Andrew F 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (469) comment rss

  • On the post: Iran Says No To Gmail; Yes To 'We Spy On You' Email

    Andrew F ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2010 @ 05:42pm

    Counter-Censorship Operations

    I wonder if Google has a team dedicated to counter-censorship? Perhaps they could throw resources at it that were previously dedicated towards Google China.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Says Internet Content Should Be Held To Standards Of Strictest Jurisdiction

    Andrew F ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2010 @ 12:31am

    Does Federal Law Preempt?

    Internet = interstate (or even international) commerce. Shouldn't federal regulations pre-empt all others?

  • On the post: Google For President? If Corporations Are People…

    Andrew F ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 09:07pm

    Re: Corporations shouldn't have free speech

    Corporations don't speak. People do. Corporations merely provide legal protection for the people who speak on behalf of the corporation.

    The thing is, we generally don't hold individual people liable for political speech because of the 1st Amendment. So whether a CEO is speaking for himself or on for his corporation is a moot point legally.

    The concern, of course, is that corporations have large pools of money that they can use to "outspeak" individuals. Two responses:

    (1) There are people with large pools of money. If Rupert Murdoch hires a bunch of people to stand outside grocery stores handing out a DVD he made criticizing Obama, why should we treat that any differently than if Fox News had done it?

    (2) As Mike mentions, technology is empowering ordinary people to stand up to rich corporations. It's possible for Joe Schmoe to reach out to more voters with a homemade YouTube clip than a million dollar ad blitz on TV.

  • On the post: Bad Web Experience: This Article Removed Because Of Copyright?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2010 @ 10:33pm

    Re: I think I read this somewhere...

    The facts aren't copyrighted but any creative elements within the article are -- e.g. how the facts are presented to you as opposed to what the facts actually are.

  • On the post: Bad Web Experience: This Article Removed Because Of Copyright?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2010 @ 10:32pm

    Re:

    Yeah, this is a little weird. When the copyright expires, it should just become public domain. Maybe they really meant "license" instead of "copyright". They don't own the copyright on their articles and license it from someone else for a limited duration. Once the license expires, they have to remove it or risk being sued for infringement.

  • On the post: ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored

    Andrew F ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2010 @ 03:00pm

    Re:

    They also might lose a whole lot more. For example, f ACTA kills fair use, the public might lose the benefit of parodies and literary criticism. Or suppose ACTA imposes liability upon service providers for the responsibilities of their users -- the public might see the closing of free Wi-Fi and Internet cafes who don't want to deal with all of that.

    Those are "mights" because we don't know what's in it.

    Democracy depends upon transparency. The free market depends on transparency. I would even argue that an effective IP system depends on transparency, but even if it doesn't, arguing that IP rights matter more than democracy and the market seems to be an untenable position.

  • On the post: Wait, Who Wants A Proprietary, Locked Down Device That Limits What You Can Do?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2010 @ 01:20am

    Re:

    Plausibly. I can see my mom loving this computer until she tries to play a video on CNN.com and it won't run because the iPad doesn't support Flash video.

    Also, even "non-tech-savvy" users have strangely demanding requirements. Says my mom, "All I want to do is check my e-mail, browse the web, use a word-processor, and watch video ... oh, and I need to use Quicken because that's what the accountant uses."

  • On the post: Wait, Who Wants A Proprietary, Locked Down Device That Limits What You Can Do?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2010 @ 01:15am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, but very people liked the first-gen iPod (or even bought it since it was only compatible with Macs). It didn't really take off until around the 3rd or 4th generation I think.

    Similarly, while there were people going crazy over the first iPhone, it wasn't until they introduced the App Store with the 2.0 OS that the true value of the iPhone became clear.

    It's *possible* that the iPad 2 or 3 will be super amazing. That doesn't mean the first-gen device is worth 500 bucks though. It just means we should probably wait a year to see what Apple comes out with next.

  • On the post: In A World Of Bottom Up Technology, Should IT Support Your iPhone?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2010 @ 08:29pm

    Re: If security was your reason for a ban...

