Nick’s Techdirt Profile

warlordship

About Nick




Nick’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 4:28pm

    (untitled comment)

    "The agents, who were in contact with him for five months, provided him with money and rides home from work as he dealt with the personal fallout of an unrelated arrest stemming from an altercation at a local grocery store."

    This may sound strange, but can we devote more FBI resources to basic neighborhood care, such as rides to/from work for ex-cons and financial support? Perhaps if we did that more, people in this country wouldn't feel that a one-way ticket to martyr town is their only choice.

  • Feb 10th, 2017 @ 2:52pm

    (untitled comment)

    If you make shooting cops a crime, only criminals will shoot cops.

  • Feb 8th, 2017 @ 7:08pm

    (untitled comment)

    You know, they used to have these versions of the game that were free. It didn't contain updates, nor all the content of the finished game. Used to be released weeks or even months in advance of a game release.

    Funcom missed a great opportunity to call it a demo and reap the rewards of releasing one.

  • Jan 12th, 2017 @ 5:58am

    (untitled comment)

    This is brilliant. Let's give internet trolls that have no problem disrupting public computer systems a free troll card to screw with wi-fi. I'm sure that can't go wrong.... "What, I can't visit my local hospital?"

  • Jan 4th, 2017 @ 10:25am

    (untitled comment)

    If people aren't willing to pay a price for a product, then the price should go down. If the price goes down enough you can't make money from it, then less music is being made. If less music is being made (and thus available) then demand goes up. If demand goes up, prices go up.

    I don't understand why the RIAA is complaining about money problems. The market should correct it. If they can't do what they do under current prices, then change things, or shut down. Preferably the latter.

  • Dec 31st, 2016 @ 4:51am

    Who falls for this?

    If there's one thing I've learned as the official "internet guy" in my extended family, is that a LOT of people are using many many internet features that they do not really understand. Old people in particular are very trusting when it comes to scary-looking emails and website popups.

    Not-so-old people are not that much better. I've been called by my own mother, who gets a lot of spill-over techy knowledge from when I speak to my father, still almost fell for that "Microsoft Bob" voice that hijacks your browser and pretends to be a BSOD.

    Not to mention the oodles and oodles of emails like this I get for video game services. Blizzard game services seem to get targetted the most, and I like keeping a copy of some of them (wish I kept more) so I can go back and laugh. But I know that even some close friends of mine will fall for it.

    Now, imagine any of the above people that were "suggested" by me to buy their own domain name for private use. They don't host a website, simply use the domain for email purposes. And they get one of these scary emails. Most people vulnerable to the scam would use Windows and Microsoft office products. They'll certainly find "simple, easy steps" an easy thing to do, I won't bother my hard working son/grandson/husband with a quick call - oh crap - now I'm either out lots of data or hundreds of bucks.

  • Dec 2nd, 2016 @ 7:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    If this becomes a thing, can they also apply the same reasoning to every financial institution? If a bank / offshore tax shelter / company is used to hide tax money, can we have the government demand and get all personal information on all clients of said company/bank/shelter?

  • Nov 16th, 2016 @ 11:25am

    (untitled comment)

    We all know that HDCP has completely destroyed the video ripping market. Torrent sites haven't had any video in HD sooner than Feb. 17, 2000 (implementation of HDCP 1.0 for DVI devices) uploaded to them. The poor saps are stuck with only SD copies of... wait, what?

  • Nov 2nd, 2016 @ 2:54pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm actually in favor of the actors guild. I didn't know about their strike (and they can do that all they want for benefits, it's their right), but this does smell of abuse.

    For instance, I cannot make a restaurant called Walmart Plus, and make it a bar or whatever. Sure, you walk in and realize this isn't Walmart itself, but you had no way of knowing that before you entered the place.

    Same thing with domain names and twitter handles. After analyzing many many tweets or actually consuming the content of the site, you MAY be able to realize it isn't something put up by the original group targeted. As a consumer, it should not require being burned (wasting time and/or money) to determine if this oddly worded name is legit or not.

  • Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:25pm

    Re: Re:

    Exactly why you cannot blame consumers of a video service on a web site for the illegality of the video. If the site allows sharing of the product, it is still the fault of the service.

    I don't see how this is a thing.

  • Oct 28th, 2016 @ 10:19am

    (untitled comment)

    This seems extremely wrong. There would be no way of knowing that a video on youtube (which provides a way to share its content freely using widgets) was an unauthorized version. Especially a small, homecam video uploaded by a total nobody stolen from another total nobody.

    It's as if they expect the entire world to know:
    1. About the existence of this video taken by a person at a bungee jumping practice in a remote part of the world
    2. To know the youtube account name of the person who filmed it.
    3. To know that the person who uploaded it is NOT an alternate account of the person who filmed it.
    4. That the video itself is under copyright.
    5. That youtube - who is responsible for ensuring copyrighted material is not copied without the owners permission - hadn't already determined that the video was an authorized copy.

