Brad Eleven’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Canadian Report On IP Not Just Deceptive… But Plagiarized

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 26 May, 2009 @ 08:49am

Commonplace & Well Accepted

Well, then. I find it commonplace and well accepted among my peers to engage in fair use.

Sure, legal presentations of all kinds--e.g., opinions and reports--rely on precedent, which does indeed account for what is considered as plagiarism elsewhere. This does not address the idea that these "cited" works have been debunked.

After reviewing the report, I find that it depends heavily on statistics. While I agree that these numbers are important to the report, I place more emphasis on the accuracy of the statistics.

Perhaps lawyers really don't know any better than to simply cite others' work, as opposed to researching and compiling their own statistics--let alone verifying these statistics.

It would appear that lawyers are not the solution to the problem.

On the post: L'Oreal Loses To eBay In The UK This Time… Where Else Will It Try?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 26 May, 2009 @ 04:45am

re: Too Much Money

Quoth MadJo:

Too much money was spent on this ... tactic to back out now ...

Well put. This seems to be normal in a climate of shifting paradigms. See also the entertainment, auto, religious, and other industries. It's tragically comical to witness the idiocy of paying lawyers to try to recapture something that is long gone.

"There, there, dear--I know you love your kitty. Don't worry. If the 'lost pet' signs don't work, we'll have our legal team file briefs to get your beloved Muffy back."

On the post: Why Did We Put Ratings Agencies' Ratings Into The Law?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2009 @ 06:39am

the law and the profits

The ratings firms were mandated in the wake of the junk bonds problem in the late Eighties and early Nineties.

The subprime mortgage problem began with the bad loans and exploded after ratings firms rated the bond packages of these bad loans as AAA. It seems that these ratings firms were giving these ratings either as a favor to the bond sellers or because the firms had been spun off by the bond sellers.

The problem seems to be that the laws were poorly written, such that what the ratings firms did was not completely illegal, and/or the prosecution of the laws is difficult. And expensive.

In general, the financial sector seems to get a free pass when it comes to law enforcement. The perception is that revenue and profits trump the rule of law.

On the post: Students Dropping Out Of School To Pay RIAA Settlement Fees?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2008 @ 06:05am

Re: Welcome to the New America!

"There is only one thing that runs the world anymore: GREED."

Consider that this is the only thing that has ever run the world. Maybe it wasn't so obvious before, and maybe that's because it wasn't reported, or maybe you and I were too young, and naive, and idealistic.

I think the most effective course of action is to embrace and accept this. Rather than getting in on the game, let us undertake to know our enemies.

For example, AIG is in the news again today, thanks to an aggressive ABC affiliate in Phoenix. Let us redeploy the paparazzi and report on misbehaving corporations like they were misbehaving celebrities.

Ultimately, I think the best long-term strategy is to put them in the spotlight so we can keep laughing them off of the stage.

"You can't really be strong until you see a funny side to things." ~Ken Kesey, born 73 years ago yesterday

On the post: Prince: So Close, Yet So Far

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2008 @ 05:02am

Re: The Prince

I think you nailed it, Doug. Prince apparently has some privacy issues, and seems to have been happy with the new model right up until others recorded versions of his music.

IMHO, it's not the Internet or the free recordings model that Prince has a problem with--it's his own vanity, reinforced by decades of simpering flattery. To paraphrase Andre 3000, I know Mr. Nelson would like to think his $#!+ don't stank, but ...

On the post: Comparing The Mortgage Bubble To The Patent Bubble

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2008 @ 08:27am

Apologies to Chris Allen

I am currently waiting on my mortgage application to be approved. Without the ability to defend MY rights to this property for a specific family based dwelling which is not currently being used by anyone else, I would never have a chance to escape my current financial situation [e.g., renting] and be able to provide a better life for my family [and to deduct the loan interest, use the equity as capital, etc].

Maybe I’m just stupid but to me if you eliminate the ability to occupy the dwelling on property owned by the loaning institution, it's just one more dig by you spoiled rich know it all’s at the little guy who is willing to pay the prevailing interest rate and the real estate and "ownership" taxes on the property.

I only wish our legislators had seen through this [disguising insurance as credit default swaps in order to avoid keeping money in escrow to pay for defaults] scheme and protected us little guys [really, everyone] from the power and abuse of this overgrown greed bubble that is plaguing this country.

P.S. The problem with the "America is all about innovation and invention" meme is that it isn't restricted to inventions and schemes designed to make things better for all. It's open to--and is increasingly focused on--self-interest. Adam Smith would likely find a way to show that ultimately, this self-interest would eventually serve all. IMHO, it would take too long and use too many resources, e.g., the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and, you know, all of the institutions that are failing or have already failed.

The really interesting part will be the justifications for saving some and letting others sink. Don't we already have that--haven't we had that for more than a century now? See also A.G.Bell and Elisha Gray.

On the post: New Jersey Elections Board Says This Election Is Too Important To Allow Outside Observers

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2008 @ 08:16am

States' Rights

The problem is that elections in the US belong to the states, not the Feds. New Jersey is perfectly within its rights to run its elections in any way whatsoever. If they decide to move to tossing twigs into a pot for a ballot-casting, there's nothing that anyone except the state's residents can do about it.

