Brad Eleven’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Amazon's DRM-Free Service Probably Too Late To Make A Difference

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 16 May, 2007 @ 11:47am

@GoblinJuice

Hear, hear! The more DRM-free outlets the better. Let's vote with our wallets; that's the true power of these United States anyway.

I've heard all about iTunes going DRM-free for EMI--which has a huge catalog, BTW--but still don't see the $1.29 songs on iTunes. Surely it'll happen before the end of the month... won't it?

On the post: It Takes A Court To Explain That Downloads Aren't Public Performances?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2007 @ 08:21am

why DL == performance 2 them

The actual rationale (using the term loosely) that ASCAP lawyers used for equating a download for a performance was that--in some cases, mind you--the song can be listened to while it is downloading.

Plumbing the depth of ridiculousness in this claim is left as an exercise to the reader.

It becomes more and more obvious--that is, obvious in the sense of obscuring everything else--that it's "game over" for the music industry. They and their lawyers are doing the equivalent of a child's idle rattling of an amusement machine, after s/he has no more money to spend. While there may be the occasional coincidence of some sound or flash in concert with the child's attempts to get more, there really is no more to be had.

You can be assured that entertainment lawyers are busy looking for more footholds, however slim, on which to stand as they file more suits. See also SCO, who also has no product but wants to make money through litigation.

On the post: Google, Wikipedia Sued By Politician Confused About How The Internet Works

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2007 @ 08:22am

Re: Not sure about the phone company analogy

Some anonymous coward volunteered this useless and inaccurate information:

In the case of the cable show, there are decency laws that require them to censor it, yes, even on cable they can't say "fuck."

Really? And where are these? Hint: Not in these United States.

There is no censorship, per se, in the US. The FCC can fine broadcasters after the fact, IFF they receive complaints. That's it. The FCC does not act in the absence of complaints regarding broadcasting standards.

As for the cable shows, I can see how local decency laws could be used as a threat to local cable providers. I can even see a local cable provider caving in--or claiming that these decency laws are forcing them to self-censor.

No way these would stand up in court. Common carrier argument wins every time. It's an issue of scale: A common carrier can't afford to police the content, even if it's small, because this prevents it from growing--and providing a necessary service.

That is, a common carrier isn't just an entity with a lot of traffic for a lot of customers. The traffic has to be deemed as necessary service--thus the common carrier's efforts to police the content would impair or interrupt the service.

Finally, censorship is never, ever required in the US. See also Freedom of Speech. The only legal censoring is done by the content provider, period.

On the post: Teen Fakes Out Google With DMCA Notices On A Show Producers Were Happy To Have On YouTube

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2007 @ 03:48am

re: Why not?

Very interesting. Let's set it up like a pyramid scheme, or better yet, as chain-letter spam:

"Please don't break this bogus DMCA chain. Lonelygurl15 broke it and within five minutes, the world realized her YouTube show was a fake, and now she's no one."

On the post: Who Owns The Rights To Ghost Rider?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2007 @ 08:30pm

I wish he had spoken up sooner

I thought the film was just barely okay. It had its moments, but it was pretty much a triple whopper with extra cheese, deep-fried in butter, then covered with cheese. Yeah, obviously he waited for the film and the merchandising to take place before he said anything--much less risk that way.

Maybe his creative input wouldn't have helped, maybe it would even have stalled the production, since he seems the type to throw tantrums. At least he'd have put his ass on the line, and gained my respect. What's that old Teddy Roosevelt quote about the glory going to the guy in the ring, drenched in sweat, covered with dirt? That's the person I admire, the one that actually went for it.

Opportunists, meh, we have plenty of 'em, they're boring, and they get what they deserve. IMHO, they're barely a rung above lottery winners, and nearly as cursed.

On the post: Wal-Mart Learns The Hard Way Not To Piss Off The Guy Who Keeps Track Of All Your Secrets

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2007 @ 07:43am

purely FYI

Nothing will happen, other than what we see here. That is, no prosecution--or if there is any at all, the cases will be dismissed... like in the HP case.

It's abundantly clear that corporations are running the show. They do whatever they want, and they get away with it as long as they continue to provide shareholder value. Oh, and political contributions.

The proof that political contributions qualify as dividends on investments of political capital is left as an exercise to the reader.

On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Wants Special Loopholes In Anti-Pretexting Laws

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2007 @ 10:42am

Breaking the law to enforce the law

It's called fascism. Look into it.

Machiavelli expressed the cycle as chaos-> despotism -> democracy -> despotism -> chaos ... (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230039&cid=18664513).

I can't decide--if the decision were mine, anyway--which period I'd prefer to live in.

