John85851 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1635) comment rss

  • On the post: UK DNA Database Found To Violate Human Rights

    John85851 ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2008 @ 01:00pm

    Like other records

    And like some other posters are pointing out, how is DNA significantly different from other forms of unique information that police keep on you, such as fingerprints, mug shots, and such?
    If DNA samples are not significantly different that fingerprints, does this mean all police forces have to delete their fingerprint databases?

    The main benefit of these databases is to compare suspects to people who have been previously arrested. If the police only have a DNA sample at the crime scene, how else are they going to match it?
    Ah, so that's why these guys want their DNA removed: so they can keep committing crimes and the police won't have their DNA on file.

  • On the post: New Report Says Mass Media Is Really, Really Evil For Kids

    John85851 ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2008 @ 12:36pm

    Mass media bad for everyone

    Think about it for a minute: what is the real business of mass media? Is it to deliver hard-hitting journalism, investigating the latest stories? Or is it to get as many viewers or readers as possible?

    Sorry, but for the most part, mass media's main business is to get ratings. Why does the six o'clock news start with murders and robberies? Because it gets ratings.

    Why have news-shows like "20/20" and "Dateline" basically switched their format from investigative journalism to celebrity puff-pieces, such as interviewing Brad Pitt about his latest movie?
    They get better ratings when they run puff-pieces, so over time, why bother with the hard-hitting stuff? Just run another celeb interview and get more viewers.

  • On the post: How Dr. Seuss's Lawyers Ruined Christmas

    John85851 ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2008 @ 02:49pm

    Protecting Universal?

    At Universal Studios Florida, there's a fully endorsed and properly licensed show based on the movie version of the story of the Grinch.
    Maybe the Seuss lawyers are protecting their licensing agreement with Universal. After all, if some town in Kentucky can perform a Grinch show without paying licensing fees, why does Universal need to pay?

  • On the post: Batman, The City, Sues Over Batman, The Movie

    John85851 ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2008 @ 12:02pm

    I can't get turkey in Turkey?

    I would laugh my ass off if Butterball turns and sues the country for misleading consumers over the word "Turkey".

    Wait, are you saying that I can't get a good turkey sandwich in Turkey? Then why did they name their country that way? Geez! Talk about misleading.

    And I definitely won't visit that city since it obviously wasn't named after the comic-book hero! I'll go to DarkKnightTown instead!

    All joking aside, why doesn't the mayor take the opposite approach and start promoting the town of Batman as the hero's hometown? I'm sure the tourist money would be a lot more than they would get over a lawsuit.
    Sure, Time Warner (the people who own DC Comics, who own the Batman character) might sue, but they should worry about that when it happens.

  • On the post: Virtual Strip Club In GTA Doesn't Violate Trademarks Of Real Strip Club

    John85851 ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2008 @ 12:52pm

    Yes, but...

    While I agree with the judge's decision, I question the ethics of the lawyers who started this case in the first place.

    Did the lawyers not know they had no case? If so, then they need to go back to law school and learn about copyrights, trademarks, and so on.
    Or did the lawyers take the case just to make some money from the client, without caring if they won the case? If so, isn't that a breach of ethics? Aren't lawyers supposed to tell their client if there they don't have a case?

    Either way, when will we put an end to pointless cases like this which just waste the court's time and taxpayers' money?

  • On the post: Video Game Exec Claims Used Games Defraud The Industry

    John85851 ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2008 @ 04:44pm

    A bunch of whiners

    These executives are a bunch of whiners.

    How long has the video game industry been around? How long have people bought and sold used games? I remember picking up used games for a Sega Genesis back in 1993! And executives are only complaining about this NOW?

    Then again, this whining sounds goes against a lot of the advice found on Tech Dirt, which is to make a better product instead of whining about the market forces at work.

