Joshua Bardwell 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (65) comment rss

  • On the post: Dear Ari Emanuel: We're All Meeting On The Internet, Come Join Us

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 02:42pm

    Re: Don't Shoot the Messenger

    I think there's another analogy that fits Ari's side more closely, although it took me a while to come up with it.

    I took the "roads" analogy literally, and thought of the DOT, which regulates private activity on the roads. But that's no good, because Google is not a regulatory agency in any sense.

    So what's an example of a private entity--a carrier, if you will--that has legal requirements with regard to the content that it carries? Well, you could argue that UPS is legally required to report contraband if it becomes aware of it, right? Granted, UPS is a carrier, and Google is technically a directory, but I think that line gets a bit blurred on the Internet.

    Now, of course, we're back to the child porn analogy, and Mike's response is sound. I think the whole, "roads" analogy is flawed, though, and I don't blame Ari for seeing it differently than we do.

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 09:57am

    Re:

    Another place where child pornography becomes ambiguous is when it is difficult to determine whether the actor is a minor, or is indented to represent a minor or not. A notable example of this is the case in which a man was accused of having child pornography, and the actor, Lupe Fuentes, actually appeared in court to exonerate him.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/porn-star-lupe-fuentes-appears-puerto-rico-court-vindicates-man-accused-of-child-porn-possession

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 09:55am

    Re: Child pornography - legal or not?

    I think you're wrong about this in the US. 18 USC 2256 defines child pornography as including: "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

  • On the post: Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 04:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Also, it just irritates the piss out of me when I hear someone blathering about OH NOES A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON THE HORRORS. It's as if they're saying, "Oh noes! A fuel injected car! The horrors!" I just roll my eyes. But in Mike's case, I want him to be better than that.

  • On the post: Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 04:32pm

    Re: Re:

    I think that it does matter, or I wouldn't have said anything. I agree that the inaccurate reporting about the gun is secondary to the civil rights violation that occurred when he was arrested. Nevertheless, it just goes back to basic reporting: get the facts right. This is an important fact that has been reported incorrectly, and it has serious legal and political implications. That those implications are not directly relevant to the blog's domain doesn't make them less serious.

  • On the post: Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 03:00pm

    Re:

    A correction, that is.

  • On the post: Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2012 @ 02:55pm

    He saw police in the station carrying semi-automatic weapons (an unfortunately common site in Penn Station), and he decided to photograph them with his phone.

    I wish that Firearms 101 was a part of every journalist's basic education.

    Semi-automatic weapons are simply weapons that load the next round without any action from the user when a round is fired. In other words, a pump-action shotgun is not semiauto, because you have to rack the slide after firing to load the next round. A lever-action rifle is not semiauto because you have to work the lever. A bolt-action rifle is not semiauto... etc...

    Every. Single. Pistol. That you see a police officer carrying in the US is semiauto. Every. Single. Police. Officer. That you see in the US is carrying a semiauto weapon in their belt holster.

    Now, I realize that you are just parroting what the original source said, but that's no excuse. If he said they were carrying knives and it was obvious they actually had guns, you would probably point out that he was mistaken. If he said they were from SFPD but they were really State Patrol, you might point that out.

    Why does this matter? Because misconceptions about guns factor into what laws get passed. Want to pass a law restricting the possession of semiautomatic firearms? Hell yes! It's got the word "auto" in it. That must be bad, right? Wrong. Automatic weapons, which fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, are a whole different beast, legally, and functionally, from semiauto ones, which are the bread and butter of all modern firearms. This is exactly like when people confuse trademark, patent, and copyright law, and people like Mike speak out vehemently to clarify the confusion, because it matters when confused people try to mis-apply the law, or, worse yet, pass new laws based on mis-understanding of the facts.

    Please update the article with a correct. Thank you.

  • On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2012 @ 11:20am

    "For a long time, the copyright industry has cried foul over technical progress, and demanded taxpayer compensation for how these new developments circumvent their existing privileges."

    Rick, this is really a masterfully constructed sentence. There is so much that you've done right in the way you've framed the situation here. Kudos.

  • On the post: The Things You Learn When You Send A Freedom Of Information Act Request About What The Gov't Knows About You

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re:

    It's not like it's hard to click through the the original article and see what else is on her site.

