Ben 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (336) comment rss

  • On the post: John Oliver's Story On Campaign Music And Copyright Is… Wrong

    Ben ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2016 @ 12:05pm

    I thought so...

    While watching the show with my family I pointed out that I thought that it was wrong: you just purchase a license and "your fine" -- for values of "fine". If you are going to use a specific song/anthem for your campaign, however, it would be stupid to not approach the musician/author to head off/avoid the Drop Kick Murphy response.

    The musicians can't stop you from using their song, but they can certainly give you bad publicity.

  • On the post: Minneapolis PD Issues Questionable DMCA Notice To Bury Its Controversial Recruitment Video

    Ben ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2016 @ 12:50pm

    Copyright?

    Once again the real question is can the MPD actually hold copyright on anything? It is a government agency; is there some distinction in Minnesota that allows them to hold copyright? By statute the US Government can't, I recall California municipalities can't (not sure what the limits are on that, but certainly not on committee meetings published on YouTube); is there an overall guideline on state-related agencies and their ability to produce3 copyrighted materials?

  • On the post: People Support Ethical Automated Cars That Prioritize The Lives Of Others — Unless They're Riding In One

    Ben ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2016 @ 09:28pm

    Re: Re: And then...

    My view is that the car gets programmed to decide to hit the (soft) humans rather than a wall, thus minimizing the damage to itself...

  • On the post: Ford Dealership Swipes Game Image For Ad, Thinks It's Kosher Because It Came From A DMCA Compliant Site

    Ben ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2016 @ 05:53pm

    Re: No harm, no foul?

    Dealership? I wouldn't expect them to know anything. Their advertising department (and they tend to spend money on advertising!)? Yes, I'd not only expect them to know but I would expect them to also know about licensing images and copyright. It is their job for which they are getting paid (or, I hope, it was their job; maybe they can switch to sales staff...).

  • On the post: New T-Shirt: Home Cooking Is Killing Restaurants

    Ben ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2016 @ 12:24pm

    Teespring

    I still haven't received my Nerd Harder shirt from them. I did receive a very nice email saying

    "We're excited to tell you your order has been shipped, and is now on its way to you! Look out for a bright blue bag in the mailbox between Tue, Jun 7 — Tue, Jun 14!"
    -- which was sent on June 17th(!)

    I think I will hold off on any orders from them until I've at least received the last one.

  • On the post: Senate Just Barely Rejects Plan To Expand FBI Surveillance Powers

    Ben ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2016 @ 03:15pm

    Re:

    In Robert's Rules of Order it is called a "vote to reconsider". If he saw that it was not going to pass, he would vote with the winning side, such that within three days (*= standard rules, not sure what the rules of the senate are) he can ask for a "reconsideration" since as a prevailing voter he has reconsidered and would like to re-vote; the vote to reconsider only requires a majority (i.e. not 60) so it will pass, followed by a revote of the original motion (in this case a cloture vote to end discussion); presumably at that point he, and the person he strong-armed will vote yes, the discussion will be closed and the motion can be voted on (and presumably will pass since it had 60 votes to get to that point).

    It can make your brain hurt.

  • On the post: DOJ Insists That Rule 41 Change Is Not Important, Nothing To See Here, Move On Annoying Privacy Activist People

    Ben ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2016 @ 02:05pm

    Open up all the courts for venue shopping

    I can just see the FBI shopping for a tame judge located somewhere/anywhere in the US who would be willing to sign any warrant put in front of him/her. Bad judges of that ilk were limited in who they could effect, but not anymore; now they will have a reach covering the entire US (and possibly further!)

  • On the post: No Man's Sky Settles With Sky TV So It Can Have 'Sky' In Its Name

    Ben ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2016 @ 07:40am

    Skyfall?

    Did they decide not to sue because James Bond would go after them?

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Public Speaking Made Easy…

    Ben ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2016 @ 04:14am

    The third bullet link is a "private" youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN8L8XnDmj0). :-(

  • On the post: Court Tells Cops They Can't Seize Luggage And Send It Hundreds Of Miles Away In Hopes Of Generating Probable Cause

    Ben ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2016 @ 07:26am

    Re: Re:

    Actually, I suggest it started as 10 ounces: is Moore going to complain that it wasn't 7 ounces?

  • On the post: Web Sheriff Accuses Us Of Breaking Basically Every Possible Law For Pointing Out That It's Abusing DMCA Takedowns

    Ben ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2016 @ 10:14am

    Quite accurate!

    It says right at the start:

    NOTIFICATION
    Pursuant To (as applicable)
    And since none of it is "applicable" the notice is perfectly accurate.

  • On the post: Fantastic: Now British Firms Are Getting In On The Bogus Website/Bogus DMCA Notice Scam

    Ben ( profile ), 24 May, 2016 @ 07:42am

    But what did they accomplish?

    So they created a website that held exactly the same content; did they then remove that site after the DMCA notice took down the "original"? Otherwise all those complaints about BuildTeam are still there in the web and should be found by Google's crawler.

