MyNameHere 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (633) comment rss

  • On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 08 Jul, 2017 @ 05:52am

    Answer me this (everyone except Thad)

    I have to ask, because nobody ever seems to answer it properly:

    How does adding the provision of DRM to the html standard suddenly "break" anything? Can't sites that choose not to use DRM just keep going as always?

    It's a serious quesiton, because the claims of "breaking" the internet always seem to come off as "taking away our free lunch". So I am open to hearing the real reasons why (without insults, thanks, it's a serious question).

  • On the post: Study: Dutch Piracy Rates In Free Fall Due Mostly To The Availability Of Legal Alternatives

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2017 @ 01:36pm

    You said:

    "it's clear that BREIN's attempts to make pirated content less available isn't much of a factor for those that have ceased pirating that content. "

    Story says:

    "The popularity of free downloading for content has fallen sharply in the last few years, as more streaming alternatives become available, as people get better access to pay services and amid a sharpening fight against illegal downloads."

    Even the story points directly at the fight against illegal downloads.

    Availability of legal services is very important (duh!), but at the same time making the illegal source less attractive is a real boost as well. If fewer people are using P2P, and those who do use it are seeding less / leaving their connection open less then the general availability of torrents drops. That in turn makes the legal alternatives look better.

    There will always be piracy, someone people will always go down that road. Changes in the landscape means that the vast majority (those in the middle ground) are more likely to use legal services and avoid the hassles and risks of P2P.

  • On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 09:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tool argument

    A) Why should billboard ad companies not be allowed to have nudes, insults, angry memes, and racist statements on them?

    B) That's their problem. I call it a business model problem.

    Most of the social media sites have poor reporting functions, and limited review staff. When compared to the "lifetime" of a post (often only hours or days of relevancy) it means that reporting systems are not effective. Facebook as an example can take a week or longer to respond to a flagged post, if they respond at all. Many sites (such as twitter) seem to provide flagging as a way for you to filter what you see, but not as a tool specifically designed to find bad content.

    "Yes, damn that uncontrolled free speech thing"

    I don't damn free speech. However, I understand that free speech has it's limits, and those limits are different in different societies. Even the US, which is about the most open, still has some serious limits on what is considered protected free speech. Free speech is not unlimited, and not without harm to others. Civilized society can see the difference and move forward.

    "And what 'different way' could they have gone with that wouldn't have killed off the platforms before they ever took off?"

    The flagging and review systems really need to have a shorter cycle in keeping with the nature of the systems. Flagged posts should be reviewed quickly, and those which violate the community standards (and / or the law) should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

    See, for me, that is the key. If a twitter post is only relevant for hours, the flag and check process shouldn't take days, it should take minutes. Facebook, where posts maybe go for days, it should happen within say an hour.

    I also think that social networks could do really well with keyword scanning, looking for terms that may violate the law or violate community standards.

    In the end, it gets back to deciding to have a business model and concept that accepts that free speech is not absolutely, utterly, and completely unlimited. Accepting that some things are offensive enough to be actionable, and should be dealt with before they blow up (and properly killed off if they do) should be key.

    Is there a perfect solution? Probably not. But the half hearted (and often non-existent) methods currently in place clearly are lacking, enough that some governments feel the need to write laws. Written laws usually suck and aren't easy to implement, but they exist for good reason. Failure to take action without the law has lead to the law, there really isn't much more to say.

  • On the post: Indie Developer Finds Game On Torrent Site, Gives Away Free Keys Instead Of Freaking Out

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 08:42pm

    Re: Re:

    I understand it. But if you are a paying customer, it's not a nice feeling to realize you paid for all the freeloaders. Next game comes out, and the paying customers are lining up with the freeloaders, because they know as soon as it's cracked, everyone gets it for free.

    All the "fans" in the world can't buy you a cup of coffee, let alone pay for development of a new product.

  • On the post: 'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 06:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: All in a name!

    I don't think it's about being a "government censor" any more than making a billboard company take down a pro-nazi billboard or making a TV Channel not run the "Kill that n----r" show. There is no (sane) reason why the internet should not be subject to the same sorts of laws as other media.

