Andrew F 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (469) comment rss

  • On the post: Double Blow Against Freedom Of Speech For Twitter Users In Turkey

    Andrew F ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2013 @ 05:13pm

    Not Twitter

    The problem isn't that the Turkish government doesn't get Twitter. The problem is that "insulting religious beliefs" and "revilement crime" are illegal to begin with.

  • On the post: Police In Japan Are Asking ISPs To Start Blocking Tor

    Andrew F ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2013 @ 07:13am

    Reasons

    From the original article:

    "Over the past several years, the Tor system was abused in a number of crimes including the posting of online murder threats on Internet bulletin boards, theft of money from accounts via illegal accesses to Internet banking sites, postings on dating sites by those seeking relationships with children, and leakages of security information from the Metropolitan Police Department."

    I wonder which of those triggered the request to block ...

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston

    Andrew F ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2013 @ 07:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.

    >> There are no innocents in war.

    Those folks at the marathon were.

  • On the post: Oh Look, The Number Of People Employed In The Movie And Music Recording Business Just Hit An All Time High

    Andrew F ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2013 @ 06:35pm

    Re: Re:

    Reminds me of that study that drastically inflated the size of the media industries.

    "Do you listen to music at work? Yes? Then you have a job in the music industry!"

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalist Disney Accused Of Copying Artist's Painting On Cosmetic Bag

    Andrew F ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2013 @ 02:38pm

    Pretty clear infringement on the bag

    Woodger's original image may borrow from a public domain work or Disney's own work, but she's added plenty of unique copyrightable elements of her own, all of which is copied on the bag image.

    Think of this way: fair use allows you to quote a book in a book review, but it doesn't allow the book author to copy the entire review wholesale.

  • On the post: Sen. Feinstein Says Congress 'Ready To Take Action' To Rein In Violent Video Games

    Andrew F ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2013 @ 02:27pm

    Call her

    I suspect many of TD's readers are based in CA, so give her office a call: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/washington-dc

    Those calls actually do work if enough people call.

  • On the post: More Details Revealed On The Patent Lawyers Demanding $1000 For Every Worker At Companies Using Scanners

    Andrew F ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2013 @ 08:49pm

    Re: Re:

    Unfortunately no. Patent law is not violated solely by market activities. For reference, here's 35 U.S.C. 271(a) of the U.S. patent laws:

    Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.


    MPHJ could try suing the scanner manufacturer on the grounds that the seller is "inducing" infringement, but there's nothing in patent law that keeps them from suing the end user as well.

  • On the post: More Details Revealed On The Patent Lawyers Demanding $1000 For Every Worker At Companies Using Scanners

    Andrew F ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2013 @ 08:40pm

    Re:

    From the ArsTechnica article:

    "99 percent of people are using it," says Rust. "You know it and I know it. So, yeah."


    So yes, they really do intend to sue everyone.

  • On the post: More Details Revealed On The Patent Lawyers Demanding $1000 For Every Worker At Companies Using Scanners

    Andrew F ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2013 @ 08:58pm

    Suggested Fix

    Easiest way to fix this: If the act of infringement consists solely of using a product as it was intended to be used (or as advertising depicts it being used), then the manufacturer or retailer of the product becomes a necessary party to the suit. This forces trolls to face companies that can actually spend money on lawyers.

    It's not a complicated change to patent law and, for better or worse, wouldn't affect patent law except to discourage this type of trolling. I'm surprised Congress hasn't taken this up yet.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing

    Andrew F ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 02:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: I liked this part

    Piracy isn't the only alternative to Wiley's books as well. I mean, a lot of these textbooks suck. Royally so, and the only reason anyone buys them is because their professor is a co-author and insists on it.

    I imagine this is less true in markets where Wiley charges a low price, and that professors there might be open to, e.g., teaching a course using free alternative materials found online.

  • On the post: Prenda Law Tries To Close The Barn Door After The Horse Has Lawyered Up

    Andrew F ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2013 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I can see it now...

    Most grammar and style guides have accepted the split infinitive. There's no compelling justification for the rule against it. In fact, it's liable to increase ambiguity as people try to rewrite what was otherwise fairly straightforward.

  • On the post: Warner Bros. Lets Veronica Mars Crew Prove Demand For A Movie Via Kickstarter

    Andrew F ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2013 @ 09:33am

    Re:

    It'd be interesting if individuals could actually get a share of the profits. There are sorts of issues with securities laws, but there has been some push to change this -- e.g. with the JOBS act.

