Tim Griffiths 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (294) comment rss

  • On the post: Couple Arrested For Dancing On NYC Subway Platform

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2012 @ 08:24am

    Re: Re: Question;

    I'm highly dyslexic and this some what limits the help that spell checkers can provide. A mix of spelling and grammar checks can help but the truth is if I get a spelling partly right a list of "correct" spellings a bit like it does not help me pick the right one. That, of course, is only an issue if my spelling is not so out of whack that it's beyond the help of a spell check at all.

    That's where google shines and it shines because of one simple thing. Context. Give the word that I can't spell and a spell check can't help with a context and feed it in to google and it will most of the time present me with the correctly spelled option which I can then check to make sure it means what I think it does.

    This way of dealing with spelling is quickly becoming rather common among pretty much every one I know and it's I think one of the quite but very important changes going on in the world at the moment.

  • On the post: State Department Wants To Troll Terrorists Online

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2012 @ 01:48am

    Re:

    If they can avoid flaming (if we are calling this trolling) then it might be a good idea. You are unlikely to change the mind of the hard liners or the people using the rhetoric as a means to an ends what it will do is remove the monopoly of the ideas in the space.

    This may not seem like much but to me it seems like isolation is a huge step in the radicalization of other wise moderate people, youths especially. If you control the space then you control the debate and once you are doing that it becomes much easier to control some ones views.

    Compelling competing ideas are key to undermining the kind of ideas that often lead to terrorism.

    Now while I don't think this will actually do that all that much having people who are willing to go into that space disrupt the control of ideas in it... not sure it's awful either.

  • On the post: Megaupload To DOJ: You Don't Get To Make Up The Rules That Suit You

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2012 @ 08:54am

    Re: Where are they?

    This.

    These are people who put in place and would like to strictly enforce laws that make it illegal for you to break a digital lock (even when it's held in place by spit and gum) on media we own with the intent to LEGALLY copy that media for our own use that harms no one.

    Yet when it comes to bending and even breaking of this law with the intent of doing something that is not otherwise legal in a way that has clearly caused massive harm... well... that's ok... right?

  • On the post: DOJ Tries To Explain How It Can Get Around Requirement To Serve Megaupload In The US

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 19 Jul, 2012 @ 04:28am

    Re: Doing Business in US makes you subject to US Law

    "If you do business in ANY country, you are subject to that Country's laws period."

    One word, tax.

    How many companies that trade or even are otherwise based in the US technically exist in a mailbox in a building with a bunch of other mailboxes on some island somewhere so they can avoid US tax rates?

    If what you are saying it true then they should all be arrested and put in jail.

  • On the post: The New Elitism: File Sharing 'Created' Pop Music And Removing Gatekeepers Is 'Killing Culture'

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2012 @ 03:21am

    One simple question..

    I think Lindvall needs to ask her self one very simple question. If we snapped our fingers and overnight no one could make money from making music how many of the cookie cutter bubble gum pop stars she hates and how many of the artists she loves would keep creating it?

    I think we all know the answer. People have been making music since before their was an industry for it, people have been making music before their was money to pay for it and no matter what happens people will keep making music.

  • On the post: The New Elitism: File Sharing 'Created' Pop Music And Removing Gatekeepers Is 'Killing Culture'

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2012 @ 03:16am

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

    I play in a band, I love it, for 2 and half years I've gone to practice ever week and tried to play at lest 1 or 2 shows a month often going out of my way to do so. I've lost huge amounts of time and money and I've done it all with no expectation of making it back. I do it because I love doing it.

    At the same time I know currently 2 bands that I think are utterly fantastic at what they do and they work their ass off at it. They gig once or twice a week, sort out tours and put huge endless effort in to doing what they are doing and they are still having a very hard time making it "what they do". The UK market for their music is just too small to support them unless they have a break out successes. They'll keep chancing that as hard as they can but, and here's the important part, they will keep on making and playing music what ever happens.

  • On the post: The New Elitism: File Sharing 'Created' Pop Music And Removing Gatekeepers Is 'Killing Culture'

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2012 @ 03:07am

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

    "Labels pay Artists, Pirates don't"

    Except for a few things. Labels don't "pay" artists, they give them an advance. An advance they have to pay back sometimes even if they fail. Artists are meant to be grateful for a lone that comes at the cost of the rights to their work and any kind of real return from it.

    Advances given to bands have to cover EVERYTHING about the production of the album including the pressing and shipping. Through out productions the label will pretty much recoup that advance from the band through inflated prices and costs as the label actually handles the production for the band. This is why labels will often keep on pushing up and advance because while they give on the one hand they'll take back on the other and while still leaving the band in huge debt to the label.

    So when the album comes out the label has often not lost all of the advance they paid out and yet until the band pays back the full balance of the advance they where given labels will often take all the royalties from any music sales.

