Keroberos 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (557) comment rss

  • On the post: Free Software Foundation Certifies 3D Printer — And Why That Matters

    Keroberos ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2012 @ 08:14am

    Re:

    You're missing something here. If you are the manufacturer of a product, and a key piece of your product that's necessary for its safe functioning is so prone to failure that there's a market for shoddy counterfeit parts--your problem's not the counterfeit parts--it's the originals, and you might want to recall them to be fixed before you get sued.

  • On the post: Free Software Foundation Certifies 3D Printer — And Why That Matters

    Keroberos ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2012 @ 07:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    OK, replace "3D printer" with "CNC machine", or "welding robot" or "injection molder". The majority of the items that we use today have been manufactured by automated machinery with little to no human contact. Hell, everything that's been made out of plastic is done with injection molders, and most metal objects are either molded, stamped or made on a CNC machine which are all functionally similar to a 3D printer--operator fills it with raw materials, presses a button to start it, walks away. None of the manufacturers of these machines would be held responsible for failures in the design of or materials used in the items that their machines make--and they definitely wouldn't be held responsible for operator error. Why should we hold the 3D printer manufacturers responsible for these things?

  • On the post: Leaked White House Report Finds No Evidence Of Huawei Spying

    Keroberos ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2012 @ 05:52pm

    Problems that could lead to exploitable security flaws? You can say the same about all computer/networking equipment/software.

  • On the post: Dancing Baby Video Fight Heads Back To Court: Will A Bogus Takedown Finally Get Punished?

    Keroberos ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2012 @ 02:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Hyperbolic Mike!

    And on an amusing related note--copyright, which is being used to stifle speech, is unconstitutional.

  • On the post: Dancing Baby Video Fight Heads Back To Court: Will A Bogus Takedown Finally Get Punished?

    Keroberos ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2012 @ 02:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hyperbolic Mike!

    Yeah, those stupid First Amendment lawyers got their greedy hands on it and stretched it way out past where it's supposed to be.
    Hmm...How so?

    Here's the text of the First Amendment in its entirety:
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Hmm...Nothing there describing what type of speech is free and what isn't. I guess maybe the founding fathers meant ALL speech to be free.

  • On the post: It Is Easy For People To Miss Disruptive Trends

    Keroberos ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2012 @ 11:50am

    Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".

    Typical reading comprehension fail.

  • On the post: Dancing Baby Video Fight Heads Back To Court: Will A Bogus Takedown Finally Get Punished?

    Keroberos ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2012 @ 11:40am

    Re: Hyperbolic Mike!

    Hmm...by your own admission Mike should ban you from posting and remove all of your previous posts, because I'm sure there are plenty of people on this site that would consider your speech here of low degree of importance.

    It's a good thing for you that most of us here believe in free speech for all--in particular those that we don't necessarily agree with.

  • On the post: Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age

    Keroberos ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2012 @ 05:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I did read the rest of the post. I'm questioning the use of the subjective term "best". A more accurate, objective way of stating that would be "they are saying it's harming our currently largest sources of music"

    I could give two craps if musicians can make money or not on recorded music sales--I prefer having my music preformed live in a small venue so I can actually enjoy it.

    Piracy is a side effect of the market telling the content creators what they want--they don't want albums, they want singles at a price they find reasonable. All of the digital music stores don't seem to be having any trouble making money. People are tired of paying $15-$20 for two good songs and a bunch of crap. So yeah--recorded music sales are tanking.

    I don't buy, and I also don't pirate. there are plenty of sources for good, cheap/free music that there is no need to.

  • On the post: Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age

    Keroberos ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2012 @ 12:09am

    Re: ...and btw: THANKS!

    Meh...already know all of those. But a rather amusing site. It's just chocked full of content industry FUD. It's good for a giggle or two though.

  • On the post: Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age

    Keroberos ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2012 @ 11:54pm

    Re:

    ...they are saying it's harming our best sources of music.
    [citation needed].

    Many of us don't consider the record labels "our best sources of music".
    ...the reality is that the best artists, the most popular ones, are no longer recording or creating new music on a regular basis, and are instead touring...The results are there, we have moved from album every year in the late 60s, early 70s to album every other year (80s and 90s) to the current 2 or 3 a decade pace for most artists.
    Could it possibly be because they've realized that the selling of shiny plastic discs isn't what's making them money--but touring does?
    Yes, there are more unknown artists turning out unknown music, getting played mostly in unknown places. What the people generally crave, what they generally seek isn't the unknown, but the known.
    Again, [citation needed].
    ...but it's not clear that the majority of people will enjoy the resulting product.
    Who knows? Maybe they'll enjoy it more. Recorded music sales are tanking--in particular CD's. Why should we prop up a business model that the consumers obviously don't want?

  • On the post: Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age

    Keroberos ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2012 @ 11:29pm

    Re: Re: RE: Piracy Will Kill Music

    Who said anything about artists giving their art away?

    Humans have been making music since we've been humans--and musicians have been finding ways to be compensated for their art all that time. Recorded music has only existed for about 100 years--and going by the record labels own numbers over 90% of "professional musicians" never see a dime of money from their recorded music sales. So in all honesty, how can anyone defend recorded music sales as being a good thing for musicians. It's real good for the record labels though, which is what this whole "piracy is killing music" BS is about.

    This article says nothing about tape trading or bit torrent file sharing. It's about looking for new ways--or old ways--of monetizing music. If the record labels don't want to come along with us (or are too stupid to figure out that you have to give your customers what they want in order to stay in business)--that's their problem (and I for one won't shed any tears for them).