On the post: Why Google Isn't Stealing Newspaper Content

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2007 @ 10:38am

re: Robots.txt

If robots.txt were opt-in technology, site owners would have to create the [admittedly trivial] file to allow their sites to be crawled. IMHO, this would prevent a lot of interesting content to be located, indexed, presented, scraped, etc., by Google, Yahoo, MSN, ... &c.

Murphy's point is that if permission to crawl was required, most of the indexed content would never have been found. Further, I contend that even those sites in the opt-in robots.txt model with admins smart enough to be aware that (a) yes, they do want to be crawled, and (b) how to enable exposure... many of these admins would blow it anyway: improper syntax, complicated rules, ...

Murphy's comment is the most cogent one so far: The Internet's beauty lies in its openness. Put something up that people find interesting, and they'll find a way to get to it, and to look at it, over and over. If you shut off access, or just plain go under, someone will have mirrored it.

It's a (mostly) merit-based popularity contest. The winners get the most eyeballs.

On the post: Analyst Says Yahoo Not Buying Facebook Is Akin To It Passing On Google

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2007 @ 08:23am

10 years ago...

... this same flavor of bogus buzz was going around. Please, let's not have another dot-com bubble.

Webtech above is right--Google has plenty of cash, but Yahoo would demonstrate poor judgment by blowing billions on something they can't capitalize on. Google + YouTube = popular ad platform. Yahoo + Facebook = vanity.

On the post: Utah Tries To Ban Keyword Advertising On Trademarked Terms

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2007 @ 01:54pm

Gee... whose idea was this?

Could it be... A TRADEMARK HOLDER? Or someone beholden to the holder of a trademark?

I'm all for the government representing the interests of its *citizens*. I find it ridiculous that corporations claim the same rights than citizens, while also claiming the right to evade taxation.

On the post: FBI Finds Convenient Scapegoat For Forgotten National Security Letters: Crappy Computer System

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2007 @ 03:23pm

Blame vs. Responsibility

Well, of course they have to blame it on something. That's so much more convenient and career-protecting that simply owning up to having violated the law--in the name of enforcing the law.

I think law enforcement tends to ruin the judgment of human beings. Career cops tend to become callous and insensitive to constitutional rights--in many cases, even to basic human rights. They think they're covered, after all, their friends will protect them or cover for them if they get caught breaking the law. After all, their fellow officers have got their back in truly life-threatening situations. It's just a baby step to apply that logic to any category of threat, including the threat of getting caught breaking the law.

You know, the laws that these people are sworn to enforce.

I think that each and every one of them should have to take responsibility and apologize to the public on prime-time TV. Heck, I'd shell out for Pay-Per-View.

On the post: Julie Amero Sentencing Delayed Again; Prosecutors May Be Trying To Figure Out How To Back Out Gracefully

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 28 Mar, 2007 @ 03:13pm

a substitute teacher

FFS, substitute teachers aren't required to have a college degree, let alone a teaching certificate. Sure, they're not the cream of the crop by any stretch of the imagination. Surely most, if not all of you can recall the incompetence of your substitute teachers. Geez, we used to pull pranks on 'em because they were such an easy target! It's likely that one of the kids was responsible--not too likely, but not so remote as to rule it out.

The poor woman obviously doesn't have a PC at home, and so this was probably the first time she'd ever seen Javascript-driven pop-ups. I don't know about you guys, but I was stunned and overwhelmed the first time I saw it.

Couple that with pr0n showing up in a classroom full of kids, and then honestly tell me that you'd have had the presence of mind to do anything besides clicking the X in the upper right corner, or banging on the keyboard. Sure, she could have turned off the monitor, but that's like asking Joe Citizen to solve Three Mile Island without any training or experience as a nuclear power plant operator.

Just don't let her be a substitute teacher any more. I'm sure she doesn't want to, anyway, after all of this bull$#!+.

On the post: What Was It The Entertainment Industry Said About Not Killing Off New Consumer Devices?

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2007 @ 07:28am

yep, it's the government

Notice how this ever-growing stream of bull$#!+ is the result of Federal judges' rulings. Take a moment to consider how these judges got there. I'm thinking that they've been installed since, oh, January 2001, e.g., appointed by an administration which is known for its ties to Big Money.

I do appreciate TechDirt as a place to log these egregious and idiotic moves by foolish and disconnected ultra-wealthy people who insist on hewing to a model that has clearly been superseded. We're coming to the same conclusion, though, over and over. The RIAA and the MPAA are--to us, anyway--very clearly engaged in pouring money on the problem. It eclipses Prohibition in its scope. Violations are rampant; it used to be only once a week that I'd overhear someone at work talking about content that they'd gotten illegally. Now it's at least daily.

Where's the tipping point, I wonder? When will someone realized that 200 million Elvis fans with pirated content can't be wrong?

On the post: The Daily Show Takes On The Daylight Savings Bug: Aclockalypse Now!