  • On the post: The Things You Learn When You Send A Freedom Of Information Act Request About What The Gov't Knows About You

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    FurryGirl is both a blogger and a pornographer. She cross-links her sites. That's all that's going on here. Her sex-work activism is in no way a "front" for her porn.

  • On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2012 @ 08:05am

    Re: Wah. What a little baby.

    I didn't read it as, "gift free copies of the movie," I read it as, "buy the movie and send it to your friend as a gift."

    As for Netflix's costs: let's remember that the bulk of those costs are licensing fees to studios. Netflix's business model is more lean than any other distribution model in existence. They could make a lot more with a lot less. But the studios are fixed on bleeding them dry with licensing fees. Of course when the people you rely on to provide you with product are intent on over-charging you and driving you out of business, you'll probably eventually go out of business. This is not an indictment of Netflix's business model.

  • On the post: Megaupload Indictment Shows That Google Does Actively Police Against Its Ads Showing Near Infringement

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2012 @ 07:59am

    Re: Well, of course

    The obvious implication is, "copyrighted content for which we do not believe you hold the rights."

  • On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 23 Jan, 2012 @ 03:11pm

    Re: I'm the opposite...

    I do the same thing. My primary reason is that I don't trust the safety of the scanners, especially the backscatter machines. But my secondary reason is that I want to make explicit the invasive interaction that is occurring. My third reason is that it costs them more to pat me down than to scan me, and it slows down the line, so I see it as a mild form of civil disobedience.

  • On the post: Louis CK: Over $1 Million In Sales In Just 12 Days For DRM-Free Download

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 22 Dec, 2011 @ 03:56pm

    Re:

    I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that things like website expenses and paying employees count as business expenses, for which you don't pay taxes. You only pay taxes on profits, not revenue. Or he'd pay personal income taxes on whatever he pays himself.

  • On the post: Dutch Collection Society Found To Be Source Of Infringing Content

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2011 @ 07:48am

    Re:

    This may be too obvious, but Bittorrent is not "the web". Or were they using "the web" as a proxy for "the Internet as a whole." I mean, if they were blocking port 80 and 443 on that IP range, their statement could be true, and they could still have downloaded the files.

    This is also consistent with the email originating from an address in that range. SMTP is not "the web".

  • On the post: Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 08:35am

    Re:

    Yes. This. You can say, "The ratings agencies' opinion shouldn't matter all you want," but my understanding is that the change in rating directly equates to higher interest rates on US debt. In that respect, it absolutely does matter, and there is absolutely something to get worked up about.

  • On the post: Comcast Hijacks Mac Firefox Users' Homepage; Offers Blame Game And Faux Apology In Return

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 02:47pm

    Re:

    +1+1+1

    If your OS has a TCP/IP stack, that's all you need to get on the Internet. ISP crapware is completely unnecessary.

  • On the post: Zero-Sum Economics

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 01:50pm

    Re:

    That was actually my exact thought.

  • On the post: Get Accused Of Copyright Infringement Under New Five Strikes Plan? It'll Cost You To Challenge

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2011 @ 08:37pm

    Re: Time For Action

    The problem with this is that, in many areas, customers do not have the option to subscribe to an ISP that doesn't implement this policy. For example, only Comcast services my home with broadband Internet. Nobody else, unless I want to go satellite, which I don't consider to be a viable alternative for performance reasons. Even in a more urban area, there may only be Comcast and AT&T or Time Warner.

  • On the post: Just Because Two Things Are Similar Doesn't Mean One 'Rips Off' The Other

    Joshua Bardwell ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Again, I'm at a loss here. Yes, they're both boys, and there's a blue background in both images... but that's about it. Suggesting that one is a "copy" of the other seems ridiculous.

    I basically agree with you, but there's more similarity to the two "boy crying" images than you mention. The lighting is very similar, as is the use of HDR. Well, I'm pretty sure the first image uses HDR. The second one, I'm not 100%, but if HDR wasn't used, it's lit in a way that produces a similar result--as if somebody wanted to create an HDR effect but didn't know how to do HDR. As for the lighting, notice that the background isn't just flat blue, but there's a highlight creating a halo gradient behind the boy.

    I'm not trying to make the argument that the second image owes anything to the first image. Even if the second image is explicitly copying the first one, nothing should be owed. I'm just saying that the similarities between the images are more than just "a boy crying." What makes the first image distinctive, to me, is the lighting and the use of HDR, which is still a new enough photographic technique that it stands out.

Next >>