Jeroen Hellingman 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (173) comment rss

  • On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2020 @ 11:26pm

    Re: By all means, hand your opposition that knife

    Republican voters haven't been known for their rationality recently, so they will probably get away with it.

  • On the post: GOP Confirms Unqualified Simington to FCC With Eye On Crippling Biden FCC

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2020 @ 06:43am

    Calling populists "faux-populists" is not necessary: populists are fake by definition: they are politicians who promise whatever the voters want to hear, even the impossible, and then don't deliver, except what costs them nothing.

  • On the post: French Legislators Outlaw Discriminating Against People Because Of Their 'Regional Accents'

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2020 @ 07:20am

    Re:

    My guess is that they want to ban refusing a job or a house when speaking the "wrong" accent. I agree with the principle, but doubt it will be very effective. If somebody doesn't like to rent out a house or provide a job to somebody because of the French equivalent of a Hill-Billy (or New York, or Texas) accent, and it is forbidden by law, they will think of some other reason to not rent it to them. In France, "wrong" accents most likely are those of North African immigrants, the equivalent of Ebonics in the US. Reminds me, France still has to do something to compensate for the historical suppression of minority languages, such as Basque, Breton and Flemish, which wasn't subtle at all.

  • On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2020 @ 07:26am

    I doubt a fixed line router is cheaper, especially if you consider wiring up your house with cat. 6 UTP cables and matching outlets in all rooms. Doing so, however, will solve wifi issues, and improve your network speed and ping times a lot.

    If I had an evil mood, I might consider advising my neighbors to use this, so their wifi causes less interference with mine. Good for them, I am not evil.

  • On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2020 @ 12:43am

    Re:

    While at it, given his predilection to see his own name everywhere, he would also rename the country to Trumpiana, Trumpland, or even Trumpistan if he could.

  • On the post: Ajit Pai's FCC Does Something Good, Frees Wireless Spectrum The Auto Industry Had Done Little With

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2020 @ 07:41am

    If consumer organizations and telecom giants agree with Ajit Pai's FCC on something it most definitely is not controversial. I was of the impression they couldn't even agree on 1 + 1 = 2.

  • On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2020 @ 11:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 'only “stakeholders”

    Last time I looked, the size of the US was pretty large, but still very finite. If everything would be privatized, free speech would die with it as well. You seem to express a pretty dogmatic stance with regard to private property, not taking into account how this property might have become "private" and not taking into account that other human rights can conflict with those, and sometimes must take precedence to NOT live in a fucked-up society. To give one example, former King Leopold II considered what is now Congo as his personal private property, to plunder at will, and to do with it's inhabitants what he wanted, including chopping of hands of children not slaving hard enough on his plantations. That is what I call a fucked-up society (the place is still a mess).

  • On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2020 @ 06:51am

    Re: Re: Re: The 'only “stakeholders” in copyright' ARE the s

    Ideas cannot be owned at all. Copyright only extends to a particular tangible novel expression of an idea. Patents only to a working implementation of a novel idea (aka invention). Ideas still remain free.

  • On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2020 @ 06:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 'only “stakeholders” in copy

    I think we are actually mostly on the same line in most of this argument. The point I am trying to make that if a party truly monopolizes a certain resource, we need to tackle that monopoly, not impede everybody with forced use of their property. However, I do not see the right to private property as so fundamentally superior to other human rights that private property should always prevail. (But, again, I strongly reject support forced access to a platform for loud-mouths that only want to spew hateful dirt).

  • On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2020 @ 03:29am

    Re: Re: Section 1201

    The key phrase here is "or permitted by law", right in your face and part of that Article 11.

  • On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2020 @ 03:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The 'only “stakeholders” in copyright' A

    I think my comment on limits to private property is misunderstood here: It is not about not being able to kick misbehaving party-goers out, a better analogue would being able to intervene when such party-goers cause significant nuisance to the neighborhood. I fully agree with the basic premise that publishers of platforms should have the freedom to throw out content when that is in conflict with their rules. We also need to consider to what degree a contract exists between the platform and the individual using that platform, to avoid complete arbitrariness in this respect. A privately owned open-for-all platform is still very different from a individual private residence. In this case, it is also about the issue that for free speech to be able to exists, you need to establish where the public space is. Compare it with the old situation, where shops are located on a public street, as a modern situation, where shops are located inside a privately owned mall, eliminating the entire concept of a public street that is free for all to walk along. When such a thing effectively eliminates free speech, you may well need to re-evaluate the balance between property rights and free speech, which are both important in a free society. The public street in this case should not be the platforms, but the ISP's, which should have a content neutral obligation to carry any lawful communication, and connect any party in their area of operation, which would enable people to build their own platform. (Opening up that other can of worms, network neutrality).

