iSights 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (478) comment rss

  • On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You

    iSights ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2010 @ 02:04pm

    We're doing it wrong. Here's a great article on how Israel handles security at their airports. Note the emphasis on training PEOPLE as opposed to buying and trusting multi-million dollar machines to do the job.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

  • On the post: COICA Back Up For A Vote This Week, So Universal Music Ramps Up Astroturf Campaign

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2010 @ 02:55pm

    "And... in an interesting bit of timing, the news came out today that Universal Music is planning major cuts."

    Coincidence? Probably not. They're just going to use this to reinforce how bad things are in the recording industry (Err. I mean the music industry).

  • On the post: Jammie Thomas Verdict: This Time It's $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs

    iSights ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2010 @ 02:11am

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

    In most proceedings the prosecution has X number of "peremptory" challenges and so does the defense. (Varies by locale, but in civil cases it's usually three.)

    So... if you're of the firm opinion that all RIAA employees should be shot, you'll probably be dismissed by the prosecution. On the flip side, if you "know" that all file-sharers are nothing but thieves, the defense will probably toss you out.

    What remains -- or is supposed to remain -- is a group of people willing to listen to BOTH sides of the argument and make a fair and impartial decision.

    Which you can't do if you're mind is already made up.

  • On the post: Jammie Thomas Verdict: This Time It's $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs

    iSights ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2010 @ 03:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Both the prosecution AND the defense can challenge jurors.

    I would also tend to wonder at the wisdom of admitting at a legal proceeding that you're a filesharer.

    Especially at this one...

  • On the post: British Air Boss Points Out That Removing Your Shoes At Airport Security Is Silly

    iSights ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2010 @ 01:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.

    I think the recent banking crash pretty much shows what happens in a deregulated, "do whatever you want" environment...

  • On the post: British Air Boss Points Out That Removing Your Shoes At Airport Security Is Silly

    iSights ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2010 @ 01:24pm

    Re: Re: Wel, Duh.

    "The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the flight impacted at 563 miles per hour (906 km/h) at a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep, and 30 to 50 feet wide. All 44 people died. The plane fragmented upon impact."

    Ever seen what's left of a steel-bodied reinforced car after it hits a tree at a measly 55mph?

    Now image a large aluminum tube hitting the ground at ten times that speed...

  • On the post: China's Main Newspaper Complains That The iPad Is Too Damn Legal

    iSights ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2010 @ 02:45pm

    "...you cannot install pirate software on them, you cannot download [free] music, and [horrors] you need to pay for movies you watch on them."

    Mike is right. The iPad would be much more powerful if it allowed you to steal whatever you want, whenever you wanted it!

  • On the post: Ebook Publishers Never Learned: DRM & Ridiculous Prices

    iSights ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2010 @ 11:06am

    Re: Why publishers don't care (A Guess)

    Everyone is missing the point. Why? Because the story is flat-out wrong.

    The publisher is NOT pricing the ebook higher than the print version.

    The primary example from the article is Ken Follet's 985-page opus, Fall of Giants. It sells from Amazon at $19.99 as an ebook, And it's $19.39 as a print book. Thus the ebook is slightly more expensive.

    But wait. The $19.39 price for the print edition is Amazon's DISCOUNTED sale price. The PUBLISHER'S list price is $36. So in reality, the ebook is 45% off the publisher's retail price.

    The PUBLISHER did, in fact, price the ebook at nearly half the price of the print edition. Good for them.

    AMAZON, however, made a choice. and CHOOSE to discount the physical book's price below that of the publisher's ebook price.

    The question is why? Loss-leader? Make it up the difference in shipping charges? Or perhaps it's publicity, as everyone and their kid brother (including Mike) is blogging and writing about the discrepancy. "Greedy publishers are pricing ebooks higher than the print version!"

    Let's lynch the bastards! Yar!

    Or does AMAZON, currently the largest seller of ebooks and electronic reading devices, and owner of the largest ebook reader platform, have something to gain from forcing down price points???

    Think about it.

    (And Mike, please try not to miss the real story next time, okay?)

  • On the post: Eli Lilly's Reliance On Patents May Be Its Downfall

    iSights ( profile ), 08 Oct, 2010 @ 12:30am

    Let me rewite that sentence, "Because the patents on the drugs that make up most of its revenue are all set to expire soon, and their pipeline of new drugs is pretty far behind."

    Given the time it takes to develop and test a new drug, it's more than possible that their "pipeline" would be behind anyway.

  • On the post: Anti-Violence Video Game Group Conducts Study Getting Parents To Ask For Anti-Violent Video Game Law

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 01:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No Mr. Coward, ALL polls are not designed to elicit a particular response. Well-designed polls attempt to minimize the bias you so readily assign to them.

    What Mike seems to be saying is that everyone with a vested interest in a subject always manipulates the results. In short, everyone always lies.

    Of course, if you don't have an interest in the subject, you probably wouldn't be sponsoring a poll on it, now would you?

  • On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 01:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Another rationalization: I can't have the way I want it, at the price I want it, at the time that I want it.

    So that makes downloading it okay.

