John85851’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Conan Doyle Estate Is Horrified That The Public Domain Might Create 'Multiple Personalities' Of Sherlock Holmes

John85851 ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2013 @ 02:48pm

Re: Bad Faith

I completely agree.

How can the estate claim they don't want "multiple personalities" of Holmes, when we already have (as of September 2013):
1) "Sherlock": the BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman.
2) "Elementary": the CBS series with (shock!) Asian lady as Watson.
3) The "Sherlock Holmes" movies with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.

I can understand the state licensing these versions and making money, but why let CBS turn Watson into an Asian lady? I'm not saying they shouldn't try some innovating, but why do it concurrently when the BBC series is very good?

On the post: Another Court Won't Block Dish's AutoHopper; TV Networks Plan To Shoot Selves In Foot In Response

John85851 ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2013 @ 01:07pm

Commercials should be content

Like it's been said many times on this site, people will watch commercials if they're relevant and contain good content. The best example is the "Greatest Commercials of the Year" show on TBS every year. If people hate commercials, why do they watch a show *about* commercials. The answer is something the networks can't figure out: people watch because those commercials are entertaining.

Another good example is when I watched "Caprica" on Hulu. (This show was a spin-off of "Battlestar Galactica".) Since it's an NBC/ Universal show, there were commercials for other shows, but then there was a commercial for "Battlestar Galactica" on Blu-Ray. I don't even have a Blu-Ray player, but this commercial almost convinced me to go get one. :)
Here's a hint for commercial makers: make commercials that are relevant to the show's content, but in a good way. If I'm watching a sci-fi show, show commercials for other sci-fi stuff. But if I'm watching a newshow about an unsolved robbery, don't show me commercials for alarm systems. ;)

But I think this kind of relevant programming may be too complex for networks and they'd rather run any commercial from any company that gives them money.
Like another poster pointed out, the networks bombard us with drug ads that spend the first 15 seconds saying how great the drug is and the next 60 seconds talking about the side effects. (Okay, the original poster said 45 seconds, but I could swear it's longer than that.)

And here's a hint to commercial-makers: if your commercial didn't sell me on the product when I saw the first commercial, beating me over the head with 20 more of the same commercials isn't going to convince me to buy. In fact, it might annoy me and I'll tell my friends how annoying you are.

On the post: Bad News: Court Says Cyberlocker & Its Owner Can Be Liable For Copyright Infringement

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2013 @ 03:49pm

Apply these same laws to the physical world

Why do people keep suing the provider? Is this because they don't know better or because the provider has deeper pockets than the individual?

And we should all consider ourselves extremely lucky that people haven't taken this approach in the non-computer world. For example, (like another poster mentioned) why hasn't anyone sued Ford because a drunk driver used their car? You say Ford isn't responsible for how people use their cars? Then how is Cyberlocker, YouTube, Google, etc liable for the people who use their service?
Why shouldn't Ford know that some people will misuse their product?

And why stop at Cyberlocker? Obviously someone used an internet connection to transfer data, so why not sue the ISP? Why not sue the computer company for providing the hardware? Why not sue Microsoft, Apple, or Linux for providing the software that allows the files to be viewed and shared?

On the post: DailyDirt: Can We At Least Agree On The Meanings Of Words?

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2013 @ 03:43pm

Dictionaries should not follow society's usage

Personally, I think changing words to follow society's usage is a slippery slope. How long will it be until these words are changed:
* They're, there, and their will now mean "they are". Example as seen on Facebook: There going home to get there clothes.
* New word: "Would of", which means "would've" or "would have". See also: "could of" and "should of". Example: I should of worn a jacket.
* To, too, and two will now mean "also" or "2", depending how it's used in context. Example: We wanted two go on to rides, but we should of brought money.

Some people complain that spelling shouldn't matter as long as the point is coming across. This may be true (or it may not), but when did society become so lazy that we can't take 2 seconds to know the difference between "there" and "their"?