    This puts us in a place where if you go see a band and buy a CD from their merch stand they will see more money from being the store holder than the content creator.

    The artists then make their living through over means, mainly touring and merch. Which means that both some one who pirates a CD they would never have brought and likes the band enough to go see a show and buy some merch is by far more valuable to the band than some one who just buys a CD.

    What's even worse about all this is that labels have realised this and have started trying to move to so called 360 deals where they take a cut of ANYTHING the artists makes by being an artist until the advance is paid back.

    Very few labels pay artists. They give artists a loan to produce an album but after that loan is paid back will still own the rights to the album and only be giving the band who made it a small cut of the sales.

    If a pirate goes to a live show they DO pay the artist.

    Funny that.

  • On the post: Former Federal Judge Calls US Prosecution Of Megaupload 'Really Outrageous'

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2012 @ 02:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ok so lets just run with your assumption that every one who had data uploaded to megaupload also had that data on a local drive when megaupload was sized. I'm not going to get in to why that's a stupid assumption because frankly the argument you make while using it is easy enough to break down all on it's own.

    Given the number of megaupload users there is undoubtedly people who encountered the problems that they where backing up to MU to avoid before they could back up their files to another service. Hard drives break, things are stolen and people often find them self's with the need to accesses their files from a location where they can't access a their local copy.

    All these people have lost something due to the MU data being locked down. On top of that they'll all have to put time and effort in back up their files else where and likely have to pay another service on top of what they've already paid to MU to provide them self's with the back up.

    You are claiming that since all data on MU is a copy then it's all backed up elsewhere and as such no one has lost anything. But you are utterly forgetting that what people have lost is access to their back up service.

    Now what a lot of people have also lost is the service they where using to share their files with other people. These people will again have to upload to another one and maybe pay again to do that.

    And all this is based on the idea that people will all have a copy of the file as MU is only ever used as a 'backup'. That no one would ever have files stored on MU that they currently don't have a local copy of.

    No matter what else the site was used for there are a large number of people who used it legitimately who have lost date or time and money due to what is more and more looking like an illegal shutting down of the service.

    That is wrong. End of story.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Better Living Through Chemistry

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 02:05am

    Re: Legal Highs

    Ah title was misleading. I'd like to point out that it's worrying that you take things that are tweeks on another drug and can't know if it's safe but given you can never know what you are taking when you buy any kind of real drug it's a risk a lot of people are willing to take. If one type of high is use widely by a group and no really bad effects are seen then the group can be pretty safe in knowing that if they go and buy more they'll get the same kind of result.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Better Living Through Chemistry

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2012 @ 01:53am

    Legal Highs

    In the UK it's not actually an underground thing at all. A good few of my friends work in 'head shops' on high streets that sell what get called 'legal highs'.

    They exploit a loop hole that means that you can sell them as products that are not for human consumption. So plant food bathsalts and such. Every one knows exactly what they are but you are not allowed to say. People get thrown out of these shops if they do.

    I also know a good few people who use them. Some like them better than the real thing but mostly they are willing to pay a premium (can often cost more than the real thing) because you can safely walk in to a shop and easily pick them up. There is also the argument that it's safe because you know it won't be cut with anything.

    The sad thing is that it could be even safer, with the drugs tested and regulated for consumption. It's a small peek in to a world of legalisation and it's not actually all that bad.

  • On the post: Which is Worse — Sharing With Attribution, Or Plagiarism Without?

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 08:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy of politicians?

    So your guess that because these people committed plagiarism means they are more open to file sharing is more valid than techdirts guess that these people who are part of a government currently cracking down hugely on file sharing are likely against it?

    Again I don't see why you had to guess anything other than to try and help your argument which is again exactly what you are bothered about in the post.

  • On the post: Which is Worse — Sharing With Attribution, Or Plagiarism Without?

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 07:18am

    Re: Re: Hypocrisy of politicians?

    "If anything, they're more likely to approve or at least tolerate it than to condemn it."

    You do realise that you just did exactly what you are criticising the article of doing? And were as techdirt took steps to point out that they where making a guess you don't and you fail to provide anything to back up your claims.

    Funny thing is that I actually do agree with you. If they wanted to make that point at all they should have had something more than guess work to back it up. I just found it funny that you got so mad you made the same mistake.

  • On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 25 May, 2012 @ 08:46am

    Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...

    I know you are immune to irony Bob but really... just... really?

    BOO TO POLITICAL RHETORIC!

    BOO EVIL BRITISH COLONIALISM CLASS SYSTEMS!

  • On the post: Kickstarter Keeps Funding Bigger And Bigger Projects

    Tim Griffiths ( profile ), 15 May, 2012 @ 07:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall ++

    Now if only there was a section on kickstarter that lists all projects that intend to realise under creative commons most of which intend to be go out for free... oh wait, there is! :P

    http://www.kickstarter.com/pages/creativecommons