    If any of these are found to be wrong, this case should have been tossed out. I find it hard to believe that the court had proof that every one of these steps was true. The burden of proof should be on the accuser.

    Also.... That was fast. The event was supposedly filmed in 2012, and by jan 9 on 2012 it had already been uploaded by ANOTHER person, and that second video was linked to by a website? Sounds fishy.

  • Oct 21st, 2016 @ 1:36pm

    (untitled comment)

    This isn't getting nearly enough coverage as it should. I managed to catch an article on yahoo news (yeah yeah, laugh it up) about "temporary" 2 hour outages for some people on the east coast.

    However, I cannot access the websites of some pretty major companies, such as soundcloud and twitter. If I used twitter, that might be an issue for me. But I know that a lot of people rely on it for their breaking news, and with a lot of other big name company sites down we cannot get up-to-date info.

    This is scary bad. The fact that Amazon's web service went down is scary. Big companies rely on AWS for their internet connectivity for things, and if that goes/stays down, it can mean a lot of lost income.

  • Oct 18th, 2016 @ 1:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    This annoys me. Every time someone does something someone in government doesn't like, they arrest them and THEN go looking for a charge to place. They invariably say that they KNOW they broke a law, but they just don't know what one.

    I am of the opinion that unless you KNOW they broke a law, you shouldn't be able to do anything to someone. And if the charge is false (such as rioting, for covering a protest) then let that play out in court or the charge dropped.

    It's an abuse of law if you go hunting for 100+ year old laws that haven't been enforced or even LOOKED AT for decades just to punish someone you don't like.

  • Oct 6th, 2016 @ 1:07am

    (untitled comment)

    This seems odd to me. I'm glad the "publisher" deigned to get off their high horse to allow the developers to implement some kind of DRM-free version "later", but it shouldn't be their choice.

    Sure, most publishers won't like to sell a game that is DRM-free as to them it is another word for "less sales", but the whole point of kickstarter is that it is supposed to bypass the typical publisher model of game sales. Kickstarter projects are funded with the idea being that the money given to the developers is all they would need to provide the promised assets to all the backers. Anything beyond that (sales of the game from then on through a store or marketplace) is a bonus to the developers.

    In fact, if they were to not sell a single copy of the game through a store, it should still be a successful product, as the funds paid for the development and research and production of the product for the backers. To come out after and say they needed a publisher feels like a betrayal.

  • Oct 6th, 2016 @ 1:01am

    (untitled comment)

    Well, if you want to argue it that way, then even GOG is full of DRM, since you have to log into an account in which you have purchased it. Then once you are verified as an owner (a form of DRM similar to logging into a steam account) then you can download the game files.

    Once downloaded, you can copy the files to another computer all you want without it preventing you from doing so because of DRM. If it's simply the act of logging into a system that makes it DRM, then steam is like GOG.

    To me, steam is a handy, single place that maintains a list of all digital purchases I have (through them, but I make sure to stick with them so I don't have to have multiple programs/accounts), allows categorization of files, provides a community to discuss it with others via a forum, and allows quick and easy one-click download/install of any one of my games. The fact they have DRM or not is a minor bit to me, what with the other factors stated above bring to the table.

    But some people really do love DRM free copies and will fight to the death over it.

  • Oct 4th, 2016 @ 11:25am

    (untitled comment)

    Companies like HP seem to think there is an epidemic of customers being scammed by purchasing non-official products. I'd wager that most people who buy a replacement cartridge did so because of cost, which is what the open market is supposed to encourage. If GenericX can make a cheaper print cartridge, why can't HP, which already has the manufacturing and specs figured out?

  • Oct 4th, 2016 @ 5:42am

    (untitled comment)

    DMCA Tuesday?

  • Sep 2nd, 2016 @ 9:36am

    (untitled comment)

    I always thought that it was THEIR excuse as for why a movie/show was not available in all markets on day 1. "Oh, sorry, but strange international laws and content markets prevent us from showing it to you right now. Wait a month."

    As soon as the countries do something about it... "HELP! FORCING US TO RELEASE SOMETHING EVERYWHERE AT ONCE WILL BREAK US!"

  • May 6th, 2016 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re:

    I don't see how that can be a similar situation. If your neighbor is telling you that the transaction is completely legal (registration, waiting period, etc) then it is a legal exchange. If the seller lied, it is not the buyers fault for having bought it.

    People accessing a server which is specifically designed to distribute illegal goods (child pornography) then there is no expectation that it is a legal exchange.

  • May 4th, 2016 @ 11:34am

    (untitled comment)

    I really don't see much of a problem with the FBI maintaining the site for long enough to gather user information. Now, TO BE FAIR, I have not read the details (duration of ownership, or details of information gathered) but I'm all in favor of using this as bait to find the people who would view this kind of content.

    I see this as the police setting up fake drug dealers to catch the people who purchase illegal drugs.

More comments from Nick >>