On the post: Texas Deputy Sues 911 Caller For Not 'Adequately Warning' Him Of Potential Danger Or 'Making The Premises Safe'

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2013 @ 03:40pm

What kind of lawyer takes a case like this?

Is it safe to assume the deputy isn't going to represent himself? Then who's the lawyer who is going to take a case like this and why does he think he even has a case?

First, even filing the lawsuit has made the deputy a laughingstock. Next, suppose he wins the case. Does he really expect the victim to pay him $200,000, which they probably don't even have? And will the judge (or defense attorney) realize how this case will affect people who call 911?

On the post: Another 'Internet Threat' Results In Six Months In Jail And A Five-Year Ban From Social Media

John85851 ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 04:08pm

Blame comic books

I blame comic books for this. No, really, follow me for a minute:

I think it's safe to assume that most people have read comic books or seen comic book movies. And in these comic books, we get super-villains like the Riddler and Joker who try to outwit Batman by leaving clues. If Batman can figure out the clues in time, he can prevent the Riddler from carrying out his dastardly plan!

Now extend this to the real world and you have people in government agencies who think teenagers are super-villains plotting to shoot a school and can be stopped if their Facebook postings can be deciphered in time.

Why is it that no one stops to think that a majority of the stuff said on Facebook is harmless? But, like training kids to be ready for a school bus hijacking, we have to prepare for any eventuality, after all, we never know when the next terrorist will strike. And obviously, he'll put a cryptic (or not so cryptic) post on Facebook about it.

On the post: Signs Of The Times: Ohio School Hosts 'Counter-Terrorism' Bus Hijacking Drill

John85851 ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 03:59pm

A lot of things have happened before

"Bus hijacking has happened before."

You know what else happened before? Asteroid strikes. One hit the Earth 65 million years ago and helped kill off the dinosaurs. Another one hit Siberia in 1902. Why aren't we training our kids for this eventuality? After all, an asteroid strike can do a lot more harm than a terrorist.

You know what else happened before? Someone won the lottery. Yes, someone usually wins the lottery (just like a bus *may* get hijacked), but the chances of it happening to you are beyond slim. Check out any lottery website for the official statistics. However, we live in a society where people believe it can happen to them and they'll beat the 100-million-to-one odds and become a millionaire. I suppose if people are planning on becoming millionaires, we might as well teach our kids to plan for things that will never happen also.

I just don't get the idea of planning for something that statistically won't happen.

On the post: NSA Defenders Insist Their Lawbreaking Should Be Ignored Because They 'Didn't Mean It'

John85851 ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2013 @ 03:38pm

I think "1984" is coming 30 years later.

First we had big-brother surveillance and now we have double-speak:
The government says: We didn't mean to break the law, so it's okay. But if you didn't mean to break the law, you still go to jail.

The government says: If you don't have anything to hide, then you won't mind if we search your e-mail and phone and stop & frisk you on the street. But you can't search our files because "Terrorism. National security. That's why".

On the post: IP Arrow's DMCA Takedown Notices Claim UFC And Lynda.com Hold The Rights To Child Porn

John85851 ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2013 @ 03:23pm

It's time for six strikes

Once again, the problem with the current DMCA procedure is that there's no punishment for wrong or bogus takedown claims. And even then, IP Arrow can simply say "that's what the client told us" and the client-company will say "We didn't tell IP Arrow to do that"... and no one's to blame!

I still like the idea of creating a six-strikes system against companies that file bogus takedown notices AND their "affiliates" that file claims on their behalf. I'd say to give them three strikes, but that's not needed when one takedown notice like this contains a lot more than six errors.

On the post: Undownloading: Further Proof Those eBooks You Paid For Really Aren't Yours

John85851 ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2013 @ 03:19pm

I don't see the scandal here either.