  • On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 23 Nov, 2020 @ 11:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: The 'only “stakeholders” in copyright' ARE the s

    I think replying to a position that seems to imply that there should be some limits of what platforms can do with a generic suggestion that that person is against private property is unhelpful in the discussion. I am in favor of private property, but there are limits to it, as everybody except the most staunch libertarian will admit. I think the whole discussion about the power of platforms should not be a discussion about free speech, but about market domination and monopoly abuse. Areas were limits to what you can do with "private property" are well established (although vested interests have put the barriers against government intervention a bit too high, in my opinion) -- and in this case that market domination does have of impact on free speech: it makes it much harder to look for another platform to bring your speech to. In my opinion, the solution here should be to look at the monopolistic aspects of media companies, and introduce barriers, in business, such that a dominant position in one area cannot be used gain leverage in another. One prime example: Amazon using its platform information to gain insight in "partners" successful business, then taking that business over -- you should either be a open platform, or a trader of goods, but not both, similarly the strength of "Big Tech" mostly derives from one core feature: the power of search, and related network effects. Facebook is powerful because I can find many of my acquaintances over there, and reach a large public. How much I do support the position that everybody should have a private server in the basement, using standard interfaces (API's) and data easily being portable between applications, I do not see that happen quickly. I do think regulations like the EU GDPR and Copyright Directive will have their impact and push things in that way, but they too include some highly questionable elements. Finally, on the subject of copyright reform. They always give me the shivers. Whenever it comes up, the claws of industry reach out to get more of it, while we actually need less copyright to make it work better -- for both the public and the authors (in a broad sense: includes artists). Again, monopolistic abuse of the channels is the issue here. After significant reducing the term, I am much in favor of tying copyright to the original author, even renaming it author's right, as it is already called in the several European languages, and limiting sales and exclusive licensing deals, in an effort to stop the massive hoarding and locking in of cultural heritage by a few monopolistic players.

  • On the post: Disney (Disney!) Accused Of Trying To Lawyer Its Way Out Of Paying Royalties To Alan Dean Foster

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2020 @ 11:33pm

    All those obtaining the latest episode of The Mandalorian via The Pirate Bay can now feel a little less guilty.

    Buying the rights without the obligations, pretty interesting position. Why not do that in the first step and tell the author, we just bought the rights to your book for $ one million, so now you have to pay yourself. Could also apply in real estate, like a mafia boss: we just bought your house for $ one million, but you will have to pay it yourself. Opens up some options with regard to Disney property as well.

    If it is up to me, any failure to pay royalties should result in the reversal of the copyright back to the person the royalties are owed to.

  • On the post: EU Court Backs Austrian Court, Says Local Libel Law Applies Everywhere In The World

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2020 @ 11:45pm

    Re:

    Europe is actually doing that already, but more stealthily, it is called CRS (Common Reporting Standards). The end result is that for illicit funds, the US is becoming one of the best places to hide it.

  • On the post: EU Court Backs Austrian Court, Says Local Libel Law Applies Everywhere In The World

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2020 @ 11:48pm

    This all boils down to enforcement. Put your content perceived as libel on a US-only site, and the EUCJ can declare anything it want, the US probably won't take action until a US court agrees.

    Once more shows, we need to move to a more decentralized world, in which we all have our own small server in our basement.

  • On the post: Federal Court Says State Regulation That Compels Production Of Code May Violate The First Amendment

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2020 @ 12:16am

    Re: WTF!?

    Well, extend this reasoning to building codes: my building design is a first amendment protected form of speech. Your insisting that I make the beams stronger is illegal compelled speech, and the fact that the inhabitants will be killed if I don't doesn't trump my free speech rights. Wow, what a money-saver free speech is!

  • On the post: GitHub, EFF Push Back Against RIAA, Reinstate Youtube-dl Repository

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2020 @ 11:50pm

    Re: Re:

    The problem with this approach is that you still loose your protection under the law if you do so. Now, the law allows for only having a postal address to send take-down notices to, so you could do that (and have an address somewhere in a very remote corner of Alaska), but that will hurt you as much as the sender of all those notes. What you could try to do is impose a significant handling fee on non-DMCA compliant notices, and set it up such that sending non-DMCA compliant notices to the DMCA address implies acceptance of a contract to pay such fees. (You cannot charge for DMCA compliant notices).

  • On the post: China's Hong Kong Protester-Targeting 'See Something, Say Something' Hotline Is A Big Success

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2020 @ 11:57pm

    Talking about ending colonialism, we need to remember that China is actually a colonial empire, having forcefully occupied Tibet, East Turkestan, and parts of Mongolia, and abusing those colonies by ruthless mining operations and thus causing environmental disasters, as well as sending huge number of colonists to some of those areas, basically turning the original inhabitants into a minority in their own homelands (and don't get me started about the destruction of cultural heritage). The CCP's rhetoric routs against imperialistic oppression have become highly cynical now that China itself has become an imperialist oppressor, which is now also trying to annex most of the South China sea, extends its ugly tentacles to many countries in Africa, and poses a more serious threat to Taiwan than it has in many decades.

  • On the post: To Prevent Free, Frictionless Access To Human Knowledge, Publishers Want Librarians To Be Afraid, Very Afraid

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2020 @ 11:41pm

    Since copyright is a regulation to help publisher recoup their investments in producing a work, there is no need whatsoever to have a copyright at all on any work produced with public funds, as many of the scientific research articles are. The reward belongs to the public and is biggest when the article can be disseminated with as little friction as possible. There should be a ban on claiming copyright over any work that has been substantially financed by public means.

    What also will be needed is an infrastructure to validate the integrity of articles, if only to counter this type of scare-mongering. This could be as easy as having a digital signature of the author and reviewers over a properly canonicalized version of the paper.

  • On the post: President-For-Life Hopeful Donald Trump Issues Executive Order Mandating 'Patriotic' Education For Kids

    Jeroen Hellingman ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2020 @ 08:01am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, at a certain wage, starvation will start to occur, and your slaves, err, employees won't be showing up for work anymore, which means he/she is in breach of contract -- for which of course we will sue his/her children, to force them to make up for that. Any form of government assistance to starving workers is indeed a kind of subsidy to those slaveho...employers, and should not be given, as it is also an infringement on the free market. You see, without a minimum wage, there is no bondage, only freedom.

Next >>