James Burkhardt’s Techdirt Profile

deadspatula

About James Burkhardt




James Burkhardt’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 13th, 2019 @ 8:24am

    Re: galaxybrain.gif

    Thanks to my roommate, I have live TV. Over the cost of internet alone, the TV service with 230+ channels costs me $30. So $0.13 per channel.

    If I watched Live TV, I would watch like 5 of these channels. So in theory I am spending $30 to get $0.65 worth of content.

    Streaming, to get the content of those 5 channels would run me something like $50. That's an issue. Part of it is replacing ad revenue, I get that. But that is why Ala cart TV plans are different than streaming. People don't often want to pay for commercial-supported content in streaming I'd figure. And figure the ad revenue is suffering the same issues as internet ads in general. But people expect commercials in Live TV, even cable, nowadays. You could significantly discount that service as a alacart live TV provider in ways you can't as a pure streaming provider.

    They are different services, and the expectation is the revenue factors are different and could discount the $10/mo per network we see for streaming.

  • Sep 13th, 2019 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Now what?

    “Each of those counsel has authorized me to inform the Court, through this letter, that their respective client or clients do not reside or work in Virginia and never used the account while physically present in Virginia.”

    It appears the information was gathered via communication with the parties in question. That raises the likelihood that evidence was provided to Twitter's council to satisfy them that the statement they were making was true to the limit of the evidence available when combined with IP-based geolocation of tweets.

  • Sep 12th, 2019 @ 5:19pm

    Re:

    I agree. What should we do to bump https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/10/moving-encryption-policy-conversation-forward-pub-79573 up in the Google search rankings?

  • Sep 12th, 2019 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Even if "your" original, according to Techdirt IT'S NOT

    Dammit. "...and as such the other party in this dispute is widely allowed..." was the intended statement.

  • Sep 12th, 2019 @ 11:24am

    Re: Even if "your" original, according to Techdirt IT'S NOT YOUR

    Questions on if the illustration is property do not impact questions of who owns the copyright in an image. The EFF notes that it exercises a light touch with its government granted rights, and as such is widely allowed to make use of the image the EFF has rights to, but for that party to claim ownership of the rights to the image would be false.

    If you take the language of your linked article and untangle the existing conflation of the image and the government granted rights to the image that your linked article clearly notes is a problem with our current discussion, nothing the EFF says here conflicts with the TechDirt article.

  • Sep 12th, 2019 @ 7:45am

    Re:

    Stone, The comment you replied to said that exact thing:

    Some take the fact that hate speech can be used as evidence of motive in a hate crime and misremember it as the hate speech in-and-of itself being illegal.

  • Sep 11th, 2019 @ 11:16am

    Re:

    Wouldn't help you here. This is looking for the info on people who downloaded the app from Google Play or the App Store. That transaction record exists regardless of account creation.

  • Sep 11th, 2019 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re: Performing as intended, at least for the NFL

    Better cell reception and bandwidth are largely factors of the volume of service the antennas serving the stadium can handle. Fantasy football scores don't need that much bandwidth. More 4G service could easily handle issues with bandwidth. 5G service doesn't really address reception (as noted above, coverage for 5G is poor overall) and the solution to reception (more 5g nodes) also could be used by 4G to handle bandwidth concerns for a smaller footprint. The point of the buildout is to be ahead of the curve, assuming 5G will be the standard everyone expects in 2021, but it doesn't seem like a good fit for this use case.

  • Sep 10th, 2019 @ 8:18am

    Re: Terminology and POV

    Its the appropriate term. Edge providers, in the lingo of players contributing to the internet, are those providing content or services. They are at the endpoints of the network, or the 'edges'.

    This is in contrast to an access provider (or last-mile provider or service provider, aka an ISP), or a backbone provider.

  • Sep 6th, 2019 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re:

    Id contest the description 'King of the Hill". KOTH involves a 'Hill', a defined location less than the total volume of the field of play that must be defended. Killing is only a means to the end of keeping other people off the hill. Fortnight is in the battle royale genre, which is a sole survivor genre. Defeating your enemies is more important than maintaining sole control of a specific location. Its no more king of the hill then hunger games.

  • Sep 4th, 2019 @ 6:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: The copyright office owes you $0.50

    Those charging fees without congressional approval

  • Sep 4th, 2019 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The phrase "Deport Them All" has some unfortunate connotations, which pair nicely with the why you phrased that question.

    For all your focus on 'Illegal Immigration', you chose deport them all, rather than say deport those violating the law. In the current policial climate, refugees are repeatedly described as illegally crossing the border, and skipping the line, in contrast to the reality that the asylum process of crossing the border and requesting asylum is indeed legal. The president has also suggested deporting people without due process, Despite that even with existing due process we still deport US citizens, let alone legal residents with surprising frequency. And yet, the need to mass deport Canadians, who are reportedly currently the worst as far as illegal immigration goes, is not generally discussed, nor is a wall on the northern border.

