Ccomp5950 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (168) comment rss

  • On the post: Woz Completely Changes Tune On Patent Trolling From Just Months Ago

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 10:52am

    is Woz's opinion for rent? Did someone miss a payment in there?

    Woz is an interesting figure and while I don't find it odd for someone to change their opinion on a subject given better information and I personally think highly enough of him to believe he's the kind of person that could change his opinion given better information, it's highly unlikely that he didn't have the same information now that he had then sitting in front of him.

    The more likely explanation is, who was in the room at the time he said it?

  • On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re:

    oh the point: I believe state governments will do just as well with their requirements for mileage.

  • On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 10:28am

    Re:

    Last time the IRS tried to require a log book on mileage congress told them to shut up, sit on their thumps and spin.

    Now you know why vehicles are so easily deductible on your taxes for business use.

  • On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, I do. Diesel is already taxed a penny less in the majority of states than gasoline. If given the choice I would increase the Diesel tax by 2 cents if I absolutely had to have the tax revenue in that manner. I'm not sure how Utah taxes are controlled or if it's just at the whim of the legislature. This wouldn't be passed onto farmers and other groups that pay a lower tax on diesel. Say you go through 80 gallons a month you'd see an increase of a dollar and 60 cents per month. This is probably a good estimate for home users. Where as businesses with fleets of vehicles and 18-wheelers will bear the brunt of the tax burden and will either eat it or pass it onto their customers.

    Admittedly there will be secondary "taxes" beyond the 1.60 you see, in the form of higher cost of goods that need transport being passed onto you but if you think the cost of a value meal at McDonalds per month is too much to pay for road upkeep, you need to quit watching Glen Beck.

    All in all we're both paying somewhere around 50-70 cents per gallon (if you exclude sales tax in your state) on gas and diesel in the form of taxes.

    The other option is increase other taxes. But government services cost money, expect to pay taxes in some form or another.

  • On the post: Google Street View Is Invasion Of Privacy… But The BBC Showing Everyone At The Royal Wedding?

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 09:45am

    Re:

    What you said would make sense if it was targeted at you alone. However it's worldwide and not you specifically.

    It's recording what is easily viewed on public streets (or that is the intent despite them driving up a private driveway a couple times).

    It's in the PUBLIC and should be fair game.

  • On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 09:38am

    in Utah the gas taxes are earmarked for road maintenance. I can understand "oh they aren't paying their fair share of taxes on the wear they create on roads." and true, they are not if they have to purchase less gas.

    However like you said there is good reason to incentivize hybrids.

    The question then is, how much more tax should they pay? Should they be charged at the same rate as a fully loaded full size truck would if it purchased fuel for 20,000 miles per year? I would think not, most hybrids are smaller vehicles and create less wear on roads.

    The smart move would be to increase the tax on diesel in the state and let the increase in prices it creates trickle down evenly to customers. Companies will pass on their expenses to customers and it is a lot less hassle then trying to find that demarcation line where hybrids should pay.

  • On the post: How One Startup Used Patents To Kill A (Better) Competitor

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 08:41am

    Re: Shocked! Shocked, I say!

    See the Steam Engine patent wars for an example of innovation being hindered by patents.

    Also hugging and kissing everyone? Good luck with the oral herpes.

  • On the post: How One Startup Used Patents To Kill A (Better) Competitor

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 04 May, 2011 @ 08:36am

    Re: Re: Perfectly Simple Fix

    Edison's patents are the reason Hollywood is in Hollywood.

    Don't want to pay Edison for use of his patents, and not suffer from Edison's thugs sabotaging your cameras and sets?

    Move out west where no US Marshalls are and start recording.

    It's interesting that nearly every "content" industry started out as a pirate to someone else.

  • On the post: Perfect 10 Sues Again: This Time It Goes After Usenet Provider Giganews

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 09:39pm

    Re:

    [In a court room, Perfect 10's lawyers are questioning the owners of Giganews]

    Lawyer: My client sent you 800 images and told you that such images are the property of Perfect 10, did they not?

    GN Owner: Yes, they did.

    Lawyer: And you did nothing with them in responce?

    GN Owner: Actually since I'm under oath, jimmy back there took them to the bathroom, what he did with them you will have to ask him.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 04:20pm

    Re:

    It is and it isn't. Can you divide a house an infinite number of times with each licensee having full benefit of the whole?

    There are fundamental differences, and to ignore those differences simply because Blacks calls it one of the definitions of property is an error and omission on your part.

