John85851 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1635) comment rss

  • On the post: If You're Going To Complain About Street View Invading Your Privacy, You Might Want To Check Out What Your Government Is Doing

    John85851 ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2009 @ 11:58am

    Which is more visible?

    Like some other posters have said, I think people are going after the more visible target. In this case, people *see* the the Google vehicle, so they scream "invasion of privacy!". They can't see ISP's selling their information, they can't see an increase in targeted-marketing, and they can't see an increase in data-collection (and data-mining) from the government, so they don't see anything to scream about.

    It's just like fighting terrorism. Which is more effective at stopping terrorism: posting heavily-armed guards at the airport in full view of the public or making sure intelligence agents use the latest technology to infiltrate and monitor communications between suspected terrorists?
    Which is more visible?

  • On the post: If You Duplicate That Virtual Sword In The Real World… Is It Copyright Infringement?

    John85851 ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2009 @ 01:13pm

    Content and such

    Like the above poster said, the only reason this big sword is popular in the real world is because it's being marketed and sold with the "Final Fantasy" name and logo. Would a huge sword *without* this information sell as well? Probably not.

    This is what kills the argument of "make one yourself"- the company may very well have made their own sword, but it won't sell nearly as well as a replica of the one from the game.
    The difference in products is: one is a "big generic sword" and the other is "replica/ based on the design of the sword used by character X to kill bad guy Y and free the world, in the Final Fantasy game".

    Basically, this is a case of the sword company using the Final Fantasy name to boost sales of their own products... whether for right or wrong. Yes, Square Enix isn't "hurt", but do customers get the impression that Square Enix has licensed or approved the sword? If people think the sword is shoddy, will they complain to Square Enix for using that sword company to make the sword?

    And the argument of "Square Enix wasn't going to make a real sword anyway" doesn't hold any water either. If I make a "Jar-Jar Binks with lightsaber" action figure, am I allowed to sell and market it, and then defend myself by saying Lucas wasn't going to make one?

  • On the post: Vatican Says Hold On With Those .religion TLDs

    John85851 ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2009 @ 01:01pm

    Never overestimate people

    Instead of discussing who should control the ".religion" or ".religious" TLD's, shouldn't the admins be discussing how hard this will be for people to spell correctly?

    Will porn-squatters pick up the mis-spelled TLD to grab people? And will the Pope take complaints from people who go to www.church.relligon and get a hard-core sex site?

  • On the post: No, In-Flight Internet Is Not A Terrorist Threat

    John85851 ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2009 @ 04:55pm

    Why stop at terrorism?

    After all, pedophiles could be looking at porn by using the in-flight wi-fi! Won't someone think of the children?!?!

    I think it's time we banned ALL technology from airplanes because anything can be used as a terrorist weapon or to hurt kids. That pillow? Yep, ban it- it's a smothering threat. That book? Yep, ban it- you could use it to hit someone on the head.

    That sharp plastic (or metal) knife which is included in the in-flight meal to cut the food? Sure, that's fine. No terrorist would ever think to use something as obvious as a knife! Creating a master-plot using wi-fi is much more effective.

    All joking aside, when will we grow up and get over the fear that anything can be used as a weapon if we think about it hard enough. Personally, I think this is how the terrorists won on 9/11: we're now so afraid that something will be used "by terrorists" that we give up on an idea before it's even had a chance.
    Do we really, honestly think that terrorists are so sophisticated that they have wi-fi enabled bombs? Or are we still living fear that a terrorist could strike anywhere, at any time... or that a terrorist could be disguised as a 5-year old child who needs to be searched before going through airport security?

  • On the post: Can The Solution To Spam Be Hoax Spam?

    John85851 ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2009 @ 09:43pm

    Won't work

    Better than the lottery, because it will only hit those wealthy enough to own computers and have internet access, plus people will take notice and learn when they get fined. Some of them anyway.
    Um, if people don't take notice after their identity has been stolen, their bank accounts drained, and their computer hacked, how would an "education" site help them?
    And even if they went to the education site and read about why they shouldn't click on links, would they remember it when the latest scammer says they won a million dollars in a UK lottery?

