Paddy Duke 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (97) comment rss

  • On the post: Wishful Thinking: Hollywood Believes Next Generation Of Kids Will Pay For Content

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 08:04am

    Not a chance.

  • On the post: And, Of Course, Gov't Agencies Recorded And Stored Body Scan Images

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 05:56am

    Why on earth would you need to keep the scans?

    When this tehnology was first introduced in the UK, I argued that while yes it was indefensibly invasive, people needn’t particularly focus on the issue of the images being saved, since it would serve absolutely no purpose to hold on to them.

    I’d love to hear the reasoning these agencies give for storing the scans.

  • On the post: Crowdsourced Fact Checking

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2010 @ 11:10am

    Re: Re: Re: On Leaving It To The Professionals

    *of their research

  • On the post: Crowdsourced Fact Checking

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2010 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: On Leaving It To The Professionals

    I think you’ve missed my point. These independent experts and researchers have a vested interest in correcting misleading publications and already do so of their own volition.

    Making the process easier, by creating a central database of red flags, will hopefully lead to an increase in a practice that is already going on.

    Hiring the experts is absolutely the wrong thing to do. When you control someone’s funding and salary, you can also control the results their research. The less fact checkers we have under the thumb of Murdoch and comapny, the better.

  • On the post: Crowdsourced Fact Checking

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2010 @ 05:26am

    On Leaving It To The Professionals

    Funny how people make the assumption that the public are just an uneducated mass. In fact the public (i.e. anyone who’s not a journalist) is comprised of millions of experts with specialist knowledge of their particular field, be it basketball, micro-biology, or Justin Bieber (Who?).

    And it’s very often the individuals with this kind of specialist knowledge that have the greatest interest in ensuring the media get their facts straight.

    I think it’ll be a good experiment to have a single point of contact for commentators who want to correct publications, and publications that want to verify their information. I hope it takes off.

  • On the post: Can Man Who Found Long Lost Ansel Adams Glass Negatives Sell Prints?

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2010 @ 04:59pm

    If the Adams' heirs deny the prints are Adams, but they've been authenticated as Adams', then could the Adams' heirs still then make a copyright claim on any prints? That could be fun.
    While they might not have a valid copyright claim, surely in that case they could approach the issue as trademark infringement?

  • On the post: Theater Owner Begs Hollywood Not To Give Consumers What They Want

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Multiplexes, you’re doing it wrong.

    I saw Inception in the cinema on the second day of its release in the UK. It was a Saturday night, a prime cinema-going time, and I was on a rare trip to one of the local multiplex cinemas. At a guess, I would say there were around 45 people in the screening. In a theatre with a capacity of somewhere around 400, that’s a lot of empty seats.

    Now Inception is a spectacular blockbuster; the kind of film that really benefits from being seen on a big screen with booming sound. I very much doubt that the other 350 potential customers were at home watching downloaded screeners on their 15" notebooks.

    Clearly there’s a problem with the cinemas themselves if they are not drawing the customers in. I regularly travel to a little university-run, independent cinema about half an hour from me and, despite being (50%) more expensive than the multiplex, at weekends it is always packed.

    The difference is the little indie cinema has built a loyal following of film lovers who want to spend their money there and see the films on a big screen surrounded by like-minded souls. They are a case study in CwF + RtB.

    I’ve even been invited to FREE (Shock! Horror!) previews of new releases. And make no mistake, they got cash out of me at these free showings. I spent money in the comfy bar, and told everyone I know to see the film. On top of that, it endeared them to me greatly.

    There’s also a two tier membership program with benefits including discounts on tickets (for you and your friends), discounts at the bar, free access to matinees, discounts from partnering TV providers and magazines, and even discounted membership of a local sports facility.

    I am certain that in the long run the clever little indie cinema will outlast the clueless multiplex, and the world will be a better place for it.

  • On the post: With The Recording Industry In Free Fall, Why Are RIAA Bosses Getting Raises?

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2010 @ 06:49am

    Re: Change

    Great, another collection agency.

    Tell me again why we need these organisations?

  • On the post: Hurt Locker Still Shared Widely Online; Wonder Why Producers Aren't Issuing Takedowns?

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2010 @ 09:39am

    Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    You seem to confuse rights and morals (two subjective ideals) with laws. Morally, I see no problem with downloading The Hurt Locker. Legally, I am not allowed to. My rights, and the rights of the film makers don’t really enter into this case.

    Ignoring the tools provided to you to minimise the damage from infringement and subsequently suing infringers smacks of a money grab. While it may be legal, it’s difficult to sympathise with the film makers in this case.

