jfgilbert 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (39) comment rss

  • On the post: As Expected, Judge Issues Injunction Against IsoHunt For Not Finding Magic Wand

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 21 May, 2010 @ 05:28pm

    It is the wrong fight

    I, for one, and I am sure a fair number of people, really don't care enough about the stuff produced by Hollywood and the big labels to get into this. If they want to wage war against so called "pirates", that's their problem. My concern, though, is collateral damage. The war on drugs gave us warrantless searches and seizures, and filled prisons with non-violent addicts; the war on terror gave us the TSA and routine spying on US citizens. If this continues, the war on pirates will give us a broken Internet. We should not argue with big content that their approach is stupid, or try to defend the P2P sites, our goal should be to isolate these idiots - both sides - so they only break each others' businesses.

  • On the post: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2010 @ 08:51am

    Unintended?

    Why would you think that restriction of free speech in a new bill is an unintended consequence?

  • On the post: Yet Another Cheating Red Light Camera

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2010 @ 04:53pm

    The town of San Mateo (CA) has recently announced that they were ending the red light camera program. That's good, but the funny part is that also said that they stopped it because it was not profitable. When they put the cameras up, the justification is always that it will improve safety at a dangerous intersection. Then, if it is not profitable, it proves that it worked beautifully as a deterrent, so it is a success. Right? What I don't understand is why they are now ending such a successful program.

  • On the post: New Ransomware Targets Porn Pirates, Makes Copyright Threats

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2010 @ 06:50am

    There is a difference

    "what's the fundamental difference between what the malware peddlers and these supposedly legitimate companies are doing?"
    The malware peddlers are a lot smarter, they get the victims to do all the work, so they are much more efficient.

  • On the post: Is The iPad The Disneyland Of Computers?

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2010 @ 09:22am

    Save the media?

    Besides the point of the article, which I find very good, I think there is some undervaluation of what that will do to the print media, now that the ad platform has been unveiled. For a magazine, that means the ability to create the content and publish it in an app, reserve some space for ads, then let Apple sell and place them. That eliminates the cost of ad sales, the speculative printing, the tracking of circulation, and all the other costs of getting revenue. For the advertisers, that eliminates the guess work based on (often questionable) circulation numbers, the risk of buying expensive ads that nobody will see, and brings the ability to keep ads fresh and current, or modify a campaign depending on response. That's a lot of value for both sides of the magazine advertising partners, and that's bound to change the business dramatically.

  • On the post: Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Recognize That There's Competition Online

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 07 Apr, 2010 @ 01:05pm

    Please stop

    Mike, would you please stop trying to educate him, no matter how hopeless the endeavor. Just let him continue on his path to self destruction and oblivion, we will all be much better for it.

  • On the post: Chinese Gov't Gives Press Orders On How To Report On Google's China Decision

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2010 @ 08:17am

    That's the way the interwebs should be run

    China is showing us the way. Thank God, ACTA is coming and we will get our house in order too.

  • On the post: Full ACTA Draft Leaked… EU Wants Injunctions Against The Possibility You Might Infringe

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2010 @ 12:55pm

    Obviously, it's not about infringement or right holders, it is all about the governments taking control of the Internet. And the scary part is that it is the one thing on which they all agree.

  • On the post: EU Negotiators Insist That ACTA Will Move Forward And There's Nothing To Worry About

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2010 @ 01:22pm

    "But... when those politicians actually try to reform or fix broken copyright laws..."
    I am not too worried about that because I will be watching pigs soaring in the breeze from my window.

  • On the post: As Expected, Ridiculous, Wrong, Exaggerating And Misleading Report Claims That 'Piracy' Is Killing Jobs

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2010 @ 08:41am

    It's a coincidence

    This report comes out days after the European Commission has massively rejected ACTA. I can't imagine that any of the interests behind ACTA could have helped conducting and publishing the "study", because they are not the kind of people who would manipulate public opinion.

  • On the post: Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2010 @ 09:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: couldn't agree more with your article

    Sure looks like it to me:
    "if apple wants htc out of US due to patents infringments, than they should take their iphone out as well"

  • On the post: Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2010 @ 09:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Read the quotes carefully

    Of course, half VGA is a standard. Now. How many HVGA phones were there before the iPhone? The execution of a idea has everything to do with the specs of the product. Engineering is making the right trade-offs, in this case between size, brightness, definition, battery life, and a dozen other factors. And there were hundreds other trade-offs that had to be decided when defining the iPhone. That's what made it successful or could have killed it.
    After someone has defined this balance, convinced a large market that it is the right compromise, and demonstrated how to implement the ideas into a successful product, it is no longer about the idea, it is stealing the technology. I am not blindly defending anybody, I just try to correct statements that are obviously wrong when people try to rewrite history and distort concepts because they don't like a company or a CEO.

