John85851’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Man Sues Bon Jovi, MLB, Others For $400 Billion Over Song He Claims Was Copied

John85851 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2009 @ 12:31pm

Does this guy have an attorney?

Here's the main question: is this guy filing the lawsuit himself or does he have an attorney?
If he has an attorney, who in their right mind would think about asking for $400 billion in damages? Or did the attorney start drooling, thinking about his 50% cut of winning $200 billion? The bar association should disbar the attorney on those grounds alone!

But, again, the larger question is: who are these attorneys that are telling their clients to sue for billions in damages? Who are these attorneys that are telling clients that they even have a case like this?
Shouldn't a competent attorney realize the songs are different and not take the case? Or did the guy shop around until he finally found an attorney willing to take the case... for 50% of the $400 billion they thought they could win?

On the post: Another Example Of Copyright Law Gone Mad: Series Of Lawsuits Over Telephone Jingle

John85851 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2009 @ 12:14pm

It's mine and I want it back

Yet again, this case isn't about copyright as much as it's about "I helped make that thing, I'm claiming that it's mine, and I want it back".

I agree that the legal system should be reformed so the losing side has to pay some kind of damages for wasting the court's time. Otherwise, there's no reason *not* to file a frivolous law suit.

On the post: Switzerland Continues To Fight Google Street View; Takes Google To Court

John85851 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2009 @ 12:08pm

Just give in

Personally, I think companies like Google should just give in to government requests like this.
But, instead of saying they'll blur the images, Google should say it's too much work and then pull out of Switzerland. Then, they should block all of Switzerland from accessing ANY Google service.

Who has more to lose: the citizens of Switzerland who have to use a new search engine and who can no longer use GMail, Google Maps, etc; or Google who loses all of these users?

Sure, it's drastic, but it's about time people stood up to the vocal minority who complain about any new tech offering.

On the post: The Placebo Effect: Things Pharma Prefers You Not Worry About

John85851 ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2009 @ 03:10pm

Two things

First: sure Pfizer was fined billions of dollars, but is this really punishment or a "cost of doing business"?

Second, I heard somewhere that some pharma companies were basically making up "diseases" to fit whatever drug they came up with:

Scientist: This drug was supposed to treat headaches, but it only gets the blood flowing in the arms.
Marketing person: Perfect! We'll invent a new disease called No Blood In Your Arms Syndrome or NBIYAS and tell people they should take this pill.

At the risk of offending "sufferers", is "restless leg syndrome" really a "disease" or is it just another description for poor blood circulation?
And is fibromyalgia really a disease? (A lot of people say it's not.) Or is it a way to get your doctor to treat a physical "disease" rather than what it really is: depression, which is a mental illness, which many people think is a scary term.

I'm still waiting for the makers of No-Doze to start running commercials that say "Do you fall asleep at night? Are you tired at 1:00am? If so, you probably have night-time sleepiness syndrome or NTTSS. Take No-Doze to help cure this disease."

On the post: Music Reviewer's Blog Suspended For Promoting Music

John85851 ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2009 @ 12:29pm

Lots of blame to go around

First, I sort-of understand why the ISP would blindly take down anything that's ask of them. After all, if they don't take something down and it turns out to be illegal, then they might become liable themselves. So why bother asking the customer (who's paying to use the ISP) when it's quicker to just take down the material?

Second, I do think this is a case of right-hand/ left-hand. One division at WB is sending promo music to be reviewed while another division is hiring pseudo-legal companies to issue take-down notices.
So, WB, which is it: send out promo music even though some of it may be "pirated" or tell every single blogger to not review your music?

I think the reviewer should find a new ISP and post a message on his blog about how his current ISP disables sites at the drop of a hat. He should also stop reviewing WB music and return any promo music with a letter saying it's too risky for him to be in possession of WB music.

On the post: Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue

John85851 ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2009 @ 12:35pm

Where's Disney is all this

When Disney made The Little Mermaid movie in 1989 (and the TV show, and sequels, and so on), didn't they sign a license agreement of some kind with the Hans Christian Anderson estate? So does Disney really want people putting up statues that could "tarnish" their brand? Sure, the statue may not look like the characters from the movie, but in these days of copyrights, could a moron in a hurry think the statue is somehow licensed or approved by Disney?
Or, more realistically, will a child wonder why the statue doesn't look the mermaid-character she saw on her DVD?

On the post: Charges Dropped Against Student Who Alerted University To Security Flaws

John85851 ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2009 @ 12:27pm

Nice analogies

You know, if I left my front door unlocked *and* open and someone came in and washed my floor, I wouldn't have them arrested for breaking and entering- I'd thank them for doing a chore!
And if the door was open, there was no "breaking in", so the crime would only be trespassing or unlawful entering. If the person didn't take anything, there's no theft to charge him with.

