Not an Electronic Rodent’s Techdirt Profile

hammy

About Not an Electronic Rodent




Not an Electronic Rodent’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 7th, 2019 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    We've traded privacy for safety.

    "We've traded actual privacy for imaginary safety.

    FTFY

    Without privacy, no one could commit crimes very easily.

    I can think of at least one person who has very publicly admitted to or committed several crimes and seems to be OK with it... Not sure that reasoning is sound.

  • Jan 25th, 2019 @ 3:09am

    Should they?

    but the company should know better than to (a) hire a law firm known for abusing trademark law in such a manner, and (2) approve the original sending of the threat letter.

    But why should they? Is there any useful disincentive beyond the occasional bullying object that fights and the occasional denied claim that would convince them otherwise?

    Or did you mean in the "reasonable human" sense?

  • Jun 11th, 2018 @ 9:47am

    Re: This is a most difficult issue

    The argument that the market will not solve this problem is probably correct, which leaves regulation, and that will incense some folks.

    Sure will, if for no other reason than the legislation will inevitably suck and be a 1/2-measure at best. If such a thing happens I imagine it would be started by well-meaning "nerds" and a handful of the more tech-savvy politicians, but get waylaid by excessive lobbying from large corporations who really don't want to pay to fix the problem they caused and actually kinda like the data they're gathering.. The result will be a watered-down, toothless version of whatever got proposed in the first place.

    It's still better than the even more scary alternative mentioned above, though:

    Folks like Schneier have been warning for a while that it's likely going to take a mass casualty event (caused by hacked infrastructure) to finally motivate some changes in the internet of broken things space.

    Can you imagine the kind of headless-chicken, knee-jerk, politician-must-DO-something-NOW abortion-of-a-law that would result from that? I'll take the weedy and ineffectual half-measure any day!

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 5:11am

    Re: Re: Re: If facts mattered, sure

    I am amazed that shareholders have not demanded they start waking up to the future as shareholders are the ones that are loosing trillions in income.

    Because, despite the putative losses, the companies keep posting record profits year-on-year and presumably paying big, fat dividends almost as large as the amount spent buying lawmakers?

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 4:57am

    Re: Re: Careful what you wish for.

    How is that different from what they already provide, with the exception of "access to all content"?

    That was kinda my point, they'd role out such a service, trumpet it as the answer to all consumer needs, when anyone challenges the premise or the price will say something like, "Well that's what you said customers wanted but they're still pirating", or, "Well that's what [we arbitrarily decide] it costs to provide" and when it fails hard, use it to push for more law.

    Once I wondered if they were really that dumb, but repetition suggests it's actually a genius business plan that allows them to reap massive profits for minimal actual work. Laws are cheaper to buy than a platform that works it seems and far easier to run than providing an actual service.

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 12:49am

    Careful what you wish for.

    Next up: Industry creates ad-laden, DRM-ridden, slow, badly built platform that enables access to all content "for your region" for only £500 a month if you can find it in the appalling, proprietary search engine.

    Industry later quoted as saying, "We gave you exactly what you said you wanted and you're all STILL criminals! We need new, harsher laws!"

  • May 11th, 2018 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re: Re: They have to start somewhere

    I have no idea what you are going on about.

    In political parlance, that would be, "Everyone else who can't give me political favours or donations with at least 6 zeros attached". It's only 99% of the country; I wouldn't worry about it too much.

  • May 5th, 2018 @ 1:44am

    Re:

    To paraphrase the immortal Mr Adams; Statistics don't show anything you didn't already know - except that everyone in the galaxy has 2.4 legs and own a Hyena.

  • Apr 26th, 2018 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re: 'This? This is why people don't trust you.'

    Unfortunately, this would only work if the police gave a damn about that relationship

    Well, arguably they do sort of give a damn about it... Isn't the general antipathy of the public towards police usually the reason given for needing to get even more Rambo'd up with military-grade weapons and use them at the slightest provocation?