    They've effectively doubled the instances of the complaints on the web.

  • On the post: Heart Surgery Stalled For Five Minutes Thanks To Errant Anti-Virus Scan

    Ben ( profile ), 13 May, 2016 @ 01:43pm

    Re: Just have to add this

    You are evil. I have finally clawed my way out of the black hole of XKCD just to tell you that you are EVIL.

    Thank you.

  • On the post: Reddit's Technology Subreddit Ponders Banning Wired & Forbes For Blocking Adblock Users

    Ben ( profile ), 09 May, 2016 @ 02:10pm

    I actually subscribe

    I actually subscribe to the *paper* (gasp!) edition of Wired. It provides something for my teenage boys to read on long drives that is, to a certain extent, enjoyable (and sometimes quite funny).

    I had (note tense) wired in my RSS reader, but once they implemented the "block users who block ads" rule I simply dropped them. Now I learn about things a bit later (a month or two), but I eventually get it, although I might not renew the paper subscription since my boys are aging out of it, and since I don't see it every day I don't think of it as much.

    At least ArsTechnica hasn't switched; *that* would annoy me to have to turn off.

    Wired has every right to implement their business model the way they want to. More power to them, even. That doesn't mean I have to do business with them.

  • On the post: Unsealed Yahoo/FISA Documents Show NSA Expected Company, FISC Judge To Operate On Zero Information

    Ben ( profile ), 05 May, 2016 @ 01:34pm

    Not so bad?

    Yahoo fought with pretty much every appendage tied behind its back. An unsuccessful challenge was a foregone conclusion. But, if nothing else, its long tangle with the NSA dragged some of its so-called secrets out of the shadows.
    I think I need to reconsider my opinion of Yahoo.

  • On the post: Ted Cruz Pushing Bill Protecting Large ISPs From Competition

    Ben ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2016 @ 03:27pm

    Re:

    1. The 10th Amendment:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    pretty much defines "States Rights." But the commerce clause of the Constitution permits the US Government to control/manage interstate commerce. I can't think of anything more interstate (in both political meanings of the word "state") than broadband access, so "states rights" does not apply. The states should not be intruding on the domain of the FCC.

    2. Yea, right. The broadband companies can donate relatively huge amounts to state legislators, helping their campaign war chests, and hand them the words to use in their bills. The legislators get resources they need to be re-elected, and the broadband companies get the right to do things like defining "broadband" as whatever they can get away with. Until funding of elections is reformed, anyone who wants to "petition their representatives to change it" can pretty much expect nothing.

    And suing due to material damage? That depends on whether the broadband company has forced you to agree to arbitration...

    Just because the FCC, until Tom Wheeler (I hope), has ignored it's duty for decades and let the states tilt the playing field, doesn't mean the FCC can't now step up and insist that there are lines which should not be crossed.

    I hope it gets better, but the states should have very little say in this; it is an FCC matter.

  • On the post: FBI Says It Will Ignore Court Order If Told To Reveal Its Tor Browser Exploit, Because It Feels It's Above The Law…

    Ben ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 09:24am

    Re:

    I think they are more chartreuse (greenish-yellow) than pinkish/red (rouge), but I've been known to be a bit a rogue in my color choices of late.

  • On the post: Not Funny: How The OFAC Is Outlawing Even The Lamest Attempts At Humor Over Terrorist Fears

    Ben ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2016 @ 02:48pm

    It is not Fear!

    It is not

    we've let fear grip our government institutions
    -- it is terror. The government is going overboard not because of simple fear -- it is the terror they feel that they will have been on duty when the next terrorist strike happens.

    Therefore, "the terrorists" have won.

  • On the post: BlackBerry Offers Glomar, 'Bad Guys Got Caught,' In Non-Comment On Canadian Law Enforcement's Full Access To Encrypted Messages

    Ben ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2016 @ 03:23pm

    Really?

    Or, as appears to be the case in Canada, the key can be handed out to law enforcement agencies, allowing them to decrypt at will…
    Really? So, this is like the FBI using the one gut wrenching "because Terrorism!" case to show a need to crack an iPhone and be handed a tool to crack all iPhones (and then they would have it in their tool chest without needing to get one of those pesky warrant thingies for the "next" one).

    ...and since one government agency is just a part of the government, it means that effectively all government agencies would have it (like the NSA wouldn't be able to get it from the FBI if it wanted it?)

    So, in Canada, it probably means *all* law enforcement agencies would have the non-BES key available, with no need to go to the courts (or Blackberry) to get permission. I thought Blackberry was stupid, but I didn't think they were *that* stupid. At least with keeping it to themselves, they would have a revenue stream from the requests for decryption.

  • On the post: BlackBerry Offers Glomar, 'Bad Guys Got Caught,' In Non-Comment On Canadian Law Enforcement's Full Access To Encrypted Messages

    Ben ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2016 @ 03:13pm

    Server Server?

    "BES Server" <==> "Blackberry Enterprise Server Server"

    Brought to you by the redundant Department of Redundancy.

Next >>