  • On the post: Amazon Recognizes That People Hate Annoying Packaging

    John85851 ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2008 @ 04:34pm

    I agree with poster #26

    I think the blister packs were invented to reduce theft AND to reduce the rate of product returns. If you've basically destroyed the packaging to get to your item, will you return it if it doesn't work? And since you can't put the packaging back together, the store will probably charge you a 25% restocking fee.

    And I know theft is a terrible thing, but like the other posters have said, do we really need 50 to 100 small ties to hold a Barbie doll in its box? It's a sad state of affairs when a 5 year-old can't get her own doll out of the box and needs mommy with a super-sharp razor blade to cut the doll out of the packaging!

  • On the post: Reminder: Google Is An MP3 Search Engine Too

    John85851 ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2008 @ 04:19pm

    At least some ethics?

    I wonder if they aren't suing Google because of some twisted sense of ethics. As long as they sue only "pirate" sites, they can take the moral high ground and claim they're protecting themselves from the "bad guys".

    But, how will the public react if the RIAA sues Google, their favorite search/ e-mail/ everything else site? How will the RIAA claim moral high ground?

  • On the post: BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret

    John85851 ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2008 @ 01:41pm

    Occam's razor...

    ... or the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

    Which is more likely?
    1) The BBC sends notices to every household, demanding a payment, irregardless of whether or not that household actually has a TV. If there's no TV, then the people can argue with the BBC.

    2) The BBC has the technology, the ability, and the money to outfit a FLEET (not just one, but a FLEET) of vans with ultra-sensitive electronic equipment.

    This same equipment can differentiate between a TV signal and all electronic devices, including PC monitors, cell phones, etc... AND the equipment can "see" through any lead pipes or stone walls which block other signals, such as cell phones.
    This equipment can also determine the exact location of each signal and it won't get confused by overlapping signals coming from every house in the neighborhood nor by people living above one another in apartments or condos.

    And the BBC has the manpower to send out in vans to patrol the neighborhood, listening for these electronic signals.

    So, then, is the BBC the biggest buyer of vans in the UK? Is there some car dealership that has an exclusive deal with the BBC to supply them with these super-vans? Can GM get a contract with the BBC? It might just give them the cash they need to recover!

    And even assuming that the BBC does have the manpower to run these patrols, how long would it take to patrol just London? How about all of England? Are these patrols monitored by the people in the neighborhood? Could someone watch for the van, turn their TV off, then turn in back on when the van passes by?
    If the "busybody" people in the neighborhood know what time you walk your dog everyday, wouldn't they notice an unknown van driving through, very slowly?

    And are these vans also equipped to connect to a database to check who's licensed and who's not? Do people ever get a "false positive" from these vans, when the van shows they have a TV signal and no license, but they actually do have a license?

    Yep, this all makes perfect sense to me. Obviously, the BBC's main business plan is to patrol the streets with military-level technology rather than provide television programming.

  • On the post: Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?

    John85851 ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2008 @ 01:22pm

    Hmm...

    A few points:

    1) I agree with the above poster that the van company had terrible legal counsel. The judge basically agreed with them in his statements, but then ruled against them? What??

    2) How in the words is unwrapping a bar of chocolate an extension of trademark or however the judge worded it? Does this mean that opening *anything* can be an "extension"? If Apple started running ads showing a Mac being unwrapped, could they take ownership of a trademarked "computer being pulled out of a box"?
    I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the trademark and copyright system?

    And, again, how does allowing Hershey to stop a van company from showing a sofa "innovate" or "promote the science"?

    3) Where was this case heard? Why do I get the feeling it was in Hershey's home town of (surprise) Hershey, PA? And who's the biggest employer in Hershey? I'm be willing to guess it's Hershey. And who has the most money and the biggest team of attorneys in the town of Hershey?

    Can anyone say "not even close to a fair trial"? I hope the van's legal team appeals because of this.

    Though do they have the money to file an appeal and continue the fight? Or is it the usual story of the defendant giving up because they can't afford any more money on the court case?

  • On the post: MTV Bleeps File Sharing Software Out Of Music Videos

    John85851 ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2008 @ 03:14pm

    Hmm...

