Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2011 @ 02:24pm

    Re: Re:

    Indeed. Seattle is a fun place when it snows.

  • On the post: Dear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2011 @ 02:17pm

    Liability

    I can't wait for the day when there are automated cars. However, I wonder what will happen when it comes to liability for these accidents. Most likely it will shift to the automakers, or perhaps to whoever is writing the automated driving software (though I could see both, assuming they aren't the same entity to begin with). I doubt accidents will be chalked up to natural causes, but I suppose it could, at least in some instances.

    It makes me wonder how insurance will change. Will insurance companies cover that (they'll charge for it no doubt), but then who will they go after? Maybe they'll make it so expensive to cover that they won't need to go after anyone.

    I also wonder what will happen in the case that an automated car is in an accident with a manually driven car? I suspect the manual driver will sue the owner of the automated car, the manufacturer and the driving software writer, even if the fault lies with the manual driver.

  • On the post: Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2011 @ 01:26pm

    Re: What's the big deal? You keep reprinting your articles and selling ads next to them.

    What stops anyone else from putting their content online surrounded by ads? Nothing. If Mike wanted to release techdirt in book or movie format once a year or so and try selling the books/DVDs, more power to him. I still wouldn't think he should get a cut out from resells.

  • On the post: Google, Microsoft, Patents… And How To Dupe The Press With Out Of Context Statements

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 04:31pm

    Of course

    Microsoft makes more from Android patent licenses than from it's own mobile OS division. They're the poster child for "those who can't innovate litigate." They're on the decline. Having lost a huge settlement at this point only entrenches them into this. They now know that they can make a whole lot more from patent licenses and lawsuits. They're heading down faster and faster and it's going to get messy.

  • On the post: Planet Money Continues To Show How Damaging Software Patents Are To Innovation

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 04:20pm

    Re:

    How does a patent enable companies to make money in ways that they couldn't make money otherwise? If licensing and litigation is your only answer, then that goes to show how bad patents are.

  • On the post: How Data Retention Makes Us Less Secure

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 03:06pm

    Re: Security by obscurity

    You're plan would work absolute wonders in keeping a marketer from knowing anything about you for certain (though that's not necessarily the case).

    However, it could and eventually would most likely backfire in keeping law enforcement from finding something to hit you with, whether it be child porn (unlikely unless you're randomly crawling some really seedy places), copyright infringement, or even significant number of visits to extremist groups. Perhaps they'll even hit you with a CFAA charge a la a ToS violation.

    If they want to hit you with something, anything they find will be used against you. In fact, claiming in court that you set up a system will probably not win you many friends on the jury that will be told "if the defendant didn't have anything to hide, why did he go so far to cover it up?"

    No, the answer is to abort this bill before it becomes law. Letting it pass and then trying to obfuscate your data is not the answer.

  • On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To… Make A Bunch Of Remakes?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re:

    Hell Avatar and District 9 (the two most unique movies in the past few years) were just taken from indie films several years before.
    I thought Inception was rather unique.

  • On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 09:17am

    Re: Re: Bunch O' Wimps.......

    Apple isn't a monopoly. If you want a Suburban you're only choice is Chevy. That doesn't make Chevy a monopoly. If you want iOS, you go with Apple, but if you want a mobile OS, you have iOS, Android, WinPhone 7, WebOS, whatever that OS that RIM has, and others. By you're definition, Google, Microsoft, HP, and RIM are all monopolies as well.

  • On the post: Ron Wyden Puts Hold On FISA Amendments Act; Wants Answers To How Many Americans Have Been Spied On

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2011 @ 03:04pm

    Re: Re: ya

    What scares me is the thought that were we to have a modern day equivalent of the First/Second Continental Congress or Constitutional Convention, the same people in power now might show up. That goes from the Federal level all the way down to the local level. That has shaped how I vote dramatically. If I'm going to elect somebody who might have a hand in shaping the next constitution, I'm certainly not going to vote for somebody just because they're the lesser of two evils.

  • On the post: Makeup Companies Run Into Legal Trouble For Too Much Photoshopping… And Not Enough Photoshopping

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2011 @ 02:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    A lot of those pictures have more to do with lighting, pose, clothing, etc than they have to do with make up.

    Some of those pictures are obviously comparing without to touched up/photoshopped images.

    Some of those pictures I have a hard time believing that the "without makeup" picture is even the same person as the "with", for example, Angelina Jolie. If the "without" is really Angelina, it's her from a long time ago, before any plastic surgery she's done. So again, make up isn't the factor.

