Jake 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (55) comment rss

  • On the post: NYTimes OpEd Explains Why Infringement Isn't Theft

    Jake ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2012 @ 11:10am

    Re:

    If it is just the result that counts then why do we have manslaughter and murder? The result seems pretty much the same to me.

  • On the post: Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally

    Jake ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2012 @ 08:16am

    Re:

    Leigh, your sensational headline is intended to tug at the heartstrings of your audience but this really isn't about a little girl. It's about a dispute between two organizations.

    Wrong.

    This is about a broken system, allowing a company to attempt to halt innovation, to protect their own ridiculous profits, and in the process possibly take away a little girl's ability to communicate in the most efficient manner.

  • On the post: Fox TV Finally Realizes The Internet Is Global: Launches Show Around The Globe Simultaneously

    Jake ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2012 @ 05:35am

    Re:

    I can not really buy that. The cost of actually broadcasting it in more markets is not that much and there is nothing requiring all the marketing in all markets. They could just as easily broadcast it in all markets, but only market it in a few test markets, using those to judge the success of the show and then deciding to spend the extra marketing/advertising dollars in the other markets. That way you get the best of both worlds!

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    By your same logic, if I buy a CD and make copies, I am devaluing my own property, because who wants to buy a CD when there are many copies available (lol). What is the difference between a CD and a painting?

    As for your last argument, when did it become the consumers responsibility to ensure that your business does not come to harm. Back to my car analogy, if I can talk the sales man into selling me a car for less than the dealer paid for it, that is the dealers problem not mine. If you sell something that can not be contained in a finite manner and this hurts your business, why is that my problem.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    How so?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    or a CD/DVD, someone bought it at some point and decided to share it.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    It isn't shared unless the originator "shares" it. If the originator doesn't, then it certainly isn't shared.


    So the originator retains all rights ad infinitum. By your argument, I have to get Ford's permission to share my car. They are the "originator" after all.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Interesting thought, but still not an object.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Agreed, every dictionary that I have looked at classify steal in the theft sense as a transitive verb. A transitive verb requires an object so which object am I taking when I copy a file again?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Yes but the viewing itself is still legal. IF I hack into a Server to get a song, yes, that would be illegal, but if I take what is freely offered by someone, i.e. in a public space, then it should be legal.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Jake ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    steal   [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto?len, steal?ing, noun
    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
    2.
    to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
    3.
    to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
    4.
    to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
    5.
    Baseball . (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.

    Explain to me please where your definition of stealing fits the real definition of stealing, I would appreciate it.

  • On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?

    Jake ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 01:46pm

    Just Wondering

    if widespread and increasingly popular illegal behavior


    In a democratic society, the laws are supposed to reflect popular views, so if a behavior is becoming so popular at which point do the laws change to reflect the will of the people? Just wondering...

  • On the post: Directors Guild Boss Insists That Everyone Against SOPA/PIPA Was Duped

    Jake ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    Might I ask what membership in unions have to do with employment? I mean it may be a requirement to be a member of a union to be employed, but by no means is it required to be employed to be a member of a union.

  • On the post: RIAA/IFPI Explored Possible Lawsuit Against Google For Not Ranking iTunes Above Pirate Bay

    Jake ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Re:

    One thing that I do not think is brought up enough is that in theory the laws in a democracy should be a reflection of what the public wants anyway. I am not just talking about copyright laws but all laws in general. So if the copyright laws are making what the public "wants" illegal then that should be a good indication that the laws in question are flawed or outdated.

    The reason that this does not happen is that in the US and to some extent the Western World in general, corporations are given many of the same rights as a person, even though this makes no sense. ( I will stick to topic and not go into detail about that here.) So these corporations, using the rights that have been granted them, can muddy the water by saying that the law does not benefit them, when in reality it should not be designed to so.

    To answer your question then, "are they not just perpetuating the problem?", I would say no, they are not perpetuating the problem, they are pointing out that the law here should probably be reconsidered to align itself with the views of the majority of the population. In effect the search results act as an informal poll of what people want and if they are putting "illegal" services, which can be questioned as well, above legal services that implies that these illegal services fill a niche in whatever market was the subject of the search and then one of two things need to happen, either the "legal" services need to adapt and fill this niche, or, failing that, the laws need to be realigned to represent the will of the majority and not the will of corporations.

  • On the post: All Of Justin Bieber's Music Removed From YouTube Via 'Prank' DMCA Claims

    Jake ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 05:31am

    Re:

    Honestly, I would like to see them sue the Government for being the root cause of the loss of income from the take down. If there was not a horrible, likely unconstitutional, law in the first place no revenue would have been lost. Just sayin'