bhull242’s Techdirt Profile

bhull242

About bhull242




bhull242’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 23rd, 2019 @ 1:46pm

    I concur, but…

    While I agree with the end result, I’m not sure I agree with the reasoning the appeals court used here.

    Let me use an example to show what I mean:

    Let’s say that somebody made a video game using some engine they created or that they licensed from someone else but isn’t the Unity engine. They use Unity-like trademarks in the packaging and ads for the game, and not as in a parody. This would be a pretty clear case of trademark infringement as it makes the false claim that Unity was used in the game, which is not the source. However, technically Unity isn’t sold to gamers but to game designers, so by the logic used by the appeals court here, that wouldn’t be the correct avenue for determining infringement even though knowing that a game is made with Unity is useful information for gamers, too.

    Again, this isn’t exactly like the case with Springboards, which is clearly not trademark infringement for other reasons. I’m just a little concerned that the appeals court may have used incorrect reasoning.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 6:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

    A fair question.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 6:34am

    Re:

    Because of their dominance in their respective markets and enormous revenue streams, Google and Facebook will in many ways benefit from these laws because no one else can afford the licenses, snippet taxes, and upload filters required, effectively locking out the competition.

    Also, with Google News (with regards to the snippet tax), Google earns no revenue from it, so it would likely just remove the feature altogether. This isn’t going to destroy Google and Facebook.

    As for the stuff about compiling dossiers on individuals or attempting to restart a civil war, setting aside the fact that the latter isn’t Facebook’s fault and certainly not one of its goals (what would be the motive?), it’s completely irrelevant here. We’re talking about copyright, not privacy, terrorism, hate speech, or incitement. As important as those issues are, they have absolutely nothing to do with copyright in general or the EU Copyright Directive specifically. They’re each a whole other can of worms in their own right.

    And none of the Silicon Valley giants are trying to spread hate (or have ever made, as you put it, an “attempt at world hate”; that’s just an unfortunate side effect of the internet as a whole. I’m not denying that, to an extent, Silicon Valley giants try to exert control and dominance within their respective markets, but “world hate” has never been a goal of any of theirs.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 6:12am

    Re: Who cares, it's the EU.

    The problem is that the effects may not be restricted to the EU. It would affect anyone whose site(s) can be viewed in the EU, especially if they allow user-generated content or quote news articles. This is bigger than the EU; this is about the fundamental nature of the internet.

    Also, there is no guarantee this will stay in the EU. Based on past history, copyright maximalists are likely to try this again in the US should it pass in the EU, and part of the justification will be to make the laws more similar in both markets to avoid disparate regulations of a global market. It worked in the past.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 5:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They sold well, just not well enough for the small portion of the revenue that should go to the band to cover the advance. Many albums sell well enough to more than cover the advance when you consider the amount of revenue the record labels earn from them but still not enough to recoup the advance when using the revenue earmarked for the band. In other words, the band loses money but the record label makes money.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 5:42am

    Re:

    I’m sorry, but you are aware that people use botnets, right? This isn’t a partisan issue. No politician that I’m aware of thinks that botnets don’t exist or aren’t a problem. There is some partisan disagreement about whether people are using them for political reasons, and if so who, when, where, and to what extent, but they absolutely exist and absolutely create problems. That’s not a conspiracy theory; that’s a fact.

    Now you may be thinking, ‘But they’re talking about the Russians!’ Again, that’s just one example of harmful botnets (there are many others, such as DDoS attacks and crypto farming), but besides that, our intelligence agencies and other experts universally agree that Russian agents used botnets to attempt to sway our elections. How effective they were is a separate question. The point is that they tried, and botnets were very useful in doing so.

    Again, botnets aren’t a partisan issue. Indeed, I’ve also seen conservatives accuse their opponents of deploying botnets like you say AOC did. (Not having seen that particular statement, I can’t say whether she did or not, so I’ll take no stance on that. Regardless, I’ve seen other people on the left do so themselves, so it’s rather irrelevant whether AOC, specifically, did so herself.) That sort of thing is not exclusive to any side in politics, and it’s ultimately irrelevant to this article, which doesn’t even mention American politicians, lobbyists, or activists using botnets for political reasons like you say AOC is accusing her opponents of. There’s no conspiracy, nor is there any real partisanship in this article.

