Lauriel 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (126) comment rss

  • On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave

    Lauriel ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2012 @ 07:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Okay, I missed something there?

  • On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave

    Lauriel ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2012 @ 08:24pm

    Re:

    The Almighty Squiggle Line probably believes that "English" is a proper noun, deserving of a capital letter. Your obeisance to the Almighty Squiggle Line was wise, young Grasshopper. :)

  • On the post: Julian Assange's Ultimate Publicity Stunt: Running For Australian Senate?

    Lauriel ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 03:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: That will work HAHAHA

    You are aware that the Swedish definition of rape is different to other countries, right?

    Assange had consentual sex with both women. The rape allegation is over whether or not he wore a condom - an in both cases there is doubt over whether his objection is enough to constitute "rape", as he did concede to their request to wear one.

    I'm not saying the following is the be all and end all on the topic, but it is a good read to understand some of the issues on this particular subject. Feel free to research further on your own.

    http://thesydneyglobalist.org/archives/2017

  • On the post: Julian Assange's Ultimate Publicity Stunt: Running For Australian Senate?

    Lauriel ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 03:04pm

    Re:

    I have mixed feelings about this. I've donated to Wikileaks even with the financial blockade and I do believe the US is very wrong in many ways about all that is happening both to Wikileaks and Bradley.

    Agreed. Even the legit case they may have had against Manning has been soured by the methods they used.

    However, if he gets elected he'll get both a powerful tool to protect himself and to create a legal base for whistleblowers in Australia (making it potentially a safe heaven for such ppl). Of course it can go wrong...

    I'm not sure this is an issue? Having a tool to protect himself would only be a bad thing if he was guilty of something - which is highly contentious at this stage. The sexual assault allegations were raised and dropped - then raised again by lawyers when the whole Wikileaks thing gained publicity. The facts in this area are murky and dubious - on both sides.

    As for the legality of Wikileaks - again, highly contentious. Whether personal opinions tend towards his actions being right or wrong, legally there hasn't been a case made for his actions being illegal. If his actions are legal, Assange having some tools to protect himself may be a good thing.

    Finally, I'm not sure there is an issue with Australia becoming a safe haven for whistleblowers. "Safe haven" implies illegality - whistleblowing is a legal action, and doesn't require a safe haven from anything except extortion and aggressive persecution. Personally, I'm fine with Australia being a safe haven from those actions. (As a side note, it was interesting watching all the major Australian news outlets prominently display contacts for whistleblowers at the height of the Wikileaks publicity.)

    I think it's something to follow with interest rather than pure amusement.

    I also agree with this! Although I think the interesting aspect will be regarding the legality of Wikileaks, and the US Government's reactions to Wikileaks/Assange's actions.

    Personally, I think he has some great ideals, but is a bit of a tosser. Hell, it's a combination that probably makes for a successful politician! But I would like to see some of his ideals - especially regarding openness and transparency of government actions - become more of political focus. And running for government may achieve some of this. If Assange's ego doesn't get in the way.

  • On the post: Summit Entertainment Claims To Own The Date November 20, 2009; Issues Takedown On Art Created On That Day

    Lauriel ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 03:11am

    Re:

    Three strikes is a little harsh, don't you think? Better make it six strikes. And maybe give them a limited list of defences? Just so we don't seem too aggressive? That might work...

  • On the post: Julian Assange's Ultimate Publicity Stunt: Running For Australian Senate?

    Lauriel ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2012 @ 02:54am

    Re: Just a note from a pedant

    Actually, they are right. It is "Lawlor", when pronounced phonetically. As the article states, it was named after Peter Lalor, of the Eureka Stockade fame.

    For some reason, while we still pronounce Peter Lalor as "Lawlor", the pronunciation of the town has shifted to "Laylor". Unfortunately, this is largely due to a lack of understanding, but if enough people do it, the trend becomes the rule.

    My grandmother lived in Lalor when I was a child, and it was always pronounced "Lawlor" by the locals. Now even the locals seem to have shifted to "Laylor".

    *shrug* Its not a big deal, but the article was correct, as far as it goes.

  • On the post: Lester Chambers, Successful Musician Who Received No Royalties From '67 To '94, Planning To Sue

    Lauriel ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2012 @ 11:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Juxtaposition

    I suspect it's a throw-away line like "MegaConspiracy", added just to sound good with "Big Search" and "Big Tech". Because you can't complain that it's astroturfing without a "Big" someone or other behind the scenes.

  • On the post: Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'

    Lauriel ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2012 @ 06:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Option 2 sounds suspiciously like MegaVideo. Hmmm..

  • On the post: Workshop Audience Barred From 'Demonstrating' Approval Of Michael Geist's ACTA Takedown

    Lauriel ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2012 @ 11:19pm

    I love how applauding a speech is "infringing" on a rule determined after the fact. I now have complete confidence that ACTA would never be massively overreaching, nor abused in any way...

