John85851’s Techdirt Profile

john85851

About John85851




John85851’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 11:08am

    Re:

    Why is it relevant that diamonds come from coal "such as this"? As far as I know, there are no diamond mines in the United States.
    If the miners were mining diamonds, we'd have a "diamond industry", not a "coal industry". ;)

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 10:53am

    How about laws that cover all distracted driving?

    How about laws that cover all distracted driving? Otherwise, it goes something like this:

    Officer: I pulled you over for playing with the radio.
    Person: No, sir, I was texting, which is legal.

    New law: texting while driving is illegal.

    Officer: I pulled you over for texting while driving.
    Person: No, sir, I was checking Facebook, which is legal.

    New law: using Facebook while driving is illegal.

    Officer: I pulled you over for using Facebook.
    Person: No, sir, I was sending out a tweet, which is legal.

    New law: using Twitter while driving is illegal.

    Officer: I pulled you over for using Twitter.
    Person: No, sir, I was sending an e-mail.

    And on and on and on.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Wells-Fargo-Esque

    Or:

    1. Knowingly defraud customers knowing that most aren't going to argue over an extra $3.00 or $5.00 charge.
    Millions of customers X $3.00 or $5.00 = millions in profits for not delivering a product or service.

    2, Tell customer service reps to quickly give a refund to anyone who complains since (again), most customers won't complain.
    Then these customers are "happy" because they got a refund even though they shouldn't have been charged in the first place.

    3) Then like you said, when this comes to the attention of the FCC, the company is slapped on the wrist with a fine that's a third of this income.

    And so the company has no real incentive NOT to do this... well, other than running an ethical business.

  • Jun 9th, 2017 @ 10:14am

    The same as the NFL and the Super Bowl

    This sounds like the same issue as the NFL and the Super Bowl: the NFL gets companies to pay big money to be able to use the word "Super Bowl" in their advertising. In exchange, the NFL goes after everyone else who tries to use the word "Super Bowl" to protect their licensee's investment.

    The same applies here: there are probably companies who have paid to license the Kellogg's brands, including Special K. But now these tennis players are using the words without any kind of licensing agreement.
    It would be interesting to see if Kelloggs themselves came up with the idea of taking the tennis players to court or if their licensors pushed them into it.

  • May 29th, 2017 @ 12:26pm

    Let this backfire

    If the RNC really wants this, then lets see what happens when their staffers have to deal with endless voicemails from spammers and telemarketers?
    Do the politicians not realize that their phone numbers are publicly displayed on all of the US government websites? Okay, sure, these are the office numbers, but still.

  • May 29th, 2017 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Still one step ahead...

    I think you're thinking about ISIS, which is making me uncomfortable, so I'm going to alert the authorities.
    But wait, if I complain that you're thinking about ISIS, that means I'm thinking about ISIS also. The authorities will arrest me too!
    But then when the arrest me, they'll be thinking about ISIS also, so they'll have to be arrested!

  • May 29th, 2017 @ 11:59am

    How to get free publicity

    This seems like a textbook case on how to get free publicity.

    Step 1: Create an app that only you will use and give it a parody name.

    Step 2: A larger company files an opposition.

    Step 3: Complain in the media about how the large company is overstepping and trying to put the small business-owner down.

    Step 4: "Give in" to the larger company and stop work on the app that wasn't going anywhere anyway.

    Step 5: Profit by giving speeches about trademark and copyrights.

  • May 26th, 2017 @ 11:07am

    Re:

    Moana was an original story.

    But that's about it since Disney's big money-makers were Finding Dory, Star Wars, and the Marvel movies.

  • May 15th, 2017 @ 3:40pm

    Setting precedent

    Are the judges in Austria really so short-sighted that they don't realize that they're setting precedent around the world?
    They may be thinking that they're somehow protecting Austria against hate speech, but this opens the door for countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and China to crack down on Facebook to censor any speech they don't like.
    So then how does Facebook allow censoring from Austria but not China?

  • May 15th, 2017 @ 10:36am

    Uncle Ben's rice

    The Though Mudder people should probably go after Uncle Ben's rice also.
    I was watching TV the other night and I saw a commercial for Uncle Ben's rice and there was a little notice at the bottom of the screen saying "The color Orange and Uncle Ben's is trademarked".

    I can't wait until all these cases go to trial and these companies argue over why they can own a specific shade of orange.

  • May 10th, 2017 @ 10:12am

    Re: Please Leave

    That's an excellent post.

    I would say the Republican party's problems began in 2008 with the election of Obama. That's when people the "truther" movement started (because how dare an African-Ammerican become president) and it's about that time that McConnell and his cronies decided to make it their life's mission to obstruct everything Obama did.
    They don't like Obamacare and voted to repeal it 50 times? Okay, that's how laws work... but why in the world did it take until 2017 for them to come up with their own healthcare plan? And whether their plan is better isn't point: the point was that they spent 7 years trying to repeal one of Obama's landmark events without even suggesting a plan of their own.

