Violynne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1974) comment rss

  • On the post: Defense Of Software Patents Actually Raises Questions About All Computer Patents

    Violynne ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2009 @ 06:57am

    Pantenting software? I've a patent on that.

    I would wholeheartedly applaud the patenting of something really novel in software.
    This is the crux of those who feel software should be patented, but it's also the weakest reason why it should. It's just that many simply won't accept it.

    *ALL SOFTWARE* is limited by the hardware it's run on. One can not create "really novel" software beyond the scope of the hardware's capability.

    30 years ago, having a computer rendering 3D software was expensive. Should the makers of Maya be allowed a patent for making 3D software compliant on the Windows operating system?

    No, they shouldn't. They didn't invent 3D nor did they invent the computer. They simply wrote code to the limitations of the machine and will continue to do so as computers become more powerful.

    This is why Amazon's "One Click" patent is wrong. When Amazon first started, its website was limited to:
    -The browser's capability of rendering software (HTML)
    -The computer systems hosting the requests from users

    However, once browsers supported more features, this entitled Amazon to file and patent the "one click" system because *then* it could be supported.

    This is akin to Apple's iPod. It didn't invent the microchip, the touch wheel, nor the MP3 player, but because specific design was created, it's allowed a patent?

    I find it incredibly stupid people want to lock up the knowledge of others under the protection of a "patent".

    NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS PLANET BUILDS WITHOUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF OTHERS.

    You couldn't read the statement above without the help of those teaching you to read.

    Now you want to patent the knowledge?

    I sit perplexed why people don't see anything wrong with this.

  • On the post: Australian Operator Optus Deliberately Blocking Android Paid Apps

    Violynne ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2009 @ 08:15am

    Kool-aid! Get your Kool-aid here! $0.25/cup!

    Instead, the more likely result is just to drive mobile phone users to other carriers.
    What other carrier? Are you trying to convince us these carriers have differing plans with differing prices without the same restrictions?

    I've yet to see a single one anywhere *in the world*.

    Who needs a damn monopoly when price fixing is much more lucrative except to the consumer.

  • On the post: Advertising As Content: Newspaper Raising Newsstand Prices For Thanksgiving Papers With Black Friday Ads

    Violynne ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2009 @ 07:22am

    Re:

    Some people here need to get a clue.
    You'd be one of them, actually.

    Call me crazy, but I'm happy to pay for ads when I know it's content I'm interested in.
    Listen, crazy, you're no different than anyone who wants to find bargains at this time of the year or watch a commercial marathon interrupted by a football game.

    While I don't dispute there are some successful ads which people treat as content, the basic economics of funding the real content can't be ignored.

    It wasn't right for you to pay the increase for the ads, crazy. You just got suckered into paying more for a newspaper you couldn't care less about.

    Makes you wonder why the newspaper company didn't just sell the ads outright, doesn't it?

    I'd say the $2 paper was worth it.
    I'm glad you found some good deals, crazy. Many people found great deals (some even found some not advertised at all!). I'm glad you felt the $2 was worth it, as that is value after all, but the cost wasn't justified, especially when you could have used the same $2 to buy a movie on DVD.
    :P

    Okay, it's $2. But what will it be next year? $5? $10? Just how much are you willing to pay for this value?

    Because you just opened up a can of worms by giving this newspaper a reason to do it again. P.T. Barnum was completely right. A fool and their money are soon parted.

    Oh well. It's the holidays. I guess I should just give up in trying to fight against consumers who just don't care they're paying for the ads used to fund the "content" they want.

    Next stop: cable bills inflating to astronomical prices so that you can also pay to watch the Superbowl commercials.

    *sigh*

  • On the post: Advertising As Content: Newspaper Raising Newsstand Prices For Thanksgiving Papers With Black Friday Ads

    Violynne ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2009 @ 03:51am

    LOLCats to blame?

    ...content that a lot of people are apparently willing to pay for because they can't figure out how to use the computer to find the ads.
    Fixed.

    I request a follow-up. I'd like to know how many more newspapers these companies sold with the "we'll rape your wallet for the paper because _someone else_ paid _us_ to provide you their ads" mentality.

    Wouldn't the _correct_ way to be to charge more to the ADVERTISERS?

    But wait. I forgot. This is the United States distribution system we're discussing here, where Economics 101 doesn't apply. My mistake.

  • On the post: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies

    Violynne ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2009 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    Wait, you're under the impression you'll be able to view these PRE-DVD releases at a reasonable price?

    Brighthouse offers a couple and they *start* at $10!

    Netflix already wins and the MPAA dream of controlling customer content and systems hasn't even been implemented.

  • On the post: Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive

    Violynne ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2009 @ 03:50am

    Re: "Too Expensive"

    To me spending +/- $1.00 for a song that I am able to listen to for every single moment I am breathing from now until I die doesn't seem like too much to pay. How about you?
    I love it! That is, provided I only want *one* song for the rest of my life.

    Now calculate this for someone who wants to listen to 10,000 songs from various artists during their lifetime.

    That's $10,000 dollars, genius. Wait, I forgot the addition $3000 since songs are really $1.30 now.

    Still think it's not too much to pay?

    And note, genius, if the $1.30 model doesn't work, expect to see even *more* increases to pay those who don't sing, write, perform, or do anything else but "represent" artists who actually do but get ___SCANT___ from each "$1" made.