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2007 @ 10:55am

Bogus

Disclosure: I'm a subcontractor to a contractor who owns IT support for Calpine Energy, at least until April 1 (no fooling).

At the very late hour of Friday, March 09, 2007 6:45 PM, another contractor sent this loaded missive to an undisclosed list of recipients:

"[We] will be declaring a longer change control window this weekend to perform some patching for a critical security bug in the Sun DST patches that was identified and released today."

Looks suspicious to me. I think it's either CYA for their not having already applied the patches, or simple FUD to justify billing even more hours. I'm very sure that if there was, indeed, "a critical security bug in the Sun DST patches" that we'd have heard about it weeks ago, from those who applied the patches well in advance.

That is, it's been my experience that proactive folks tend to find problems earlier, as opposed to procrastinators.

On the post: Case Of Corporate Espionage Puts HP To Shame

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2007 @ 03:21pm

tip of the iceberg

HP and Diligence are simply the ones who got caught. If anyone believes for a second that the corporation that employs him/her is any different, hey, dream on and enjoy it. Corporations are all about control and survival. They do whatever they think they can get away with, with no regard for the law. Either they think they'll get away with it, or the fines are considered along with legitimate costs of doing business.

Corporations were dreamed up to avoid responsibility. You and I and Bill and Fred pour our personal assets into it, but if it fails, gets sued, etc., we get to keep "our" money and try again. Now look at what it has become. Corporations rule these United States, and probably the world.

Why is it that corporations aren't held responsible for their actions--like the citizens whose rights they claim? It is my opinion that corporations caught breaking the law should have to pay the same price as citizens. They lose rights. They don't get to lobby any more. They don't get to hide anything.

I don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever. Our elected leaders are addicted to corporate money, at least for now.

On the post: Just Because A Site's Online Doesn't Mean It's Legal To Hack It

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2007 @ 10:24am

Re: So what did the university get handed down?

Hear, hear! Now *that's* a racket!

Set up an attractive honey pot.
Track everyone who enters without prior authorization, e.g., everyone.
Sue each/every one of them.
Use whatever restitution recovered to fund securing the real site, after paying attorneys. Pocket the rest.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Involve the DHS to accelerate prosecution and claims, but realize the trade-offs beforehand.

On the post: Collateral Damage: Viacom's YouTube Takedowns Include Personal Home Videos

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2007 @ 10:20am

Re: hrmm....

Interesting point. Nice argument.

Real world: My video got yanked in this pogrom. My response? Fuck it. Not worth my time.

See also the unwillingness of citizens to protest heinous actions by their governments, right up until their own lives/livelihoods are threatened. There was plenty of writing about the American Revolution, with no action. Once the East India Tea Company started undercutting the colonists b/c the Crown exempted them from tariffs, etc., THEN the revolt began.

Ideology doesn't drive the revolution.

On the post: Why Blackboard's Decision Not To Sue Open Source Providers Over Patents Is Nothing To Cheer About

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2007 @ 09:06am

Uncomfortably numb

This flavor of crap has become tasteless to me now. Ho, hum. Another bogus patent, thinks I.

Once in a while, I'm reminded of a time when patents are sorely needed. From Eli Whitney to George Eby, the truly groundbreaking inventions warrant protection for the inventors, IMHO. Eby had to sue to get the royalties he deserved. His patent had spurred the marketer to set aside monies for him in advance.

Given frivolous patents and strong-arm techniques from the MPAA & RIAA, I don't pay attention to that noise any more. I guess that cranking up a noise machine and keeping it going produces a return on the investment. I suppose its impact is on the people who make the noise, e.g., they probably go deaf.

On the post: NFL Wants To Remind You That Having People Over To Watch The Super Bowl On A Big Screen Is Copyright Infringement

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2007 @ 10:01am

re: What is really the truth

1. The truth is subjective, i.e., does not exist independently of human consciousness. Thanks for sharing yours.

2. The NFL is pulling the old MPAA/RIAA tactic, e.g., going after small entities who can't afford to defend themselves legally.

Ridiculous. Unenforceable. Evidence of more corporate leaders detached from reality.

On the post: Bank, Credit Card Company Say Not To Worry About Identity Theft

Brad Eleven ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2007 @ 09:55am

It's called "responsibility." Look into it.

Now that the chickens are coming home to roost by the millions, the same companies who have asserted their right to collect (and often sell) private information are trying to avoid the obvious responsibility implied by storing the sensitive information: SAFEGUARDING IT.

Clearly, their databases of private information represent revenue, even if they don't sell the information. They want it both ways, i.e., they want to keep the information, but they don't want to pay what it costs to secure the information.

The pendulum has begun to swing away from their salad days, and they seem to have started down the MPAA/RIAA road. They can probably delay the hammerfall, but it's coming. The piper will be paid, else he will lead the rats back into the city.

Brad Eleven 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (135)