bshock 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (199) comment rss

  • On the post: Author Claims Patents Made Industrial Revolution Possible; Then Shows Why He's Wrong

    bshock ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 03:22pm

    Re: Oh, I wouldn't be so sure...

    Is it absolutely necessary that someone profit from a naked idea?

    Ideas are cheap and easy. When the conditions for an idea arise in society, that idea is soon developed by someone -- and often by several someones. But most of them don't do anything about it.

    The people who should profit are the ones who accomplish something useful with ideas -- innovators rather than inventors. Enough of this crap with lazy parasites getting rich. If you implement an idea, fix the bugs, make it do something that people are willing to buy, then and only then do you deserve to profit.

  • On the post: How The NY Times Hides Behind Copyright Law To Hoard Information And Weaken Its Journalism

    bshock ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2010 @ 12:18pm

    Re:

    How much do you care about what NYT published five years ago? How much do you care about what it published one year ago? How much do you care about what it published last week?

    For the vast majority of the public, I'm going to guess that interest in most of NYT's IP is insignificantly small. Printed newspapers often end up wrapping garbage a day or two after publication.

    Readers and community may be the effect of what NYT publishes, but those things derive from the quality of what the paper supplies on an ongoing daily basis, not on its moldy IP.

    Unless you're trying to make that case that NYT's IP is somehow going to be stolen before readers get a chance at the original output?

  • On the post: Lawsuit Questions Whether Or Not Second Life Users Really 'Own' Their Virtual Land

    bshock ( profile ), 11 May, 2010 @ 11:22am

    is that the real question?

    I mean, seriously, is anyone still using Second Life?

  • On the post: 50 Cent Says The Movie Industry Will Get New Laws Passed That Will Help The Music Industry

    bshock ( profile ), 04 May, 2010 @ 02:22pm

    I'm not surprised

    First rule of greed: the more you have, the more you want.

    Second rule of greed: the more you want, the less you consider the consequences of what you want.

  • On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?

    bshock ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2010 @ 11:15am

    wtf? says an atheist

    Honestly, isn't this article a little silly? Even if you actually believe in a "soul," why would you think that a temporal agency could exercise any right over a non-material item?

    Look at this from my viewpoint. I could claim that everyone had an invisible, intangible, undetectable limb called the "angel arm." I could further claim that the angel arm contains all of your "psychic power." Then I could write up a contract in which you cede all rights to your angel arm to me in perpetuity, allowing me sole access to your psychic energies.

    Sounds silly, right? Granted, if a billion people repeated this nonsense for 2,000 years, it might not sound quite so silly to everyone. But that doesn't make it any less so.

  • On the post: Ideas Into Execution: Giving Away An Idea To Make It Happen

    bshock ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2010 @ 11:55am

    no new ideas, but that's not the point

    Thanks for a very enjoyable article, Mike. I really like how you connected the dots.

    Have you ever read the science fiction novel "Accelerando," by Charles Stross? The first few chapters take place in the near future, where a character named Manfred Macx spends his time making connections and giving away ideas for free, very much like this. He makes a loose living from it because his reputation attracts prospective entrepreneurs.

  • On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books

    bshock ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2010 @ 09:55am

    Re:

    How is that relevant?

    This isn't what the customer wants -- it's about what the customer is willing to pay. It's ridiculous to sympathize with a business that refuses to price its goods to maximize the outcome of sales x net profit.

    You either figure out what the market will bear, or you die.

  • On the post: No, The Apple Tablet Won't Save Publishing Nor Will It End 'Free'

    bshock ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2010 @ 06:59pm

    Something else you have to remember about the WSJ paywall example is that WSJ is a highly slanted conservative rag, read primarily by the wanna-be wealthy. Aside from the fact that these people are not exactly the children of the digital age, their conservatism and greed have a way of combining to make them, shall we say, "unwise" enough to pay for online news content that reflects their views.

  • On the post: It's Not An Open vs. Closed Internet, But Ours vs. Theirs

    bshock ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2010 @ 11:17am

    an interesting reframing of the issue

    I like Dave Weinberger's interpretation of the issue, but in some ways I'm more intrigued by the implications to other items he's named as "ours" collectively, culture and government.

    In particular, how many U.S. citizens these days feel as though the government is "ours?" I suspect that the vast non-wealthy and non-powerful majority of people are disenchanted by the U.S. government because it feels as though it belongs to someone else. Among many of us there was a moment of euphoria when Barack Obama was elected president because we felt as though we'd taken back a piece of that government, but for whatever reason, Mr. Obama went on to conduct business as usual.

    It's long been pointed out that framing the political spectrum as conservative vs. liberal may be missing the point, but perhaps even alternate spectra such as libertarian vs. authoritarian are at least as flawed. What if the most important axis is actually "our government" vs. "their government?"

    Unfortunately, "they" possess all the money and power, and so have a nasty way of coopting movements in that direction. At base, I suspect the unfortunately named "Tea Baggers" are just a lot of average people who justifiably feel disenfranchised. It's more than slightly horrific that wealthy and powerful entities like Fox News and the Republican Party have taken advantage of this group to further their own ends, which are nothing more than becoming wealthier and more powerful still.

  • On the post: This Is Why We Worry About Net Neutrality Regs: Loopholes For RIAA/MPAA

    bshock ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2010 @ 10:55am

    baby and bathwater?