    The article has this bit: "Even if you can banish the iPhone from your network, you still can't stop users from entering notes, appointments, or contacts from within your organization onto their iPhones by hand."

  • On the post: Ok Go Explains Video Embedding Issue, Blames YouTube (Partly) And EMI (Only A Bit); Sells Uniforms

    Andrew F ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2010 @ 07:11pm

    So embed the ad

    Aren't there already ads embedded in YouTube videos? You know, the annoying kind that pop up at the bottom?

  • On the post: Should Data Collected For Academic Research Get Intellectual Property Protection?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2010 @ 07:06pm

    Re: Relative Scarcity

    As a corollary, researchers seem to be engaged in a big popularity contest. Your primary source of income is grant money from institutions and the government. The way you get more money is to increase your credibility. The way you increase your credibility is to get more citations. And you get more citations by freeing up your data.

  • On the post: Will Lower Prices Help Sell More Albums?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2010 @ 06:56pm

    Re: RTB!

    Amen. What you're basically paying for when you buy music online is convenience. One of the biggest reasons I don't download music off BitTorrent is that it's terribly inconvenient. I have to look for a file on a site with obnoxious advertising. Then I have to download a tracker that's different from the file I actually want to download. I need to give up upstream bandwidth. I have to sit and watch a download stall just because no one has that last piece of the file. I might accidentally be downloading a virus or simply getting poor quality music.

    And yeah, I might get sued too.

    If I can avoid all that hassle, I'd gladly pay something for it, but it's contingent on that convenience. Time is scarce. The more hoops I have to hop through, the less I'm willing to pay.

  • On the post: Should Data Collected For Academic Research Get Intellectual Property Protection?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2010 @ 06:48pm

    Relative Scarcity

    What's harder to find -- good data or good researchers willing to go over that data? If it's the latter, in-demand researchers may have better things to do with their time than try to negotiate a price for locked up or otherwise restricted data.

    It'd be very similar to how obscurity is a bigger threat to musicians than copying.

  • On the post: Oxford University Bans Spotify, Apparently Prefers Students To Get Music Secretly, Rather Than Legally

    Andrew F ( profile ), 18 Jan, 2010 @ 02:51pm

    iTunes

    Isn't iTunes technically P2P -- as in, you can stream music from your library to other computers on the same network? Or do they mean something else by P2P?

  • On the post: SEC Concerned About High Frequency Trading

    Andrew F ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2010 @ 05:49pm

    What would happen if we just introduced a transaction tax?

  • On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search

    Andrew F ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2010 @ 09:19am

    Re: who defines evil?

    Google's employees define what is evil. I think the creator of gMail is on record saying that the motto is targeted not (just) towards the public, but also Google's own employees. The value in this is that it encourages and provides a rationale for low-level employees to object to decisions made up high.

  • On the post: Connect With Fans + Reason To Buy; The Contest

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2010 @ 04:14pm

    Re: A business model in 140 characters?

    A URL to a longer plan would suffice

  • On the post: Well Respected VC Firm Comes Out In Favor Of Independent Invention Defense Against Patent Infringement Lawsuits

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2010 @ 02:34pm

    Burden of Proof

    Are people proposing an actual independent invention defense or that the trolls have to show that infringing invention is not independent as part of their prima facie case?

    That is, who has the burden of proof?

  • On the post: Well Respected VC Firm Comes Out In Favor Of Independent Invention Defense Against Patent Infringement Lawsuits

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2010 @ 02:31pm

    Re: I have an idea

    Or license the patent to someone who then sells a product. Sometimes it's perfectly legitimate for the patent holder to not be in the best position to actually design the ultimate product.

  • On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2010 @ 08:35am

    Re:

    In software, you can accomplish things in many different ways. Depends on the language =). In Python for instance, one of the guiding principles is "there should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it, although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch." http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ The existance of Facebook and it's single status line didn't stop Tweeter people from coming up with their single status line messaging system. I'm pretty sure Facebook hasn't been granted a patent on the single status line. If it had, then it could have sued Twitter out of existence -- which is the problem.

Next >>