    As for Trump being a Republican- the above post is correct that Trump is whatever he needs to be in order to be popular. For years, he supports Democratic causes because it suited him, then he switched to Republican, then he defended Hillary Clinton as a good Secretary or State, then he said she was crooked.
    Back during the election, Stephen Colbert had a great skit where he showed video clips of current Trump "debating" past Trump and you'd swear Trump was two different people.

  • Apr 21st, 2017 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Not enough.

    I still want to know how many people voted _for_ Trump compared to the number of people who voted _against_ Hillary. These voters probably didn't like either candidates' policies, but they thought Hillary would be a worse president than Trump.

  • Apr 20th, 2017 @ 10:22am

    We are a vengeful people

    I know this is getting a little off-topic, but I completely agree with the phrase above about how we're a vengeful people.

    Has anyone been following the case of Markeith Lloyd, here in Florida? He shot a number of people, including some police officers, then ran from police, and then was captured.

    It turns out that the State Prosecutor handling the case announced she wasn't going to seek the death penalty.
    It didn't take long for pundits to argue that she shouldn't do this, even though it's completely within her right as the state prosecutor. I can't say for certain, but she's probably chosen not to seek the death penalty in other cases, but none of those were as high-profile as this one.

    Then, governor Rick Scott fired her... because she refused to seek the death penalty for someone who shot police officers. We can argue whether the death penalty is good or bad, but now we have a situation where the governor will step in if he doesn't like how the state prosecutor approaches a case.

    The shooter will go to jail for life and probably never be released, but the people of Florida want their pound of flesh for what he did and the governor will make sure he's executed if found guilty.

  • Apr 19th, 2017 @ 10:41am

    Most Facebook ads are irrelevant

    I think the larger problem with Facebook ads is the irrelevance. Facebook has built its business on being able to data-mine individual users' interests down to the molecule.

    If they know I like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Doctor Who, why are they showing me ads for realtors in my neighborhood? Why not show me an ad for "Rogue One" or Doctor Who DVD's? Or why not show me some ads for these kinds of toys? Not only would I click on these ads, but I'd very probably buy something from the advertiser's website.

    But the more irrelevant ads they show me, the more likely I am to block them all.

  • Apr 19th, 2017 @ 10:22am

    Re:

    Good for her if she gets more money, but will the officer learn anything from this? Even if she goes through with a lawsuit and even if she wins, the settlement will be paid by the police department (not the officer), which in turn will be paid by taxpayers.

    The officer needs to be fired with a "dishonorable discharge" so he can't work in any law enforcement jobs and stripped of any pension he might have. Then he might learn not to abuse his power.

  • Apr 6th, 2017 @ 10:03am

    On the other hand

    While the business owner's response wasn't the best, let's look at it from another angle:
    A customer has a technical issue, but instead of asking for support from the company, which may nor may not have fixed the issue, he lashes out and posts a negative review on Amazon and calls the product a piece of ****. What if the company has heard about this issue before and it was a simple fix? Why didn't the customer at least try to get help before posting a complaint? Or maybe this was an issue that the company could fix for future customers.

    But instead, the customer decides to post a negative review and lash out instead of actually asking for a solution to his problem.

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 11:58am

    Who do you trust

    I think another problem with fake news is that too many people don't know what to trust any more.
    How long have the Republicans spent discrediting places like CNN, MSNBC, and even the BBC as the "lamestream media". So if we can't trust the BBC, who do we trust for balanced reporting? Certainly not Fox, which is basically a mouthpiece for the Republicans.

    And I see this play out all the time on Facebook:
    Person #1 posts a link to a website with an obviously fake story.
    Person #2 posts a link to Snopes showing that the story was discredited 3 years ago.
    Person #1 then gets upset: "Who made Snopes in charge of the truth? Who are they to say what's right and wrong?"

    Yet a 10-second Google search would have shown Person #1 that the story is false before she shared or posted it.

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 10:03am

    I think there's a larger problem

    And the problem is that people are ignorant and have short attention spans.
    Which version will most people read?
    A) "Congress will allow ISP's to sell your data".
    B) "But here's the real problem: you can't buy Congress' internet data. You can't buy my internet data. You can't buy your internet data.
    [Three paragraphs of explanation about the inner workings of Google AdWords.]
    That's it."

    Or, more importantly, which version will the local news station broadcast? I guarantee it's some form of "Congress wants to sell your data. Tonight at 11:00".

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 9:53am

    Why bother learning?

    Like a lot of posters have said, why bother learning all this stuff to make a ruling when the appeals court may overturn it?
    It would be better if the judge *was* the appeals court so no technology-ignorant court could over-rule him.

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 11:41am

    No reporting?

    _According to the audit, AEPI’s IT system tasked with handling royalty payments was incapable of producing a report to compare royalties collected with royalties being paid out. _

    So you're telling me that the AEPI has been running since 2011 yet they don't have ANY reports to compare income (royalties collected) and expenses (royalties paid)?
    Either this is beyond gross negligence or it was done on purpose to hide the fact that they're not paying artists their fair share.
    I would say this "collection agency" should be shut down, but like people are saying, they probably grease the politicians enough to stay in business.

More comments from John85851 >>