John85851’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Wisconsin Warns: If You Tweet Photos Of Your Completed Ballot, You Can Go To Jail

John85851 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2012 @ 05:40pm

How about looking at this from the other side: put your ***ing phones down for 10 minutes to vote! You don't need to Tweet or Facebook or Tumblr or whatever else. Geez, what's next, tweeting photos of yourself using the bathroom?

On the post: Textbook Publisher Pearson Takes Down 1.5 Million Teacher And Student Blogs With A Single DMCA Notice

John85851 ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2012 @ 01:54pm

Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"

I was just about to say this.
Yet when has any hosting company challenged a notice like this? It would be nice if ServerBeach actually stood up and said they're not going to turn off 1.5 million blogs for the sake of a publication made in the 1970's.

But, again, it's "safer" to nuke the customer than risk the safe harbor laws and getting sued themselves.

On the post: Dutch Propose Powers For Police To Break Into Computers, Install Spyware And Destroy Data — Anywhere In The World

John85851 ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2012 @ 12:38pm

Why is it that people accept this idea when it comes from a "civilized" country (including the Dutch government and the US), yet if this request came from Iran, Afghanistan, or any "radical" country, this idea would be shot down as a barbaric, government over-reach?

But let's let the Dutch set the precedent so Iran can do the same thing.

On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

John85851 ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 12:27pm

What is porn

As it's been said many times, who says what is porn? After all, you need a definition of porn to build a filter to block it. And how long will it take before every little county and city wants its say about what goes into the filter?

And then who's going to be responsible for the false positives when people can't go to medical sites because those sites have banned words? What happens when people can't go to the White House site because the words "first couple" triggered a filter (yes, this is a true story)?

On the post: Summit Entertainment Claims To Own The Date November 20, 2009; Issues Takedown On Art Created On That Day

John85851 ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 03:29pm

Why not?

Like other people are saying, if there's no penalty for a false takedown notice, why not send out as many as possible.
Unfortunately, too many content providers will simply take down "offending" material so the copyright holder won't take the next step and sue. Yes, everyone knows the copyright holder doesn't have any legal ground to stand on, but as usual, it takes time and money to fight these issues. And as we should expect, sites like Zazzle probably aren't going to spend their money defending a user, even if the copyright holder is 100% wrong.

On the post: Redbox Won't Cave To Warner Bros. Demands; Will Buy WB DVDs From Other Sources And Rent Them

John85851 ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2012 @ 06:07pm

And the Hollywood studios wonder why file-sharing is so rampant. Gee, if you let customers get your goods, maybe they wouldn't need to go to file-sharing sites.

On the post: ICE Seizes 300 More Sites; Can't Have People Watching Super Bowl Ads Without Permission

John85851 ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2012 @ 06:02pm

All about controlling content

As usual, this isn't a case of publicity or how many people actually see the ads- it's a case of the NFL (etc) controlling their content.
The TV networks have paid huge amounts of money to the NFL for the rights to air the Super Bowl so the NFL needs to enforce these rights. What would happen to the NFL's airing fees if everyone could see the game or commercials for free?

Like the article says, the bigger question is why the government is enforcing the NFL's airing rights.

On the post: French Radio And Television Newscasters Say 'Au Revoir' To Facebook And Twitter

John85851 ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2011 @ 03:25pm

It's a catch-22

These companies want to be where the people are, so they build a page on Facebook and Twitter, but when they send people there, they give the sites more traffic.
Should private sites like Facebook and Twitter get this kind of free advertising and traffic? No, but it's like telling people to visit your shop in the mall. You're trying to send people to your shop, but you're giving the mall free advertising.

But I agree with the last conclusion that this is a way for the French to stop intrusion by Americans. I'm sure the government would allow companies to promote the French version of Facebook.

