Fred McTaker 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (140) comment rss

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

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 08:41pm

    Re: Re: It's speech - not communicate

    "In the First Amendment, the operative word would be "speech".
    Look it up."

    If you looked it up yourself, you would see another form of speech mentioned there -- "the press", which was the short-hand for the only existing long-distance/multicast medium of the time. The modern equivalent of "the press" is anything you can do on the Internet.

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

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 08:37pm

    Re:

    Nintendo is not a natural born citizen, so it couldn't run for President even if it defected from its home in Japan.

  • On the post: Court Says U Of Southern California Only One Who Can Use USC; Sorry U Of South Carolina

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2010 @ 03:56pm

    This trademark dispute came up before, between the same schools

    This all started with UoS-California's "USC Graphic Identity Program" in 1994. They won the right to the USC trademark back then, after a similar legal fight with UoS-Carolina, so that they could make it a standard part of their letterhead, etc.

    This SC interlock logo seems more about the sports promotion side, and UoS-California was first to market with their use. The Gamecocks not only tried a similar interlocking SC pattern on sportswear, but also had similar shades of red on the lettering to the existing TM.

    A reminder: Trademark ownership is not based on first to business or even first to use, but only the first registered use in commerce. The game company Insomniac Games won a similar TM scuffle against another game company Insomniac Studios, because Insomniac Games were the first company with a game on the shelves with their "Insomniac" TM on the packaging. Insomniac Studios changed their name before their first release to resolve it. Insomniac is still a dictionary word that anyone can use. The fight here is over branding and use in commerce or promotion, not about who can use the USC abbreviation in other contexts.

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

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 07:44pm

    Corporations shouldn't have free speech

    I fervently disagree with the implication that corporations should be given any form of free speech. By definition, corporations are limited liability and are immortal. Their bylaws and government definitions dictate that their members are less liable for their actions than any individual citizen, and they survive the loss of any part of their membership. Those same laws also dictate that they act solely in the best interest of their shareholders, and the only way that interest is defined is with money, via profit.

    Creating a legal entity like a corporation is like creating a immortal robot sociopath with turrets syndrome, and then granting it "personhood", with the exact same rights as self-controlled mortals. We have already seen the consequences of this in their advertising, which have nothing to do with facts or reality (i.e. allergy medication that will allow you to surf on wheat fields). Letting this robot monster loose in the political field will just further the damage they already started.

  • On the post: UCLA Professors Barred From Posting Video Online For Classes

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 06:56pm

    Re: Forget the movies - dont buy them

    "Nothing wrong with that"

    You obviously have never had to commute anywhere near UCLA. Online traffic is far more manageable than car traffic.

  • On the post: UCLA Professors Barred From Posting Video Online For Classes

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 06:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:Re;

    Same to ya, AC. Counter-proof? Right, you have nothing either. Move along troll.

  • On the post: UCLA Professors Barred From Posting Video Online For Classes

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 06:51pm

    Re:

    Perhaps some students should teach their professors how to run BitTorrent trackers. ;)

  • On the post: Unexpected, But Good: Justice Department Says FCC Should Free Up More Spectrum

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 05 Jan, 2010 @ 03:38am

    Engineers make it work, bureaucrats impede work

    "I'm still hopeful that new technologies will make spectrum scarcity a thing of the past, we still haven't seen enough evidence that the technology really works."

    It will work when it has to work. It doesn't work now because the spectrum monopolies allow the incumbents to stay lazy, and pervade poorly designed hardware with impunity. As soon as you take away their monopolies, they will have to start innovating again.

    These should be required reading when discussing spectrum policy:

    http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spectrum/
    http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_policy_deregulating_s.html
    http://www.openspectrum.info/

    The physical facts dictate that all wireless spectrum is composed of electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, which is another way of saying they are all different colors. The only confusing aspect is that we can't see most of these colors with the naked eye, and some frequencies have properties that allow them to travel differently through air, liquid, and mass. That doesn't change the fact that they are just colors, subject to the same physical laws that make advanced sensing equipment like eyes and cameras work. Confusing one "signal" for another is the same as confusing a red apple with a nearby red firetruck -- the only limitation is the sensing equipment. The FCC has been in the business of granting color monopolies for almost a century, and keeping the sensing equipment as dumb and blind as possible, and is reluctant to give that job up. Hooray to the Justice Department for giving them a kick!

