Josh in CharlotteNC 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2290) comment rss

  • On the post: Obama Administration: ACTA Is Binding & Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About TPP

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2012 @ 03:12pm

    Re:

    I'll be writing in Ron Wyden.

  • On the post: American Airlines Making Life Worse For Most Loyal Customers By Killing Useful Mile-Tracking Browser Plugin

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 02:04pm

    Re:

    What didn't you understand about "everything stayed local."?

    If everything stayed local, then yes, it is absolutely true that no data went to a third party.

  • On the post: File Sharing Moves En Masse To The Darknet; Good Luck Shutting That Down

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2012 @ 04:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Workable meshnets are 20 years away.

    Just like commercially viable fusion power.

  • On the post: RIAA's Cary Sherman: We Really Just Want To Give Consumers What We, Er, They Want

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re:

    You then set about lumping his characterization of music acquired into the entire universe of music.

    Then perhaps Mr. Sherman should stop lumping the entire universe of music under his purview as head of a trade group representing nothing more than a few recording companies.

  • On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2012 @ 09:13am

    Re: Re:

    "themes of rape, incest, beastiality and underage sexual content"

    Guess Game of Thrones and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series are out, too.

    Is Paypal going to cut Amazon off for selling printed books, e-books, and DVDs with the same criteria? If not, seems pretty hypocritical since I'm sure Paypal makes a lot more from Amazon than Smashwords.

  • On the post: FBI Preaches Dangers Of 'Cybercrime' To The Choir

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2012 @ 06:34am

    Re: This is kabuki theater

    So there will be bill after stupid bill, pushed along by the feeble-minded idiots in Congress, and eventually one of them (or maybe more than one of them) will pass, and the end result will be that it will make computing LESS secure

    Couldn't agree more.

    The root cause of most computer security problems are from not understanding how computers work and their limitations. And everyone can make this mistake - an average user, some highly paid exec, or a programmer.

    (This opinion brought to you by an Information Security Professional who could probably be making more money if he was inclined to buy in to the fear-mongering.)

  • On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 09:25pm

    Re: Re: Response to: DanMitchell on Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 8:00pm

    No, it generally won't. At least, not for a while, and not nearly to the extent that good local papers covered such stuff until recently. At least, not until it makes economic sense to do so.

    You're making two mistakes:

    1) You're assuming that people only cover the news to make a profit.
    2) You're demanding that new ways of journalism be just as profitable as the old ways before even trying them out.

    Both of those are the same that the music and other content companies are already going through.

    Will new business models develop, and will blogging and other forms of citizen journalism cover those things? Of course they will - some already are. Will they be instant successes? Not all, but some will. Will they be high quality? Not all, but some will. Will they be better than past and current reporting by newspapers? Not all, but some will.

    250-300 years ago, there weren't major newspapers in this country - there wasn't actually even a country, but those that started ones helped it to set the events in motion that ended up with what we call the USA. They all started small, run by individuals or by a few dedicated people. Some were high quality, some weren't. And back then, the cost to start even a tiny newspaper up was enormous. There are just as many, if not more, people willing and dedicated to do so now, and they have a huge benefit in that starting costs are practically nothing.

  • On the post: Microsoft Hires Key Anti-Google FTC Lawyer To Be Its New Chief Anti-Google Lobbyist

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 03:11pm

    Re: Re: actually, no - let them take him out

    Plus now other FTC lawyers see they'll be rewarded when Microsoft comes knocking.

  • On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Not about the length of the cord

    In other words, they are making money off some one else's stuff.

    This is not illegal, no matter how many times copyright maximalists argue it is.

    Company A has a valuable product. But their marketing or distribution sucks. I know I can do better. So I buy, or acquire legally, their product. I then add my own service or distribution, and sell it at a profit to my customers.

    The product doesn't matter. No one (well, no one sane) would be arguing if I was buying a physical product in California, shipping it to North Carolina, then selling it here at a markup. It makes no difference if the product is a book, a car, a DVD, a piece of furniture, or a TV signal.

    Sure, if I buy a book, make copies, then sell the copies, I've committed copyright infringement. But if I just buy 1 book, transport it, then sell that book at a higher price than I bought it, no law has been broken.

    Say that we have Star Trek style transporters. If I buy a book, use the transporter to send it instantly to another state, then sell it there, have I broke the law? Is the "transporter buffer" somehow copyright infringement?

  • On the post: TV Networks Gang Up To Sue Aereo; Do Copyright Rules Change Based On The Length Of A Cable?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Re: I am inching closer to hoisting the main sails

    Awwww. I didn't get any pie when I made the switch. This sounds like one of those introductory offers that some company only gives to new customers, but you can't get if you're already a customer.