On the post: Taipei Orders Google & Apple To Offer 7-Day Free Trials Of All Apps Offered Via App Markets

John85851 ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2011 @ 02:04pm

Re: Re: Brick and mortar

Think about your analogy for a minute. With physical goods, there's a physical good (duh) that passes hands and can be returned. When you return an item, you give back the item and the store gives you back your money.
When dealing with digital goods, there's nothing to return: you can't give back a song you downloaded from iTunes. So if Apple decides to give you a refund, you now have the song AND your money.

On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

John85851 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2011 @ 01:39pm

Where to put people

Another question that has to be asked: where will we put all the people arrested for this "crime"? California's jails are already facing massive over-crowding to the point where the courts may force the jails to release people. Yet Senators want to put more people in jail for something as trivial as embedding videos?

On the post: Another Artificial Market Created Thanks To Copyright: Download Insurance?

John85851 ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2011 @ 01:35pm

The wrong way of looking at it

You're looking at this the wrong way: it's NOT "download insurance" for the customer but another source of income for the company.

I've been to a number of sites selling digital content that offer this re-download service for a fee. Most them do it for one reason: they hope the customer doesn't catch the extra fee. And if the customer does catch it, so what- it's only $1.95 or $3.99, so it's not that big of a deal.
Multiply the $3.95 charged by GameStop by 1,000 customers and that's an easy $3,950, which is pure profit for the company. After all, it doesn't take much effort to allow the customer to re-download the file. But it takes effort on the customer's part to UNCHECK this "insurance".

I'm surprised it's taken this long for this practice to come under fire.

On the post: US Response To Massive Decline In Foreign Travelers: Keep Crazy Policies, But Set Up Ad Campaign

John85851 ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2010 @ 12:55pm

The airlines

An earlier post had an excellent point: why are the airlines allowing such draconian measures? If people aren't travelling (or flying), then this has a direct impact on airlines. Yet none of them are speaking out against the ever-increasing security measures.

How many people in this thread have said they won't fly because of TSA? And how many other people won't fly in general? Yet the government *and the airlines* continue to ratchet up the "security" measures.
So, at what point does someone get wise to all of this and say TSA is the reason that airline revenues and tourism are down? Obviously it won't be the government, who's spending money on a new ad campaign, but when will the airlines learn? Or do they not care about security as long as they can ask for more bailout money?

On the post: Verizon Wireless To Pay $90 Million Back To Users For $1.99 Data Fees It Insisted It Never Wrongly Charged

John85851 ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2010 @ 04:55pm

Re: No Real Disincentive for this type of activity.

There is no real penalty to stop this practice. Verizon bills 50 million people $1.99 and gets $100 million for basically doing nothing (did they provide a service? did they provide a product?). Then, even at 0.14% annual interest, they get an additional $1.4 million a year. And they did nothing but tack an extra $1.99 onto their customers' bills.

A fine of $90 million takes a chunk out of the $100 million they took in, but again, this is almost pure profit. Like most companies, this will be seen as a "cost of doing business" and they'll figure out a way to hook people into paying for more services. For example, part of settlement could be offering customers a $1.99 trial offer which auto-renews at a rate of $29.99 per month.

On the post: Senate Passes Bill To Try To Quiet TV Commercials

John85851 ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 10:56am

Do we need the government to do this?

Like a few posters are saying, do we really need the government to step in like this? I thought the "free market" was supposed to take care of things like this.
The bottom line is this: if people don't like the loud commercials, why don't they complain to the networks or FCC? Networks tend to take action when just a few hundred people complain.

Here are a few more ideas:
1) Use the mute button on your remote and turn the sound off completely.
2) Start a boycott of products and advertisers who use loud commercials.
3) Don't watch commercial TV- watch the shows on hulu or the network's website.

As for the annoying Flash ads, use Firefox and install the Flash Block plug-in. As more people block Flash ads, the ads will receive less clicks, which will cause advertisers to see these kinds of ads are no longer effective.

On the post: Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul

John85851 ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2010 @ 12:21pm

How many people missed the typo?

I think the more interesting thing is that these kinds of Terms of Service documents usually have to pass through an entire legal team. How did every single person, from the writer, to the editor, to his boss, to the legal department, miss this?

