Nick Coghlan 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (284) comment rss

  • On the post: More People Realizing That Infringement Can't Be Stopped, So Learn To Embrace It

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2011 @ 08:01pm

    Re:

    No, when the theatres are doing it right, people go to the theatre to:
    - get out of the house for a while (theatres are competing with multiple forms of entertainment for this aspect, including live entertainment)
    - see something on the big screen (applies more to action movies than to dramas and comedies)
    - see something with friends (there are many reasons why this may be preferable to gathering at someone's place, starting with nobody in a particular group of friends having both a big TV and space for everyone to sit comfortably)

    I also dispute your premise that day-of-release downloads are typically poor quality (studios leak like sieves, so high quality rips are often available quite early, regardless of attempts to enforce windowing). However, I cannot offer concrete evidence of that, as doing so would be illegal.

  • On the post: Talking About Why The PROTECT IP Act Is Bad News…

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2011 @ 06:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    A quote applicable to so many situations when it comes to legacy organisations (both corporations and governments) attempting to cope with the cultural shift brought about by the rise of readily available multilateral channels of communication.

  • On the post: How Facebook's Dreadfully Executed Smear Campaign Against Google Has Increased Scrutiny Of Facebook's Own Privacy Issues

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 07:38am

    Re: It's not a bug; it's a feature

    Hey, no need to be insulting. Don't assume that every FB user doesn't know the real score. Even though we aren't the ones paying them money, they still offer *real* value in return for the data we give them.

    While *I* can technically use the net in other ways to achieve the same things FB does, FB nicely ties together several disparate features into a somewhat cohesive interface that not only I, but also many less technically inclined folks I like to stay in touch with, can handle easily.

    That said, FB's proven disregard for user privacy (as evidenced by their repeated "share-by-default" approach to new settings) is indeed their main failing that creates an opening for the next social networking tool.

  • On the post: One Man, One Stolen Laptop… And Twitter, Prey (And A Purple Sarong?) To The Rescue

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 13 May, 2011 @ 11:39pm

    Re:

    While the lifehacker article Mike linked glosses over it, the advanced "Standalone" mode of Prey is designed precisely so that you don't *have* to trust their servers.

    Instead, you can review the open source code for the client (or pay someone you trust to do it for you) and set it up to email you directly with any reports. You just have to set up a URL that the client can check to decide whether or not to go into "I've been stolen" mode.

    Like any remote control software, it does create a new point of vulnerability for your system, but I expect many folks will consider the trade-off to be worth it.

  • On the post: Off The Deep End: People Claiming That Supporting Creative Commons Is Being Anti-Creator

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 11 May, 2011 @ 10:54pm

    Re:

    Yeah, I think CC is like open source software in that regard (unsurprisingly, since CC was inspired by OSS licensing models). If your product is worse than the stuff that is being given away for free, then you will eventually be put out of business. Superiority in sales and marketing may keep you going for a while, but eventually your clients are going to wise up to the fact that they're paying you for something that is inferior to alternatives that are freely available on the internet.

    And, indeed, this is a good thing overall (even if it sucks for the people that are forced to find new jobs or careers as they or their employers fail to adapt to the changing marketplace).

  • On the post: Developed Nations Protest Developing Nations' Desire To Create Their Own IP Laws

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 11 May, 2011 @ 10:44pm

    Obligatory

    But, but... piracy...

  • On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 09 May, 2011 @ 06:40pm

    Re: Re: On a quick scan, no "Best Of" either

    Indeed, but we're talking about *legitimate* means of acquisition here.

    AC/DC seem to think that "the only way to legitimately acquire all of our hits is to buy our entire back catalogue of complete albums" is a reasonable way to conduct business. They're fortunate to have such a large fan base that already has all their old albums, since it isn't exactly a good way to encourage new fans to start paying for anything.

  • On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 09 May, 2011 @ 10:22am

    On a quick scan, no "Best Of" either

    That attitude would also explain why I couldn't find anything when I went to pick up a "Best Of" CD from them.