  • On the post: Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2010 @ 06:58pm

    Re: couldn't agree more with your article

    Try to understand what you read.
    Cisco had a Trademark on the word iPhone. Not a patent. Apple's iPhone infringed on Cisco's trademark and Cisco decided - intelligently - not to challenge because there was little risk of confusion (all 5 people who had heard of Cisco's iPhone before Apple announced theirs were able to see the difference), and nothing to gain for them. Apple's iPhone does not infringe an any Cisco iPhone patent.
    If you can't understand the difference between a trademark and a patent, refrain from making stupid accusations.

  • On the post: Would 2010 Steve Jobs Sue 1996 (Or 1984) Steve Jobs Over Patents?

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2010 @ 06:51pm

    Re: Read the quotes carefully

    "Stealing" ideas is not the same as stealing technology.
    When Steve Jobs saw the graphical interface at PARC, he got the idea. When Apple built the Mac, they built their own technology, from the display - which was black and white, with square pixels - to the graphical software.
    In that case, again, Xerox had the ideas but could not execute. I badly wanted one of their Star computers, but they started at over $15K (in 1983). Apple "stole" the ideas, but were able to deliver a product to market, and the Mac did not have a single part that even looked like something in the Star.
    HTC stole the idea of the iPhone, the design that makes it usable, the specs - down to the screen size and resolution, and I would bet, reused many of the components.
    There is a difference.

  • On the post: ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2010 @ 01:23pm

    Mike, I am surprised you did not see the bigger picture.
    This is not about controlling piracy, DRM, or DMCA, it is not a US initiative, and it is not even a negotiation. It is about governments and multinational companies taking control of the Internet. This will be pushed through under the usual pretenses of fighting piracy, controlling pornography, preventing terrorism, and, of course, protecting the children - but it will really be used to monitor free speech and intimidate those who challenge or disagree with governments and big business (that includes churches).
    Historically, Governments, the Press, and Business have had opposing interests, and, most times, this has provided some sort of balance. The Internet is special in that it took away power from all of them, and thus united them in finding ways to control it. The Internet is also global, so putting in place the proper controls requires international coordination, that's what ACTA is about.
    Chinese rulers saw the Internet threat right away and put in place immediately what restrictions they could; Australia, New Zealand, France, and the UK are busy changing their laws, Italy is trying to interpret their laws differently to take away safe harbor, and now the rest of the world is catching on.
    Don't think the Internet is different and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Of course, the Internet can be regulated. Governments only have to regulate the ISPs and force them to implement filters, block urls, or report specific activity. And that's already happening.
    The glorious decade of Internet freedom is over.

  • On the post: New Estimate: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2009 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Don't confuse dimensions and units

    Thank you, Nicko for understanding what I meant and expressing it better than I could.
    Bad Analogy Guy: If you want to be literal, bandwidth is not a unit of measure, it is a dimension just like length or weight. The unit of measure for bandwidth would be bits/second. The term is, however, commonly used to talk about the capacity that is allocated to a user and thus consumed by this user. It is obviously used in this sense when the article talks about "bandwidth bill" because if it was not consumed, there would be no bill.

  • On the post: New Estimate: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2009 @ 06:15pm

    Don't confuse 'bill' and 'cost'

    If I operate a fleet of tankers carrying millions of gallons of oil across oceans, one might expect that I have a huge fuel bill to power my tankers. But I can have a deal with oil producers that allows me to fuel my tankers without charge, in exchange for some additional service or discount that I give them. My fuel bill might be zero, my cost is not, it is the cost of the service I provide in exchange.
    Google may not have to pay for the bandwidth it uses on some carriers because it lets them use some of their infrastructure in return. They paid and continue to pay for that infrastructure, so that's not free to them.

  • On the post: Playing CDs On Computer Now A Privilege

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2005 @ 01:59pm

    Good!

    Actually, I think this may be a good thing. The music industry as we know it is on a path to self destruction. They are antagonizing their customers, scr**ing their artists, they even want to start a fight with Apple, who has helped them a lot. CD stores will close at an accelerated rate and everybody will have to look for alternatives.
    Ultimately, that will open the way for new distribution channels and new business models.
    I, for one, can't wait.

  • On the post: Did Steve Jobs Pull An Osborne?

    jfgilbert ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2005 @ 09:14pm

    No comparison with Osbourne

    Today, everybody knows and expects that the computers sold today will be replaced by something better, faster, and cheaper very soon. If Apple had announced a G6 processor that will be available in a year, and be faster and cooler, but require some tweaking of the OS and the applications to take advantage of new features (like hyperthreading), today's G4s and G5s would be just as obsolete just as fast.
    But somehow, that would be OK, because that's what everybody expected?