Josh in CharlotteNC 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2290) comment rss

  • On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Insight Free?

    I'm defending books in general, including young adult vampire fantasy books, so yes. Never read them, highly unlikely I ever will, but they are still books and they might include something useful for the intended demographic.

  • On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2012 @ 08:33am

    Insight Free?

    Of course, the fact that the most popular books are probably just as insight free as many online conversations is ignored. It's not like everyone reading books is digging into a meaty exploration of ways to solve all the world's problems.

    Mike, I gotta take umbrage on this point. I do not disagree with your (or Ingram's) overall argument that decrying social media is foolish. But saying that most popular books lack insight is not supportable.

    The best, and usually most popular, books explore complex ideas and characters and offer all sorts of insights. Both fiction and non-fiction do this, while even at the same time entertaining us. A science fiction book involving artificial intelligence can give us insight about what makes us human and whether a machine can be sentient - something we may have to consider in the real world in the next decades. Crime dramas and murder mysteries can give insight into complex social situations or the way criminals and police think. Just because a book is popular doesn't mean it can't make the reader think - the best authors can even "trick" reluctant thinkers into doing so under the guise of entertainment.

    Books have their place, and offer insights, just as social media has its place and can offer its own.

  • On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2012 @ 05:49pm

    Re: You wouldn't patent adding would you?

    Agree completely.

    Likewise, all digitized content, be it text, music, or video is represented by nothing more than a number. Why should we grant forever-minus-a-day monopoly rights on numbers?

  • On the post: Author Discovers Assassin's Creed Uses Same Cliche'd SciFi Trope As His Book… Sues For Infringement

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 24 Apr, 2012 @ 05:08pm

    Re: Prior Art .. Stargate

    Really, that's the earliest you can come up with?

    First that popped into my head was Dune by Frank Herbert, 1965. But I'm sure there's something earlier.

    You can always check out http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneticMemory for more.

  • On the post: Josh In CharlotteNC?s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2012 @ 08:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    OK, my new single just came out. You downloaded it (illegally of course).

    Was your single played on the radio? If it was, I could easily have legally taped it and added it to my collection. But taping is a klunky solution, downloading gives the same end result, yet somehow is illegal.

    Did you or your label upload your single to Youtube or Veoh? Again, I could've watched it there, ripped the audio, and added it to my collection. The end result is the same as if I downloaded it from a torrent.

    I made a new record. I decide I need to sell it to pay my bills.

    You don't get to decide the price. The market does that. The market is telling you that trying to sell recorded music doesn't work as well as it used to, and may not work at all.

    Just because I make something, doesn't mean I automatically get what I think it is worth. Someone has to be willing to pay for it.

  • On the post: Josh In CharlotteNC?s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2012 @ 12:50pm

    Re:

    If they are screwing it up that bad, someone will come in and replace them with a better product, at a better price, that will make economic sense for both the consumers and the sellers.

    And that's what we see every day. Just because you will not acknowledge that piracy is direct competition to the legacy industries doesn't change the fact that it is, and it is beating them at providing all those things.

    If your ideas or concepts are that much better, then let new people enter the market, offer NEW products (not someone else's pirated products) in the new way, and let them prosper.

    So then the legacy industries will stop trying to kill off every product and service that legally is replacing them? They'll stop the insane rate hikes for streaming music and video services? They'll stop they're quixotic attacks on Creative Commons and open source software? They'll stop the intimidation tactics, and those that have the obvious appearance of falling afoul of anti-trust rules? They'll stop every attempt to bribe and corrupt politicians into passing laws that only favor them at the expense of free speech?

    Doubtful. Until they stop all of those I have a clear conscious, even when I break the letter of the law.

  • On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2012 @ 08:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But Mike doesn't have to call them lying dirtbags either.

    If they are spreading around made up numbers, then they are lying. There's no getting around that. I doubt that Mike has ever called them dirtbags, but calling them out as liars is perfectly fair.

    Perhaps it might be helpful instead to look at their numbers and try to actually see how they get there. Rather than rip them down because you don't agree, why not try to understand them first?
    There is none of that.