  • On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 08:35am

    Yikes

    The Democratic National Convention is being held in Charlotte this year. If I'm in the vicinity of a building where the President or someone with a Secret Service detail is staying, and simply assert rights the Constitution guarantees me, I'm at risk of a year or ten in prison.

    If I disappear after the first week of September, someone call the ACLU for me, please.

  • On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2012 @ 02:53pm

    Re: Uh no-- balance is possible and desirable

    Repeat after me: copyright helps the little guy. Copyright empowers the creator. Copyright hurts the leeches, the couch potatoes and the losers who contribute nothing and want everything to be given to them.

    This may be the funniest statement made on Techdirt, ever.

    Sorry Marcus. Sorry Tim. Sorry other Tim. But it is definitely in the running.

  • On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2012 @ 02:49pm

    Re: Re:

    The AC you replied to never learned to share. I'm not even sure he knows what sharing actually means.

  • On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2012 @ 02:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    but what is key is that they have paid the content creators (or pay on an ongoing basis) the content creators,

    Why do so many artists end up owing copyright owners if they are being paid?

  • On the post: Big Bank CEO Who Makes $23 Million Says Press Should Stop Focusing On Bank Compensation… Because Reporters Are Overpaid?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 02:16pm

    Re:

    he was gonna sink HP to the bottom, and for that he got paid a 13 million bonus,

    That's the problem as I see it. I don't have an issue with sky-high executive pay if the company is successful, expanding its business, treating its employees well and so on. I do have a problem when executive pay is high and the company is failing, not adapting to new markets, paying employees poorly or laying them off - and even worse are golden parachute clauses in contracts where a CEO can destroy the company and walk away with millions of dollars.

  • On the post: If Major Labels Are All About Helping Artists, Why Do We Keep Seeing Artists Calling Out Their Labels For Screwing Them?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 02:07pm

    Re:

    the labels would always press and ship more albums than they needed to, and there was a system in place for returns if the records didn't sell.

    Imagine selling all the albums you can without worrying about having to produce even 1 more than you need. Imagine not needing a system to do returns.

    Oh, wait. We don't have to imagine that. There's this thing called the internet...

  • On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re:

    Let's not forget that Amazon's pricing and business model (offering free shipping) are illegal in some parts of the world, like France.
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071213/010749.shtml

  • On the post: AT&T's New Scheme To Double Charge For Data: Call It A 1-800 Number For Internet Content

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 11:57am

    Re:

    Instead people should be charged for the amount of data they transmit/receive.

    I have no problem with this, assuming certain things:

    -It reasonably reflects data transmission rates (which are really cheap).
    -It is not priced to discourage competition from the network providers other businesses (example - cable internet priced to discourage online video).
    -Rates will adjust as the market adjusts ($10 for 100GB now, but in 5 years when the network has expanded and sped up it might be $5).

    But what we've seen with every proposed plan by the major telco/cableco is none of those things. They are pure money grabs and blatantly transparent in their desire to kill competitors.

    Heavy users negatively effect the bandwidth for the rest of us, just like heavy users of gasoline affect gasoline prices by driving demand up.

    Gas prices go up because there is a finite amount of oil on the planet that can be refined into gasoline, and its getting tougher and harder to get at the remaining portions. While there is technically a finite amount of bandwidth at any given time, bandwidth gets cheaper as technology improves.

    There is no supply and demand economics currently in place to affect internet consumption.

    Yes, but not because of what you say. There's no supply/demand pricing because nearly everyone is stuck picking from a few entrenched monopolies/duopolies to get their internet access, and those companies all have similar rates and limitations.

  • On the post: AT&T's New Scheme To Double Charge For Data: Call It A 1-800 Number For Internet Content

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 07:50am

    Doomed to fail

    AT&T, if it actually puts this in place, is intentionally making their network less efficient.

    How?

    Overhead.

    Instead of simply tracking how much data Bob is using, now they also have to track whether that data came from a "free bandwidth" app or not. Instead of trying to make their network more efficient, they are deliberately adding inefficiencies.

    Then there are some other problems. How to actually accomplish this technically? I see a few possibilities.

    1) Have the app set some type of flag in the packets it sends
    2) Have the phone set a flag on the packets it sends from an approved list of apps.
    3) Have a list of destination URLs/IPs where approved traffic going to/from doesn't count.

    Maintaining #3 would be a nightmare. People will quickly discover #1 and #2 and exploit them, either by writing apps that do so without paying AT&T's toll, or jailbreaking their phones to do it.

  • On the post: AT&T's New Scheme To Double Charge For Data: Call It A 1-800 Number For Internet Content

    Josh in CharlotteNC ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 07:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: _sigh_

    Strictly speaking, half the people you meet are of below median intelligence.

    /mathnazioff

Next >>