Jinxed’s Techdirt Profile


About Jinxed

Jinxed’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 19th, 2018 @ 3:17am

    (untitled comment)

    If the movie industry can use child pornography and sex trafficking as excuses to pass copyright legislation, then I believe it's fair play to allow blasphemy and "pornography" to block tax incentives.

    Remember: the movie industry took the gloves off first.

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 11:49am

    (untitled comment)

    "There's no indication yet whether Comcast will sell Netflix at any kind of discount."
    Discount? Comcast doesn't understand the definition of the word.

    Comcast will "sell" Netflix for $49.99/mo., remove its Zero Rating protection, impose a new 100GB monthly cap, and charge customers for using Netflix, which can easily surpass 100GB monthly usage.

    Anything Comcast announces should be treated as having an ulterior motive which "discount" is not applied.

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 9:29am

    (untitled comment)

    I found a link to this site last year through an article talking about how horrible it was. I wanted to try it for myself.

    Putting in any movie released within a year (but older than 6 months): 0 results found

    I also put in well known older movies, such as "Die Hard": 0 results found

    Then I put in "Transmorphers", a direct-to-confused-consumer movie: 7 results found, with Netflix being #1

    The website may have been designed to help people find legal alternatives.

    Instead, it showed them few, if any, options actually existed.

    It's no wonder the MPAA took it down.

  • Apr 12th, 2018 @ 3:43am

    (untitled comment)

    Wasn't John Fithian the same person who said movie theaters wouldn't host Netflix content because it's not qualified as a movie? Something like that.

    This report from the MPAA should surprise no one, as it's the status quo from the industry:
    See new technology - sue it out of existence
    When the lawsuit fails - pass laws to limit its use
    When the laws fail - claim innovation

    How this organization, along with its sister RIAA, remain relevant fails common sense.

  • Apr 4th, 2018 @ 9:38am

    (untitled comment)

    If rational people will sit down and talk about this...

    We have, Mr. Cohen, which makes you the irrational person in these discussions.

    Perhaps learn from this.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 12:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    Another prime example of "I believe this bill is written to cover the issue while I completely ignore what the bill actually says as written."

    I'm firmly with the belief these are intentionally misdirected as to leave open "anything we didn't cover", with the "intention" only the "bad" people will get caught.

    Good representation of the buyer, and typical politician thinking who believes it's the seller that's the problem.

    It takes two to make a transaction.

  • Mar 26th, 2018 @ 11:49am

    (untitled comment)

    "Either way, the book of examples of just how incredibly the New Zealand government has fucked up everything about this case at every single turn has now added yet another chapter."

    Is MegaUpload back online? No? Then the government doesn't care.

    The outcome is precisely what they wanted, thanks to US pressure.

  • Mar 26th, 2018 @ 11:45am

    (untitled comment)

    This is great news.

    The last thing I want to see plastered all over Netflix are those fake reviews surrounded by leafy branches.

    Netflix will be just fine without Cannes.

    The opposite, in time, will not be true.

  • Feb 28th, 2018 @ 5:25am

    (untitled comment)

    "it underlines that the Chinese government now believes it has a right to dictate what should happen outside its borders, as well as within them."

    Golly gee, Techdirt. I'm really confused as to how the Chinese picked up the idea of meddling into the affairs of others because of business.

  • Feb 27th, 2018 @ 5:31am

    Re: Coal worker laughing his ass off?

    Doubt it. Oliver's segment also covered how Murray's mines are prone to safety violations.

    If he is laughing, it's probably to expel the black dust in his lungs.

  • Feb 26th, 2018 @ 9:43am

    (untitled comment)

    "Speaking of the MPAA, its fingerprints are all over SESTA, even as it's tried to keep them mostly out of sight."

    That's only because there haven't been any new child pornography bills drafted in a while.

    I can't recall the organization which chided how they just love child pornography laws because they can put clauses in the bills to circumvent the copyright laws they don't like.

  • Feb 23rd, 2018 @ 5:22am

    (untitled comment)

    *Whether or not you agree the Second Amendment guarantees the right to load up on powerful weapons, any advocate of Constitutional rights would do well to remember they're a bundle...*
    It's also important to remember the Constitution isn't written in stone and any amendment can be removed or rewritten.

    Yet, for some reason, this viable option is never discussed.

    Expect more shootings as the news media continues to sensationalize them because millions of viewers can't help themselves to tune in to watch it unfold live.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 10:34am

    (untitled comment)

    I remember from Geography Australia used to be a penal colony.

    I read an article like this and I think, "used to be?"

  • Jan 25th, 2018 @ 4:14am

    (untitled comment)

    "Still, this union between the world's most hated DRM and a laughably aggressive anti-piracy outfit is not a welcome one."

    This statement reminds me of people who attack companies for making a product used in an undesirable action.

    When will this thought process ever end?

    Who cares about this union. This isn't the issue. It's just a tool.

    The bigger issues fall upon those who keep using it and those who keep buying products with it.

