eclecticdave 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (148) comment rss

  • On the post: Putting Press Releases Online? Patented! Lots Of Small Companies Sued

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2010 @ 11:01am

    Re: New rule

    Whenever a court overturns an obviously bogus patent, court costs should be paid by the USPTO.

    That should put a stop to them just rubber-stamping this crap through.

  • On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly, I'm not a US citizen but my understanding is congress can "make no law" that violates the constitution.

    So if copyright law as it stands fails to promote the progress then it is unconstitutional.

  • On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Sided?

    I could be wrong when it comes to large multi-nationals, but corporations generally pay tax on their profit, not their turnover. So that would be after costs and overheads were deducted, wouldn't it?

    On top of that the label employs the best accountants who undoubtedly make sure that the maximum amount possible goes on lavish expenses and non-deductables.

    It seems to me that although you might have a point about the specific numbers, whichever way you cut it, it still ends up that the label earns millions from the artist but the artist makes very little (40K each band member, bearing in mind that's only on the first album, for subsequent albums they start off in debt, so don't even get that).

  • On the post: First Post-Bilski Patent Appeals Ruling Rejects Software Patent

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2010 @ 02:12pm

    Re: It's not a ���§ 101 question

    So processes are patentable, as in 'take x, apply heat at y degrees for z minutes...', because they change matter (transformation part of the test). And hardware is patentable, as in 'a machine with part a connected to b by c that does d'. But when I have a computer and software that effectively both performs a process on the computer (parts of this are transformed, and there is an output of results) and turns the computer into a specific machine, then this is not patentable? Can anybody explain the logic to me?

    I think the difference here is the first is a physical transformation that, for example, takes a bunch of chemicals and turns them into a polymer. Software on a (general purpose) computer can do little more than take some abstract data and transform it into different abstract data - a process that can by definition be represented entirely by mathematics.

    I think in order to be a patentable process it needs to extend beyond the abstract, regardless of if or how much software is involved. One could imagine, for example, attaching a peripheral to a computer controlled by software that did some sort of physical transformation. I think there's a case for that to be patentable. Clearly in many such cases you would be using software running on embedded hardware rather than a general purpose PC to achieve this.

    The key here IMHO is to look at such hybrid cases and ask where the actual innovation is. If the "Inventive Step" is entirely within the software, then probably that should not be patentable. If on the other hand the software and hardware are integrated in such a way that the Inventive Step can reasonably be said to a apply to the device as a whole, then it could be considered patentable.

    My suspicion is this is the sort of distinction that the new NZ law is attempting to make, FWIW.

  • On the post: First Post-Bilski Patent Appeals Ruling Rejects Software Patent

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2010 @ 02:39pm

    Re: Re: Light at the end of the tunnel...

    No, that's the point ... algorithms cannot be patented since they are just maths.

    Up to now the thinking has been that software can be patented since when you put it on a computer it performs a concrete task in some sense. That's all up in the air now.

    And FYI there's no such thing as an animated PNG ...

  • On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2010 @ 11:23am

    Re: Can't believe this...

    Unfortunately I strongly suspect too many people see the words $1MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT!!! and fall over themselves in the rush to sign on the dotted line - and don't find out they've been scammed until much, much later.

  • On the post: Will Arnold Schwarzenegger Also Ban Kids From Riding Terminator 2 Theme Park Ride?

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2010 @ 07:21am

    Fairy Tales

    Snow White - poisoning, murder, incitement to murder by an authority figure, violence caused by extreme jealousy.

    Sleeping Beauty - attempted murder, violent sword fighting resulting in the death of a protagonist.

    Hansel and Gretel - Child neglect and abandonment, Advocates excessive violence (murder by burning alive) for alleged defensive purposes.

    The Tinder Box - Outright murder without obvious motive, Kidnap, Acts of treason and usurping the throne.

    The Ugly Duckling - Childhood abandonment, bullying.

    Rapunzel - Stealing, Kidnap, Maiming.

    Need I go on? Clearly if you're going to start banning materials unsuitable for minors, you should start with these shameful texts. I suggest building great piles of them and setting them on fire ;-)

  • On the post: Prince: No Music On The Internet; The Internet Is Over

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2010 @ 09:08am

    Re: Re:

    If it isn't, can we party like it is?

    (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

  • On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2010 @ 06:54am

    Re:

    > I value a moral argument above an economic one

    > The creator/licensee of the work is asking a price for its use. Either I pay that pay that price or I do without the work

    The problem I have is the second statement is an economic argument but not necessarily a moral one.

    Suppose we define "morally wrong" to be some action that benefits me at the expense of someone else (in this case the creator). Then you certainly might argue that if I had the means to purchase the work but chose to download it instead, then that would be morally wrong.

    However suppose I lacked the means to buy the work, but I believed that by helping to promote the work via p2p it would result in someone else attending a concert that they would not otherwise have considered? Does it then make it morally wrong for me *not* to share the work?