Further, local elections--at the precinct level--are largely staffed by volunteers. This means that the implementation is not as likely to match the design.

I personally think that the US should adopt the Australian model, where registered voters are fined if they don't vote. Throw in a Borda vote-counting method, and I think most people would be more satisfied.

On the post: You Don't Encourage Innovation By Hobbling The Innovative Platform

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2008 @ 08:08am

Brilliant observations, apparently spot on. Trumps the old fear that the net would be shut down and brought back as highly policed after evidence that terrorists had used it to launch some heinously evil attack.

This also dashes the fear that the totalitarian solution (China) will spread. It does not address eavesdropping, however, and the Internet model doesn't really include provisions for snooping at the source.

Unfortunately, there's no apparent solution to this attempt at perverting the net to fit an outdated paradigm. Firms which are actively trying to force their old models on the net have the ear of the legislature, evidenced by the UK's Culture Secretary. How long until the US follows suit?

On the post: When Even The Simpsons Make Fun Of E-Voting Machines…

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2008 @ 09:40am

Re: Ohio ... should be Florida

Florida was the 2000 election, where the fixers were obvious.
Ohio was the 2004 election, where it was far more subtle.
If only they'd have appointed competent people instead of rewarding fundraising experts, they might have perfected it in time for the 2008 election.

On the post: People Finally Realizing That SMS Isn't Good For Emergency Alerts

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2008 @ 04:53am

Re: SMS

How did 911 start, and how did it get to be a mandated public service?

And how would it be to move SMS in this direction? Aside from the fun of watching and listening to major wireless carriers bitch and moan about having to use their private monies for the public good, that is.

On the post: Traffic Camera Companies Looking To Give Gov't More Ways To Spy On You As You Drive

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2008 @ 04:49am

Re:

See also drug testing.

"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."

On the post: Echostar Trying To Get Info On Innocent Customers Of Satellite TV Receivers

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 21 Aug, 2008 @ 05:03am

re: Such arrogance

I don't know that it's "the company" that's so arrogant, as much as it is "the lawyers." In particular, I speak of the types who look for opportunity in the law as written, e.g., "We can file these suits at low cost, then follow up with threatening letters which our research shows will net 40% cash response."

I think what's missing is a sense of shame for these actions. It's too bad that our culture doesn't feature a way for this despicable behavior to be exposed.

On the post: New York Politicians Think About Repealing Amazon Tax, But Let It Drop

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2008 @ 03:30am

This case shows that we don't need an anti-bundling bill, because a legislator can always just introduce another bill to undo a single component of a prior bundled bill.

There are many ways in which legislative bodies can stymie new legislation. Representative bodies have a Speaker who can simply refuse to recognize the bill's introduction, and any member of a Senatorial body can simply put a hold on any bill. Further, the introduction of a bill has nothing whatsoever to do with its passing, let along being signed into law by the executive.

On the post: Woman Admits File Sharing; Challenges Constitutionality Of Copyright Act

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2008 @ 11:31am

Re: Re: Paying off judges?

What??? I'm shocked--shocked--to find that improper influence is going on here! What's that? Oh, yes, my bribes, thank you.

I don't think they're bribing judges, just making, you know, political contributions. Judges in higher courts are usually elected, which feeds into the strategy of, you know, taking the case to a higher court.

Of course, if it pinballs up to the Supreme Court, the re-election gambit is gone.

On the post: Sorting Out Truth From Fiction In The Cable/Telco Customer Retention Mess

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2008 @ 03:35am

Jiminy writes about Verizon tactics, which seem slimy at best. I think they're right down there with crooked politicians, or to paraphrase Led Zeppelin's profound wording: "Their time is gonna come."

On the post: How Would You DVR-Proof TV Shows?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2008 @ 04:13am

@neil

"increased viewership is only good if viewers see ads."

Right, but for a long-running series, the more people get into the show, the more likely it is that they'll see an advertisement.

"if the entire planet was watching it whould be useless unless you can manipulate them into a directed action."

Correct, but advertising is a game of exposure, i.e., it's all about broadcasting. Consider the original meaning of the word, to scatter seed. Advertising campaigns--another word for battle--are all about infiltration over a protracted time period.

I do agree that this isn't really a Techdirt-worthy topic.

On the post: Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Gets Into… Video Gaming?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2008 @ 04:12am

Ask not for whom the game is boring...

... it is boring to thee.

A boring game is still more engaging than an boring lecture. And it might not necessarily be boring: What if the summary pieces were the formal ceremonies where the cases were being argued, and the meat of the game was the behind closed doors action? You know, the sausage-making part.

I like the reference to the game about how to gerrymander districts. Maybe Rockstar will do a themed game: Grand Theft Government.

I think that's why the authorities are so down on GTA and similar games: The games point out where the system isn't working in ways that even reprobates can understand.

On the post: The Difference Between Content And Communication In The YouTube/Viacom Billion Dollar Spat

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 27 May, 2008 @ 03:41am

Late to the Party, Indeed!

