Bri 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (28) comment rss

  • On the post: Apparently Google's Lawyers Were Prepped For Google/Apple Antitrust Inquiry

    Bri ( profile ), 08 May, 2009 @ 06:17am

    Can someone explain to me why tech companies are the only ones being put under the microscope as far as antitrust goes? It seems to me there are plenty of others out there that should be scrutinized a bit more.

    Tell me about it! Let's start with the telcos leveraging their market power to either extort consumers, Time Warner, or prevent competition in the form of township's providing broadband service to their residents.

    Last time I checked in order to trigger anti-monopoly regulation you actually have to be abusing your power of monopoly.

  • On the post: Fair Use, Turnitin, And… Why Google Never Should Have Caved On Book Scanning

    Bri ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2009 @ 10:32am

    Fair Use... pffft

    While profitability is not a determining factor for fair use, I would say that Turnitin's entire business model hinges solely on the "fair use" of these papers. Since they are making money off the uniqueness factor of each individual paper submitted, the fair use argument pretty much goes out the window.

    There's a number of key points that sway this debate for me:
    1. Is the key to your profitability, i.e., your business model, hinge upon the uniqueness of an author's work.
    2. Is this work accessed often, weekly, daily, hourly.
    3. Is the amalgamation of these works considered an asset to the company, i.e., if this data were lost would there be considerable financial loss to the company.

    So in Turnitin's case you would find that their cash flow is tied to using the works, more specifically the uniqueness of each individual work. They likely access these works, or the data subset representing the work, on an extremely frequent basis. And if they lost their database of papers, they would be severely financially crippled.

    So tell me, how is this fair use if I, the author, have lost control over how my original work is utilized?

  • On the post: Is There Any Good Reason Why Apple Should Pull The $1000 iPhone App?

    Bri ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2008 @ 10:19am

    Don't make me laugh

    Apple was never into free markets so don't start whining about it now!

  • On the post: Details Come Out On eBay/Craigslist Fight

    Bri ( profile ), 01 May, 2008 @ 07:39am

    Seems pretty clear cut to me...

    Ebay had a contractual obligation to not compete directly with Craigslist. Ebay then purchases an overseas company and launches it in the US in direct competition with Craigslist. Craigslist follows the terms of the contract, dilutes Ebay's shares and freezes them out. Sure, we don't have all the details, but it's pretty hard to see how Ebay could come out looking like the good guy in all this.

  • On the post: Is Printing Call Girl Photos Fair Use?

    Bri ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2008 @ 07:31am

    Infringement... yes

    I think the key here is profit. If a news organization actually had some real duty to report the news, as opposed to being a profit driven machine, then I might argue for fair use here. However, the usage in this case can be measured as a tangible profit for the news agency and as such, there should be damages awarded for Ms. Dupre.

  • On the post: Two People Arrested In England For WiFi Theft

    Bri ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2007 @ 06:45pm

    Re:

    Then leave if you hate techdirt so much! Wait, you never had permission to be accessing a private server on a private network in the first place!!! BUSTED! You just committed the same crime as the wardriver in question.

  • On the post: Yes, Those Free DVDs On Amazon Were Too Good To Be True

    Bri ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2007 @ 08:21am

    Re: Some of you people need to get a life...

    Unfortunately you are wrong. This did already happen a few years ago at Staples. They sent a coupon to their best customers for $50 off $50. Of course, being the idiots that they are, this coupon worked for anyone placing an order. A good number of people had their orders shipped with this coupon. Staples sent out a notice saying return the items or we will charge your CC the full price. Some people folded and returned the items, while others stood firm. Most actually won their CC disputes, with a handful being denied.

    At the end of the day what Staples did, and now what Amazon are doing, is consumer fraud. Once the transaction has taken place and the item has been shipped the sale is considered final. Amazon can claim legal precedent, but only in the court of law. Any charges to your CC would be unauthorized because you have not specifically given consent. So, while there may be laws protecting Amazon from this kind of loss, they don't get to play judge, jury and executioner here. After all, that is why we have a legal system, to resolve these types of disputes.

  • On the post: People Know The Difference Between Spam And A Legitimate Newsletter

    Bri ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2004 @ 06:55pm

    No Subject Given

    Yeah this has been a problem for a while now, ever since Cloudmark was back in original beta. I tested it out and my legitimate mailing lists would be flagged as SPAM. No matter how many times I told them it wasn't SPAM, it would still flag them.
    Don't know why it has taken them so long to realize that in fact, not everyone can agree on what is and what is not SPAM.