Why in the world would anyone click the "update app" button while in another country? How are you 100% positive you won't get the local version for that country? "Let's see, the IP address is in Singapore, the cell carrier/ wi-fi signal is through a Singapore company, okay then, download the apps and restrictions for use in Singapore."

I think a better title for this article would be "Man updates software while in Asia; loses all books, but gains Chinese apps".

On the post: Detroit Police Commander Emails Female Officers' Measurements To Entire Police Force

John85851 ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2013 @ 03:24pm

How do you define "a rarity"?

How do you define "a rarity"?

Terrorism is a rarity, yet hundreds or thousands of people are killed when it happens. And of course, the government is doing whatever it can in the name of preventing this "rarity".

Yet when we talk about bad apples in the police force or other government agencies, these are "rarities" also, yet the agencies don't do much to prevent these people from doing something bad.

On the post: Maybe The Answer To The $200 Million Movie Question Is To Not Focus On $200 Million Movies?

John85851 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2013 @ 03:50pm

Then add in a screenplay formula and crank out hits

It's interesting that I saw an article on Slate.com about how formulaic movies are becoming, simply because they're now following a specific formula:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.html

So, combine a formulaic script with empty CGI special effects and you get jaded audiences who won't see a movie.

Anyway, the point from above still stands: why spend $200 million on a movie to make a 20% profit when you can make another "Blair Witch Project" for $25,000 and make a 10,000% profit.

On the post: Google Being Pressured Into Crippling Self-Driving Cars

John85851 ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2013 @ 03:44pm

Computer drivers could be safer than human drivers

What I find interesting/ scary/ sad is that the incumbent car companies have had around 100 years to innovate and what do we have?
We're still driving basically the same vehicle as we did 100 years ago: an internal combustion engine, powered by gasoline, and driven by a human. Sure, there have been huge cosmetic changes, such as aerodynamic (and stylish) car designs, larger interior space, and (usually forced-upon) increases in gas mileage.

It's like GM complaining they couldn't compete with Japanese car companies simply because they chose to make SUV's instead of hybrid cars.

Yes, a computer-driven car can malfunction, but how does this compare with human drivers, who could be drunk or tired or texting or distracted or lost or any number of other things. Or rather, compare a computer driver with human drivers during stressful times, such as merging onto the highway (that's a yield sign, not a stop sign) or obeying traffic laws (yes, you can turn right on a red light; slower traffic stay to the right, etc).

On the post: Broadcasters To FCC: Now That Our Audience Is Gone, Can We Swear More?

John85851 ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2013 @ 03:43pm

The problem is advertisers, not the f-word

The main problem with network TV is that they make shows for advertisers, not viewers. Every show on network TV is designed to bring in the largest audience possible so the networks can charge higher prices for advertising. Sometimes this results in excellent shows that everyone wants to watch and sometimes it results in terrible shows that everyone laughs at.

Why in the bloody world do networks still have "sweeps week"? (In case you don't know, this is a 2-week period in the spring and fall where networks put on their "biggest shows" (meaning: with the highest stars) so they can reach the most viewers so they can set their advertising rate for the following season.) Yet everyone in the industry knows that this system is gamed because not every episode will get the same number of viewers as the sweeps-week special.

This means that every network show has a cost/ income ratio, also known as "profit". If a drama like CSI costs $5 million to produce, but brings in $10 million in advertising, then that's a 2:1 profit ratio.
However, what if a dumb reality game show can be made for $250,000 and bring in $2 million in advertising? That's an 8:1 profit ratio. Yes, the networks bring in less total advertising income, but the profit margins are higher, which means they can make more shows for less money and bring in more advertising.

This is also why networks use the same TV show formula over and over: they don't want risk spending their money on show that gets low ratings, and which advertisers won't pay for commercials.