    All the German government is trying to do is to make social media work in the same manner as any other publishing firm might work - bearing at least some responsibility for the material that they publish. That I can publish on the open internet what I cannot publish in a public place is a situation that won't work out in the long run.

    It's not about picking sides, it's about being smart enough to see reality, especially as the internet becomes as common as walking on the street.

  • On the post: Indie Developer Finds Game On Torrent Site, Gives Away Free Keys Instead Of Freaking Out

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 07:25pm

    Mostly because he figured out that he was f--ked already, so why fight it? The ship already sailed without him, the 'interwebthingie' decided that for him.

  • On the post: 'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 07:27am

    Re: Re: All in a name!

    Yet, on the other side, everyone around here seems to want no regulation for anyone else. Youtube? Facebook? Reddit? No rules for them, keep your hands off, even as Google and Facebook between them make billions in quarterly profits, mostly off of your personal information.

    The pro regulation crowd sort of shuffle their feet and start talking about the weather when you get to that point.

  • On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 25th – July 1st

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 02:03am

    Re: Re: fucked in the arse hole cunts

    I think Leigh is still hung over from Canada Day. Too much bacon.

  • On the post: 'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2017 @ 06:40am

    The quesiton is who is stuffing the ballot box. Someone who supports net neutrality could make a real fuss by stuffing for the other side, right?

  • On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2017 @ 02:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tool argument

    I think you make a simple mistake here: The German law is being pushed because the companies were not proactive towards cleaning up the sh-t on their sites. A girl can get banned off of Facebook for posting a nipple but hate mongers go on and on without stop.

    The law is a reaction to what is out there, and the uncontrolled nature of it. Facebook (and other social media outlets) could have chosen a different way, but did not.

    The chickens are home to roost.

  • On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2017 @ 01:45am

    Re: Re: The tool argument

    Scale?

    Let's talk scale of profits. Facebook made 10 billion last year profit - 45% operating margin.

    Now, let's say the sacrifice 1/10 of that - 1 billion, and hire a bunch of people at 40k a year (don't hire them in silicon valley!). Let's see, that gets you 25,000 staff. Now, I know they can't read word for word every post, but when combined with a proper flagging system, almost any post could be spotted and dealt with quickly.

  • On the post: RIAA Trashes Its Legacy As A 1st Amendment Supporter By Cheering On Global Internet Censorship

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2017 @ 03:28am

    Re: Re: I can tell you are angry

    No, it does not.

    DMCA clearly has regulations in regards to false claims. Companies (such as Google) have chosen not to fight these claims, which is their own failing in the matter. They have also chosen to remove content directly rather than expose the actual producer of the content to direct legal responsibility. There is nothing in DMCA that requires immediate removal, that is a choice made by those who receive the notices.

    The vast majority of DMCA notices are valid on their face. There are exceptional cases where DMCA is used in a clearly illegal fashion by people trying to block content they do not like, that is a sad situation.

    Google's own transparency report shows 2.49 billion DMCA notices with 90% being "URLs approved". Rejected and invalid URLs make up less than 4% of that number (duplicates are higher at 5%).

    My comment before has been "voted" into hiding by Techdirt users. Your pithy but incorrect comment gets upvoted. Gotta love that!

  • On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2017 @ 02:58am

    The tool argument

    I am always sort of fascinated with the "tool" argument.

    "If people are posting "illegal" content, go after them for breaking the law. Don't go after the tools they use."

    This would be a good argument if you were talking about say a word processor or a spreadsheet. It would make sense because those tools are in the user's control exclusively and the creator has no control over it's use.

    That's not the case for a website. Ultimately, the owner of a website is in control. They can decide to accept a post or not (as Techdirt apparently quietly does), they can choose to filter, modify, or delete anything at any time - it's their site, they control it.

    To say that they don't have control is to ignore the very basic idea: At any time, the site owner can say "enough" and turn it off. It's the sort of control that cannot be denied or wished away.