    Not saying that all of those things you mentioned are okay, or that we shouldn't complain about them and try to get things changed... we should. Just that they're not a valid justification for theft.

  • On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 12:52pm

    Re:

    If, according to Mike, economic forces drive the price of "infinite goods" (translation: easily copied goods) down to zero... then yes, it works out that people want something for nothing.

    You can say, "economic forces", but that's just people choosing how to spend their dollars.

    In thise case, they want the value (listen to music, watch movie, read book). But they don't want to pay for it. It's there. It's easily copied. There are no immediate negative consequences. So they do so.

    Insert whatever argument or rationalization you wish (greed, entitlement, "the man", whatever), the net effect is the same.

  • On the post: Google Is Destroying The Economy Because It Believes In Efficiency?

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 09:50am

    Re:

    New article, "Is Techdirt a fair, impartial, and unbiased site?"

    The correct answer to any article with a question for a title is to consider the facts and make your own decision.

  • On the post: Anti-Violence Video Game Group Conducts Study Getting Parents To Ask For Anti-Violent Video Game Law

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 09:45am

    Re:

    Without this, the sound bites on BOTH sides of the fence are meaningless.

    While the poll may be biased, without access to all of the questions we don't know one way or another. Mike sets up a few biased examples of his own, then continues on to assume that this poll was in fact "designed to elicit a particular response."

    Again, no data, just assumptions and rants.

  • On the post: Canadian Recording Industry Claims That Canadian Copyright Proposal Is A $5k License To Infringe

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 09:38am

    Re:

    Ditto. I already have roughly 4,000 songs in iTunes, many from iTunes and Amazon, but most from legally purchased CDs. At roughly $1 a song, that's $4K even before we get to the 100 or so movies (purchased), 250 or so audiobooks (Audible), various TV seasons (iTunes), and so forth.

    That's easily $5K right there. So for the same amount I could have a disk with EVERYTHING???

    Where do I sign up?

  • On the post: Canadian Recording Industry Claims That Canadian Copyright Proposal Is A $5k License To Infringe

    iSights ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 09:28am

    Re: Subject

    There are plenty of good independent bands and labels out there. But since you "already steal everything [sic] and anything i want without paying an extra penny", I suppose you don't care to support them either.

  • On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2010 @ 03:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation

    "The reason people don't go around killing each other is not because laws exist to stop that sort of thing. It's because there's an unwritten agreement between them that says "you don't kill me, I don't kill you". I believe this agreement is literally written in our DNA. Most of us couldn't take a human life even if we wanted to."

    Don't even know where to begin here. Some people may have problems killing one another... and I dare say that some have no such compunction. Law itself doesn't prevent many of the later from doing so. The threat of punishment does.

    The "agreement" of which you speak is a societal one, backed by law. It's not "natural". Visit Somalia and tell me how far that "agreement" goes between you and the local warlord. Or if his DNA offers you any protection from harm.

    Theft is backed up the same way. Some people may not steal because of "morals". But others don't steal your car, again, not because of some "agreement", but because of the consequences. Stealing a car isn't worth going to jail for 10 years.

    Stealing music or movies isn't done because we have no "agreement". It's done because the thief can obtain something of value for free, it's extremely easy to do, and there's little to no risk of getting caught or of ever facing any consequences.

    Something for nothing? No downside? Where do I sign up?

    The same person would never think of swiping a CD off the shelf. Why? Not because of his or her morals, or because they're worried about the store owner violating some nebulous agreement and coming to his house to steal his CDs, but because getting a $10 CD isn't worth the chance of getting arrested.

  • On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2010 @ 03:21pm

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

    "Natural/human rights"

    There are no "natural" rights, other than one's ability to take what one wants. In nature, what's yours is yours only so long as you can protect it. If you can't, it usually gets eaten.

    Human rights are ethical concepts. They're ideas. They exist only because we agree that they do so. In that way, they're no different than any other idea that we can think up and call a "right".

    The "right" to bear arms is a legislative concept, granted by the Constitution. Is it a "human" right? Depends on who you ask. My grandfather would say that he has a "right" to protect his family and himself. Someone else, who just lost a kid to a drive-by shooting, might say that right should be abridged. Which one is "ethical"?

    You're simply attempting to split hairs in order to benefit your argument, and probably would be better off debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  • On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft

    iSights ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2010 @ 12:52pm

    Re: War of words....

    "It's a war or words, and one side is going for accuracy while the other wants to play mind games."

    Actually, BOTH sides are attempting to play mind games and frame the debate. One side uses loaded connotations (steal, theft, pirate) in an attempt to illustrate the damage caused, while the other side deliberately attempts to portray the damage as minimal (infringe, copy, "share").

    As has been said, once you accept the other fellow's terms, you've effectively lost the debate.

  • On the post: Rather Than Whine About Used Markets, Why Not Enable Them Yourself?

    iSights ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 09:22pm

    Smart move. Ikea is giving existing customers a way to sell off their old stuff so that they buy new stuff. And the people who're buying the old stuff probably wouldn't have been able to afford the new stuff at full-boat retail prices anyway.

Next >>