LostSailor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (187) comment rss

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 04:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Not me. Why, did you think that something that I said accurately described you? If so, then it wasn't without foundation, was it?

    You quite perceptively observed that "LostSailor" isn't my real name, but you also accused me of registering with a false identity, without foundation. Unless you've hacked into my registration files...

    How? I've seen the process for registering here and it certainly doesn't include identity verification.

    I never said it did, but you're making assumptions. I simply said Mike knows who I am.

    Direct answer: No, and no. Apologize now?

    Well, I'm heartily glad to hear it. I'll even be charitable and believe it. And, yes, you can apologize any time you like.

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 04:29pm

    Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Sure, as long as they are genuinely the video and not something being masked as a video. Are you saying that downloading a video via torrents can never infect your computer?

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 04:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    So, don't go to the store, if that's not your thing. Order from Amazon, stream it from Netflix.

    all to be told you are a criminal if you chose to watch this movie in any way other that the way the creator intended, which I might add is completely against the original point of copyright.

    Actually, that's not entirely true. Part of the purpose and mechanism of copyright is intended to do just that. Whether that's good or bad is another discussion. You seem to feel you're entitled to content in any way you want to feel entitled.

    Also, a pseudonym is only used to remain anonymous you asshat./i>

    Whatever you say "AW".

    Though it always amazes me that folks in comments here are just so damn     angry when confronted with even a hint of a differing opinion. Almost petulant.

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 04:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Bought any dvds lately? It takes me 3-5 minutes and two knives I keep just for the occasion to open modern movie and game dvd packages.

    Yes, I have. I usually have 'em out of the package in under a minute. Mildly annoying, but not as difficult to open as a lot of other packaging.

    My mom would have more trouble than I would, but then, she'd have even more trouble using torrents.

    As for rational discourse, I'm all for it. Just don't see much of it in comments here.

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 04:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Yet another false accusation. I was merely presenting an observation. You're on a roll now.

    No accusation at all. Merely a speculation based on what you wrote. Unless you have a guilty conscience...

    I understand that I really, really doubt that your mama named you "LostSailor" and that's your real name. You're just as anonymous as I am.

    I don't expect anyone here to get the inside joke in that name, and as I suspected you don't understand the difference between pseudonymous and anonymous.

    Why bother to register a false identity under a fake name? That doesn't seem very honest to me. To do so and then try to criticize others for posting anonymously takes a real hypocrite.

    Now who's making accusations without foundation! Mike knows who I am.

    But nice attempt to sidestep the issues with irrelevancies. Let me ask you directly: do you buy pirated DVDs? Do you support selling pirated DVDs from the trunk of a car?

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 03:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    For the vast majority of people, going to a store is a normal part of life; most people aren't scared of or put out by shopping.

    You also miss the point that you could just as easily go to your mailbox to get your latest Netflix delivery. You also miss the point that you could get the same movie legitimately streamed to your computer or TV. You also miss the point that for most people, getting movies by torrents is not as easy as it is for you.

    You can argue from you one-sided perspective, but that doesn't make it true. Okay, maybe it's true you're annoyed by trailers, but not everyone is.

    I'm just looking for a little balance in this discussion; it seems in short supply.

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 02:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    You really don't understand what an ad hominem is do you?

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 02:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    If you're not engaging in criminal activity, that's great! Good for you! But the clear implication is that you were (wise to be careful not to admit it in public).

    But you seem to be approving of criminal activity.

    And I'm pseudonymous, not anonymous, if you can understand the difference. I'm also registered here. Are you?

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 02:35pm

    Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    So...instead of engaging in non-criminal infringement by file sharing, you choose to engage in actual criminal activity to get DVDs. Interesting.

    But it explains why you'd want to be anonymous...

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 02:32pm

    Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Gee, a lot of people here seem to have significant problems with the usual aspect of living daily life. And even MORE problems unwrapping a bit of plastic film and opening a box.

    You guys don't get out much, do you?

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 02:29pm

    Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Of course I'm honest about criticizing it. Put all those steps you outlined into the graphic, and you'll have a good comparison. Most people don't have a problem with shopping for a DVD or opening their mail box to get a Netflix mailer.

  • On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition

    LostSailor ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2010 @ 02:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears

    Wow. You might want to take shopping lessons. While I rarely buy DVDs and don't make a special trip, when I am already out for other things, say, at Costco, it' just goes into the cart with other things I'd be shopping for anyway. If unwrapping a DVD causes you that much trouble, it might be the least of your problems.

  • On the post: Disney's Takedown Of Roger Ebert's Tribute To Gene Siskel

    LostSailor ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2010 @ 08:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage

    If you're going to be silly, there's no reason to listen to you. Copyright doesn't promote progress in general: it's progress in science and "useful arts". I doubt your lasagna qualifies.

  • On the post: Disney's Takedown Of Roger Ebert's Tribute To Gene Siskel

    LostSailor ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2010 @ 03:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage

    Actually, your point is not the point. How is having the video on his blog promoting progress? That there isn't an obvious reason for Disney to remove the video doesn't mean there isn't one.