  • Jan 25th, 2018 @ 4:06am

    (untitled comment)

    The better solution would be to fix the definition of "child pornography".

    This may not be a popularly accepted opinion, but I don't believe a nude body constitutes child pornography. To punish someone for child pornography just because they aren't of legal age is appalling.

    Danish authorities are using a little more common sense, but they're still falling into the same trap as every other nation: trying to treat the teenager as both an adult (to punish) and a "child" (to protect).

    When prosecution has to thumb through various laws to figure out the proper actions to take, it's probably a good time to realize new laws need to be written to encompass the demographic between child and adult.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 12:32pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm not sure what the issue is here. Marriott bungled a couple of things on its media websites, apologized, and took the pages down while they review their sites.

    This is the price of doing business with other nations. US companies cannot resist the temptation of reaching billions of potential new customers.

    If a company has to bow and kiss the feet when delivering apologies, I seriously doubt this action is worse than losing those potential profits.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 7:47am

    (untitled comment)

    I know this comment isn't going to be appreciated by many readers on this site, but I am glad Title II is being rescinded.

    Now, before you attack me, please understand this isn't because I'm "shilling" for the ISPs. Quite the contrary. I want better laws put into place to protect the internet, and I feel Title II isn't good enough to do so.

    Let me preface by saying Title II can offer protections, but they're largely pointless because of the gaping holes the Title doesn't cover. Let's review them, if you don't mind.

    1) Zero Rating - this is blatantly anti-consumer if I ever saw it. Businesses with the resources can easily pay the gatekeeper (and remember, there's more than one) to allow their content to be streamed without cap consequences to the user.

    Title II doesn't not prevent caps.

    2) Paid Prioritization - in conjunction with the above, this is also anti-consumer. Businesses with the means can easily circumvent any restrictions of their content, which by default, would limit everyone else. While our broadband infrastructure is decent, it's not unlimited.

    Multiple times, it's been shown the US infrastructure is designed wholly for blocking access across the nation. When compared to other countries, our broadband sucks.

    Unfortunately, we've gotten used to what's offered to us because of the lack of competition. If the infrastructure is designed to be limited, then throttling is inevitable when companies pay for prioritization.

    Title II doesn't not prevent paid prioritization nor does it govern a requirement to broaden the infrastructure.

    3) The other Titles can dictate Title II. People often refer to Title II being the "savior" of the internet, but this simply isn't true.

    There are a total of 7 titles under the Communications Act and each on can affect another title.

    It's been said the internet is a communication platform, and this is true. But it's *also* a distribution and broadcast platform, which means other Titles can be applied to it (the cable industry has long used this tactic to push the right title toward their goals).

    The "fight" ISPs are having right now is an incredible ruse against the public and politicians who just don't care. The "rescinding" of Title II doesn't affect them one way or another, because they can always fall back on the other titles to continue their anti-consumer practices.

    This is why many people, who still have cable and internet, are being itemized two charges despite data traveling identically across the platform.

    Title II does not protect against other restrictions of titles on the books, which still apply to millions of people.

    4) The biggest culprit: price gouging. We're all aware of how ISPs have increased costs over the years, but Title II will not protect consumers against this. ISPs can, and will, continue to abuse the policies in place to ensure they can get away with price gouging until true laws are enacted to stifle this practice.

    Title II doesn't protect against price increases.

    Pai may not be honest with the public when he speaks about our broadband infrastructure, but he is right to say Title II isn't needed (though our reasons vastly differ).

    What we need are new laws enacted to protect the *internet*" not regulations written at the turn of the 20th century and slightly updated over the years.

    Think about this a second. Why allow regulations written at the turn of the *20th century* dictate a technology which didn't exist then?

    The most updated change came in 1996, and there's good proof this *removal* of regulations lead to our internet of today.

    Let the FCC revoke Title II, please! Instead, focus the attention on Congress to pass a newer, more accurate set of regulations to govern the *internet*, not an act drafted nearly 100 years ago.

    If I had any belief Title II was helpful, I'd be alongside the crowds requesting its reinstatement.

    But I don't believe Title II is the correct option, and should it be reinstated, would prevent further legislation from being written as the title leaves the most egregious loopholes open for ISPs to continue abusing.

    The definition of today's "broadband" of 25/3Mbps is an appalling figure when compared to the rest of the world offering more at a cheaper price.

    Title II doesn't change this either, just to add.

    Backing away from changing the definition shouldn't be the focus in this situation.

    Failing to update the definition to increase the current limits should be.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 6:52am


    Oops. Forgot to log in before I posted. :(

  • Jan 19th, 2018 @ 11:44am

    (untitled comment)

    There's just something about "Boing Boing" and "Playboy" in the same sentence which has me giggling like a child.

  • Jan 19th, 2018 @ 11:43am

    (untitled comment)

    Every time Techdirt posts an article of news from the UK, the urge to watch "V for Vendetta" increases.

More comments from Jinxed >>