JMT’s Techdirt Profile

jmt

About JMT




JMT’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 5:27pm

    Re:

    Yep, I'll take low-speed rear-end collisions over cars running red lights every day.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I will ALWAYS trust myself more than ABS..."

    Unless you are a very experienced driver who regularly practices extreme braking (e.g. a race driver), your trust is misplaced.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 5:18pm

    Re:

    "I sure hope they're doing some of their testing on wet roads and icy roads, you know, the ones where slamming the brakes is NOT always a viable option."

    Actually with modern ABS and stability control systems that's exactly what you should do. These systems are much better than most drivers.

    "But I'll bet ya they aren't."

    Yes, you're much smarter than they are, which is why you thought of it and they didn't...

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Re:

    "The Olympics were held in Nazi Germany and somehow persevered."

    When the '36 games were held the Nazi party was just another political party for most people in the world. You're basing your comment on how we view them now.

  • Aug 24th, 2016 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Re: Incorrect

    "Why would the objective be that my creation is only my property for a period of time until I then have to let others monetize it?"

    Because as soon as you publish it, or even let anyone see/hear/read it, it's NOT yours anymore. That's just the natural state of world as it has always been. Copyright was introduced very recently in human history as a set of temporary (hah!) restrictions on the public's ability to use works created by others, after which things are supposed to revert to that natural state (i.e. the public domain).

    If having sole possession of your creation is so important to you, keep it to yourself. But don't you dare use any one else's work as inspiration for your own!

  • Aug 24th, 2016 @ 10:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "...though fully dressed up like that, why would you even want to go to the beach?"

    Because it's still nice to go to the beach maybe?

  • Aug 23rd, 2016 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Re:

    "EFF's entire spiel here seems to be based on (at best) second hand knowledge."

    Which is kinda the whole point, since the first hand knowledge is being jealously guarded. When you mess with people's privacy but won't be up front about exactly what you're doing, expect to be called on it.

  • Aug 23rd, 2016 @ 5:47pm

    Re:

    "Hey, think about it and stop cop hating for a second."

    Starting a comment with an accusation of "cop hating" pretty much guarantees whatever comes after will not a be an intelligent and thoughtful argument...

  • Aug 19th, 2016 @ 3:05pm

    Re:

    "Life+70 has no benefit for the artists, but it does benefit the gatekeepers and middlemen."

    This can't be repeated often enough or loud enough. It's not the artists demanding this, it's those who take most of the income generated by the artists' works.

  • Aug 19th, 2016 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re: Let's play with the math...

    ...nobody reading this gives a damn about stuff recorded in 1936.

    Except for the people who are fighting tooth and nail for longer and longer copyright terms right? You realise you just completely contradicted your own argument?

    If "nobody gives a damn" about the old stuff, why isn't copyright limited to 20 or 50 years instead of potentially over 150?

  • Aug 16th, 2016 @ 11:26pm

    Re: Laughable to call Gawker journalism.

    "Laughable to call Gawker journalism"

    Gawker is a lot more than just one story and Gawker Media (who've been forced into bankruptcy) is a lot more than just the website Gawker. It's laughable to say Gawker Media doesn't do journalism.

    "What they did with Hogan was right up there with revenge Porn."

    Whether or not that's true (and I'm not entirely in disagreement), the $140M verdict is unjustifiable and likely to be overturned, and Thiel's actions set an extremely dangerous precedent. Try to look at the bigger picture beyond the narcissistic has-been celebrity.

  • Aug 15th, 2016 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re:

    "It is taxing the drug trade actually."

    The lack of successful, or even attempted, convictions for actually trading drugs suggests otherwise.

  • Aug 11th, 2016 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Re:

    Says the person who has absolutely no idea how the creative process works. ALL music is based in some way on what has come before, the 80's and 90's are no exception. It's also entirely possible to make music that sounds a bit like something else without any direct inspiration, simply because it's what sounds good.

  • Jul 25th, 2016 @ 6:28pm

    Re: Not exactly.

    "The song did get a bit heavy handed with using "stealing", but I thought it was a bit of deliberate satire..."

    While the word 'stealing' has different interpretations depending on which side of the argument you're on, the 'sue', as in bring legal action, does not. It didn't seem satirical to me, it seemed ignorant. I'm a huge fan of Oliver's work, and Last Week Tonight in particular, but this seems like a real clanger to me.

    "Many don't know what they're getting into. The record labels prey on artists, yet people keep blaming the victims."

    Between Michael Bolton, Cyndi Lauper, John Mellencamp, the Wilson sisters, Sheryl Crow and the others, there are many, many decades of music industry experience involved here. They're not they noobs you speak of, they know exactly what the situation is. I wouldn't call them victims either, they're the very lucky winners of the music industry lottery.

    "So, they can't pursue legal action. They can't revoke their license. What can they do? Make an appeal to emotion to a receptive audience, which might make politicians think twice before using a song without the artist's support, or potentially face some negative publicity."

    That's exactly what they can do, and if Oliver's story had not used the words 'unauthorized', 'illegal', or 'sue', it would've been perfect. I loved it, it was hilarious even though I knew those aspects were completely wrong.

  • Jul 25th, 2016 @ 6:08pm

    Re: WeirdAlGotItRight

    "Mike, it's not about legal entitlement, it's about respecting the artist and their contributions..."

    But this article clearly is about legal entitlement, and when artists falsely claim it. Respecting the artist and their contributions is a completely different story (one Techdirt entirely agrees with you on). Being respected doesn't allow you to make legally false claims. Why is that so hard for many to understand?

  • Jul 25th, 2016 @ 6:02pm

    Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"

    "Just because something is legal does not make it right or moral."

    Nothing in this article claims otherwise, just like in the many other articles Techdirt has written on this topic over the years.

    "The opinion of the creator should count."

    Legally it should not count. That would be a terrible slippery slope to head down.

    "The fans like music because they agree with the creator's message, and the creator has every right to be angry when the music is used to fluff up propaganda."

    Thank you Captain Obvious. Nobody here has ever claimed otherwise.

  • Jul 25th, 2016 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Playing a song is not an endorsement

    "The artist is then required to come out and say the Republican candidate cannot use their song."

    The artist is not required to say anything, and the whole point of the article is to point out that in most cases the artists can't truthfully claim the use is unauthorized, illegal or infringement. They're more than welcome to yell from the rooftops that the use is not approved by them, they hate the person using it and the song means the opposite of what the person using it thinks. But that's all.

    Having said that, I'm constantly amazing by politicians using songs without first checking to see if the artist is going to publicly shame them as a result. Some clearly don't even read the lyrics beyond the catchy main chorus line.

  • Jul 21st, 2016 @ 5:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "It costs way more then the cost of car ownership."

    What your Uber costs now has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of an antonymous Uber of the future.

  • Jul 21st, 2016 @ 5:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "In the world I like to live in this kind of mistake is career ending."

    There are many, many areas of technology development that would be stopped dead in their tracks if that kind of attitude was prevalent. Cars and planes are obvious examples. Luckily for us the world you like to live in is not the world we all actually live in.

  • Jul 14th, 2016 @ 12:42am

    Re: Re:

    Except the cleavage shots. I'm okay with those...

More comments from JMT >>