The next problem is that these advertisers have been controlling the network content every since the beginning. In some ways, this is simply product placement: Want to use a car in your show? Use Ford since it's buying the most commercials. (See the hour-long Ford commercial called "Knight Rider" from 2008 for a good example of this.)
But this also means that the advertisers can censor a show if the content doesn't meet their "corporate values". The network will usually give in to these demands because they don't want to lose a wealthy advertiser. Sure, some networks will "stand up" for the show's content, but it's only for one or two episodes, and then the show goes back to being bland.

On the other hand, HBO doesn't have to worry about pleasing advertisers, so they can basically do whatever they want. In fact, they can do the opposite of network TV: by making innovative and different shows, they can get people to PAY to watch them. When was the last time anyone wanted to pay for a network show? Okay, I kid, but the point still stands.

So, in a way, the US TV audience is getting what they pay for: after 50 years of getting advertiser-paid shows, we're now getting more "filler" shows (reality shows, game shows, reality game shows, etc) and less dramatic shows

P.S. I love the usual comments from parents who say they don't want their children to hear bad language on TV. I agree on this point, but why is it the government's job to regulate speech on TV shows? The networks should know not to put swear words on shows meant for children and parents should know not to let kids watch adult shows. If your kid is watching Law & Order or House or CSI or Mad Men, then the swearing is the least of your concerns.

On the post: Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense Of Its 'No Fly' List

John85851 ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2013 @ 03:36pm

How easy it is to get a fake ID

First, is it safe to assume the No Fly List doesn't verify the person's name against an address or photo? That would explain why Senator Kennedy was detained when it would have been obvious who he was if the TSA agent checked a photo on the No Fly List.

Like so many people are saying, this policy only affects NON terrorists. Like a previous poster mentioned, if someone really wanted to cause harm, they could buy a ticket, go to security, and see if their name is on the list. If no, then they board the plane. If yes, they get a fake ID (ask any high school kid how easy it is to get a fake ID), then go back to the airport. Then it becomes "Okay, you're not John Smith, you're Jake Smith. Welcome aboard."

But what happens when a family is flying home from Europe to the US and the 6 year-old boy has the same name as someone on the No Fly List. Sorry, he's a terrorist and the family can either fly without her or not fly at all. (Though in reality, the family would probably be detained and interrogated for traveling with a terrorist on the No Fly List.)
The family doesn't have the resources of a bad guy and they're not going to go get some fake ID's, especially if they're on their way home from a vacation.

On the post: Contrary To The Claims Of Grandstanding Politicians, Child Porn Is Very Difficult To Stumble Onto Accidentally

John85851 ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2013 @ 03:49pm

Because blaming Google is easy

Obviously it's easier for politicians to deal with this issue by telling Google to simply take down the images (if they even could) rather than go after the websites hosting the images (which is a crime) and the people producing the images (which is an even bigger crime). I would think politicians would be thanking Google for acting as a billboard directing law-enforcement directly to the criminal sites.

But, nope- as usual, they think it's better to put a band-aid on the issue to cover it up rather than actually dealing it, because dealing with it is hard. Plus, tracking down the creators and owners of the websites takes time and the arrests could occur when the next DA takes office, so it'll count on his record.

And how many of these websites are located in Russia, China, or some other country where the UK politicians can't easily arrest someone? It's much easier to go after a large US corporation which can be "persuaded" to cooperate under threat of not being able to do business in the country.

On the post: 'Gears Of War' Designer: Used Games Must Be Killed So Unsustainable Development Can Live

John85851 ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2013 @ 06:04pm

Why not do this for car, CD, and comic book sales

Why do people get all up in arms when the word "computers" is mentioned. No one is complaining about used car sales killing new car sales. No one is complaining about used CD sales killed new CD sales. Okay, granted, the entire CD market is down, but I'm making a point. ;)

Then why is this any different for video games? Yes, the developers don't get money from used game sales, but neither does Ford when someone buys a used car. Newsflash: the original company already got their money when they first sold the product.

