy Now; Paypal Reverses Its Censorship Decision

Ben ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2012 @ 06:39am

Is this really any different?

First and foremost, we are going to focus this policy only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text. The policy will prohibit use of PayPal for the sale of e-books that contain child pornography, or e-books with text and obscene images of rape, bestiality or incest (as defined by the U.S. legal standard for obscenity: material that appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value).

So I can use PayPal to buy a hard cover book that has "potentially illegal images" but buying it in e-book format would be blocked? Potentially? That sounds like prior restraint. If a book was ruled as illegal by a court, then it might be understandable (but certainly questionable), but now PayPal gets to be judge, jury, and gatekeeper?
What difference is this, really, from their "prior" decision? Now it only applies to graphics (and hence the "classics" are no longer in jeopardy; only modern smut authors need to worry)! But PayPal still gets to have a say in what a business owner can sell, down to individual transactions.

And how can they tell? If I sold e-books with "potentially illegal images" I might use abbreviations in the description I use for the transaction, or some other obfuscation that PayPal could not automagically use to determine "oh -- it is that book."

And again, if my company sold "XXX PICS" (assumed to be a book with "potentially illegal images") how would they know it was the e-book version or the "real" book being sold? Does this keep me from including an e-book version with the sale of every hardcover version?

I hope people don't count this as a victory, and keep the pressure on.

On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes

Ben ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 01:05pm

Oh the bells are ringing...

this should be ringing alarm bells from here to DC and back

It is amazing how much those bells sound like a ringing cash registers (ka-ching!). A few of our "representatives" might take notice, but only a few. The rest seem to only listen to the RIAA and MPAA.

On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim… On Birds Singing In The Background

Ben ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2012 @ 09:45am

Obviously a cover band

I think it is obvious that the birds eeplox recorded were doing a cover of the tweets from an earlier group of birds. Covers are covered by Rumblefish, right?

On the post: More Details Emerge On Questionable UK Seizure Of Music Blog

Ben ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 02:27pm

When math gets wierd

Perhaps in some fantasy land where the IFPI/RIAA is in charge of "new math," but not anywhere in reality.

It is called Bistro Mathematics and was invented by a Brit; just add a really hot cup of tea and anything becomes possible.

On the post: Retroactive Immunity From The Gov't For Warrantless Wiretapping Deemed Constitutional

Ben ( profile ), 30 Dec, 2011 @ 08:06am

This is common

I would have been greatly surprised if this was found to be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to make something unlawful after the fact (an "ex post facto" law), but making something lawful after the fact happens is quite common. It seems that pretty much every year congress changes the tax code retroactive to the beginning of the year (granted that is a different scale than a criminal prosecution, but I'm certain it happens there too).

If all else fails, one could think of it as the Legislative Branch's version of the Pardon.

But just because it is common doesn't make it right. Someone should go up against a wall for what they did to our rights.

On the post: Who Will Be The First Politician To Be GoDaddy'd?

Ben ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2011 @ 02:26pm

Re: Re:

Free speech is the first right guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment is arguably the most important law ever signed into existence by the American government.

Not so minor point: The First Amendment is not a law. It is an integral part of the Constitution, arguably as important as us having three branches of government and not being able to purchase liquor .... er, I mean allowing women to vote.

I have always been a little annoyed at the founding fathers that they had to separate out the "Bill of Rights" rather than having them as part of the core document. On the whole, though, I think they got it right.

On the post: Oh Look, I've Done 40,000 Techdirt Blog Posts

Ben ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2011 @ 01:45pm

Re: CHEATER!!!!!

No substance??? He references the Guinness Book of World Records! You can't get more substantive than that!

On the post: Microsoft's $844 Million Software Giveaway To Nonprofits: Pure Charity Or Cheap Marketing?

Ben ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 09:36am

TechSoup

I think a lot of their donations go through TechSoup.org; I know the Historical Society I work with has gotten MS products through there (quite cheaply). Of course I/we would *never* have purchased those products at full price, which is probably what they count as their "donation". But it does provide some service to the Non-Profits, even if they get to claim more than it really is/was.