  • On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 03:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Generally speaking people visit the blogs (think of them as news editorials) of those they agree with on certain subjects.

    Politically I'm a moderate politically speaking and would not find myself happy reading Glen Beck. However Glen Beck will attract those that agree with his positions.

    It does tend to become an "Echo Chamber" when you only read those you agree with. Some of the comments you read here being more rude than others are probably victims to this.

    I've learned more from 1 person who disagrees with me, than 99 who agree with me.

  • On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 02:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And you are a child, or at the very least your social skills are at the level of a child.

    When adults are speaking and disagreeing with one another but are remaining polite, it is inappropriate to call another rude names. If you disagree make effort to discuss your viewpoint but respect the adult on the other side of the table.

  • On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 01:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are asking for a clear and concise chain of thought when there isn't one. Mike even made that clear that this is his interpretation of it. It's a valid interpretation. The only one? Probably not. The best one? Again, probably not

    Do you have an interpretation of the story other than what Mike said? If so what is it? Next, how would we classify which one is better independent of each others biases?

    I see no reason to include the story if it isn't related to the post. In writing I would consider it the "hook".

  • On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Again, no support there. Mike claimed that the anecdote about the twins was somehow for the purpose of showing the need for fashion copyright so that someone won't "feel bad." How does the part you quoted address this claim? I don't see it.


    I'll admit I didn't read the article until I read Mike's take on it so he may have influenced my take on it as well, but it reads like a parable.

    The twin getting married today represents the designer made dress, the original if you will.

    The twin getting married in a month or so represents the "copycat" dress, it's identical.

    The parable shows the social awkwardness and how that should translate into setting some sort of protection up.

    Least that's how I read it, is it clear and in your face? No, it appears subtle but mainly because later in the story she goes into how close to "identical" should the line be drawn legally.

    Gaging intent is difficult, and Mike made it clear that it's how he read it, your interpretation may be different.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 03:41pm

    Except in this case, in theory...they are assigned the copyright. Yet then give a full license to Stephens Media, and then stripped of the rights, except to sue. Even worse Stephens Media can withdraw this assignement at any time.

    Again you can't call it a lease, yeah it fits, but not perfectly. A lease grants some other rights and responsibilities where as copyright is quite literally JUST the 106 rights. Nothing more, nothing less. If you tried to shoehorn the house into it, it would be more like "selling" your house to a guy, who then tells you to live in it for free, just keep it up like you have been doing and pay the taxes on it. The guy you sold the house to only retains the right to sue if someone breaks in. The problem since he's not the one living in the house there is a specific law that says he can't sue since he isn't the damaged individual since the original owner is the one living in the house.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 03:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My request for caselaw is where they have seen the rights assignment, in the case I'm discussing (Democratic Underground) where they have not (atleast to the best of my knowledge) despite it being requested by the defense.

    Again Exhibit A is an example of one, you must also show which copyright you are assigning rights to (I believe).

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 02:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Please show caselaw where such has occured, I'm having trouble finding it.

    No, but like you I picked up on that being a poor word, it merely supports my argument. Or it could have been purposeful, I don't know.

    But in the very next sentence Righthaven is stripped of all rights, save the right to sue. This is what my had actually hangs on (also yours, though you claim it means otherwise.)

    What 106 rights does righthaven have? According to 7.2 they retain none of them.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 02:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pardon me being a layman let us clarify terms for a moment.

    licensor: Someone that can license, or someone that that is licensed to?

    The contract quite clearly dictates that Righthaven cannot extend a license to anyone else. So they fail that.

    They also are quite clearly not licensed any of 106 rights, and since those are the "bundle of rights" (and only valid rights of copyright, according to copyright law, and various case law) I don't see how they muster this either.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 02:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nevada just happens to be one of the states that still has such a law, interesting. However it probably goes back to the "Does an assignment of copyright actually take place" if not than RightHaven would have no legitimate interest, if so than it's a harder case. It's more an afterthought than anything else really.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 02:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except you can't in Copyright unless you hold ONE of the 17 U.S.C. ? 106 rights, and even then it's written in law that you can only bring action based upon infringement of one of the rights you hold. This is one of the reasons you can't treat Copyright like "property" it has specific laws governing it that differ from usual property. Yes you can call it property, that's fine and in most legal cases you will be fine, except copyright has a few nuances such as this that make it where you can't treat it like standard property.

Next >>