  • On the post: Only Hollywood Would Think That This 'Disc To Digital' Program Makes Sense

    Lauriel ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2012 @ 12:23am

    Re: Re: You missed the best quote from the article

    Not to mention that they'd just get the hard drive seized at the airport, because a digital copy of a movie must be infringing.

  • On the post: Only Hollywood Would Think That This 'Disc To Digital' Program Makes Sense

    Lauriel ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2012 @ 12:19am

    Re: Re: Consumer Friendly

    Clubbing baby seals is the only way to protect them from polar bears. Why are you against baby seals??

    /**AA logic.

  • On the post: Darrell Issa Posts Text Of 'Unconstitutional' ACTA For Open Feedback; Something USTR Never Did

    Lauriel ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Re: Worried

    Australia signed, and didn't bat an eyelid doing it. :(

  • On the post: DailyDirt: If I Could Catch Time In A Bottle…

    Lauriel ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 10:06pm

    Re: Time in a bottle

    +1 from another Jim Croce fan. :)

  • On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want

    Lauriel ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2012 @ 12:38am

    Re: Horsemanure!

    However, if you Google "Act of Valor", you get nothing but legal sites, and review sites/info sites. Therefore the problem in that search term must be the word "download". Imagine how many legal results would be returned if only there were an actual legal download to be found?

    The same if you search "Hugo". The movie even tops sites like Hugo Boss, the Hugo awards, and others. Ditto with "Hugo DVD". Again, how many legal search results would be at the top if there were any legal downloads on the net?

    The problem isn't Google's search algorithm. It is a simple lack of product on the market. Note that you didn't search for "illegal download"? Only "download". If there are simply no legal offerings, the only one that can possibly be returned is an illegal one, as the algorithm (not a person) tries to match the best solution (not a suggestion) to your request.

    If no one wanted downloads, there would be no issue with the search term. Solution: Give customers a legal option!!

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Lauriel ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2012 @ 09:53pm

    Re: Re: Filthy Technology

    Actually it leads to 'regretful morning's' site, with a link to '20 Bizarre examples of robot porn'.

    Having never known (nor thought of) robot porn, I had to Google it. Plus the thought of the new privacy thingy keeping that in the search history amused me. :)

    btw: Link NSFW, but the second picture is hysterical.

    http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENAU326&q=robot+porn&oq=robot+porn&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=443l3331l0l3941l9l8l0l0l0l0l904l1654l2.1.2.6-1l6l0

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    Lauriel ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What would the internet be without content? A network.
    What is the internet with content? A network.
    Ultimately what people are doing is accessing content (words, pictures, music, games, video).
    You say that like it's a bad thing.
    It really isn't a symbiotic relationship; it is a parasitic relationship, in which the internet companies use content owned by someone else for their gain.
    So boycott the internet. Leave all of us pesky parasites (also known as customers) to wallow in the dark and dismal lands of the intertubes without the guiding light that is your content. Let me know how that goes for you.
    If the internet companies want control over the content (not using DRM, free distribution, etc..) they need to create their own content.
    Great! Everyone except Hollywood thinks this is awesome. Only those used to being the only game in town feel threatened by this.
    In fact, this is happening right now. Companies like Google (through YouTube), Netflix, and Amazon are all creating original content for their services. Production is currently limited, and these companies may soon discover how expensive and unprofitable it really is to create content.
    Of course, you are completely right here. Amazon, Google and Netflix obviously have no idea how to make money on the internet. They are destined to fail spectacularly.

  • On the post: Twitter Sued For Defamation By Someone Who Thinks It's Responsible For 'Publishing' Tweets

    Lauriel ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2012 @ 12:38am

    Re: Medium

    What? With all that case law against pen and typewriter manufacturers to fall back on?

  • On the post: How The Megaupload Shutdown Has Put 'Cloud Computing' Business Plans At Risk

    Lauriel ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 10:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Not only do I agree with your point, you made me laugh out loud.

    +1 internets for you.

  • On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing

    Lauriel ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 01:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I noticed you completely avoided the education and healthcare questions because you couldn't find clever ways of avoiding the obvious comparisons.

    Sorry, what obvious comparisons? I'm a teacher. I get a flat rate, regardless of how many students in my class, or how many lessons I plan (and yes, some of those lessons manage to incorporate the occasional element of creativity).

    I don't have licensing fees per student or lesson, I don't get any fee if they use that lesson themselves down the line. How ridiculous would that be? Every teacher you ever had would be skimming off your wage.

    Teaching does, in fact, correlate with Bas' point - you pay the teacher for a service (their time, experience and skills), not for the product (classes and lessons). If a teacher came to you and told you that they were selling lessons, and that your further use of those lessons came with an EULA or licensing deal, what would you say?

  • On the post: Do Not Discuss The Movie You Just Saw

    Lauriel ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2012 @ 04:32pm

    Re:

    Funny Until Disproven?

Next >>