On the post: European Court Says Leagues Don't Hold Copyright On Sporting Events

Ben ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 09:14am

If the event can't be copyrighted...

How can the court say the

pre-recorded films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches

is copyrighted? (presumably the highlights are just of the games themselves).
Seems like they can take something that isn't copyrighted (by anyone if not by them) and make it copyrighted. It sounds like the court didn't think that through.

On the post: Full List Of Sites The US Air Force Blocked To Hide From Wikileaks Info; Includes NY Times & The Guardian

Ben ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2011 @ 08:18am

I happen to agree with leaks to clear out the drivel

One issue is that if "secret" information, once leaked, is no longer considered "secret", then there is an open door to people with clearance to leak those items they want the rest of the world to know.

The government's only recourse then is to hunt down the person who leaked the information to prosecute them, and *that* should act as a deterrent. My only caveat is that if the leaked "secrets" are drivel (i.e. they shouldn't have been secret in the first place) then the prosecution should be required to be dropped.

To the point that if a leaked "secret" should no longer be considered "secret": then the act of announcing it is no longer "secret" confirms that the leak was correct -- and wouldn't that be a security violation in itself?

On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?

Ben ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2011 @ 10:14am

parenting

I'm not a father ... I just don't understand the trials and tribulations of raising children in the internet era

Actually, I don't think being a parent is required to understand the troubles of raising a child in the internet era. Certainly being a parent doesn't make me understand the trials in tribulations of raising children (in general) -- the only examples I have are my own, and I've imagined far worse than I've experienced (so far!). Just because someone is a parent does not mean they understand anything: it just means they have responsibility.

On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.

Ben ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:11am

Is Ubisoft the puiblisher?

It's a purely a publisher decision. The publisher has every right to protect their investment

Seems to be Martin saying "it's not our fault! They make us use the bad DRM -- even if we agree that it is needed."

Who's Ubisoft's publisher? Why aren't they engaged in this debate?

On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws

Ben ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 08:59am

Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.

You do realize that Mike was posting a _direct quote_ from Paul Alan Levy's article? If you follow the link and search for "dangle" you find:

He was also repeatedly questioned in the United States, with prosecutors using the threat of prosecution, and dangling and threatened with prosecution.

... which means Mike got it right, and that Mr Levy needs to edit his article.

On the post: Let's Up The Ante: We'll Pay John Sununu & Harold Ford Jr. $1,000 To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill

Ben ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 12:14pm

Re:

OK, Netflix pays their ISP.

Their ISP pays their "ISP" for all the bandwidth all their customers use (including Netflix, but presumably there are others). Why would Netflix have to pay their provider's bill (the "highway up to the end users driveway")? I think you don't get it.

On the "other" side, I pay my ISP (Verizon at the moment; it used to be Comcast; I'm still trying to decide which is the lesser of the two evils). Verizon/Comcast/Evil#3 pays for it's connection to the Web. By your logic I should need to pay for my ISP's "highway" to Netflix's "driveway". It just doesn't make sense.

Hmmm. Now I need to start working up plans for an ISP called EvilNo3...

On the post: DA Realizes That Gizmodo Didn't Break The Law In Writing About Found iPhone 4 Prototype

Ben ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2011 @ 08:57pm

Jason Chen's computer equipment

Will he even get his equipment back? I've heard too many stories of people being released, but not the "evidence" seized during the arrest.

And even if they give the equipment back, if the government had my computers for a year, I'd want to re-image the machines just in case they left some "presents".

On the post: Celine Dion Shuts Down Blog Of Ridiculous Pictures

Ben ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 09:31am

Re: So sad. So important. So in keeping with your charter:

...legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow

Does seem appropriate:
1. legal nastygram from lawyers (i.e. "legal issue")
2. innovative blog (arguably a "company")
3. shut down (i.e. ability to grow if not innovate).
That seems directly in keeping with the charter you quote. Oddly, of course the whole process of shutting down the blog by Ms Dion's lawyers brings the existence of those photos to the attention of many people (myself included) who would otherwise never have been aware of them.

Welcome the Dion effect: the new incarnation of the Streisand effect.

Ben 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (336)