    (A recent TV show reminded me how many cool singles they had, but there's no way I'm going to pick up such an extensive back catalogue when all I really want are the hits that stood the test of time)

  • On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 03 May, 2011 @ 07:58pm

    Seriously?

    Wow, coming from Australia where the major news outlets start reporting preliminary results for Federal elections as soon as the polls close in the eastern states, this sounds completely crazy. (Of course, we have our own problems when it comes to freedom of speech issues)

    As far as the whole "prove a negative" argument goes:

    1. Starting point should be "Freedom of Speech"
    2. Evidence of harm is then needed to justify *any* censorship by the government

    If some people can't even agree to point 1... then that's a completely different kind of argument.

  • On the post: Is It Possible To Salvage Open WiFi?

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 04:21am

    Download quotas

    Open Wifi on home connections has never had any traction in countries where download quotas are the norm (such as here in Australia). Traffic prioritisation may deal with bandwidth hogs, but why would anyone pay extra for more quota than they plan to use themselves?

    Given how much harder it is to have a private home Wi-Fi network that allows you to share files and printers between your own machines, while only sharing the net connection with arbitrary clients (as compared to just locking down the whole thing), deliberately running an Open Wifi connection has always struck me as something that is always going to remain a pretty rare occurrence, even in countries where download quotas don't knock it on the head.

  • On the post: TV People Realizing That The Internet Is Global

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 01 May, 2011 @ 09:03am

    Re:

    Oh, I'm perfectly away of the way that existing obligations can limit an organisation's ability to adapt. The NY Times, for example, can't go "stuff it, we're going digital only" because they'd have to fire too many people (i.e. all the ones paid for tasks solely related to printing and shipping dead tree editions), would likely breach standing advertisement contracts, would definitely breach subscription agreements with recipients of the hard copy edition and probably a whole host of other issues.

    Companies can even do it to themselves, with requirements for internal processes that must still be followed even when they no longer make sense, and even the people that know better put up with it because they have more important battles to fight.

    This is why merely *knowing* about The Innovator's Dilemma isn't enough to avoid it. Locking in multi-year contracts is just part of doing business, but when the technology is changing rapidly, that contract which seemed like such a boon when it was signed may become a liability just a year or two down the track.

  • On the post: Targeted Advertising? Patented! Bunch Of Media Companies Sued

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2011 @ 05:33am

    Part of the problem...

    I don't recall "You could become a patent examiner!" ever being discussed as a possible career path at any time during the course of my computer systems engineering degree. I doubt it is a prominent choice for software engineering, information technology or computer science students, either.

    What are the qualifications needed to become a patent examiner for IT patents, anyway?

  • On the post: Analyst: Motorola's Best Play Is To Become A Patent Troll & Destroy Android Ecosystem With Patent Lawsuits

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2011 @ 10:04pm

    Honeycomb is the 1.0 edition of Android's tablet UI

    It took Android a few iterations to get up to a competitive level with iOS in the smartphone space (I'd personally peg that point as the HTC Desire with Android 2.1, although others may place it earlier or later. Most would agree that at least 2.2 is a viable alternative to iOS for the majority of users, even if the lack of vertical integration still makes for a less smooth overall experience).

    A similar dynamic is playing out in the tablet space. Apple have an ~18 month or so head start, and 3.0 has visible rough edges that detract from its viability for many users. However, 3.1 (expected later this year) will likely meet the "good enough" standard for tablets that was achieved by 2.1 for smartphones, and the multi-vendor strategy will start to tell the story in sales volume.

    Apple have played this game many times before, and they appear to be quite happy with the role of establishing a viable product niche and then settling in as a premium offering rather than going for absolute market dominance (about the only time they've pulled off the latter is with the iPod - for everything else, lower priced competitors have come along with a freely or cheaply licensed alternative)

  • On the post: TV People Realizing That The Internet Is Global

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2011 @ 08:09pm

    Nope, they still don't get it.