    Second, how do these "educational" e-mails get past all the spam-fighters? Will filters block these e-mails? Will users report them to SpamCop and other black lists, thinking they're real spam e-mails? And what happens if the educational e-mails get put on black lists and get blocked? Oops, no more anti-spam e-mails.

    The better idea is to have a licensing procedure for owning a computer. You need a license to drive a car and the only risk is that you'll get into an accident. If you click on the wrong link and infect your computer, you could turn your PC in a zombie and send out billions of e-mails, wasting bandwidth and untold amounts of time and productivity.

  • On the post: Italian Writer Claims She Owns The Rights To The Benjamin Button Story

    John85851 ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2009 @ 09:33pm

    Not again

    A story like this comes up every time a popular movie comes out. How many movies were "written" by people who either want to blackmail the studio to give them money or they want attention.
    I forget the name of the previous movie, but something like 10 people came forward to say they came up with the idea and should be paid, when the movie was written by a single screenwriter, based on his own book!

  • On the post: If You're Thinking Of Paying People To Talk Nice About Your Company Online, It Probably Won't End Well

    John85851 ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2009 @ 09:29pm

    Could someone explain Cash4Gold...

    Could someone explain the Cash4Gold process? You send them your gold, they receive it, they pull a number out of their *** (head), and they send you a check?
    Um, shouldn't you be physically be there when they "appraise" your items? How do you know they're even appraising everything they sent you? What if they're claiming your package is worth $2.00, when it has $30 worth of gold in it? And if you dispute this number, how do you get your stuff back? It's not like you can leave the store: you're now counting on them sending it back to you, hoping it doesn't get "lost" on the way.

    The bottom line: Cash4Gold might be an honest company, but how in the world do you know they're not ripping you off?

  • On the post: Gatehouse And NY Times Settle Linking Dispute: Bad News For Everyone

    John85851 ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2009 @ 05:17pm

    Precedent

    There's a good word. You know this case will be cited as precedent by anyone else who sues anyone else over links.
    Granted, the case wasn't actually decided by a judge, but sue-ers (also called "plantiffs") will use this case as way to show why they should be able to get away with their own lawsuit.

  • On the post: What Would Pushing Back The Digital TV Transition Mean?

    John85851 ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2009 @ 12:22pm

    Two points

    Sorry, but I'm TIRED of seeing those "Just 30 more days" commercials,
    I was tired of seeing the "only six months left" commercials last July, as if the world was ending right then and there.

    But the bigger point is: Welcome to America, the land where we try to offend no-one. If the THREE people can't save $40 to their converter, then we can't inconvenience them! Push back the transition date!

    If those three people can't understand English, form a government committee to get forms printed in their language, no matter the cost! We can't have these people upset with us! Get those forms printed in their Outer Mongolian Cantonese dialect so they know they'll lose over-the-air American Idol in February!

    I'm exaggerating of course, but why would the government push back the transition date because it might inconvenience some TV watchers when delaying the transition date would inconvenience corporations who have spent millions (or billions) getting ready for it? And if the transition is delayed now, when will it actually happen? Or will it keep getting pushed back as the over-the-air TV watchers still "haven't gotten around" to getting a converter? Are these few people really worth more than the future telecommunications infrastructure?

  • On the post: Watchmen Producer Explains Why Fox Doesn't Deserve A Cut

    John85851 ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2009 @ 04:32pm

    A few thoughts

    The part I don't understand is how WB could spend $100 million to make a movie that they didn't have 100% legal rights to. Instead of yelling at FOX, shouldn't we be yelling at the WB lawyer(s) who said the rights were clear?
    Or is this part of WB's legal strategy: don't blame their own guy who mistakenly thought the movie could be made- blame the other studio who's exercising their legal rights.

    Like the above poster said, it may be "common sense wrong" for FOX to claim they own a movie they didn't make, but don't they have a signed contract that says they own the rights? And did they pay any money to get the rights to the movie?
    So WB can just come along and claim they own the movie because FOX didn't do anything with it?

    By this reasoning, should any studio be able make a movie and take it away from another studio who isn't doing anything with the property?