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil

    I count 7 post referencing an alleged site without a link so far. Again I'm going to assume this is purely trolling, 'cos no-one is that bad at "adverticing" [sic]

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: ==true ?

    function checkDMCA (file){
    return isFileAFile(file);
    }


    Think you forgot to include the standard **AA technique of "Scream infringement no matter what until someone explicitly proves it isn't"

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 9:17am

    A good start

    "There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,”

    Wow! And you only need to subscribe to 713 of them to be able to access all the lawful content!

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Giving all our posts a funny vote as I can only assume this level of obliviousness to reality is deliberate trolling. Well played.

  • Mar 28th, 2018 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Yep, it's a problem

    If the Duffer Brothers won't agree to exclusivity, Netflix says no, and so does every other streaming service. You don't see CBS shows on ABC and vice versa, do you? Same idea.

    Yes, that's exactly the point. That is indeed exactly how it is right now. But do you seriously think there's no market for a slew of "we have every damn series and film you've ever heard of and many you haven't - including all the biggies except from the last 6 months"-service? And that similar services wouldn't be inevitable if they were possible and cost-effective to run because of fixed licensing fees?

  • Mar 27th, 2018 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Yep, it's a problem

    It's not like cable tv is a necessary utility.

    No, this is true, though for many people the line rather blurs. Leisure-time activities in general pretty much are a necessity in the modern world.

    In a way the market is self regulating, people dump a crap service and they may or may not look for a replacement.

    If it were a level playing field or actually a "free" market, you might be right. However, with a highly limited number of players able to demand monopoly rent through legally-backed artificial scarcity, and also the quasi-legal ability to basically strangle any competition, self regulation seems unlikely. Sure, people might dump a crap service, but your legal options to a crap service are either a marginally less-crap service or nothing.

    Unless the rent-seeking gets so over-the-top that people literally cannot afford it, it seems unlikely enough people will opt for the nothing to make a difference.

  • Mar 27th, 2018 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re:

    So now CBS should have all the fans of "The Good Wife" and all the Star Trek fans as subscribers.

    Reality suggests that some of the fans are probably subscribers with probably somewhere around an equal number who have either become infringing downloaders, or decided they really don't give enough of a f**k to bother with either.

  • Mar 27th, 2018 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Why is this a problem?

    even more deader....

    deaderer, surely?

  • Mar 27th, 2018 @ 8:40am

    Yep, it's a problem

    I hesitate to suggest regulation, because the inevitable result would be a hideous turd-like abortion-heap mostly bought and paid for by large incumbents to look fair while locking things down ever tighter, but that the only thing that I suspect would fix it. (In that mythical world where regulations are for consumer interest)

    It just occurred to me that maybe what's needed (apart from actual net neutrality of course) is a mandated and limited "exclusives" window for this stuff:

    The content creator gets to make an exclusive deal if they want (let's face it probably with themselves), but only for a limited time (maybe 6 months, maybe more, maybe less)... but after that mandated period, it becomes more like how I understand mechanical licenses to work for music. I.e. you don't have a choice, you have to grant a streaming license for a fixed (at least fixed per item) fee to anyone who wants it.

    That way you still get to up-sell to the "must have it now"-types in the exclusive period and the everyday consumer gets the wide raft of reasonably priced and wholly inclusive services they really want while the content companies still get paid and discourage piracy at the same time.

    Never happen, though.

  • Mar 27th, 2018 @ 8:22am

    Re: Why is this a problem?

    Either I completely missed the point, or it looks like you could have done with a /s tag there...

  • Mar 22nd, 2018 @ 6:37am

    But...

    The security agency, known as the FSB, argued in court that obtaining the encryption keys doesn’t violate users’ privacy because the keys by themselves aren’t considered information of restricted access.

    Yeah, but that argument only works where the judges have been specifically chosen to agree with an authoritarian government and will ignore the rights and needs of the population at large and twist arguments to support the dictatorial desires of the government in its perceived need for total surveillance of its populace, whereas in America... Oh, wait... Never mind.

More comments from Not an Electronic Rodent >>