HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Jinxed’s Techdirt Profile

jinxed

About Jinxed




Jinxed’s Comments comment rss

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    I know this comment isn't going to be appreciated by many readers on this site, but I am glad Title II is being rescinded.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

    Re:

    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.

  • Jan 8th, 2018 @ 11:29am

    (untitled comment)

    What's "cable"?

  • Jan 8th, 2018 @ 11:18am

    (untitled comment)

    It's 2018 and I'm still wondering how this dipshit became president.

  • Jan 8th, 2018 @ 11:15am

    (untitled comment)

    The only issue I have with satire are by those who read it, and believe it, then refuse to accept the truth when it's exposed as satire (fake).

    When this happens, all bets are off any side believes there's still any "funny" left in the "joke".

    I suppose it could be worse, though. Imagine if a prestige medical journal published facts vaccinations can be linked to autism.

    When the lines get blurred and innocent people suffer for it, at what point does news lose its integrity to be honest.

  • Jan 5th, 2018 @ 10:30am

    (untitled comment)

    This study is 27 years too late and all it did was to confirm my voice in the matter since 1991.

    When a program, process, service, or methodology is incentivized, the end result is greed.

  • Jan 3rd, 2018 @ 5:53am

    (untitled comment)

    I think it's important for people to remember the US is one of a few countries which strips creators of their distribution rights during contract signing.

    This practice should be illegal, but instead, the US is pushing other countries to do the same.

    The majority of infringement of copyright is over distribution, not replication. The transformative and derivative clauses added to the 1972-current law is where these distribution rights can cover everything else not originally covered by the creator.

    It's pretty disgusting an author like JK Rowling, who made millions on Harry Potter, can easily walk into our court system, cry, and have a lexicon ruled as infringement despite the fact the lexicon is legal (even in the UK, her home country).

    Copyright law will never change for the better. Disney is hell bent on ensuring works are created indefinitely so they can maintain their position as both "creator" but more importantly as distributor.

    Mickey Mouse "enters" the public domain in 2023.

    Given how many of rush out to see the latest Marvel and/or Star Wars movies netting Disney billions, it's a guarantee the Mouse will prevail.

    Again.

  • Dec 28th, 2017 @ 12:27pm

    (untitled comment)

    I have questions.

    How does "explicit" get defined as "child pornography"?

    Why is the recipient not being charged with possession and distribution of "child pornography"?

    Why are those they shared the photos with also not charged with possession/distribution?

    When did Techdirt start victim shaming?

    What is wrong with people.

  • Dec 7th, 2017 @ 4:42am

    (untitled comment)

    I'm going to ask for some help in understanding the overall issue, because I'm missing something.

    I don't have a problem with Amazon/Google blocking each others' services directly tied to devices, for example their personal assistants. Sure, it would be nice if choices were offered, but let's be real to say the purpose of selling some devices is to also promote the services behind them.

    In regard to Amazon Prime being used on other devices, this is controlled through software, not a device. For example, I can access both YouTube and Amazon Prime on my XBox console because apps, not hardware, gain access to the services.

    How is it Google has the right to block non-device specific platforms (notice I didn't say service) just because a retailer refuses to carry its products directly tied to Google services?

    Isn't this the black-and-white definition of anti-trust?

    Visiting the Google store, I see absolutely no offering of Amazon hardware tied to its services, either.

    I'm pretty sure retailers have the choice not to carry products it doesn't want to. Consumers may be upset, but it's not like they don't have a choice to go elsewhere to buy the product they want.

    This situation sets up a terrifying example of the limits of Net Neutrality.

    Sure, NN could help keep ISPs in line (once the FCC also abolishes Zero Rating), but none of this will make a damn bit of difference if corporations start blocking services *and* platforms over conditions consumers have zero control over.

    Buying a talking box and using company's service to run the box is one thing.

    Blocking unrelated platforms (aka apps, software, etc) requires the Dept of Justice to get involved since this is now anti-trust territory.

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 9:39am

    (untitled comment)

    Let's assume the FBI can get to the phone data.

    Then what?

    I don't believe the FBI has the power to travel back in time to prevent the shooting, so best case for the data is it's uploaded with petabytes of other useless data, for the sake of "profiling" which hasn't stopped a shooting yet.

  • Oct 4th, 2017 @ 12:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    PS: are you guys ever going to fix the format issue with this new markdown setup?

  • Oct 4th, 2017 @ 12:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    As one who has been watching the NN debate for a while now, I've a question to ask of Techdirt: Despite the reclassification, what truly has changed in the broadband world?

    We've got a reclassification of the definition of "broadband".

    That's it. The only true power the FCC has bestowed on the US market is redefining broadband speeds.

    The notion the FCC now has "authority" over broadband thanks to the reclassification was as effective as stating a dog now has bigger teeth.

    If the teeth aren't used, then the change is pointless.

    The entirety of Title II was destroyed thanks to zero rating.

    Since Title II's reclassification, we all still have: -No competition -High prices -Throttled connections (disguised as limit thresholds) -Spying ISPs who sell our data -Broadband caps

    Let Pai remove Title II. Things will still not change for the better.

    Title II wasn't a "consumer's best hope". It only modified the definition, and even then, the FCC had very little regulation over it.

    I understand the vocal opposition to removing the classification, but I also know false hope when I see it.

    Title II is false hope. Let it go.

    Instead, demand Congress fix broadband the right way and leave the FCC out out it completely.

  • Sep 22nd, 2017 @ 10:39am

    (untitled comment)

    PS: Web developers, please fix the "markdown" coding. We're losing our line breaks.

    Thanks.

  • Sep 22nd, 2017 @ 10:38am

    (untitled comment)

    You know we're all in trouble when, typically, Techdirt would be trashing the Netflix request up and down for its obvious abuse of trademark protection.

    Instead, accolades are given?

    Netflix should have pulled out the copyright card (transformative and derivative qualifications here), not the trademark card.

    So put away the accolades and do your job, Techdirt.

    Netflix is in in the wrong here.

    PS: @AC for Fox "Duff Beer" reference: no, that's not how trademark law works.

    Fox would have a legal claim on copyright infringement if someone released a beer looking near/identical to the "brand" in the show, but trademarks do not cover the expression of ideas.

    Ever.

More comments from Jinxed >>