    If you don't think the technology is already far enough along yet, you also need to read this:

    http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/bio-electronics-0603.html

    "The cochlea can perceive a 100-fold range of frequencies -- in humans, from 100 to 10,000 Hz. Sarpeshkar used the same design principles in the RF cochlea to create a device that can perceive signals at million-fold higher frequencies, which includes radio signals for most commercial wireless applications."

    This is a "radio" that can process all frequencies on the entire RF range we use now, simultaneously. You could plug it into a sufficiently powerful computer, and process HDTV, Satellite, HD-Audio/AM/FM, WiFi, and cell phone signals (all #G's) on every network, all at the same time, all in software. This is a chip made in a lab, that can be reproduced in mass just like any other chip.

    The barriers are all bureaucratic -- none of them are physical nor technological limits. At this point, they're not even economic limits -- they're just stupid limits, that help no one except lazy monopolists.

  • On the post: The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 02 Jan, 2010 @ 03:37am

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

    I'm keeping score now.

    Richard: +5

    +1 for each great and true post so far. Monty Python quotes FTW!

    Anti-Mike: -7

    -1 for each idiotic attempt at trolling.

    Nina Paley: +28

    +1 for each comment, because she garnered the reaction, whatever the nature.

    You lose Anti-Mike, in more ways than I can count.

  • On the post: Could You Prove That The Government Was Watching You Illegally?

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2009 @ 01:31am

    Re: Re: Of course you are being watched! This is news?

    "Do you have anything to hide?"

    Of course I have something to hide! Credit card numbers, account balances, health history, favorite TV shows that I'm embarrassed about, half of what I did in college, that one paper on feminism, what I *really* think about George Bush....

    Can you honestly tell me that you want a government who can't even keep a secret watch list *really secret at all* to have access to all your data? As if it wont instantly leak to criminals no matter how "secret" they think they're keeping it? More of that data is probably put to use by the Mob insiders than the Fed. Do you want the Mafia (name your favorite) to have all your conversations on record?

  • On the post: Comparing File Sharing To Payola: Could Have Had That Promotion For Free

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2009 @ 08:25pm

    Monopoly begets more monopolies

    Label monopolies like encouraging other audio monopolies, like radio. They want to control your ears and air waves any way they can, so they can keep charging you their monopoly rents.

  • On the post: Could You Prove That The Government Was Watching You Illegally?

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2009 @ 08:17pm

    Of course you are being watched! This is news?

    Did everyone else miss the fact that AT&T has basically admitted that they allowed the NSA to wiretap all their lines, and searched for immunity from prosecution for violating their customers' privacy. It took a whistleblower in their SF office to get that process started, but they haven't denied it. Or what about the story of the FBI tap at Verizon? Or have you heard the fact that wireless calls can be tapped indiscriminately just because they're wireless, so such a tap isn't considered "invasive." Have any of the related ACLU suits been resolved?

    If you use a phone, or send anything over the Internet in plain-text, the government has full access to that data. The only question is what "keywords" they're using in their sweeping searches on all that data, and they'll never tell us that.

    The main problem with this guy isn't any tin foil hats -- it's the fact that he's not alone. The question is who is NOT being watched.

  • On the post: No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' — Nor Is It A 'Distraction'

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2009 @ 01:42pm

    Re:

    In the U.S. originating documents, words like "people", "man", and "mankind" were short-hand for rich land owning white men. They were usually also slave-holders, though that was not required. They were expansive enough to allow rich white male owners of smaller lands without slaves too, though they were in the minority. Widows only counted in that they were married to a rich land owning white man once. Nobody else counted at all. So if you do the proper substitution, to translate to modern terms, it would look more like this:

    A government of the rich white dudes, by rich white dudes, for rich white dudes. Everyone else can make me a sammich!

    That last bit is obviously not part of the original text, but it's added to clarify "founders intentions."

  • On the post: No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' — Nor Is It A 'Distraction'

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2009 @ 01:31pm

    Re:

    "I thought it was always normal to negotiate treaties in secret so that the opposing parties can't leverage domestic pressures to use against our own negotiators."

    If that is the case, why are they allowing "domestic pressures" from the *IAAs and content Unions??? Allowing pressure only from those with a money interest isn't Democracy, it's Oligarchy.

