EdAllen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (96)

• On the post: Court Says By Agreeing To AOL's Terms Of Service, You've 'Consented' To Search By Law Enforcement

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 02:30pm

  Re: What's the problem again?

  Enlisting "voluntary" agents to do what the Government is SPECFICALLY forbidden to do itself is a corrupt act.
  
  All parties should be subjected to trial for treason.
  
  That judges do not see it that way shows what years of corruption has done to all branches of government.

• On the post: Court Says By Agreeing To AOL's Terms Of Service, You've 'Consented' To Search By Law Enforcement

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 02:03pm

  Re: Re: You people seem to be OK being classified as "unindicted felons"

  A rant, certainly.
  
  Please point to a single case where all letters to and from a city were opened
  and what court approved it ? Without that "mythical" seems to be a matter
  of what you are willing to accept.
  
  Show me where we have a "guilty until proven innocent" legal system.
  
  But, of course, you are "free" to live within the confines laid out for you.
  
  Life without freedom sounds closer to gulag than "mythical" to me.

• On the post: Court Says By Agreeing To AOL's Terms Of Service, You've 'Consented' To Search By Law Enforcement

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 11:54am

  You people seem to be OK being classified as "unindicted felons"

  As Rick Falkvinge points out
  here...https://torrentfreak.com/letter-copyright-monopoly-140921/ the
  police did not need companies to spy on everybody all the time back when
  we only had snail-mail.
  
  You are saying it is OK for AOL or any other entity to require that we
  prove our innocence constantly.
  
  That machines have the job of turning us in at every moment for whatever
  reason their programmer thought was "bad enough" to garner special
  attention by human guards.
  
  It is sheeple like you who allowed this gulag to be built around us.
  
  "For the children" is as much a facade as "National Security". Both are
  bullshit excuses for more tyranny.
  
  We had mail and privacy in this country for close to two hundred years
  before law enforcement started shaming critics into silence to allow corrupting
  every facet of life.
  
  In my opinion we were better off then.

• On the post: DOJ Proposal Would Let FBI Hack Into Computers Overseas With Little Oversight

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2014 @ 10:25am

  If Cyberspace is like the Oceans then does that make the FBI equivalent to Somali Pirates ?

• On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2014 @ 10:12am

  Re: Re: It's not just the cable

  What about those houses with fiber, do they need yet another set of rules ?

• On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2014 @ 10:08am

  Re: It's not just the cable

  So a channel using pidgeons instead of bits would be subject to yet another set of laws ?
  
  How about one using different colored fluids ?
  
  Why should we need different laws for every medium ?

• On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2014 @ 10:00am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Others, and I, are asking you to clarify how we can learn what makes two apparently functional eqivalents fall on different sides of the law.
  
  Do not just repeat the same phrases again. Elucidate and educate please.

• On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2014 @ 09:44am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  He also is ignoring the multiple times that digital information is tranformed before it gets to his ears.
  
  Encrypt the bits is one tranformation, break the encrypted bits into packets is another, send the bits to the network
  is another. Those may not be the entire sequence but they need eqivalent transformations for decoding at the receiving
  end as well.
  
  Then a final transform from digital to analog to drive the speaker and modulate the video.
  
  So, how many "broadcasts" are in that sequence ? And when did a single point to single pont transfer, through however many transforms, become a "broadcast" ? (single source to multiple recipients)

• On the post: TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2014 @ 09:31am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Yet when they attempted to use the same rates as cable companies
  do both the Broadcasters and a judge said, "you are not a cable company so you cannot do that!"
  
  You appear to be the only one who believes Aero could just "pay the standard fees"
  and go about their business.
  
  This fluidity and ambiguity will require lots more days in front of lots of judges.

• On the post: Amazon To Hachette And Authors: Here, Let Us Explain Basic Price Elasticity To You

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2014 @ 09:26am

  Re: Re: Great arguments

  "That's the main issue with file sharing. Why would you buy something that's available for free?"
  
  That can be answered with, "Why would you go to a restaurant when you can cook at home for almost free ?"
  
  Willingness to pay comes when the price asked is less than the percieved value.
  
  Getting somebody to percieve your goods favorably is a skill that those depending on Copyright as a crutch
  seem to have forgotten, be they author or publisher.

• On the post: Amazon To Hachette And Authors: Here, Let Us Explain Basic Price Elasticity To You

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2014 @ 08:15am

  Re:

  That appears to be the only way past the Publishers' willful refusal to accept reality.
  
  Sme thing with DRM, they refuse to acknowlege that DRM reduces value to customers and therefore means fewer sales at their offered price.
  
  A useful experiment would be one dollar with DRM versus $9.99 without.
  
  Short of authors knowing these economic realities don't expect any changes.

• On the post: Federal Prosecutor Claims That Copyright Infringement 'Discourages Smart People From Doing Innovative Things'

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2014 @ 07:06am

  Re: Re:

  Actually not paid directly.
  
  They have licenses, subsidies, classmates, etc. to protect and those are most easily done by parroting.
  
  That is why we get so little investigating, coverups consume time and piss off idealistic reporters.

• On the post: EU Publishers Present Their 'Vision' For Copyright: A Permission-Based Internet Where Licensing Is Required For Everything

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2014 @ 10:41am

  Re:

  More like they want tolls at every point "creations" "copy from" each other. Think
  of the discoveries you will make by hunting originals instead of seeing quotes
  included in the interest of reducing licensing fees.
  
  Think of toll booths at every intersection of every road. How marvelously efficient !
  
  Please do not forget that this licensing scheme does not mention durations, once they
  capture an idea or phrase they intend to get perpetual income from it.
  
  Remember that sampling trials have established that five notes require a license.
  