And, as has been said numerous times, if the company doesn't can't be detailed-oriented enough to know the difference between "sole" and "soul", can they really be trusted to perform the service they offer on their site? ;)

On the post: RIAA Claims File Sharers Are 'Undermining Humanitarian Efforts In Haiti', But Leaves Out The Facts

John85851 ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2010 @ 04:19pm

Where does the money go?

Some other posters may have brought this up, but where does the money go? If I buy the CD for $20, how much goes to the relief effort and how much is kept by everyone in the supply chain: for example, $5 for Amazon, $5 for the RIAA, $2 for packaging, $2 for distribution, $1.50 for the artists, and so on.

I'll admit that I don't know what percent of each sale is going towards the relief effort, but if I give $20 directly to the Red Cross, isn't that 100% of my donation? Okay, sure, I don't get a CD, but isn't helping Haiti more important than buying (or selling) a CD?

On the post: Beyonce's Bikini Infringing On Copyrights?

John85851 ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2010 @ 12:14pm

Why sue Beyonce and Sony?

The answer should be obvious: because they have the deepest pockets and/ or suing them would make the biggest statement.
Sure, the people who designed and make the bikini are the real infringers, but there's no story in suing a swimwear-maker.
What does Sony have to do with Beyonce's video other than being the label? Did Sony execs approve the wardrobe or specifically tell her to wear a black and white bikini? Since when do record execs tell musicians what to wear in their videos?

Plus, to me, those two bikinis don't even look alike. They look similar, as if someone got the idea from the other one, but is that really enough to justify a lawsuit?

And does this mean that the original company can sue anyone who makes a similar black and white bikini? What's more troubling is that they feel they can sue anyone who wears the bikini as well!

On the post: Microsoft Exec Calls For 'Driver's License For The Internet'

John85851 ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2010 @ 11:50am

A good idea in theory

First, a drivers license doesn't prevent accidents or stop people from running red lights, but getting a license proves you've passed some level of proficiency and you've proven you can handle the responsibility of driving on the road.

When someone gets a computer for the first time, they have no idea was virus are or how they can be infected with "helpful" toolbars (meaning: spyware) by browing Facebook or MySpace.

An Internet "drivers license" would be a good idea in that it would educate new people about the dangers out there and show people how to install basic anti-virus software.
But the trick is how to administer a license like this and how to get people to actually get the license, rather than buying a fake license.

Plus, once people learn about the dangers, would a license like this put security companies out of business? If enough people learn to scan their own computers, why will they need GeekSquad to do a $39.99 "cleaning" for them? Think of all the tech jobs that will be lost!

On the post: Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2010 @ 01:30pm

How about McDonalds?

I heard a story about how McDonalds (the burger chain) was trying to shut down a Scottish restaurant with the same name. The place was is Scotland and it had been operating in a tiny village since the 1600's (or maybe 1700's) and no one outside of the village really knew or cared about the place... until the burger chain decided the place was "violating their trade name" or some such.
Can anyone verify this story or is just an urban legend?

And how can the IOC (or anyone else) even claim to be able that a restaurant which opened in 1965 somehow violates the trademark of the 2010 Olympics? Since when is trademark retro-active? Gee, it was nice enough for them to say it was "not infringing" or however they put it.
While they're at it, why not sue half the businesses in Olympia, Washington just because they have similar sounding names?

On the post: Others Claim To Hold The Trademark On iPad. Is There An App For That?

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2010 @ 11:50am

Who needs to clear copyright?

Isn't this the same Apple who tells small companies to change the name of their products so Apple won't sue them?
Yet Apple itself doesn't clear potential names? Why not call this thing the iNetPad or some other "innovative" name? Why do they need to steal the name from Fujitsu or any other company?

And like one of the posters said, as long as Apple's product is more popular, the general public will associate the name with Apple and Apple will basically win the copyright: it doesn't matter what a court says if a "moron in a hurry" thinks an iPad is an Apple product... or that "Apple music" means buying music on iTunes for the iPhone.

John85851 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1635)