But, like VRP just said, doesn't the trial court consider the person's motive? Like the previous analogies, it's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to go through an unlocked and open door and we shouldn't care if you entered the house to get some food for your children because of the current economy. Entering an unlocked house is WRONG and you should be punished. Yes, stealing food is wrong, but again, if the door is open and you see food on the table and you can't feed your kids because you lost your job and...

On the post: What's Next? Can Senators Ban Stupidity While Driving?

John85851 ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2009 @ 01:39pm

Two points

First, I think that legislators have pretty much used up all the "good laws", so now they have to come up with something so they can hold onto their job. The only things left are "driving while texting" and trying to legislate violent video games.

Second, and I think this was mentioned in another article about this issue, "driving while texting" is too specific. Will they ban "driving while holo-phoning" when that becomes a reality? How about banning "driving while watching TV"?
I agree that a "driving while distracted" law could be too vague, but that's part of the point: it's so we don't have to name every single specific technology.

But, like some other posters say, it's probably easier for police to pull people over if they "driving while texting"? On the other hand, why aren't police pulling people over for driving all over the road or driving 15 mph below the speed limit? Are they afraid the people will be sober and attentive, so the police can't charge them with anything, can't give them a ticket, and make no money for the state?

On the post: Only ISP In Town Pulling Plug On Suspected File Sharers With No Recourse [Update]

John85851 ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2009 @ 02:17pm

Right to internet access?

How long until Internet access becomes as important as phone service? Would a phone company just shut off your service because you were doing something illegal (like maybe harassing or prank-calling people)?

I like the comparison to the power company that a poster used above. If I use my computer to download something illegal, shouldn't my power get cut off as well? After all, my computer, monitor, and modem use services provided by the power company.

But, obviously, this ISP thinks it's more important to kick people off than it is to keep customers and the income from these customers.

On the post: Visa Accidentally Charges People $23 Quadrillion

John85851 ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2009 @ 12:33pm

Apologies?

How come VISA and the banks just give a curt apology and act as if we're talking about wanting a $10 service charge? This is a *quadrillion* dollars! Does any banker anywhere really seriously think anyone can charge this much? And if so, who in the world has that kind of a credit line? I don't think Oprah or Bill Gates could spend that kind of money... okay, maybe if they bought the entire planet, but who would they buy it from? ;)

Seriously, though, why isn't there more of an apology from the banks? Did someone get fired? Did the entire accounting department get fired? Did the bank give anything back to the people who were charged this amount, like maybe free premium-level services for a few years?

On the post: Cable Walled Garden TV Plans To Include Too Many Ads

John85851 ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2009 @ 12:18pm

More ads = less content?

Think about the TV-show model for the past 50 years... in those years, more ads have created less content. Compare the length of today's shows to shows made 20 years ago, 30 years ago, etc.
In the 1970's, shows like Gilligan's Island would have a 2-minute theme song and be 20 minutes long (for example; I don't know the actual length). Today's sitcoms don't have a theme song (since that's another 1 to 2 minutes for commercials), the opening credits run over the first scene, and the "half hour show" is probably only 16-18 minutes long without commercials. The typical "hour long show" is usually just over 40 minutes... so a full THIRD of the hour is commercials!

TV stations like TBS add more commercials so there's not even enough time for a show's end-credits: the credits run at the bottom of the screen during the next show's opening scene!
Okay, sure, opening and ending credits may not be "content", but they're still trying to cut back on content in favor of more ads.

On the post: Latest Thing To Blame On Google? Koi Thieves

John85851 ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2009 @ 04:18pm

I know Google is a nice target...

... but how about going after the fishing-pole companies? After all, the people had to use something to get the fish.
And how about going after the car companies for making vehicles that conveniently helped the people escape the scene of the crime? Why if it weren't for those blasted cars, the people will still be walking away from the water with those koi in their hands!

On the post: Fact Checking? Reporter Claims It Costs $27 To Use The Pirate Bay

John85851 ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2009 @ 03:49pm

Something else to think about...

... is this: how many subscribers and readers does PC World have? What is the typical tech-experience/ education of these readers?

The big issue is that this guy's disinformation will be spread to all their readers without so much as a differing opinion. How many people will be convinced that Pirate Bay costs $27 (and whatever else he claims) simply because they read it in PC World? And, obviously, if PC World printed it, it must be true. After all, the magazine must have fact-checkers and editors and senior editors who look over this stuff, right? So it must be true.