  Imagine what income you could guarantee by copyrighting a "work" consisting of all possible
  five-word combinations !

• On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2014 @ 10:08am

  Re: still trying to understand how like a cable company

  The Court already said that it infringed because of simultaneous viewing, Scalia pointed out that a mandatory delay (how long is left unspecified) would get around this decision. (Litigation to begin soon no doubt over whether an open WiFI offers enough simultaneous connections to infringe. )
  
  How many simultaneous views start infringing is also left unsaid. (Lots more litigation around that)
  
  Which brings up another question, TCP allows for 16 receivers from a transmitter and can be one for each packet, "simultaneous" then is not on a microsecond scale. How close do packets need to be in time to trigger this decision ? (Oh, this decision will send lawyers' grandkids through college.)
  
  More disastrous is the patent world, if everything that does the same job infringes then most patent holders can claim that all implementations of their idea infringe. Patent cases alone will clog the system for years trying to get this "looks close enough regardless of details" standard in their arsenal as well.
  
  Patent Trolls are are brake on innovation, this decision will send them into a frenzy of suits trying to win a multi billion dollar lottery and they may even halt progress for a while.

• On the post: Feinstein (Again) Says Metadata Program 'Is Not Surveillance'

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 21 May, 2014 @ 09:40am

  Give us the totals, no specifics, just the counts

  Show us the totals of plots discovered, foiled, aborted, tried, convicted, freed, etc.
  
  Must be by country so we can see US vs Iran etc.
  
  And I call bullshit if totals must be withheld for "national security".
  
  Totals are just numbers. She should be fine with those !

• On the post: How Many Times A Day Do You Violate Copyright Laws Without Even Realizing It

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 07 May, 2014 @ 03:14pm

  Copyright used to have a safety valve in that penalties were only applied in cases of commercial gain and
  further that that gain needed to be valued in excess of a dollar amount, $1000.00 I think.
  
  That is why the *AAs have been so unwilling to assign a dollar amount to even a single MP3 file.
  
  Instead they scream, "The law says that you owe us $150,000.00 for each MP3" with no court making them PROVE that.
  
  Another thing Copyright used to have was a limitation to TANGIBLE media, books, records, and such. Then along
  comes radio and tangible got thrown out and copyright expanded to cover "performances". Now they are trying
  to redefine "broadcast" to be "a single transfer to a single recipient".
  
  Legal and Rational are never congruent and seldom in the same neighborhood it seems.

• On the post: Biden, Goodlatte Preach To The IP Maximalist Choir, Vow To Make 'Second-Rate' Countries Bend To US IP Laws

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 06 May, 2014 @ 01:45pm

  Re:

  The reason maximalists and their politician pets want to end the open Internet is so they do not have
  to deal with the MILLIONS of creators who never have, and almost certainly never will, given either the RIAA
  nor the MPAA control of a single one of their creations.
  
  As long as people can route items between themselves without the gatekeepers being able to restrict the flow
  they are like a candle before a forest fire and they know it.
  
  They want a read only world, like TV, Radio, records, and movies were before the damned engineers screwed things up.
  
  Oh they want the efficiencies and the cost reductions those bring, higher profits you see. But they do not want
  anybody but themselves to benefit from them.
  
  First come the "drivers license for the Internet" implying that communication with others needs permission from them.
  
  Then will come the "Business licenses for the Internet" to make sure that only "approved" businesses are allowed to contact
  "licensed" Internet users.
  
  That government thugs (police) can no more stop "unlicensed use of the Internet" than they can garage sales
  will never be talked about.

• On the post: US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 05 May, 2014 @ 10:57am

  Re:

  Two years of any curious person being able to see what they rake in from "speaking engagements" alone would be
  enough to wake them to the potential for abuse.
  
  Imagine what the reaction would be to learing that YOUR senile old man uses the Internet for almost
  one hour per month, has no personal email account, and travels mostly in the private jets of "friends".
  
  I wonder what the reelection rate would be for that two years.

• On the post: Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2014 @ 11:45am

  Re: Re: Re: There is no law against it.

  I guess no "Aero needs to be shut down" folks can suggest a reasonable aurgument for why they should be criminals and others who do business within the bounds of copyright should be left alone.
  
  Wow, I did not see that coming ! :)

• On the post: Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?

  

  EdAllen ( profile ), 24 Apr, 2014 @ 03:38pm

  Re: Re: There is no law against it.

  Actually the media companies do not hide that they believe Cablevision was wrongly decided.
  
  They would even outlaw DVRs if they could figure out how to do that and still make money from DVD sales and rentals.
  
  Speaking of DVDs, Walmart, buys DVDs from the producers and then puts them in a
  package deal with a player, amplifier, and monitor. The purchasers of the package
  do not pay anything additional to the producers. That is normal behavior.
  
  Target buys a thousand DVDs from the producers, hauls them across the mountain into
  the next valley over and sells them for a profit. Still regular behavior.
  
  Now the producers are paid by local stations for programming which they add advertisements to and resell
  to those advertisers for a profit.
  Then they broadcast that combination into homes in a given area. I think we have been here before.
  
  Finally along comes Aero, they capture the local station's signal, record it in case
  I want it later, haul it over the mountain and deliver it to my house, not to anybody else.
  
  For the recording and the hauling I am willing to pay a fee.
  
  Explain why Aero is stealing and Target is not.
  
  It cannot be because Aero makes a profit, Target does too.
  
  It cannot be because the producers were not paid, Target and the local station both pay for their use.
  
  So, could it be "stealing" because Aero made money without paying the producers a second time ?
  
  If you have answers for the above I would really like to hear how sensible and fair they are.

Next >>