Brad Eleven’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: HD DVD Bets Big On Super Bowl Ad… Yeah, That'll Do It

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2008 @ 09:26am

Sony won't lose again

Sony will self-destruct before it loses another format war. It will get all of (it has already gotten most of) the studios to go exclusively Blu-Ray.

Google "last days in the HD bunker" for a laugh.

On the post: No Laughing Matter: Can You Copyright A Joke?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2008 @ 09:23am

lawsuits => lawyers

Although we say, for example, that Carlos Mencia sued Joe Rogan, it was Carlos' lawyers who filed suit. It follows that it is generally the lawyers' idea to take legal action.

My younger brother is a successful stand-up comedian. He went to Los Angeles a few years ago, and left for two reasons: (1) unknown comics get paid, at most, $100 per show--and getting on at all is quite a feat in itself (2) three of his best jokes showed up in Jay Leno's monologues.

I was indignant. He was realistic. Comedy writers like to watch comedy, and they tend to forget where they heard jokes, or they may confuse memory with inspiration. He knew that he had plenty more jokes in him, but he didn't like L.A. He makes a comfortable living in the South, where people are willing to pay more than $10 each admission and to buy high-priced drinks, so that the comics can be paid well.

It does seem odd that comics would sue. It doesn't seem odd that anyone with lawyers on retainer would sue. That's ... why ... you ... pay ... them ... in ... advance.

On the post: TSA Staffer Hires Buddies To Build Insecure Website For Folks Falsely On Watch List

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2008 @ 08:50am

damn.

I hate to acknowledge it, but I've officially become numb to this flavor of crap. It's so pervasive, we hear about it so often, that I just shrug, now.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have become what we resisted. We are the Soviet Union, run by an incompetent and corrupt bureaucracy, crawling with criminals, black marketeers and war profiteers. We've even made the same mistake that the USSR made: We invaded a Middle Eastern country.

On the bright side, we do [sort of] elect new leadership every few years. Unfortunately, the process is polluted by corporate lobbyists, and most of us only hear what corporations want for us to hear.

I suppose it's more of a fascist/corporatist state than the communist state that the USSR was, but it's still an oligarchy.

Just gimme my tech and let me earn a decent living, and don't torture me, rendition me and/or put me in a detention camp, or I'll go all Solzhenitsyn on ya, Uncle Sam.

On the post: 'Game Changing' Video Download Offering From Wal-Mart Closes… No One Notices

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2007 @ 04:21am

Don't Dismiss Enderle ...

...just use the logical NOT of what he predicts as a very accurate predictor.

On the post: Western Digital Decides That You Shouldn't Be Allowed To Share Any MP3

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2007 @ 08:45am

re: nonsense

Pope Ratzo asked:

Are you telling me that now the RIAA/MPAA is actually setting the rules for how the computer industry is going to work?

It's worse than that, Holy Father. Corporate interests are actually setting the rules for how the world works. WD's response is, ironically, the fear-based, liability-aware response of one corporation to another's predictable behavior.

WD's lawyers have apparently decided that the corporation is liable for prosecution; a little extra ink is far less expensive than preparing defenses for perceived threats.

"...lawyers, guns, and money." ~W. Zevon

On the post: Those 200 iPhone-Related Patents Don't Seem To Be Stopping Patent Infringement Lawsuits

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2007 @ 04:48am

Mike said:

...just because you come up with an idea, you shouldn't get the right to charge whoever else figures out how to successfully market the idea.

I struggled with this for a bit before I realized what I think you're saying: there's a line between imagining something and actually inventing it. How much work must be applied in order to get the patent? Drawings? Specifications? A prototype?

It would appear that the presently respected line between imagination and invention is as fuzzy as the mood of the patent office employee on a particular day--or the inclination of a judge in Marshall, Texas.

I think that patent law is the most obvious example of how the law of the land has failed to keep pace with the present state of technology. Without reform--or at the very least, a rigorous definition of invention--patents will be regarded as even more irrelevant than music copyrights.

On the post: Videos Demonstrate The Complexities Of Fair Use

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2007 @ 06:29am

@GeneralEmergency

"...can any one here (especially you "copyright cartel" lurkers) explain to me EXACTLY why the intellectual property monopoly of Copyright is intrinsically more deserving of protection terms that are LONGER than the intellectual property monopoly granted by Patent?"

Corporations employ armies of lawyers, whose interests are served by inventing activities for which they can justify their salaries and/or retainers. Copyright defense is one of the simplest examples of these activities.

I understand that your question comes from a position of social responsibility. You seem to be missing the role of corporate interests in this area, which is that of the antagonist. Corporations are chiefly (and legally) responsible first to their shareholders and/or owners. Any pretense of social responsibility by a corporation is nothing more than a marketing gesture in support of its primary responsibility.

The tendency is away from public ownership. If you want to see creativity at its most effective, observe how ABC/Disney extends their copyrights past the century mark in a few more years.