    And like it or not, this is the current state of the law. Instead of slamming FOX, we should be petitioning lawmakers to change the law and using this as example of why things are "wrong".

    The above poster suggested that FOX could settle for a cut of the movie's earnings... have you seen Hollywood's balance sheets? How many movies actually "make a profit"? With clever book-keeping, every movie (maybe even Titanic and The Dark Knight) "lose money"... which means there's no profit to pay to FOX.

    And, of course, the studios will claim much of their money is "lost" to piracy. Sure, WB *could* pay FOX some of the profits from the Watchmen movie, but those damn pirates cost the movie $50 billion in lost ticket revenue.

  • On the post: Internet Companies Apologize To China For Being Too Good

    John85851 ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2009 @ 12:11pm

    Two points

    First, an on-topic point:
    I think these companies are being "men": they're apologizing... no one knows what they're actually apologizing for, but they're apologizing. After all, "you know what you did wrong and I shouldn't have to tell you".

    Second, there can't be any pornography filters until someone comes up with a definitive definition for "pornography". Sure, we can agree on the hardcore X-rated stuff, but what about Playboy? Is 18th century artwork, which happens to show nude women "pornographic"? To some people, any nudity is pornographic.

    So how do you filter this? Do you tell all search engines not to return any searches from the world's museums?

  • On the post: Fox About To Get Paid For A Movie It Had Absolutely Nothing To Do With

    John85851 ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2008 @ 01:08pm

    How did this happen?

    For as long as I can remember, DC Comics (who published Watchmen) has always been owned by Time Warner, who also owns Warner Bros studios. Why was any DC property sold to another film studio?
    (I know, the obvious answer is that they considered Watchmen "unfilmable", so they took money from Fox for a movie they knew would never be made.)

    Second, didn't the Warner Bros' lawyers make sure that they had the legal rights to product the movie?
    Or is Fox only suing now that the movie has been made and is looking to become a big hit in March? I doubt Fox really cared about their rights so long as the movie was "unfilmable".

    And with a planned release date in March, you can bet that Fox will be pressuring Warner Bros to make a settlement rather than see their film get delayed.

  • On the post: RIAA's New Policy Isn't About Deterrence, It's About Sidestepping Due Process

    John85851 ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2008 @ 11:35am

    A not too hypothetical...

    Here's a not too hypothetical example of what WILL go wrong if this idea passes:

    A user shares music through his cable connection.
    The RIAA and ISP find about it, so they block that IP address. Since there's no more "due process", why bother contacting the user? Having an IP address is good enough.
    But since many ISP's recycle IP addresses, let's suppose a completely innocent person how has the "bad" IP address.
    Now let's suppose that the person also has a VOIP connection over their internet service.

    By shutting off someone's internet and VOIP service, you're shutting off his phone service, including the ability to dial 911 in an emergency. So, does the RIAA and the ISP really want to take on the liability of wrongly cutting someone off and then having that person die from not being able to call 911?

    It's bad enough that the RIAA is forcing kids out of college to pay for their lawsuits, but maybe deaths (or close calls) of wrongly-accused people will finally be the wake-up call the public needs to put an end to this nonsense.

  • On the post: Did Burger King Really Just Issue A C&D Through Twitter?

    John85851 ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2008 @ 03:36pm

    Getting off topic for a minute

    I know this is off the topic of Burger King sending a C&D notice via Twitter, but here's something to think about: how would we feel if the situation was reversed?

    Imagine a restaurant from Korea comes to the US and asks Americans to decide which is better: flame-grilled something (which represents the "Whopper") or fried something (the "Big Mac")? Either way, we'd be asking what the **** is this food you're trying to serve me.
    What if they they only told us what the "something" was *after* we ate it... and it turned out to be dog or cat or guinea pig... and that your reaction was being filmed for a TV commercial to show that you liked their version the best?

    Do the "whopper virgins" even have a concept for eating cows? Do the Inuits even know what cows are? And did Burger King make sure that these peoples don't have any religious issues with eating beef, like Jews and Hindus?

    I just hope this whole "whopper virgin" campaign was staged with actors and Burger King didn't actually subject native people to greasy, fatty fast food and to the corporate-legalese contracts that they probably had to sign so Burger King could avoid any lawsuits when the people get sick.

