John D 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (28)

• On the post: SEC Still Way Behind The Times In Dealing With The Way People Communicate

  

  John D ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2013 @ 01:13pm

  Re: Facebook not truely public

  For example, I don't have a Facebook account....
  
  ... and if you aim your browser at http://www.facebook.com/netflix you will see it all as Netflix has made it an "open" group.

• On the post: Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.

  

  John D ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2012 @ 08:07am

  Re: Re: Just say no.

  You cannot destroy what you cannot hold.

• On the post: Lamar Smith: Enemy Of The Internet? Defends Internet Snooping Bill

  

  John D ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 11:52am

  Re: Re: End sneaky politics

  >If we didn't allow this sort of thing, we'd never get any bills passed in Congress ever again.
  
  And this is bad why?

• On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free… But Now Claim They Were Slaves

  

  John D ( profile ), 12 Apr, 2011 @ 01:44pm

  But... but... copyright!

• On the post: Sheriff Files Criminal Complaint Against Reporter For Asking Questions He Didn't Like

  

  John D ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2011 @ 12:17pm

  Re: Abuse of power..

  A huge part of the prosecutor office's job is to determine which cases to pursue - based mostly on their perception of the validity of the charges and the likelihood of winning.

• On the post: Eight HIV/AIDS Treatment Patents Challenged

  

  John D ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2010 @ 09:00am

  Re: All Patents Must Be Bad

  Would you care to explain the problem with charging what you want for something you create?

  No problem at all, unless your ability to do so it granted by patents that should never have been granted (which is what is being challenged).

• On the post: Another ISP Fighting US Copyright Group Subpoenas; Why Aren't More ISPs Protecting Your Privacy?

  

  John D ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2010 @ 11:54am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures carried out by government actors. Again, it does not apply in a civil infringement case.

  This is not correct. Several Ammendments - such as the First - do specify in their language that they are restrictions upon what government bodies can do, but not this one. It's wording is very plain:

  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• On the post: How Is It That New Copyrights Are Being Claimed On Work Done By An Artist Who Died 70 Years Ago?

  

  John D ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2010 @ 08:21am

  Re: Re: Clearly

  By this argument then, were I to re-publish a book whose copyright has expired I should be able to claim copyright on it?

• On the post: Class Action Against Apple & AT&T Over iPhone Moves Forward

  

  John D ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2010 @ 06:25am

  Complaints about AT& and the iPhone

  You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else and get a different phone.

  The idea is that even though you signed up for 2 years, at the end of 2 years there was no where else to go with your iPhone so it's really 5 years.

  As for a "5 year lock-in" - no such thing. You're under contract for two years, which is typical in the industry. At the end of that two years you can renew, upgrade, or leave. Since most people must replace their phone when they change carriers anyway due to difference in carrier's technology, having "no where else to go with your iPhone is a specious argument at best

• On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer

  

  John D ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 01:36pm

  Re: Re: Ok! So then I can buy what I want, right?

  He did specify "legal, legitimate, fully-authorized purchasable copies". I'm not sure about the other two, but Disney has never released Song of the South on DVD so it's a pretty safe bet that whatever atomicmall.com is sell does not meet RD's specification.

• On the post: Pennsylvania AG Drops Twitter Subpoena

  

  John D ( profile ), 24 May, 2010 @ 08:56am

  Re: Re:

  First off the guy is the ATTORNEY GENERAL, so sentencing a criminal is a part of his job. No. The Attorney General (or, more precisely, people working in the AG's office) determines what to attempt to prosecute for, not the sentencing. That's the job of judge and jury.

• On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief

  

  John D ( profile ), 19 May, 2010 @ 12:33pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Black Kettle

  ...these people were never 'potential customers'...

  Why not? Some studies have concluded that the same people who pirate media are the biggest spenders on media.

  That makes them "customers", not "potential customers".

• On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief

  

  John D ( profile ), 19 May, 2010 @ 11:52am

  Re: Re: Been There, Done That

  [i]Why do you think of Chartier as the bad guy here? He's the victim of a multi-million dollar crime and you don't even afford him the latitude to feel wronged? Victim's aren't allowed to express emotion? [/i] No, he is not the victim of a multi-million dollar crime. He is (possibly) the victim of an infringement which, per chapter 5 of the U.S. Copyright Law is a matter for civil court - not criminal court - to decide and determine remedy for. Regardless though, while he may feel wronged, verbally attacking someone for politely disagreeing with him is juvenile and - for a public figure - a really bad PR move.

• On the post: Time Warner Cable Stands Up To Automated Copyright Infringement Filing Factory

  

  John D ( profile ), 17 May, 2010 @ 01:38pm

  Re:

  You are correct. Time Warner Cable was spun out to a separate business March 2009.

• On the post: Court Says President Bush Violated Wiretapping Laws With Warrantless Wiretap

  

  John D ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2010 @ 02:01pm

  Re:

  What a ridiculous statement. If the DOJ really felt they had a valid reason for the write-tap, they could have gotten a judge to agree to it in a matter hours (if not minutes). Not doing so was a gross violation of existing law.

• On the post: Apple Fighting Macpro In Australia, Despite Is Using That Name For 26 Years

  

  John D ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 06:02pm

  Re: apple the bully

  Like any other large company - they are a bully when it suits them and they think they can get away with it.
  
  
  -- JD, dedicated Mac fan

• On the post: CBS Looks To Put Superbowl Online; Recognizes Online Doesn't Cannibalize TV Viewing

  

  John D ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2009 @ 07:02am

  Re: I am sure I misunderstood...

  Just in case you're serious and not just trolling...

  Like many words in the English language, cannibalize has more than one usage.

  can⋅ni⋅bal⋅ize
  –verb (used with object)

  3. to cut into; cause to become reduced; diminish: New products introduced in the next six months will cannibalize sales from established lines.

  
  
  Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=cannibalize+&search=search

• On the post: Revisiting Newspapers' Role In Democracy: New Research Suggests An Impact

  

  John D ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2009 @ 08:56am

  News or Newspapers

  Is it newspapers that matter, or the existence of a free press? I can see how the lack of easily obtainable local news could have an impact on local elections, but there are other potential sources of local news besides newspapers.
  
  I guess Northern Kentucky lacks other sources of local news?

• On the post: Girl Scouts Teaching The Wrong Lesson By Banning Online Sales

  

  John D ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2009 @ 09:57am

  Re: Low Tech

  Isn't the point of Boy and Girl Scouts to teach low tech approaches to every day things? Knot tying, fire making, survival in the wilderness? Isn't the point to teach children how to survive if they don't have modern day conveniences?

  Um... No.

  The "point" of both organizations is summed up in their respective mission statements:

  The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

  Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place.

  The knot tying, fire making, wilderness survival, etc, etc, are tools these organizations use to teach their chosen core values and to make learning them fun. They are not "the point".

• On the post: Girl Scouts Teaching The Wrong Lesson By Banning Online Sales

  

  John D ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2009 @ 09:26am

  Re:

  As for the Boy Scouts, I think you will see that their online activities are handled and operated by the main office, not by one single scout and his parents somewhere.

  Yep, and every scout is given a Identification Number that they can distribute. Entering this number on the sales web page insures that scout gets credit for the sale.

  Sales can occur online and are managed centrally.
  Individual scouts can still market independently and take advantage of the online sales capability.
  I get my popcorn.
  Everyone wins!

  The Girl Scouts can't do this why?

Next >>