The ultimate expression of corporate copyright will be law which prevents anyone from saying anything about a corporation. This will be preceded by law preventing anyone using a corporation's name without its express consent, which will be preceded by law preventing anyone from saying certain things about a corporation, etc.

The high irony lies in the origin of corporations being considered as persons: This move was made by British courts in order to allow for the collection of debts from corporations.

I'm not saying that corporations are evil--what they are is too powerful.

On the post: Fox Goes After Republican Presidential Candidates For Online Copyright Violations Over Debate Footage

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2007 @ 01:52pm

@Murphy

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that FOX had sewn up the rights to film & rebroadcast these debates, e.g., no one can show footage from the debates without the express written consent of FOX Broadcasting.

On the post: Who's More Ethical: TorrentSpy Or The MPAA?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2007 @ 07:24am

Corporate crime pays

It is an unfortunate circumstance that corporate profits have become the most important factor in decision making. I first noticed this in the aftermath of Exxon's Valdez debacle: the US Congress refused to fine the corporation over fears that Exxon stockholders would be unfairly penalized.

The MPAA won't face any trouble over this or any illegal activities in which they choose to engage. Aside from their army of lobbyists and their Congressional allies--bought and paid for, fair and square--the same argument applies as with the Valdez: Everyone knows it's a big problem, but no one in power wants to risk losing the next election.

On the post: Acacia's Latest Target: NetFlix

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2007 @ 07:10am

TX Federal Eastern District

Tyler, Texarkana, and Marshall must be making money from these patent lawsuits. There's no other rationale for this district being the launchpad.

On the post: Will Fox Sue Congress For Simpsons Parody?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2007 @ 10:41am

GOP "Children's Health Fact of the Day"

Gee, that's funny--this feature has only existed since the SCHIP controversy showed up. Thanks, GOP!!!

I'm so happy that the House Republican's Committee on Energy and Commerce lent their webspace so generously to the important cause of limiting health care for children. I'm so glad that these wise minds realize how important it is to spend our taxes on war, instead of wasting it on the health of children. I mean, gosh--someone might use Federal money to pay for their kids' health care instead of paying out of his or her own pocket. We certainly can't have that.

And, of course, the sagacious Congressmen know best, since their health care plans are provided at no cost to them, and generously cover their extended families.

On the post: Hedge Funds Betting On Patent Lawsuits With Courtroom Spies

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2007 @ 05:55am

old trick, new twist

The original stock exchange in the 1th-century Netherlands traded on the temporal advantage of new information. Traders developed methods to hide their conversations, which had to be held near the brokers' desks, because opportunists hired spies to eavesdrop on the traders.

I agree that trading on bogus patent lawsuits is a problem that can be dealt with, but trading on new and exclusive information--true or false--is here to stay. Consider that the market reacts to rumors and real news in the same way.

Now think about the monetary value of warrantless surveillance.

On the post: Internet Holdouts Upset At Newspapers For Moving Content Online

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2007 @ 08:19am

missing real problem

I get the cost justification arguments from the publishers' point of view, and the paper waste from the green point of view. I really do.

I think the problem is that newspapers--and most media outlets--are now owned by people interested only in the bottom line. Content is irrelevant; the only concern is for advertising rates, which are driven by ratings and focus group results.

Also, why is it that we don't recycle newspaper? That's the only 1-for-1 material that I know of, e.g., you can get almost all of it back for use in another newspaper printing.

It's a reasonable expectation to have a newspaper in one's community--or at least it was. Corporate interests are obviating everyone else's interests, i.e., impossible not to notice because they're in the way.

The predictable future is that multinational and global corporations will explicitly run the world, instead of the stealthy approach they presently employ. I say, let's be up front about it--then we have a much better shot at holding them accountable.

On the post: Even More Trouble For E-Voting Firms: Source Code Review Finds All Sorts Of Scary Vulnerabilities

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2007 @ 07:43am

FP nailed it

Ajax 4Hire said:
> The reason there is not more outrage is an indication of
> the apathy of the US electorate.

I didn't understand voter apathy until I got involved with politics. Those pampered figureheads either don't have any idea what people want, or they truly believe that the people are fools. See also, you know, any government regulatory agency.

We are not represented in our government any more than we are represented in mainstream media. We are not the customers, and there's no room at the table for us because all of the seats have been bought and paid for by lobbyists who represent wealthy clients.

I don't see any grand conspiracy--just a widening disconnect between the government and the governed.

I do think that the GOP has conspired in the same way that it did in the 1970s, on a much larger scale. If they're caught, the party's over; if not, their influence will reach across political party lines. It's not a great time for democracy--but then again, it wasn't 100 years ago, when Teddy Roosevelt decided to screw J.P. Morgan and the rest of the capitalists. Hundred-year cycle, anyone?

On the post: IBM Puts The Theory Of Comparative Advantage Into Practice

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2007 @ 12:10pm

Glad to see the issue get some attention, but ...