  • On the post: Pennsylvania Actually Realizes That Video Game Legislation Is A Bad Idea

    John85851 ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2008 @ 11:58am

    To answer your question...

    or if they'll still push forward on a plan to waste taxpayer money?
    Of course they'll still push forward on a plan to waste more taxpayer money. Did you forget that these are lawmakers who are out to "protect the children"? ;)

    Seriously, though, at the very least, politicians will try to dismiss this study claiming it was funded by the gaming industry. At worst, the politicians will claim the study isn't out to "protect the children" and by twisting the data, they'll claim the study somehow *wants* violent video games to get into the hands of innocent children. Obviously, that's not the case at all, but how many people will actually question a politician's stump-speech or campaign promises?

  • On the post: Internet Filtering Appearing On Various Wishlists For Obama

    John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2008 @ 07:30pm

    Czars

    I heard talk that there was going to be an "auto czar" to look after the auto industry. And now there's talk of a "child czar". Pretty soon, we'll need someone looking after these new posts... yep, a "czar czar".

    And how did we wind up using a *Russian* term for these overseers? I thought the US hated the Russians back in the 1950's. Is this irony or someone with a lack of imagination?

  • On the post: Hollywood: Where Up Is Down, and 'Anywhere' Is Actually A Small Number Of Places

    John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2008 @ 07:23pm

    I'm confused...

    Okay, I get the part where "plays anywhere" isn't the same as "plays on any device", but if this is the case, why do the TV commercials promote the fact that the digital copy can be played "anywhere"? Like Mike said, the commercial makes it seem like a big deal that the digital file is somehow different from the DVD. Technically speaking, if you put the DVD in a portable DVD player, it can be played "anywhere".

    So, this leads us to the conclusion that the commercial wants us to believe that the digital copy is more valuable because it can be played "anywhere"?

    Even if this isn't false advertising, it's misleading. The very fact that this thread is debating the usage of the word "anywhere" is proof enough.
    I really think this word is used in the commercial as legal-speak so Warner can get themselves out of any accusations thrown their way when the digital copy doesn't play properly.

  • On the post: Man Who Re-Uploaded Viral Baby Swinging Video Charged With Child Abuse?

    John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2008 @ 05:59pm

    If they charge this guy with "publishing"...

    ... then they should charge every news station, every website hosting the video, and everyone else who's "published", "shared" or "distributed" it.

    And what will this "law" do to the news organizations if they can't report on stories like this because they're now "publishing" a criminal activity?

    As usual, this is simply a case of going after the easiest target. Does anyone know the name of the guy in the video or where he lives? No, but it's a simple matter to read the user-profile of the guy who posted the video... just like it's easier to sue Google or YouTube than to track down the actual person who's doing something wrong.

  • On the post: Does It Take A History Lesson To Figure Out You Can Make A Product In Different Colors?

    John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2008 @ 05:51pm

    Market to women

    I think the real genius is figuring out how to "market to women" and apply it to the rest of the market.

    Way-back-when, Ford introduced automatic transmissions on the Mustang "for women", yet now it's very difficult to find a manual transmission car.

    Someone in the electronics world thought that women like color, so now all of Apple's products come in color.
    This makes a certain amount of sense since PC's (and printers and other hardware) have usually come in two colors: gray and black. Why? Because a *man's* office doesn't need those frilly colors. Who wants a blue computer? We're men! Gray and black is all we need! And sometimes we're happy with just gray.

  • On the post: Ubisoft's Passive-Aggressive Decision To Drop DRM

    John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2008 @ 05:44pm

    I guess I'm missing something...

    ... when the spokesman says that DRM makes it hard for pirates. From what I read about "Spore's" DRM, it made the game hard to play *for paying customers*. The pirates got a cracked version of the game and didn't have to deal with registering the game or validating the license number or having to call the company after 3 installs or whatever.

    And how many times have we heard about people who buy the software but then use a cracked version so they don't have to worry about a hardware dongle or a CD key or SecureROM or getting a rootkit installed on their machine (or their company's machine)?

Next >>