Here's a much better example: comic books. Does DC Comics try to get a cut of the sale of Action Comics #1 when it sold for over a million dollars at auction? No, because someone somewhere bought it from DC (then National) at a newstand in 1938.
Or another example: many comic books from the 1990's are being sold for less than cover price. Is DC getting upset because 1) they're not getting a cut of these sales and 2) people are buying these comics instead of new comics?

Why are companies complaining when, like many posters are saying, people sell the game for less than they paid for it? Why does the company think it should get a cut of a $40 sale at Gamestop instead on top of the $60 the customer paid when he originally bought it?
Basically, the main issue is one that TechDirt talks about over and over: make a better product at a reasonable price and people will buy.

On the post: Clapper: I Gave 'The Least Untruthful Answer' To Wyden's 'Beating Your Wife' Question On Data Surveillance

John85851 ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2013 @ 03:54pm

Re: I'm surprised

Yes, millions of people willingly give out their personal information to Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, but the issue is that the NSA took the information without permission. All the NSA staffers really had to do with friend people on Facebook and they could have easily gotten all this data (plus photos, "check-in" locations, and rambling status updates) without any issues.

But this is the government and they have to try to keep things secret.

On the post: Author Of The Patriot Act Says NSA Surveillance Is An Abuse And Must End

John85851 ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2013 @ 03:56pm

You ask why these Representatives and Senators didn't speak up earlier? Like during the McCarthy years when people accused critics of being "communists", people now accuse critics of "supporting terrorism" and no one wants to be accused of that, even if it's completely false. After Sept 11, how many times did we hear "If you don't support the government then you support terrorism" or some version of that?

And guess what happens 5, 10, 15 years later, after these kinds of "anti-terrorism" policies are put into place?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130607/18020323369/sen-lindsey-graham-verizon-customer-im-glad-nsa-is-harvesting-my-data-because-terrorists.shtml#comments

Instead of telling us we have nothing to fear, why don't these government agencies define what they mean by "terrorist"? If they're so willing to break so many civil liberties, at least tell us who you're looking for. Or do they really want to cast a net and sweep up everything they find?

Like some other posters said, what happens when the government catches something else in their sweep? They might currently be looking for terrorist activity, but what happens if their sweep catches you buying pot? And what if you're actually buying pot where it's legal (but not legal at the federal level), but the NSA agent has a quota to fill so he flags your number as suspicious?

And what will happen to this Senator when a lowly NSA agent mistakenly (or not) links his phone to a "terrorist"? Will the Senator be detained or will he start screaming about how this was a bad law in the first place because it now affects him?

On the post: Dr. Oz Claims Violent Video Games 'Hurt' Teens; Backs Up Claims With Absolutely Nothing At All

John85851 ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2013 @ 03:49pm

But people who don't become violent don't make good stories

I would ask why people are still spouting the "violent video games hurt children", but we know why: it makes for a good soundbite-story on the news. I love the part where they mention games rated AO. How many publishers actually make AO games? Isn't that like giving a movie an NC-17 or NR rating, which results in no theaters showing the movie? Will Wal-Mart and other stores sell AO games? So if teens can't get AO games, why bring this up? Oh, right, more scare tactics.

Where was this article published? I know the link goes to the oregonlive website, but what is that site's criteria for publishing? Do they accept anything from a celebrity doctor, just to get the promotion? And no offense to the oregonlive website, but shouldn't a column like this *by Dr Oz* be published in a medical journal? Oh, right- it can't be published because there's no argument being debated, no evidence, and no statistics.

And, as has been pointed out numerous times, what about the millions of people who play these games and DON'T become violent? Oh, right, that's a not a good story. Headline: Halo 4 Sells Millions of Copies in 24 Hours, No Violence Occurs.
Then again, when was the last time the media reported on a story such as "I-75 traffic good, no accidents today" or "200 airplanes took off from JFK today and reached their destination without any problems".

John85851 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1635)