    This leads such a phrase as "by the way, you should deport them all" to take on the connotations of racism that seem to be threaded throughout the hard-line immigration stance. Because as much as the statement could be innocuous, many people who employ such a term refer almost exclusively to immigrants of latin decent.

    You might try to claim that "them" is all illegal immigrants, but that is because you are Schrodinger's douchebag dogwhistling your Nazi allies. You have chosen an ambiguous term that the reader will, by human nature, apply the current political climate to, so you can than act all high and mighty when we call out the way such a statement would be clearly seen when reflecting on the phrase.

  • Sep 3rd, 2019 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    Muting solves all the issues of harassment you highlight as a reason to ban an individual.

    The only issue I see is the potential for someone restrained by a geniune restraining order being able to stalk an individual, but that in and of itself does not violate the restraining order. Issues of cyber contact not resolved by the restraining order are handled by application of the mute button, and violations of the restraining order are handled by the police.

    Restriction of 1st amendment rights by the government requires due process, restriction of speech by private platforms or individuals does not require due process.

    Application of the mute feature as you admit is just as functional as the block function to hide crude and harassing individuals. But from the perspective of those muted, there is a very different result between mute and block, and the court has ruled that for a public official using twitter as an official communications channel, Mute is the correct choice, not block. Nothing you have said here serves to address those rulings. Your own words prove the futility of those words.

  • Sep 3rd, 2019 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Internet law bingo

    Quick, someone photoshop his head on a mating bedbug so we get rule 34.

  • Sep 3rd, 2019 @ 1:22pm

    Re:

    I don't expect a ban to come from any one incident or a ban-able offence to be reported by only one individual. So long as the report of AOC had no special weight, the court could apply a principle I call the no-single-event principle - it isn't that the government reported the action, but the multitude of actions and the multitude of reports, so the action can't be said to be the action of the government, but a response by twitter to public reports which may contain reports made by an individual who is a government official.

  • Sep 3rd, 2019 @ 6:41am

    Re: May Be the End of the Line

    Actually, The first step is state supreme court. Then, if the state rules against her or refuses to take up the appeal, because the claims implicate her federally granted rights, she could file an appeal to the federal district court, before the SCOTUS get involved.

    If this wasn't an appeal based on federally granted rights, the federal district courts couldn't come into play, but they can enforce federally granted rights onto the states.

  • Sep 3rd, 2019 @ 6:34am

    Re: Re: After this is overturned, does she get to sue the state?

    A) That there is a statute of limitations that is running out is not in evidence. Those convicted as a result of malfeasance often have been able to get settlements if not verdicts in their favor when that malfeasance is laid bare even decades later. And 42 USC §1983 (where civil right violations come into play) has no statute of limitations.

    B) The real issue is that most of the people involved are likely to be held not personally liable - various forms of immunity protect prosecutors and judges from lawsuits related to their jobs, often an absolute immunity. The jurisdiction - the city or county or state - might be held liable. But given it was law, the government could also potentially skate.

    A civil rights lawsuit would not hinge on a statute of limitations. It could however die due to a perceived reasonableness to apply the law. Most likely though? Undisclosed settlement.

  • Aug 26th, 2019 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re:

    The right to privacy has been noted several times by the courts as integral to the exercise of freedom of speech. Curtailing the right to privacy is regularly cited as a means of curtailing freedom of speech. The rights implicate each other. My assertion was that the citation of the 1st amendment was in fact a shorthand to these rulings, that the government's effort to claim a need to protect privacy in a complaint was in fact an effort to cultivate robust free speech activity. I agree the argument is bullshit, but it is not the blatant one suggested.

  • Aug 26th, 2019 @ 9:42am

    (untitled comment)

    I would somewhat disagree. Redacting the public display of communication details of individuals complaining to the government could certainly improve the willingness of people to make complaints, much as we support anonymous speech complaining against the government. Otherwise that information, necessary to make a complaint, could be used by bad faith actors as part of a doxxing campiagn.

    However, such redactions shouldn't prevent the release of documents otherwise valuable to the public.

  • Aug 23rd, 2019 @ 2:38pm

    Re:

    The number, 5,000 voters, is the number of same day voter registrations filed. That much is well documented. However, no evidence has been submitted to prove that all of these registrations were Clinton voters. Given that NC considers out of state College students eligible for voting, thousands of 18 year-olds could have easily moved to NC 2 months earlier and not registered to vote because they did not get a NC ID. Since lots of the "evidence" relates to these people not having NC DL/ID, a lot of the evidence that does exist doesn't actually prove voter fraud, but rather that the republican-instituted voter registration policies are operating as intended.

    Despite repeated calls and promises of an investigation, there has been no evidence presented that any significant amount of these registrations were fake. No evidence was found or presented of bussing or other widespread voter fraud.

More comments from James Burkhardt >>