    Germany is taking the opposite choice from Section 230 in the US. They are not denying reality and instead are pushing to make it clear that ownership is responsibility.

    You may not love it, but it seems in some ways their new law is more in keeping with reality.

  • On the post: Zillow Only Kinda Backs Down From Dubious McMansion Hell Threats Following EFF's Engagement

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2017 @ 01:43pm

    Re: Re: My prediction yesterday that you'd end up wrong came true already! -- You say Zillow pulled back but "McMansion" is NOT free to use those images, now is it?

    1. The site is now a single page promoting the EFF

      2. It's not a concession, it's good sense from someone who likely agreed to this to avoid future troubles

      3. Fair use is still an affirmative defense, and Zillow would be well within their rights to ask a judge to rule. Outside of pure mainstream media and education, there are few "clear" fair use rights that are truly "clear". Your analysis is good and would likely reflect the court's line of thought.

      4 . I think Ninja just called you an asshole by accident.

  • On the post: RIAA Trashes Its Legacy As A 1st Amendment Supporter By Cheering On Global Internet Censorship

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2017 @ 01:37pm

    I can tell you are angry

    This is the sort of post you sort of wish you didn't make. It's clear that you are angry posting and not actually dealing with the reality of the situation.

    RIAA isn't promoting censorship. Well, they are if you fall for the silly notion that copyright violates your first amendment rights - or whatever free speech is called in Canada. The truth is that it does not, SCOTUS already told that guy you idolized but almost never mention any more.

    Truth is the RIAA is cheering for what is good for it's business, for it's artists, and as a result, for the public.

    I know you are angry. Please take the weekend off and have a beer (or whatever it is that you have) and relax. When you get the acceptance step of grieving, you will feel better.

  • On the post: As Predicted, Cox's Latest Appeal Points To SCOTUS' Refusal To Disconnect Sex Offenders From Social Media

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2017 @ 04:57am

    Re: Re:

    I agree with you on this, but the number of ISPs that are willing to turn data over is pretty small, it seems. Most of the stories you read here are about ISPs giving lawyers and such the middle finger when they come calling.

    There will always be someone who will abuse the system. They are the ones that getting written up and as a result the stories you read. But like patents, there are literally millions of patents and a small handful used by trolls. The trolls get written up, the rest are not reported. If you go only by the extreme examples you see written up, it's easy to get mislead.

  • On the post: Three Thoughts On EU's $2.7 Billion Antitrust Google Fine

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2017 @ 03:26am

    Re: Free Market?

    Google has created a situation through hard work, a little luck, a browser, and a free operating system that has made them not just a default choice for consumers, but a wired in choice as search by most makers of smart phones and tablets.

    There are literally hundreds of millions of devices that cannot easily avoid Google. It is for all intent and purposes a monopoly.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Matthew Keys' Two-Year Sentence For A 40-Minute Web Defacement

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2017 @ 01:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry Paul, you just have it all wrong, as usual.

    I won't bother to correct you, as you will just come back and spew the same stuff again. Duration of the break in isn't the issue, the breaking in is the issue. Just work with it, it's the truth.

  • On the post: As Predicted, Cox's Latest Appeal Points To SCOTUS' Refusal To Disconnect Sex Offenders From Social Media

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 29 Jun, 2017 @ 01:42am

    The infringers would be sued if the ISP wasn't also willing to hide their personal information. Cox stand here is very too faced, it's only based on merely accused infringers, but we are going to make it impossible for you to find out who they are as well.

    They want it both ways. They better be careful, because a win one way could mean they get regulated into divulging customer information for lawsuits.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Matthew Keys' Two-Year Sentence For A 40-Minute Web Defacement

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2017 @ 06:01am

    Re: Re:

    I don't think he is suggesting that at all. The crime isn't "how long" the crime is the illegal access and defacement, period. It's sort of like breaking and entering, it's not how long you stay, it's that you broke in.

    As for the "didn't perform himself", we have been over this many times. He provided the password and asked for it to be done. There isn't much wiggle room there for the simple reason that without him, nothing would have happened.

Next >>