This brilliant analogy is buried at the end of the post, but sums up the idea very well. It reminds me of a post to a Perl forum more than a few years ago, entitled "This Language is SLOW." The complainer included the code, which used the older C model of reading one character at a time in a loop. The newbie got quite a bit of advice and is to this day a major CPAN contributor.

Unfortunately, media conglomerates aren't likely to post to a forum or to show anyone what they're doing. Even if they did, the odds of any of them taking advice is very low.

I think the media industry is populated by the descendants of the pioneers of film and television. They don't know what they're doing, and they seem to have a sense of entitlement that prevents them from moving forward.

On the post: EFF Asks Congress To Look Into Border Searches Of Laptops

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 01 May, 2008 @ 07:47pm

Every single law?

Hank asserts:

Remember, every single law out there infringes on our civil rights in some way, but we accept them because they keep us safer as a society.

This is a particularly troubling perspective. The basis of Common Law is that each of us has rights. Previously, only the authorities--in many cases, people with weapons--had rights. I presume you've heard of the barbaric maxim "might makes right."

The very term "common law" comes from a book written by Oliver Wendell Holmes. From the first page:

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.

Reflect on that for a moment, if you will. Consider that the mess we find ourselves in is the result of logic, e.g., predictions about "another attack on American soil." For example, the Patriot Act is based on imagined threats, however logically derived they may be. On the other hand, this article is about experience: At least two very basic human rights--the right to privacy and the right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures--are being violated. Possibly at the very moment that you're reading this.

It doesn't matter at all whether or not you mind if agents of the state search your belongings without probable cause. That makes about as much sense as claiming that you don't mind if other people see you naked. The point is that we don't want for our belongings to be pawed through by a presumably authorized agent of the state. This is not a personal preference: It's the basis for a free society, and everything that comes with it, and is impossible without freedom: Self expression. Innovation. Personal fulfillment.

Yes, it's risky. There are no risk-free rewards. People way smarter and far more courageous than we are here in this forum figured this out, and the world admires our society for it. Consider that "freedom isn't free" doesn't necessarily mean that you have to kill other people, or take away their rights so that you can have rights. Perhaps the cost of freedom is the assumption of risk--and the responsibility of vigilance over those rights.

We don't accept laws that infringe on our civil rights because they make us safer as a society. We accept and are responsible for the risks that come with civil rights for all because that's what makes us safer as a society. If for no other reason, more laws to enforce cost too much money and simply aren't possible. Look carefully: Do your local law enforcement authorities prevent crime? In my experience, they make token moves to justify their continued authority--and hopefully to deter criminals.

That is, every laptop can't possibly be searched, and those that do will only get the most cursory of inspections. People with something to hide will hide their laptops--or store their dangerous information in some other undetectable medium. It's nothing more than a show put on for our benefit, so that we can feel safer, when at best we're inconvenienced, and at worst, we're exposed to prosecution by the state. You may be thinking that waiting for your belongings to be searched is no worse than having to take off your shoes at the airport, but I'm certain that you'd mind being arrested by mistake. What if you're detained for a few hours or days? Do you think you'll get a phone call or a lawyer if a few people say that you're a terrorist? What if you were taken to a remote location where torture isn't against the law?

I'm citing the experiences of innocent people, whom the state has imprisoned for years based on hearsay in return for a bounty for anyone that seemed suspicious. And now the state is keeping them locked up because it believes that it isn't safe to release them. It's probably not safe to release them--I know I'd be angry enough to seek revenge on an entity that had imprisoned me without a trial and treated me poorly. I'd like to think that I'd pursue restitution through legal channels, but who's to say what my state of mind would be after having been cut off from the world for months or years?

Rights may be inalienable, but they must not be taken for granted. It simply doesn't work to shrug one's shoulders and say, "Oh well, my rights are being violated all over the place, what's one more?" I find it patently absurd that these United States resemble the now-defunct Soviet Union that we used to make fun of.

Your claiming that you're okay with having your rights violated doesn't constitute an argument. You'll have to do better than that.

What good does it do society to allow the authorities to search any of us whenever they wish? Further, what is the experience of societies that allow this?

If you're serious about your claims, I think you'll find after careful examination that it simply doesn't work for We the People to give up essential liberty for temporary security.

That group includes you.

On the post: Why Would The Gov't Hide Documents About A .xxx Domain?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2008 @ 09:33am

nefarious only??

Yeah, right. This is OUR government, we are paying for it, and we get to know what they're doing, what they have been doing, and what they plan to do.

What the Hell is a judge doing ruling on FOIA requests, anyway? It's our information. Is this one of those new "national security" features?

I agree with sonofdot, it's a problem with mixing religion and government.

Dear Judges:

If you want to belong to a church or any other private organization that hides what it's doing from you, great.

But don't you dare try to apply those policies to our government. Try using the rule of law, as defined in our Constitution and its Amendments.

I do understand that having been a judge for a long time causes problems with memory and sense of duty, and that you probably live a privileged life and are insulated from most of normal society. That's no excuse for inventing new law, or interpreting existing law in a ways that suit you.

Sincerely,
The Citizens

Brad Eleven 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (135)