    Australian free-to-air telecasts of Dr Who are still delayed a week since they want the UK to be first, but want to air it in the Saturday prime-time slot in Australia.

    So, no, they still don't get it. They're still missing the main benefit offered by DVRs and file-sharing: watching TV shows when it suits you rather than some exec's idea of the best time to reach their target demographic.

  • On the post: Judge In Google WiFiSpy Case Trying To Determine If Packet Sniffing Open Networks Is An Illegal Wiretap

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2011 @ 07:44am

    WEP = Wired Equivalent Privacy

    The fact that unsecured Wi-Fi is open to the world was made fairly explicit in the name chosen for the original security protocol: Wired Equivalent Privacy.

    It creates a pretty clear line: if you're cracking WEP, regardless of how easy that may be, your access is clearly unauthorised and illegal (and if you're cracking WPA2... well, that's actually kinda impressive, but still illegal).

    But when someone has their network wide open, then neighbours and passersby are going to see that traffic.

  • On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2011 @ 11:15am

    Re:

    I dunno, how much would they save in legal and licensing fees by buying out the 4 big studios and all the big publishing houses?

    Take all those people they have working on keeping the studios happy (like ContentID), and put them on something more productive.

    Heck, they could probably increase the royalties paid to authors and still save money in the long run.

    Don't necessarily think of it as profit seeking - it would be an exercise in cost reduction.

  • On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Students Inherently Know That File Sharing Is Not Theft

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2011 @ 07:02pm

    Re:

    I guess we shouldn't be surprised that people that don't understand the difference between "theft" and "infringement" also have trouble with the difference between both of those and "invasion of privacy" :P

  • On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Students Inherently Know That File Sharing Is Not Theft

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2011 @ 06:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Most people don't realise this, but the number of software developers employed by companies that directly sell software is a relatively small fraction of the industry.

    Software development is really about selling the service of problem solving with computers. A company has a task they want to complete regularly. They'd like it automated to reduce errors due to manual processing, and to free up staff for other more productive activities. They pay software developers (directly or indirectly) to solve their specific problem.

    Or perhaps they want to sell a physical product that does something, so they pay the software developers to make the product do what they want.

    That's the real beauty of the open source approach. As we resolve different problems, the solutions can be published and shared, meaning that we can move on to solving new problems instead of endlessly reinventing solutions to problems that others have already dealt with effectively.

    There are a ton of ways to make money in the software industry, and most of them don't involve getting paid multiple times for writing a single piece of software. Instead, most of us get paid for writing new software, or selecting and tailoring existing software for a specific situation. Even in the companies that do sell shrink-wrapped software, the developers aren't getting paid royalties. Instead, we're paid (and usually well) for the time we spend making the company's products better. It doesn't matter whether that product goes on to sell 10 units or 10 million, we've already been paid our share.

    In cases where people do sell the same thing multiple times, then the idea is to make it a better experience to do the right thing. Most smartphone developers understand this, offering their apps at reasonable prices, but selling to a lot of people. Those are cases where the developer pretty much is the company, though. There are plenty of examples of big companies not getting it, though, and it provides opportunities for competitors to come in and offer a superior experience at a lower price point.

    From my point of view, royalty deals mostly seem like a scam to get out of paying people adequate salaries up front by holding out the lure of possible future earnings (and hoping that authors aren't financially savvy enough to figure out what a raw deal they're actually getting due to the time-value of money and the disproportionate division of risk).

  • On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Students Inherently Know That File Sharing Is Not Theft

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2011 @ 06:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies!

    That brings to mind my favourite line from the Star Wars prequel movies: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause"

    But that's just a popcorn movie, Uncle George couldn't possibly have been commenting on anything that's happening in the real world. Could he?

  • On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong

    Nick Coghlan ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2011 @ 08:41pm

    Re: Re:

    Random thought:

    In the context of current intellectual property laws and the associated public debate, discuss the following proposition: "Tourists taking their own photos of the Eiffel Tower are stealing from local professional photographers and postcard vendors."

Next >>