  • On the post: We See Your 'Copyright Contributes $1.5 Trillion' And Raise You 'Fair Use Contributes $2.2 Trillion'

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 01:24am

    Re:

    Good point -- you could almost attribute all of Disney's income ever to public domain. Can we also start adding up all the money we save individually, by avoiding Copyright license fees via "fair use", and little things like quotes and proper attribution? I could probably tally a few $K based on high school reports alone! College papers could put me in the millionaires club.

  • On the post: China Says Microsoft Violates IP With Windows, Bars Sales

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 01:05am

    Re: Chinese IP

    "exactly how many times do you think the editors for The Register went back to the author of the article, insisting that they must have mixed up Microsoft and China in the story"

    This shows you haven't read The [UK] Register before. I think their primary name for Microsoft there is "The Beast of Redmond." They are probably still reveling in the irony, over beers at the pub. They love this kind of story, which is why I'm a fan.

    "they're going to spend money fighting for their right to sell an 8 year old or so operating system in China"

    They're probably simultaneously lobbying for China to adopt even more ridiculously long Copyright periods than the U.S. So yeah, I could see them fighting over an 8 year old OS easy. Call me in 90 years.

    China doesn't have nasty limits on Copyright like "freedom of speech", so they shouldn't have any of those messy limitations like "fair use", or inability to monopolize little things like "math" or "statement of facts". They'll be sending Ballmer a license fee every time he sneezes, if a Chinese citizen copyrights the sound of sneezing first.

    You would think Microsoft would start re-thinking their IP law stance, after being THE target for software patent trolls, getting caught using a download tool that violated the GPL, and now this. Some monopolists never learn -- there's always a bigger tyrant than you out there, somewhere, waiting for you to try to treat them like all your other boneheaded customers. Microsoft doesn't have nukes (yet), so they're way out of their league.

  • On the post: Just Because People Say They'll Pay For Something, It Doesn't Mean They Will

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 12:44am

    Re:

    "if they listen to their music, they should expect to be paid."

    How do I know if a musician is worth paying if I don't hear their music first? Do art collectors routinely collect paintings without seeing them first? Am I the only one who browses books in the book store, or gets them from the library, *before* buying?

    Does the real world just sound like echoes to you in there?

  • On the post: Just Because People Say They'll Pay For Something, It Doesn't Mean They Will

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 12:39am

    Re: o.O

    "Dont worry everyone give it 15-20 years all these old farts will be dead and hopefully things will be better."

    If only they were so uniform. I know some old farts who are tired of these luddite Oligarch bastards ruining everything. My old farts will probably die faster, due to inferior access to health care. In their prime era they were fooled by the same Oligarchs, to think of things like cigarettes and leaded gasoline as perfectly healthy. Gasoline cleans your clothes, dontchaknow! I've got a headache from the fumes, but it's nothing a good smoke wont cure.

  • On the post: Spain Says Broadband Is A Basic Right

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 12:06am

    Universal Lifeline

    This is similar to when the U.S. declared telephone access a "right" via the "Universal Lifeline" direct subscriber tax and subsidy scheme. In a sense, U.S. telco regulation is also still structured around the "right" to 9-1-1 call access.

    The main difference seems to be that, in the countries where this Internet access right is being granted, ISPs don't have the same monopolistic stranglehold on the Internet as the U.S. telco market has always had on our communications. In both cases, declaring basic communications access as an equal citizen right makes sense, but only in America can a such "right" unbalance the economy in favor of a few self-chosen monopolists. Instead of solving these equal access problems with Democracy, the U.S. solves everything with "the biggest lobby wins" style Oligarchy.

  • On the post: Australian Patent Lawyers Claim Patenting Genes Is Necessary For Biomedical Research

    Fred McTaker ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2009 @ 09:58pm

    Shouldn't genetic sequences fall under Copyright?

    Genetics boils down to a sequence of a small set of known molecules, forming a small alphabet (GCAT). Any gene old or "new" (I'm unlikely to agree with you on what constitutes new) is just a sequence of these letters, like a long German word. It's a language, so Copyright should apply, not Patents. But since most genetic sequences are taken directly from nature, any such texts are just relating facts, which aren't even subject to Copyright. So the scientists should tell the lawyers to shove it.

Next >>