... I never once heard, suspected, or so much as dreamed that outsourcing of any kind would plow American IT firms under. That has been the result of the commodification of the IT industry, e.g., the idea that a military-style specialization matrix could be derived and enforced. Aside from the inherently foolishness of the concept--tech is a moving target--it's taken me several taken me several years to get over being offended by HR types who think that my value can be measured by a few paragraphs of text. I'm valuable because I can learn anything. That's what I got out
of college.

I can understand that someone said, "This hiring of talented
and motivated technical people is really, really hard! Surely there's an easier way." What I don't understand is someone saying, "Hey, all we have to do is to create categories and just label everyone. Problem solved."

On the post: Indian Offshoring Firm… Offshoring To Mexico

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2007 @ 04:00am

@reed

I agree that corporations are to blame, but I think the origins are older than these United States.

"The corporate system ... started as a way to get better products and better service and at the same time provide good jobs for Americans."

That would have been so cuuuuute!

Nope, corporations were invented in jolly old England, as a way for investors to limit their losses to their stated investment in a firm, e.g., it didn't make sense to allow venture capitalists to face personal ruin if the tea company they invested in failed.

However, these entities hired lawyers which argued that the non-person nature of a corporation exempted it from lawsuits filed for non-payment of contractual obligations. The English court responded by granting corporations the status of "legal personality".

The rest is history. Once corporations were able to claim status as a fictional/legal/moral person, they then claimed citizen rights, e.g., the right to petition elected representatives. They'd have the right to vote if the judges had been open to bribery--and they may well have it someday.

So their "petitions" to American "elected representatives" got them tax breaks and other incentives to offshore and outsource. I hope their sweetheart deal turns into a nightmare for them, and that when they come back to the Congress for another favor to reverse their fortunes, they'll be laughed out.

Of course, I also hope that tomorrow's sunrise is made of ice cream.

On the post: Banned Venezuelan TV Stations Keeps Broadcasting… On YouTube

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2007 @ 08:34am

Political Theory v. Political Reality

Go on, label it as socialism or some other straw man that you hate. It's fascism, plain and simple, and Venezuela is not the only place where it's happening. Limiting access to media can be blatant and clumsy, like this example. It can also be insidious and gradual, like media consolidation in the US.

Think it through: It costs big bucks to broadcast, period. Broadcasts are, for the most part, carefully controlled by the owners of the means of production. At the very least, US broadcasters screen for potentially offensive content--at least on the level of risk/profit.

I predict that the present oligarchys will lead to fascism in the near term. After that, it's simply a matter of how much more that we the people will tolerate.

The world has long since changed. What we are seeing is the people who had things tilted to their advantage trying to catch up.

On the post: ChoicePoint Promises To Write 'Personal Information Should Be Protected' 500,000 Times, Promises Not To Do It Again

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2007 @ 07:41am

Hear, hear

Of course only the AC will bash Open Source from the long-disproven assertion that it's somehow less secure because the source code can be read by anyone.

Open Source is superior and more secure for exactly this reason. Pop quiz: When's the last time *you* read any Open Source? Do you think that in the source archive, there's a plain text file called "FOR SECURITY PERSONNEL ONLY" that outlines all of the known vulnerabilities?

You're either an idiot, a corporate shill, or both, AC. That little FUD turd dried up back in the 90s. You're an embarrassment to whomever's paying you.

Bonus question: When was the last time you heard of an Open Source security hole? If you actually did, how long before it was closed? Now compare/contrast to Microsoft's track record.

On the post: Cost vs. Benefit In Tracking Down People Using AP Content

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2007 @ 07:36am

Why not make deals instead?

If they can cheaply find "offenders", why not inform them of proper use of their property, e.g., quote from & refer to source site?

Oh, wait, that's right... the AP doesn't have its own source site. I presume that AP was given this choice at some point, but balked at the cost + the possible reneg'ing of deals already made with previous customers.

The Internet has already changed the world; what we are seeing is the catch-up cycle. Sometimes it's stunningly innovative, but for the most part, it's greedy lawyers making it worse than it already is.

On the post: Report: Move To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine Gaining Steam

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 17 May, 2007 @ 09:47am

You are not the customer of ad-supported media

It's a lowdown dirty shame that fairness has had to be legislated. Do your homework, fools. Why was it originally implemented? (hint: media control == raw political power)

It's not a liberal/conservative issue. If you're OK with the current slate of slanted broadcasters, great. Would you be OK with a slate that featured people that you didn't agree with? Think about it.

What you like to listen to has ZERO to do with on-air longevity. Witness the spectacular fall of Imus: They got to him by getting to his sponsors. You are not the customer of ad-supported media: The advertisers are. Your preferences are merely fodder for advertising rates.

Caveat: I'm old enough to remember how the Fairness Doctrine was implemented. The station owner's preferred speaker got lavish production, prime time, and every other advantage that anyone could think of. The other speakers who claimed their equal time (doesn't happen automatically) got one camera, one mic, a table, and a metal folding chair.

Think it over. It's EXPENSIVE to own/operate any kind of broadcasting station. Don't you think the owners feel entitled to something? Like influence?

Brad Eleven 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (135)