    Wrong. Every time Mike cites a new claim of losses or some other number, he tries to look into how it was come up with. It's not Mike's fault when the number seems to be entirely pulled from the air with no supporting evidence and the study's methodology is kept secret.

    Let's also be fair here: Mike's "Sky is Rising" pretty much does the same things as the AAs do

    Wrong, again. Mike cites his sources and publicly shows how and why he arrived at those conclusions.

  • On the post: Another Error By US Officials May Kill Megaupload Prosecution

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2012 @ 04:24pm

    Re: Will they keep the servers?

    will they keep the servers and domain names until they re-file?

    Whatever they've got they'll keep, including money, until they've convinced Carpathia to delete everything they haven't directly seized. Then they'll give it all back after wiping any drives and data in their possession.

  • On the post: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement…

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2012 @ 07:46am

    Re: High Court/Low Court justice

    +1
    We're waiting.

  • On the post: The Social Networking Patent Thicket Consists Of At Least 30,000 Patents

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2012 @ 02:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Patent Attorney here.

    If the only test you are using is prior art, then by definition, anything new-yet-still-obvious is patentable. That fundamentally misunderstands how innovation happens.

    It is no secret I think nothing at all should be given government granted monopoly protection, and thus no patents at all should be granted to anyone, but I am prepared to compromise to a reasonable middle ground. I can accept patents being granted for truly revolutionary ideas for a very short limited time (20 years is crazy given our current rate of change). But under no circumstances should small evolutionary changes be given patents. Adding pre-existing X to pre-existing Y should not be given patent protection.

    If A is obvious in light of B, or vice versa, then either there is a fundamental similarity directly between them, or both are based on some other fundamental idea. If a patent must be granted, then it must be granted on that fundamental idea, not either A or B, and that idea must be explicitly explained.

  • On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2012 @ 08:43am

    Power disparity

    History has shown over and over that the government's use (abuse) of power (violence) over its citizens is a far greater threat to liberty than any crazy person or group.

    The power disparity here is all you need to know:

    Anonymous - can knock down or deface websites for a few hours
    US Government - can shut down and seize entire legitimate domains with no oversight for over a year

    Anonymous - can make funny pictures with photoshop with a meme that have a half life of a week or two online
    US Government - can make false statements to the worldwide press that are rarely challenged or adequately fact checked, and usually taken as true by >50% of the US population

    Anonymous - has an army of mostly young men who are good with computers that might number 100,000 if you count everyone who's been involved or visited 4chan, ever
    US Government - has an army of mostly young men highly trained and armed with the some of the best weapons ever made that will exercise deadly force on command that numbers in at 1.5 million active duty and 1.5 million reserve

  • On the post: The Social Networking Patent Thicket Consists Of At Least 30,000 Patents

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2012 @ 09:32pm

    Re: Patent Attorney here.

    Thus, the Examiner required a "Terminal Disclaimer," requiring the Applicant to promise that the two patents with similar claims would always be owned by the same entity.

    This. Is. Insane.

    If there are two patents for the same thing, or a substantially similar thing, than at least one of them is obvious and fails the definition of something that is patentable. If they are filed by different parties, both are obvious. If they are filed by the same party, then that party is wasting the government's time, money, and resources.

  • On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re:

    After all a dead person doesn't need any kind of incentive to create anything besides fertilizer.

    Well obviously, the work would never have been created in the first place if the creator couldn't be assured that his or her great-grandchildren would still be fighting the recording studio over royalty payments.

  • On the post: Final Stats On Heartland Payment Systems Class Action: $1,925 To 11 People, $600k To Lawyers

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2012 @ 02:54pm

    Re:

    No one knew there would only be 11 valid class members.

    That's a reasonable point. Considering that Heartland lost data on 130 million credit cards, we can make the reasonable conclusion that there should be more. Many, many more. So something is broken. Instead of trudging onward with the only 11 legitimate claims, why not focus on why there were only 11?