    My information may be a bit dated, but isn't Morpheus and Kazaa avoided by "real" sharers because both are full of spyware, toolbars, and other junk?

    And wasn't Grokster sued by the MPAA or RIAA? Is it even still around?

    But, my point is this: why would MTV (or Viacom) want to bleep out the names of file-sharing services that were popular TWO YEARS ago? It's like bleeping out the word "Napster" from a song made in 1998.

  • On the post: Next Stage Of Security Theater: Homeland Security Wants More Info To Let You Board A Plane

    John85851 ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2008 @ 01:26pm

    Poster #25 has it right

    Yes, it's still fairly easy to get by security, just like it's easy for a professional thief to steal a car that's locked. With a decent computer and Photoshop, you can probably create any kind of fake documentation- it's not like anyone scans your driver's license to make sure the magnetic strip is real.

    The point of airport security has never been to stop terrorism, but to make people "feel safe"- and, yes, feeling safe is NOT the same thing as being safe.
    The government has convinced us that we have to give up more and more information so we can "feel safe" by knowing Joe Smith over there is giving up his name and birthday. Now suppose Joe's real name is Ted Kennedy and he's lying so he can board a plane without the hassle of arguing with the TSA that he's not the Ted Kennedy who they think is a terrorist. So, um, how does giving your real name help?

    Then again, I think signer Cat Stevens would have been let into the country a lot faster if he didn't use his newer name of Yusef Islam. Then again, isn't Cat Stevens a stage name also?

  • On the post: Amazon Caught Deleting Negative EA DRM-Related Reviews… Again

    John85851 ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2008 @ 01:15pm

    Hmm...

    Amazon has no relation with EA?
    How about the fact that EA sells tons of games through Amazon and Amazon gets a percentage of the sales? So, if Amazon sees a dip in sales and EA doesn't like it and EA decides to pull all of their games, what happens? Yep- Amazon doesn't get a cut of the millions of EA games sold.

    I'm not saying this is the reason the "glitch" occurred, but it's something to consider.

    Second (and I saw this mentioned in another posting), why don't the software companies use anti-piracy techniques from years ago: have the user type a word or code found in the manual. There's no rootkit, no SecureRom, and nothing on the computer. All legally-paying customers will have the manual and will have no problem finding the code.

  • On the post: Sucks Sites May Be Legal… But What About Loves Sites?

    John85851 ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2008 @ 01:03pm

    Just dumb

    A person likes a product so much that he spends his time to build and out up his own website praising the product, yet the company tells him to take it down? While that may be the letter of the law (or not), it's just plain dumb.

    This is a great way to turn your biggest fan into an enemy, or at least get him to use the competition's product... or create a site about how much he loves the competition.

    And, of course, the other issue is the cost of the court case: sure the guy may be within his rights, but how much would it actually cost to go before a judge and argue his point? I think corporate lawyers know how to out-spend the defendant long before anyone even talks to a judge.

    How far can these companies go in their effort to "protect their copyright"?
    What about idontcareforjackdaniels.com or ikindalikejackdaniels.com or ithinkjackdanielsisokay.com?

  • On the post: Sued For Libel Over eBay Feedback

    John85851 ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2008 @ 12:50pm

    Maybe it's eBay's fault...

    ... because they only allow so many characters in the review of an item. If you only have 255 characters, how can you write an entire sentence about how you got the wrong item, but you returned it, then got your money back in a timely manner, so you'd do business with the guy again, but other people should look out for receiving wrong items.

    Maybe situations like this wouldn't occur if eBay allowed unlimited-length reviews. Look at almost any item at Amazon: people leave paragraphs' worth of information.
    Doesn't this give customers a far better picture of the item than a short one-sentence description like "cool DVD"?

  • On the post: AOL Sued For Putting Ads In Email

    John85851 ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2008 @ 12:40pm

    The guy may not win...