  • On the post: Hacking The Future: Anonymity Matters

    Keroberos ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2012 @ 03:41pm

    If they outlaw anonymity on the Internet, only outlaws will have anonymity on the Internet.

    There are already plenty of tools that you can use to remain anonymous on the Internet if you so wish. All of the bad actors will use these tools and continue to be bad actors regardless of whether they outlaw anonymity or not.

    It boggles my mind that anyone can think that "MOAR LAWZ" is ever going to be a solution to anything.

  • On the post: Pandora: We're Helping Artists Make Millions & We'd Like To Keep Doing That

    Keroberos ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re:

    I keep wondering why artists are not complaining much more about how things like this keep their audience from even hearing about them in the first place.
    Many are. The problem is all the artists still locked into the the record labels may not be aware of how much services like these are helping them reach new fans--and generate new revenue. The record labels like to keep it this way--the more artists that realize they no longer need them, the less likely they it is that they can get these artists to sign new contracts with them.

  • On the post: Xbox DRM Punishes More Paying Customers And Actually Restricts Purchasing Options

    Keroberos ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2012 @ 06:06am

    Re:

    Buying it and then endlessly whining that it won't give you more than you paid for is silly.
    But not buying it won't change anything either. The only thing that works is complaining about shitty products ("endlessly whining"). Cases proving this. This would not have happened without people "endlessly whining" about being treated like shit.

  • On the post: Congress: Fear Chinese Networking Companies! But Ignore That China Makes All Our Networking Equipment!

    Keroberos ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2012 @ 06:57am

    Re:

    If China is such a Big-Market, why does every body clamor to get access to the US market? Including China.
    Simple. US dollars. The majority of international trade is done in dollars. Sure, foreign countries and companies can just buy their dollars straight from the US government--but at a disadvantage to their own economy or business, or they can sell their goods to the US and get their dollars with no economic loss to themselves.

    On a related note, this is much of the reason behind the US government's scaremongering about China. If China's Yuan (or any other country's currency) were to emerge as a replacement for the US dollar in international trade, it could be disastrous for the US economy--if no one wants to buy dollars, the US can no longer cover such huge budget deficits with currency sales (we need more money? print it and sell it overseas)--massive economic meltdown in the US.

  • On the post: Yes: Breaking Web Articles Into Multiple Pages Is A Pain

    Keroberos ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2012 @ 04:50am

    Re: Re:

    Umm, really long page load times for us with internet speeds full of suck.

  • On the post: Yes: Breaking Web Articles Into Multiple Pages Is A Pain

    Keroberos ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2012 @ 04:41am

    Re:

    I agree with this. Some of the review sites I read have 10 plus medium resolution images per page in a 10 plus page review. That would take some time to load on a slow mobile/home connection. Not all of us are lucky to have fast home internet connections--mine would not have been considered very fast even 10 years ago--today it's just a sad joke--a five minute drive away, that's not even an option.

  • On the post: Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter The Public Domain? The Data Says… No

    Keroberos ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re: There's another (bad) argument: sabotage!

    No, the public domain helps in the creation of new works. Case in point--the movie that spawned the zombie craze Night of the Living Dead has been public domain since it's release--has that stopped anyone (including its creator) from profiting from zombie movies/books? No it probably helped--it took years for it to become a financial and critical success, under copyright it would have disappeared, with no subsequent works being created--and quess what? Its still making money. Another thing is distibution. With public domain works becoming easily accessible on the internet--do you think the current creators would continue to drag their feet in entering a 21st century distribution model?

    But really, even at it's original length (14 years--28 with extension) do you think new stuff would have any trouble competing? I highly doubt that. Creative works are unique in themselves and can't be easily replaced with something else. A new version of Star Wars--no matter how good--cannot replace the original (look at the stink the fans raise every time George Lucas changes the originals).

    Here's a better idea for helping new works compete. Quality, if new works had to compete with newer public domain works, quality and originality would have to increase--one of the stated purposes of copyright in the constitution.

  • On the post: Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter The Public Domain? The Data Says… No

    Keroberos ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2012 @ 10:07am

    Re: what about...

    ...but it seems to me that this article ignores the strongest argument in favor of copyrights: the very inherent right/good principle of it.
    No, there is no inherent right/good principle of copyright because the only way you can ever solely own an idea is to not express it. Once you express an idea--be it literature, a movie/play, music or anything, it is now owned by all the people who experienced it (once you give/show something to me--it is mine). Copyright was created to allow the creative people in society to have some limited control over their expression in order to try and make a living off of it and continue creating--this is the important bit, and the one that people get confused over. Copyright in the US was not created so you could profit from your work--it was created so you had a financial incentive to create more. Perpetual copyright would dampen that creativity--why work hard to create more when you can profit off of what you created before.

    Why should a creators family profit after the creators death? They had nothing to do with the creation. My family won't get to collect a paycheck from my place of employment after I die--so why should they?

  • On the post: Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter The Public Domain? The Data Says… No

    Keroberos ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2012 @ 09:28am

    Re: Re: There's another (bad) argument: sabotage!

    If Star Wars were in the public domain, people might watch it without paying...
    This is actually probably all you would be able to do (except the porn--that should fall under fair use/parody). Everyone seems to forget that the name "Star Wars", character names and likenesses, place names, and other various bits would still be covered under trademark laws. So as long as Lucasfilm is still using the Star Wars IP all of that stuff is still protected.

    The same is true for Mickey Mouse, if Steamboat Willie were to fall into the public domain, the only changes would be that you could watch it for free. Mickey would still be covered under trademark (and will be as long as Disney continues to use him as a mascot--basically forever), so very little would actually change.

Next >>