  • On the post: Court Shuts Down Zediva: Apparently The Length Of The Cable Determines If Something Is Infringing

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2011 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, had you bought the disc, and then used your fair use rights to make a bit for bit copy of that DVD, and then paid Zediva to send that copy to you, everything would have been OK.

  • On the post: Court Shuts Down Zediva: Apparently The Length Of The Cable Determines If Something Is Infringing

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe they should have set up the service in such a way that instead of renting the movies, you were actually buying the movies from Zediva, and then selling it back to them afterwards.

  • On the post: More Canadian Universities Opt Out Of Access Copyright's Skyrocketing Tariffs

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2011 @ 03:56pm

    Re:

    Holy crap! When did Canada take New England from the US? Is that part of the debt deal? If so, has anyone called dibs on Delaware yet?

  • On the post: Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 01:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    My birth wasn't cheap. Next time, factor in all the costs, please.

  • On the post: Jack Kirby Declared A Mere Marvel Workerbee… Heirs Can't Reclaim Copyrights On Hulk Or X-Men

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's correct, they might pay less for it, but then the actual creator might go to that company's competitor and today we might be watching X-Men movies from DC Comics instead of Marvel.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 11:28am

    Re: Patents and other IP failures relating to fundamental property rights

    I agree totally. Humans have always copied. In fact, life copies. That's all life is, so it's no wonder that we copy. Sure, we also modify our copies. Sometimes in bad ways, sometimes in weird ways, sometimes in neutral ways, and sometimes in better ways, but the root is that everything is at the most a modification of a copy, at the least a straight up copy.

    Given all of that, copyrights and patents take away rights. We've always had the right to copy, until a patent or copyright comes along, and suddenly we lose those rights in favor of, as you say, "the state ... assigning to A a right to control B's property". We grant to A the right to infringe our rights.

    If there is a moral component to copyrights and patents at all, it is that they are immoral.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Finally Admits To Latest Domain Seizures; Arrests Guy For Selling Unauthorized 'Sons Of Anarchy' T-Shirts

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 09:06am

    Re: What

    Well, there was the lady who faced more jail time for jaywalking than the drunk driver that killed her son in the hit and run that happened during said jaywalking.

  • On the post: Another Day, Another Study That Says 'Pirates' Are The Best Customers… This Time From HADOPI

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2011 @ 09:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm only going to comment on your 30 second sample comment, which is absolutely false. The last song I bought (which is also the last song I've even acquired) was several years ago. The reason I haven't bought anything since was because the 30 second sample sounded like it was the song I wanted, but it turned out that it wasn't. So screw it, if I can't know for sure that the song I want is the song I'm getting, then I'm just not going to buy music. Now it turns out that I'm not a big music guy so I'm perfectly fine with not buying more music (nor pirating it) as there are lots of other things I am willing to buy. So the recording industry has caused me to put all of my discretionary dollars into other industries.

    Another anecdote: I did recently consider buying several movie soundtracks for movies that I've seen, so I knew I liked the music. But all I could get was a 30 second preview of all the songs. Movie soundtracks are notorious for some parts of any given song be awesome and other parts be just filler. So if I listen to the 30 second preview, is the part I'm listening to the only good part, or perhaps it's the only so-so part of an otherwise awesome track? I don't know. Am I going to buy those soundtracks. Maybe, but only after I hear the whole thing. In comes youtube. When I'm done listening to those tracks, I may or may not buy, depending on how much I like the full tracks. Now youtube could be legit, or it could be that I end up listening to some non-legit uploads. I don't care. If the recording industry wasn't going to be bothered to put up the songs on youtube and at least get the advertising revenue out of it, that's not my problem. Somebody else will do their job for them.

    30 second samples are garbage.

  • On the post: Idea/Expression Dichotomy Is Dead; Judge Allows Photographer's Lawsuit Against Rihanna To Move Forward

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2011 @ 08:29am

    Don't worry, It can't be locked up

    With this going forward, I wonder where the don't-worry-everything-will-be-fine-it-can't-be-copyrighted commenter from the recent fashion copyright thread went. There he states that "even an untrained eye can clearly see major differences...So sorry, nothing would be 'locked up'".

  • On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2011 @ 12:42pm

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

    But having to spend any money at all because some *fellow citizen* decides your rights are not important to him, that has to kind of nuisance, don't you think?
    I agree, I shouldn't have to spend a dime just because someone else decided my rights weren't as important as their rights. That's why I don't like the idea of having to lobby for the abolition of copyright. I mean, just because you think that my natural right to copy is less important than your government granted right to stop infringe on my rights, doesn't mean I should have to pay. Unfortunately, if I want you to stop infringing on my rights, I'm going to have to pay for it. And that's just not right. So please take your IP away, because it infringes my natural rights.

Next >>