    Could it be that spending 1.5 million on advertising that someone may have been the victim of this data loss was completely and utterly useless? I bet those ads were on late night TV right next to the commercials asking me to contact a lawyer if I've been diagnosed with mesothelioma.

    So Heartland didn't have addresses for the 130 million card numbers they lost. I wonder how they could reach the owners. You know who has those addresses? The banks and credit card companies that Heartland has to deal with as a part of their business! I imagine it might cost a few tens of thousands of dollars, but I bet Heartland could work with those banks and credit card companies to pay for a direct mailing to most of the card holders. Maybe they could also spend a few tens of thousands of dollars to make it super incredibly easy for someone to make a claim!

    But why do that when you can piss away a million and a half dollars for something that will convince a court you "tried" when you damn well know it wouldn't work, and thus don't have to pay out any claims.

  • On the post: Guy Loses Probation Because Court Decides That Facebook & MySpace Are 'Electronic Bulletin Boards'

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re:

    If he wants to not be in jail and stick to the guidelines, he should try to get a different job.

    Yes, because the economy is so good now, I would think a felon (or ex-) would have no trouble getting hired someplace. If he can run a successful web design business, he should be allowed to.

    This is just a tiny portion of the real disagreement. Is the justice system about punishment, or about protecting society?

  • On the post: Distributor Neglects Indie Filmmaker's Movie, So He Asks Fans To Pirate It

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Uh... hate to break it to you, but the RIAA does in fact help connect young artists with legal advice.

    So the RIAA or MPAA gets a cut (give it whatever name you want, dues, consultation fee, whatever) for the connect to pointing an artist over to a lawyer. That lawyer will then charge the artist to give advice on common pitfalls cooked up by other lawyers working for other members of the RIAA or MPAA. You call this standard practice.

    You don't see how much of a tremendous waste that is? And a huge hurdle to new and creative content? And you get angry when we call these organizations gatekeepers who hold back innovation? These observations are as obvious as a two-by-four with rusty nails smacking into your face and yet you still try to defend them.

  • On the post: Boxee Ramps Up Its Fight To Stop The FCC From Letting Cable Companies Effectively Break Its Device

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 12:10am

    Re:

    So if the phone companies companies decided to start encrypting the signals going over their wires, you would be all for it? They could force you to to rent a phone from them (again, like they did up through the 80s). Your nice desk phone with all the features would now be worthless - gotta rent a nice one from the phone company. Got a fax machine at home? It's now only useful as a paperweight - gotta rent one of those, too. Anyone still on dial up internet, well, they're screwed - guess that'll force them to pay for more expensive DSL, and kill off the competition for the telco too.

    So who's the one limiting choices? When I watch TV (live), from the cable TV subscription I pay for (because it would be nearly the same price to drop it and keep internet access), I'm doing it from my computer with a TV card. I don't see the point of spending money for a new TV when I already have a large high quality monitor and nice sound system setup already. I don't need to pay for a set top box, or a DVR, because that's just (free) software for a device a already own.

  • On the post: Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?'

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 09:43am

    Re:

    who isn't offering the product in the US yet.

    Why the fuck not?

    Again, the point is, if you want my money, offer me the fucking product in a convenient form, for a reasonable price, without bullshit restrictions.

    Until you do, you cannot complain that fans are pirating it. Full stop.

  • On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No where in my comment did I project that "He's not as awful as everyone else"

    I don't know AC's thought process, but that's exactly what I got out of your post.

    You failed to address the point that Paul abandoned his principles in the attempt to unmask anonymous political speech. Instead of addressing it, you pointed out how much worse other politicians are.

  • On the post: Forget Home Taping: Evil Robots Are Killing Music!

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2012 @ 05:00am

    Re:

    you now have explained why we have performance rights and mechanical rights.

    That would be a good point if, and only if:

    1) Performance rights covered human beings playing music.
    2) Mechanical rights covered all music played by machines.

    But that's obviously not the case when the collection societies can strongarm small businesses into having to pay performance rights for playing the radio, and when the MPAA can shut down Zediva for infringing on their performance rights.

    Try again.

Next >>