  • Mar 16th, 2019 @ 2:15pm

    Re: NOT MAGIC 'cause on teh internets? Businesses STILL liable?

    I’d just like to point out that this is a (relatively) leftist position to take; being opposed to it is more libertarian than liberal. If you expect liberal bias from the Ninth Circuit, this isn’t that surprising.

  • Mar 13th, 2019 @ 7:31pm

    Don’t have to like the defendant to support his rights

    Here’s the thing that upsets me when it comes to a lot of SLAPP suits over divisive issues: a lot of people will automatically take the side of someone they agree with, even if they are suing someone over statements that were clearly not defamation.

    I’d just like to say that I agree with Dr. Folta on a lot of things, and I totally sympathize with him. However, just because the coverage of him was (possibly) unfair, cherrypicked, and/or imprecise doesn’t make it defamatory. I was against this lawsuit from the start (once I read the statements at issue), and I am pleased with the end result.

  • Mar 13th, 2019 @ 10:43am

    Re: The only good Facebook is a DEAD Facebook.

    I don’t have time to point out all the problems with that, but first, I’ll say that the commas don’t do what you think they do. That “clearly” obviously is referring to the conclusion that there exist many people who disagree with Mike on this particular topic. How you see it as implying that those who disagree are “seeing clearly” is beyond me.

    You also completely misunderstand Mike’s point on the CDA §230, which specifically allows sites like Facebook and ISPs to regulate or fail to regulate content submitted by end users as they wish without fear of lawsuits (excluding copyright for some reason). Mike hasn’t distinguished them with regards to that particular law. The difference is that there are ways to get your content online or to search the web other than through Facebook or Google, while most people have one, maybe two, broadband companies that can provide internet access to them. Also, Google and Facebook are free for the user, but internet access is not.

    I’m not saying Google and Facebook are perfect or shouldn’t be regulated. Far from it. However, it’s also important not to overregulate, and to realize that broadband companies deserve attention, too.

  • Mar 13th, 2019 @ 10:26am

    Re: Do People Want A Better Facebook, Or A Dead Facebook?

    Perhaps, but that’s not the point. The question is whether your goal is for Facebook to improve, regardless of whether or not it dies in the process, or for Facebook to die, regardless of whether Facebook improves or not.

    Basically, which is the higher priority?

  • Mar 13th, 2019 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: I just want to be left alone

    I love the Opt-Opt fruit. It’s (not) delicious!

  • Mar 13th, 2019 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    Sure, but few, if any, companies that sold leaded gasoline went out of business when lead was banned; they switched to unleaded gasoline and did just fine. I think your analogy is useful, but not in the way you think it is.

  • Mar 1st, 2019 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How is that a good thing?

  • Mar 1st, 2019 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You seem to miss that people can respond to sarcasm with more sarcasm.

  • Mar 1st, 2019 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No it is not, because the digital product is still just as available through legitimate channels. It is not in any way a tax on legitimate purchases.

    It’s not a theft of labor, either, because no additional work on the part of producers is required to produce additional copies. You’re not depriving anyone of anything they were all but guaranteed to have otherwise by pirating.

    That’s the thing: the flat cost of the “master copy”, so to speak, is irrelevant to whether or not something copied or stolen costs the producer anything. Nor is it generally relevant for what the value of a product is. The important thing is how much it costs to produce/ship additional copies, as well as what value the end product has. Consumers don’t care about flat costs. They care about reproduction costs, utility, quality, and scarcity. When you steal a physical good, you are increasing the scarcity of the good without compensation. This doesn’t happen with unauthorized copies of digital goods.

    Regardless of whether it’s fair, legal, or moral or not, it’s not analogous to theft of physical items.

  • Feb 22nd, 2019 @ 5:44pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think that’s a cultural difference. Japanese tend to be more roundabout.

  • Feb 22nd, 2019 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Would agree BUT ONE PROBLEM

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that David Duke is conservative.

  • Feb 22nd, 2019 @ 5:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That’s not what was said. They said they were born that way and still are.

  • Feb 22nd, 2019 @ 5:26pm

    Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

    You’ve said this bit about pronouns several times but have yet to provide even one example. Nor have you provided examples of “leftists” not being banned for abusive behavior that conservatives have been.

  • Feb 22nd, 2019 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Gender is incomparable to age. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

More comments from bhull242 >>