    Promoting progress is a very generalized concept that is not suited to small, highly individualized events.

    And while I certainly have no particular love for the Disney Corporation, I question whether they would have even known that the video was on the blog at all. I note that the quoted piece said that Ebert embedded the video there and the fact that he didn't know it had been removed indicates that he embedded it from a third-party site. If Disney contested it on that third-party site, they would have no specific reason to know where it was embedded.

    I also don't necessarily have a problem with making a moral argument in favor of Ebert, but if such an argument is made, then you also have to consider the moral arguments in favor of copyright, something that Mike, at least, has been unwilling to do.

  • On the post: Disney's Takedown Of Roger Ebert's Tribute To Gene Siskel

    LostSailor ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2010 @ 02:25pm

    Re: Re: A Fine Example of Moral Outrage

    Well, anonymous, that's not quite true. As Mike often points out, the purpose of copyright is the promotion of progress in science and art. While the mechanism of that promotion is economic, indeed monetary, the economics is not the primary purpose.

    But tell me where the economic issue is in this story? Indeed, where is the promotion of progress element in this story? This story is indeed a fine example of an emotional, morally outraged response to a copyright issue.

    I'll let you insults pass. I've come to expect them from people who can't deal rationally with an issue.

  • On the post: Disney's Takedown Of Roger Ebert's Tribute To Gene Siskel

    LostSailor ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2010 @ 01:40pm

    A Fine Example of Moral Outrage

    An emotional tug at the heartstrings, Mike. And a fine example of moral outrage.

    Except I thought the moral component of copyright issues were supposed to be beyond the pale, unworthy of being considered in what is consistently framed as an issue of economics. You chide any defenders of copyright who make a "moral" argument that they just have to get beyond the emotion and accept economic reality.

    But yet, moral arguments seem to be okay from the other side?

    I feel as badly as everyone else here that Ebert couldn't watch the video of his friend one more time. Assuming he never had tapes or discs of the shows they did together.

    Notice that they think it's Disney again. How nice of them to repeatedly take down the videos of Ebert's tribute to his close friend. Just like copyright law intended.

    Well, yes. They took down videos of shows they produced and owned, for which Ebert and Roper were paid for their performances. Presumably this was all agreed to contractually, and Ebert knew what he was doing. Apparently Ebert's relationship with Disney did not end well. But there is not indication in this piece whether Ebert ever even asked about posting this tribute to his dear friend.

  • On the post: Grateful Dead Always Knew How To Connect With Fans

    LostSailor ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2010 @ 02:37pm

    Re: Dead right

    Some people complained, but most fans did not. The taping community in particular aggressively policed its own ranks for anyone who was trading official album releases or who was trying to sell audience-made concert tapes. The most anyone might have been allowed to get away with was charging for the cost of the blank cassettes (or other media) and postage. But the rule generally was, if you wanted a show, you send blank tapes with a return mailer--no money changing hands.

  • On the post: Public Knowledge Pushes Five Point Plan For Copyright Reform

    LostSailor ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2010 @ 11:36am

    Orphaned Works Needs to Be Included.

    For the record, as a defender of copyright, I agree with all 5 points, and have suggested all of them at one time or another in comments.

    I haven't read the underlying proposal, so I don't know how they've fleshed out these rather vague ideas, especially number 3.

    And I would certainly echo the need someone posted above for adding one more point to deal with "orphaned works." I know that this issue has already been discussed in Congress, though I don't recall any proposed legislation, and a reform to copyright law in this area is actually more likely to be passed. This would go quite a long way to addressing one of the most frequent complaints about copyright: works that are no longer commercially available, and cannot be made available because the copyright holder is either unknown or cannot be determined. Think books that have been long out of print or films that are unavailable and in danger of being lost. Also applies to music.

    As for reducing the term of copyright, that's clearly not going to happen anytime soon. These are good first steps in copyright reform, ones that have a decent chance of at least being seriously considered by legislators. If you try to cram changes of copyright term in there, you only severely hurt the chances of moving forward on these first steps.

  • On the post: Copyright Damages Out Of Control: $51 Million For Satellite Cracking App?

    LostSailor ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2010 @ 02:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Sorry, meant to post the link.

    The decision is available here.

  • On the post: Copyright Damages Out Of Control: $51 Million For Satellite Cracking App?

    LostSailor ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2010 @ 02:20pm

    Re:

    Now that I've read at least part of the decision, it's clear that this guy was specifically distributing files whose sole purpose was to break Dish Network's encryption. It was even a summary judgment.

    The circumvention of the encryption allows viewers access to all Dish Network channels, including all premium channels for which one would normally pay sometime hundreds of dollars a month.

    The court could have awarded damages either under the communication act or the DMCA. Under the communications act, he could have awarded $500,000 per violation, which is defined as a download. Under DMCA, it could have been anywhere from $200 to $2,500 per download.

    The judge imposed the minimum damages of $200 each for 255,741 downloads, or $51 million.

    So this is hardly a crazy or excessive award, especially considering if only a fraction of those who downloaded used it, could result in many more millions in losses.

Next >>