On the post: Mythbusters' Adam Savage Discovers Insane Roaming Fees: $11,000 iPhone Bill For A Few Hours Surfing

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2009 @ 12:36pm

They can tell me where I am within 30 feet but they can't figure out a solution so folks don't end up with huge data bills when traveling?

Um, why should they? Of course they know where you are and when to start the roaming charges. But by the time you realize you're 30 feet within the roaming area, you've probably already racked up hundreds of dollars in profit for them.

So why stop this kind of cash cow with some kind of warning system for consumers? Sure, some people will dispute the charges, but the vast majority will simply pay it, so their brand-new hi-tech toy doesn't turn into an expensive paperweight.

On the post: Apple Sued Over Gift Cards That Claim $0.99 Per Song

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2009 @ 12:21pm

Even if I'd raised my prices since I printed the flyers. I'd just say "hey, glad you came by" and make them happy customers.

I agree.
Or how about saying "Glad you came by for that $0.99 item. Here are some other items you might like also. Please feel free to browse our store for even more things that might interest you."

On the post: Making Banner Ads Cool Again

John85851 ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2009 @ 12:05pm

Banner ads are still around?

I say that sarcastically, but I'll admit to being one of the people who switched to Firefox and installed as many ad-blocking plug-ins as I could find. :)

Yes, there are some great banners out there, but I think too many people have been bombarded with bad banners that they block them all out.

Years ago, I got infected by a Flash-based ad while checking my Yahoo mail. It was partly my fault since I didn't install that day's IE security patches. But, this taught me to use Firefox and block every banner ad and Flash ad without question.

So, like the posters are saying: the first job of advertisers is to convince us that their banner ad is somehow different from all the crappy, flashing Flash ads out there and that it's worth viewing.

On the post: Patent Lawsuit Over Shazam Highlights The Difference Between Invention And Implementation

John85851 ( profile ), 31 May, 2009 @ 02:01pm

What about DC Comics?

This is sort-of off the subject, but if the Lexus car company can sue a porn model named Lexus, why isn't DC Comics suing this music company for using the name Shazam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazam!

On the post: So-Called 'Friendly Fraud' On The Rise

John85851 ( profile ), 31 May, 2009 @ 01:43pm

This is not "friendly" in any way- it's pure fraud, plain and simple. And I don't think it's "buyer's remorse" as much as the buyer thinking "these are hard economic times, how can I make a little easy money".

This "friendly fraud" happened to me:
I sell digital goods online, using PayPal. The customer orders from my website, is given a download link, downloads the item, and everyone's happy. In the rare cases when the customer does not receive a download link, they contact me and I work with them to make it right. In the very rare cases when I can't please a customer, I'll issue a refund.

However, a few months after ordering a product, a customer filed a chargeback at PayPal, even skipping PayPal's own rules about how a customer should work with a seller before filing a chargeback. PayPal never told me the reason- all I saw was a line saying "Reason: Code 120". The customer never talked to me about any issues he had with the product.
PayPal, almost as expected, gave the money back to the customer since it was a digital product without any "proof of shipping": I couldn't prove the customer received the product and he couldn't prove he didn't receive it.

The only conclusion is that this customer wanted some free money by filing a chargeback.

On the post: Movie Screening Phone Bans Reach Ridiculous Levels

John85851 ( profile ), 17 May, 2009 @ 01:24pm

Just a distraction

By banning cell phones and talking about the "victories" of banning cam-corded movies, the MPAA distracts the public from the real issue. The comments thread here proves it: everyone's talking about the right to keep your cell phone and how certain movies made so much money at the box office.

The real issue is how so many movies get onto file sharing sites and why so many are digitally-perfect (sometimes HD quality). Why isn't the movie industry going after its own sources, such as screeners, reviewers, the movie crew, etc. You can't tell me that the third assistant to the assistant director of "Transformers 2" doesn't have a DVD of the movie. And you know he's going to share with friends, one of whom will "accidentally" leak it online.

So yeah, let's concentrate on the cell-phone issue so no one will look at the real security risks.

On the post: FTC Cracking Down On Car Warranty Robocall Scammers

John85851 ( profile ), 17 May, 2009 @ 01:03pm

The bigger issue...

... is how and why these companies continue to operate. Obviously someone somewhere thinks it's more profitable to robo-call millions of people it is to just not do it. And what happens when they call? Do they get a fine? How much? Is a $10 million fine pocket-change and a "cost of doing business" compared to the millions they'll get from people who paid for the "warranty"?

If you're on the Do Not Call list *and* the calling company is hiding their number, what action can you take? Even if you report them to the FTC, will anything really happen? Supposedly, this company had been calling people for months. Did no one complain to the FTC? Did it take the FTC this long to finally figure catch up to them?

John85851 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1635)