    If they were really concerned about the ongoing infringement they would be taking every measure to stop it, not watching it go on in the background while they sue thosands of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Equally, if they were as confident as they pretend to be that each of the suspected infringers was guilty, they would never opt for a settlement of a few thousand bucks when there’s a potential $150,000 per infringement waiting in the courtroom.

    The whole operation is a scam by the short-sighted and bitter makers of a poorly marketed film. Hopefully enough people boycott their future productions as to cost them more than they could ever make from the settlements. I paid for The Hurt Locker on DVD, but I know they’ll never get another penny of my money.

  • On the post: Canadian Appeals Court Says Song Previews Can Be Fair Dealing

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 17 May, 2010 @ 05:45am

    Let me get my head around this.

    So instead of giving us a free sample, some organisations would rather we just didn’t buy any music at all. This is thinking along the same lines as charging radio stations for playing tracks.

    They would soon see how quickly it pisses consumers off, and leads to them buying that other music with the free samples.

  • On the post: As US Still Argues Over Semantics, Australia Expands Its Ambitious Broadband Plan

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 10 May, 2010 @ 05:53am

    ‘Or the state would step in and "require" the data shared in order to make use of the infrastructure etc...’

    That’s the bit I’d be most concerned about. It’s not an insurmountable problem though. It just needs some very careful consideration and a whole lot of lobbying from someone other than the music and movie industries.

  • On the post: As US Still Argues Over Semantics, Australia Expands Its Ambitious Broadband Plan

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 10 May, 2010 @ 03:10am

    I spy with my little FBI…

    I have one big issue with a government owned infrastructure in general. At present, certainly in the UK, I don’t know what goes on in the States, several broadband providers have taken a stance against collecting and releasing data on users suspected of illegal file sharing and other questinably legal practices without court orders.

    On a state-owned network, the likelihood of illegal and otherwise invasive broadband monitoring by various law enforcement agenices (often at the behest of big business, as you well know) is increased.

    Since keeping their customers online is in the interest of the providers, they are reluctant to sell them down the river. If you take them out of the equation, you lose what small amount of consumer protection the current market provides.

  • On the post: Why Do People Keep Insisting That Google Has A Better Idea What's Infringing Than Viacom?

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 05 May, 2010 @ 10:43am

    The mind boggles at the inability of very intelligent people to grasp the concept of liability in copyright cases.

    No logical reading of the law, along with a very basic understanding of how YouTube works, could possibly find YouTube or Google at fault in this scenario.

    If anything, Viacom need to be warned that uploading content in a way that appears unauthorised, will only create the impression amongst users uneducated in the legal specifics that infringement is an acceptable and widespread practice.

  • On the post: Hitler Rants Video About DMCA Takedowns Is Taken Down Itself

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2010 @ 06:27am

    You were going well until the last paragraph. This isn’t an unknown film at all. It was nominated for an Academy Award, and fairly well publicised across Europe on its release.

    It’s fair to say that these parodies have helped sustain it’s popularity beyond the expected timeframe, but it isn’t an unknown film in Europe.

    Having said all that, removing parodies that drive viewers to your film is completely insane.

  • On the post: The First Rule Of NCAA March Madness Is You Can't Mention NCAA March Madness

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2010 @ 07:12am

    I’m always baffled by things like this. How on earth does it make sense to ban people from mentioning your upcoming event? It’s free advertising, and it’s automatically targeted at relevant groups. When did the organisations that organise and run sports events become more interested in thesponsorship money than the sport? And how can we bring them to their knees and start over again?

  • On the post: Dan Bull Recaps How Home Taping Killed Music With His Latest Song

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2010 @ 09:37am

    Very funny, but not quite right.

    I appreciate that this is a novelty song, and very tongue in cheek, but it’s important to remember that these comparisons are not viable arguments in the piracy debate.

    While it certainly never harmed the music industry (quite the opposite, in fact), home taping (i.e. piracy) is not analogous to home cooking or home sewing. Those activities have more in common with forming a band, than taping tunes off the radio. When you cook, you’re not making infinite free copies of something someone else has already produced. You’re making your own version that costs you effort and money.

    Still, kudos to Dan and TalkTalk for making noise about all this.

  • On the post: Ok Go Explains Video Embedding Issue, Blames YouTube (Partly) And EMI (Only A Bit); Sells Uniforms

    Paddy Duke ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2010 @ 08:18am

    Hang on a second.

    Isn’t the point of a music video to promote single and album sales?

    How much more short sighted can you get? EMI are effectively banning the free advertisement of their products. Copyright and intellectual property disputes are becoming ever more ridiculous by the day.