    ... but who wants to bet that AOL will settle out of court, give him tons of money, change their T&C, and make the guy sign a non-disclosure agreement to make the case go away?

    It's the typical lawsuit in America: it's not about suing the company to make them "pay" for a "wrong", but to see how much money you can get.

    Should the guy really be using AOL for a business e-mail address? Probably not.
    Should he have read the T&C to see what the terms of use were? Probably.
    Should he have checked to see if AOL was putting any ads at the bottom of his e-mail? Probably.

    But why do this when he can file a lawsuit (and a lawyer will take it) and get some money from AOL?

  • On the post: Germany Finds Google Images A Violation Of Copyright Law

    John85851 ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2008 @ 04:02pm

    I'm confused...

    Let's forget about all the stealing-cars analogy for a minute and compare Google Image search to something similar: any other indexing service.

    Is it "copyright infringement" or "theft" if a library lists books using the copyrighted titles? Can JK Rowling sue the library because they list the words "Harry Potter" in their list of books?

    Either way (a library or Google), the user has to go to the source to see the original item. Doesn't this help the original artist get more visitors? How is Google "stealing" anything?

    And how is Google different from Yahoo Image Search... oh, that's right, Google is a much larger target. It's funny how you don't hear stories like this involving Yahoo or universities who might be working on similar technologies.

  • On the post: Universal Music CEO Still Doesn't Believe In The Promotional Value Of Music

    John85851 ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2008 @ 03:53pm

    Playing the devil's advocate

    Let's play devil's advocate for a minute.

    Let's assume that you're the CEO of Universal and a new video TV station is starting. You invest millions in it and your artists produce tons of music videos. It's all promotion and you don't charge for it because you know you'll make money when people see the artists and buy the music.

    Now, fast-forward 20 years and we have MTV, MTV2, MTV3, VH1, VH1 Classic, VH1, and so and so on. And what do they channels show?? Mindless, dumb "celebreality" TV shows with people who want to be stars, but whose only claim to fame is that they know how to get their own show.

    So, as a CEO who invested in a music channel (and who spent millions), how would you feel if the channel you supported no longer plays any music videos of any kind!

    That's like spending $1 today to get $5 tomorrow and nothing at all next year. In other words, don't invest in tomorrow: get the money now, while you can, because who knows what will change in 10 or 20 years.

  • On the post: Huge Spam Ring Shut Down… But Will It Make A Difference?

    John85851 ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2008 @ 03:37pm

    I agree with poster #19

    We will never stop spam by going after the spammers. The only way to stop it is to make it un-profitable.

    Like the war on drugs, we don't worry about the "middle-men", but go after the customers (no customers = no sales) and the suppliers (no supplies = no products).
    So, instead of going after the spammers, like poster #19 said, go after the companies who advertise their products in spam.

    If you can't get the companies for using spam to advertise, you can probably get them for mail fraud or misrepresentation when they don't ship the supposed product.

  • On the post: The Rise Of Anti-Spam Lawsuit Entrepreneurs

    John85851 ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2008 @ 02:57pm

    This topic is about spam

    Like poster #5 mentioned, I too am getting sick of political comments when they're not appropriate. This is a blog and discussion about tech related news. If the person wants to talk politics and wants to tell people who to vote for, then go to a political site.

    Or is he making a point about how easy it is to post spam messages into a discussion? ;)

    Anyway, while I think suing spammers is a good idea, I think we're back to the issues of actually finding the spammer to sue and then trying to collect from the spammer. And even if the spammer has to pay up, what will the fine be, 1% of his annual income? Wow, that'll certainly put a stop to it.

    Instead, why not sue the companies advertised in the spam e-mails. It's probably a lot easier to sue the "canadian pharmacy" (which may even have a physical address) instead of the spammer who may operating out of China.
    And don't fall for the old excuse of "we didn't know that our affiliate was sending spam" nonsense. If the spammer can't be held responsible, then we should go after the people hiring the spammers.

Next >>