  • On the post: Modder Makes SimCity Capable Of Offline Play Which Works Flawlessly

    Andrew F ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2013 @ 09:25am

    Re: Take away copyright!

    EA's name has been less than mud for a while. They've gotten away with this an absurd number of times.

    Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me. Fool me thrice? I'm a gullible schmuck TAKE MY MONEY.

  • On the post: The Killing Of Google Reader Highlights The Risk Of Relying On A Single Provider

    Andrew F ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2013 @ 09:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean relying on FREE products is risky?

    You can technically put banner ads into RSS, and some sites do. There's no rule against including images. And there's no rule against counting reader views when giving the number of impressions your content gets.

    A number of popular ad-driven sites also don't make their full content available via RSS, and require the reader to click through to see more.

  • On the post: Crowdfunding Picks: Throw Trucks With Your Mind & Other Cool Control Interfaces

    Andrew F ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2013 @ 01:03am

    Re: Advertising

    Also not a fan of the 15 second ads. At the very least, I should be spared an ad if I'm clicking a link to read sponsored content.

  • On the post: Crowdfunding Picks: Throw Trucks With Your Mind & Other Cool Control Interfaces

    Andrew F ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2013 @ 01:02am

    Advertising

    Off-topic, but can I complain about the Intuit advertising post? Although the content was clearly written by Intuit, the language is written in the third person, to give the impression that someone from Techdirt is actually writing the content. I doubt it'd fool anyone, but the ad comes off as douchey.

  • On the post: Arthur Conan Doyle Estate Sued To Show That Sherlock Holmes Is Public Domain

    Andrew F ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2013 @ 07:46pm

    (1) This is exactly why characters alone should be outside the scope of copyright. Imagine if someone wrote a sequel to Harry Potter way off when books 1-6 are in the public domain but 7 is not. The author would be allowed to use Harry but couldn't make any reference to Harry's defeat of Voldemort at the end.

    (2) To the extent that authors want to create an official canon and prevent knock off sequels that confuse readers, trademark law is sufficient to do this.

    (3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this book non-fiction? There's no infringement because the Holmes character is not actually being used as a character.

    (4) Even if this non-fiction book would otherwise infringe, how is this not fair use?

  • On the post: Another Future Clash: How Will The Law Deal With Autonomous Vehicles

    Andrew F ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2013 @ 10:56am

    Apps

    The law is fairly clear that the manufacturer is liable if a software defect causes a wreck, so the AC is right.

    Here's a more interesting question: Assume you can install apps on the car, like on a computer. Assume that you install two apps that conflict with each other in such a manner as to cause a car accident. Who's liable? App A? App B? The owner for installing two conflicting apps? The people who wrote an OS permitting such a conflict? The car manufacturer for installing the OS?

    Some additional wrinkles:
    * What if App A comes with a big honking warning that said "don't install with App B"?
    * What if the warning was neither big nor honking?
    * What if you had to jailbreak the car to install apps in the first place?
    * What if App B was a malicious piece of malware that a hacker had uploaded onto the car?
    * What if the reason someone was able to upload malware onto the car was because the owner stupidly set the password on the car to "password123"?
    * What if the cause of a malware was a zero-day exploit that could not have been foreseen?

    These issues happen all the time with personal computers, but it's usually not an issue because the law treats economic and emotional harm (e.g. the computer ate your homework) different from physical harm (e.g. the computer ate your arm). Ryan Calo has done a bunch of work in this space and advocates some degree of intermediary liability in this space -- much in the same manner that an ISP is generally not liable for what its users do. If you're interested, you should look up his papers.

  • On the post: Another Future Clash: How Will The Law Deal With Autonomous Vehicles

    Andrew F ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2013 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, the manufacturer is currently liable if a computer error causes the car to crash.

  • On the post: Another Future Clash: How Will The Law Deal With Autonomous Vehicles

    Andrew F ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2013 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    Another thing to keep in mind: Automation can proceed in phases. It's not all or nothing.

    Initially, we could permit automated cars only in certain environments that are "easy" for automated vehicles -- like freeways -- and require drivers to take over when moving to other environments. Even that would be a huge boon. I'd gladly pay for the ability to zone out while on the 101, even if I had to take over for the last mile.

    Over time, as the technology improved, we could phase in driverless cars into other locales.

Next >>