    Hi Mike:

    I certainly agree that net neutrality is a complex issue, but to me, your argument against codification of net neutrality has always seemed to be saying something like, "Regulations about net neutrality can be corrupt and/or counterproductive, and so we should have no regulations about it."

    Is it impossible, then, to have effective, useful regulations? Should we just surrender to the inevitability that powerful organizations will manage to twist regulations to their benefit?

    Does it really put us in a better situation if we have no framework of regulation? At least if net neutrality regulations existed, there might be a legal way to challenge their problems en masse, rather than fighting every net neutrality encroachment on a per case basis.

  • On the post: More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe

    bshock ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2010 @ 08:36pm

    another pertinent schneier article

    http://www.schneier.com/essay-108.html

    The money quote:

    "Finding terrorism plots is not a problem that lends itself to data mining. It's a needle-in-a-haystack problem, and throwing more hay on the pile doesn't make that problem any easier."

  • On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears

    bshock ( profile ), 05 Jan, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    amusing

    "Nothing good has ever come from the Internet?"

    If I hadn't noticed the trailer for "Moon" online, I never would have gone to see this film.

    Then again, considering what a senseless story it was, maybe missing it wouldn't have been so bad.

    Good performance by Sam Rockwell, though.

  • On the post: Arizona Politician Accused Of Using Voter Database To Stalk Young Woman

    bshock ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2009 @ 10:18am

    It's difficult for me to get excited about a politician misusing his authority.

    But I do feel a certain smug confirmation of what mindless neanderthals these creatures happen to be. Apparently Mr. Mecum doesn't understand how very quick and easy it is to track someone down via the Internet.

  • On the post: Why Would Countries Leave ACTA Negotiations If Text Was Public?

    bshock ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 10:39am

    Let's just say what they're admitting: They're screwing up, they know they're screwing us, and they know we'll complain when we get screwed.

  • On the post: Would Google Be Liable Under The Pirate Bay Ruling?

    bshock ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 09:58am

    It's an interesting confirmation of what I'm sure many people expected from the theoretical case.

    However, real-world law operates on economic principles, roughly equivalent to a biological food chain. That is, predators only attack what they have a reasonable expectation of killing.

    Pirate Bay was a young gazelle, while Google is an adult elephant.

  • On the post: Thinking About Real Copyright Reform

    bshock ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2009 @ 08:01am

    The problem with "copyright reform" is that it starts out stuck in its own little misshapen box, and never manages to escape.

    Imagine what would've happened if, sometime in the last 400 years or so, the wealthiest members of society had convinced government that a system of sanctioned professional assassination was necessary. The ability for private individuals to buy murder -- while certainly a legal compromise -- would have wonderful potential benefits for society. For instance, if you knew that any of your neighbors could have you killed, you would tend to be extremely polite to them. And in situations where troublemakers disrupted society without actually doing anything illegal, groups could band together, pool their money, and have the irritant wiped out. Further, any politician who knew that his constituents could have him whacked legally would be very careful to represent them in an accurate fashion.

    Or so the advocates of sanctioned professional assassination might claim.

    Of course, flaws would crop up in the system over time. As wealth concentrated in a few individuals or large organizations, these would tend to use their legal assassination power in counter-productive, dictatorial ways. But what the hell, it's nothing that some fundamental reform of the sanctioned professional assassination system couldn't fix, right?

    Except of course that reforming such an insane, stupid, counterproductive idea is ridiculous. It should never have come into existence in the first place.

    Ditto copyright.

  • On the post: OK, Hollywood Learns A Scary Lesson From 'Paranormal Activity'

    bshock ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 07:26am

    somehow this sounds familiar

    This clueless exec's babbling reminds me a bit of an anecdote I once heard from science fiction author Barry B. Longyear (who wrote the novella "Enemy Mine").

    Years ago Longyear wrote a novel that his publisher printed in a relatively small run, perhaps only 10,000 copies. (I probably have the number wrong.) Longyear kept watch on the sales of his book, and was pleased to see that it sold out in a short time. But when he called his publisher to mention that all 10,000 copies had sold, the publisher's response was, "Well, it's a good thing we didn't print any more than 10,000 copies."

    To which Longyear replied something like, "Huh?"

    "Sure," explained the publisher. "If the book sold only 10,000 copies, it's a good thing we didn't print any more than 10,000 copies."

  • On the post: Court Tells Pirate Bay Founders They Can No Longer Work On The Pirate Bay

    bshock ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2009 @ 09:34am

    "The whole crusade continues to be a massive waste of time and resources by the entertainment industry for no clear gain."

    Indeed. And I am very, very happy about this. I'm trying to think of more ways for the "entertainment industry" (meaning Hollywood's schlockmeister accountant-managers) to waste its time and resources. Little help?

  • On the post: Lawyers Discussing Business Models

    bshock ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re:

    I admire the thinking that went into this comment. Too bad you're in the wrong discussion.

  • On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?

    bshock ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2009 @ 09:31am

    The horizontal vs. vertical innovation hypothesis would have more credibility 50 years ago, when patents were written relatively specifically. Considering that today's patents are so vague and generalized, a patent holder these days might easily claim that the second type of flying car engine in the hypothetical example violated the original patent.

Next >>