  • On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2010 @ 06:26am

    Re:

    > The way to capitalize on that shifts to him figuring out how to get people to pay, but that isn't her argument, hers is that hopefully somewhere somehow people will pay for what shes taking for free.

    Well yes and no. Certainly there is an element of "give it away and pray" to Eleanor's argument, but it isn't entirely without merit.

    At first glance it isn't obvious why anyone would pay for a copy when they already have one they downloaded - do they have money to burn? Nevertheless some *do* pay.

    The reason they pay is not so much that they are paying for the existing work, but more that they implicitly understand that they are paying to fund the artist's *next* creation.

  • On the post: Twitter Taking Down Tweets Over Bogus DMCA Claims

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2010 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hi yourself. However Mike has no need to create multiple identities to promote his views - some people actually agree with him ;-)

  • On the post: Twitter Taking Down Tweets Over Bogus DMCA Claims

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2010 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And you are commenting on a blog post which refers to a tweet which links to a blog post which points to a site which encourages people to violate copyright.

    Clearly this comment should be also be removed.

    See how that works?

  • On the post: Free Is Not An Aberration; It's Basic Economics

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2010 @ 09:09am

    Newspapers should try harder with ads

    It constantly amazes me that newspapers complain that ad-supported doesn't work on the web, when they barely seem to have given it a proper attempt.

    When you go to a front page story online about how the global recession is really starting to bite - and next to it is an advert offering to sell you a new car or a holiday home in the Bahamas - is it any wonder that the model doesn't seem to work too well?

    I realise there's scope for problems here (advertising funeral services next the story about the latest murder - probably not such a good idea), but they must able to do
    a better job than they seem to do at the moment.

  • On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2010 @ 02:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes

    > If you are a decent person you do not have a button with 'notify inappropriate content' to make sure that the thing will be removed soon. So it will stay there for months.

    You mean like the Flag icon just below every video?

  • On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2010 @ 04:57am

    Google's response

    Google's response here ... they say they plan to appeal.

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/serious-threat-to-web-in-italy.html

  • On the post: House Of Lords Has Serious Concerns About Digital Economy Bill

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2010 @ 02:46am

    Re: Aristocratic Lords protect liberty

    > It's really quite amusing, while also being horrible,
    > that the personal freedoms and liberties of Britons have > been best protected for years now by the unelected body
    > of aristocrats in the house of Lords.

    Yes it is ironic - although the House of Lords is no longer exclusively populated by true aristocrats - they reformed that some years back.

    They also tried to complete the job a couple of years ago IIRC, trying to turn Lords in a 100% elected body - the danger here is unless you're careful you end up with the same party controlling both houses and being able to push through bad stuff like this without any resistance. (Sound familiar?)

    Although an elected upper house is theoretically better, in practice the Lords have been very good at keeping the government in check on a number of important issues in the past.

  • On the post: Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 01:36pm

    Re:

    > the tories will almost certainly get in

    Only if everyone votes for them because they "will almost certainly get in" - that sort of thing is self-fulfilling.

    Seriously I really wish I could convince everyone to vote for *Someone Else* next year. Really, I couldn't even care less who people vote for, as long as it's not LAB or CON. It's time we shook things up around here.

    If you need an incentive just remember that there were many MPs in both parties abusing the expenses system - and Cameron saying "well guys we'd better give the money back then" *doesn't* make it all right!

  • On the post: Nissan To Add Futuristic Sound Effects To Its Electric Car To Keep It From Hitting Unaware Pedestrians

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2009 @ 06:01am

    Re: Re: Knight Rider

    Even though I'm sure most people have probably figured it out by now ...

    The signs say "Look Left" only on roads such as one way streets where the traffic might be coming from an unexpected direction. We don't usually have signs saying "Look Right" on normal roads!

  • On the post: Class Action Copyright Suit Filed Against Scribd… By Jammie Thomas' Lawyers?

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2009 @ 09:33am

    Active Policing

    This could be an interesting case from the POV of recent worrying court judgements which seem to be suggesting that safe harbors only apply if you take a hands-off approach to managing a website and you could be liable if you actively remove infringing material over and above takedown requests.

    This clearly makes little sense since it effectively encourages website owners to do nothing to police their sites. One possible useful outcome of this case is if it ended up setting a more sensible precedent.

  • On the post: Why Just Copying Isn't Enough: Cargo Cult Science And Copycats

    eclecticdave ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2009 @ 06:17am

    Re: Going back to our TiVo discussion...

    > Without patents, the big guys can block them out by having monopolies

    This is the key. What you're essentially saying here is the little guy needs monopoly control because the big guys already have it. And you're right as far as it goes.

    The problem is this does nothing but make a bad situation worse. The real solution is to not only get rid of patents, but also to rid the world of all these other forms of anti-competitive monopoly control as well.

    Of course, that's not going to be easy! Ultimately I think it will have to happen eventually, but it won't happen until far more people realise just how broken things are at the moment.

Next >>