    Insert Einstein quote regarding an infinite universe here.

  • On the post: Google Doesn't Rely On Intellectual Property For Its Leadership Position

    Violynne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Mikey is a moron

    it's not "free" IE that killed Netscape Navigator
    Well, there's also the fact internal company decisions also helped kill Netscape, but there's absolute *NO* disputing that Microsoft's bundling of IE (and everyone needs an OS, moron) into Windows helped its demise.

    But given *you* were pissing under your parents dining table when all this occurred, it explains your position.

    As well as your grammar.

    Hell, I bet you don't even know what IE stands for.

  • On the post: Google Doesn't Rely On Intellectual Property For Its Leadership Position

    Violynne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 10:28am

    Re: Mikey is a moron

    Where is Netscape now, mikey-boy ?
    And you call Mike the moron? Incredible. Anyone with a history knowledge of browsers knows exactly what happened to Netscape, and quite a portion of this comes from Microsoft undermining Netscape's business model to charge for its browser by offering its free version with every Windows purchase.

    Moron.

  • On the post: NYC Cabbies Who Resisted Credit Card Machines… Now Making More Money Because Of Them

    Violynne ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:00am

    Re:

    Doctor Strange, while your post was insightful (I already knew the context), you're missing the bigger picture.

    The guy could definitely talk (and persuade), but all his talking did *nothing* but to instill "fear" to protect against innovation.

    I suggest you re-read his statement(s) again and clearly see what he's truly doing.

    The "Boston Strangler" comment was over the top to do nothing more than keep people going into theaters.

    Now that you've read his statements, notice anything missing? Here, let me help you: *never* does he talk about how his industry will innovate.

    *NEVER*

    That's a problem, and I don't believe Techdirt (or other sites) using the quote is unjustified.

    It's no different than the RIAA spewing fear rhetoric by wasted *NO* time in adapting the MP3 model for *their* use.

    When was the last time RIAA innovated? More importantly, what technology *hasn't* the RIAA used for their greed pooling?

    They didn't invent the CD, LP, tape cassette, or hell, even the piano. But they sure do love reaping the revenues of each of these technologies.

  • On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google

    Violynne ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2009 @ 11:30am

    Re:

    If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks.
    Well, there's a reason why everyone trashed your remark. It belongs in the Recycle Bin.

    Ever hear of image search, stores, free software, or... hold your breath... gmail?

    You're under the impression Google "takes" and you're incredibly ignorant to believe this. Google doesn't take anything people don't want listed. As stated in other comments, *anyone* can block Google's search indexer.

    Now ask yourself this: Why isn't Murdoch (et al) adding this *extremely simple* option to *their* website?

    Why? Bad press = free press = good press. Murdoch *loves* being the center of attention, and sites like Techdirt are fulfilling his desire.

    Google isn't going anywhere, but the newspaper industry is. I'm sure that for every NewsCorp site blocked by Google, "local home paper" gets added.

    And I truly believe those sites won't whine and complain about increased traffic or "stolen" news. If anything, they'll have reason to charge a bit more for the web ads.

    You really should remove yourself from the 80s and understand what *digital distribution* truly means.

    At least if you do, you won't get your fingers dirty from the ink left by products where *other* factions are whining about (save the trees!).

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The producers of that product ARE being denied their rightful property - income from their sweat and labor to make the product.
    And this, Biff, ends your plausible defense.

    Income is not property, nor is it a right to have.

    Now I know where your confusion is, but make no mistake: digital distribution allows more people to access the same content, because the download can't be stolen, only copied.

    But trying to force consumers to pay 15x for the *same thing* is why so many businesses are failing to stop piracy.

    When you can defend a reason why a legally purchased DVD can't offer access to a digital download without an additional payment, add your two cents.

    Until then, I think we're done here.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, it's OK to receive stolen property that you know is stolen, as long as YOU don't see any ill effects to the industry from which it's stolen?
    And what makes you think *every* consumer will do this?

    That's the attitude the entertainment industry is taking. They believe *YOU* will "steal" their works and give it away.

    Using the Buick analogy, you would need to call a 1800 number to verify yourself *every single time* you want to drive your legally purchased vehicle.

    But will this stop theft? Hell no.

    So why is the burden on *YOU* to prevent car theft?

    And for the record, I don't download. When I say I'm against it and do without, that's exactly what it means.

    There are plenty of truly free offerings which I can take advantage of that doesn't require me to pay extortion "pay per view" prices.

    YouTube's one of them. People do crazy things which is always entertaining. Like the guy rolling the shopping cart down a hill and slamming into a pole. Classic.

    My cost: 2 ads to view.

    Biff, I truly am the definition of "the lost sale".

    Everything else I own is legal (receipts to prove it).

    Side rant:
    So imagine my surprise when Adobe shut down my access to Fireworks CS4 simply because Norton's firewall software refused the connection to the server to verify its "authenticity".

    It took me two weeks to discover why the lockout was initiated. TWO FREAKIN' WEEKS of the lack of use of my *LEGALLY* purchased software.

    Yeah, makes me feel so warm inside to know I'm a *bleeping* thief to them.

  • On the post: Congressional Study Says $42 Billion Could Be Raised By Legalizing Internet Gambling

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 11:11am

    Interesting.

    I'm betting legalized gambling over the internet never gets passed.

    The odds are 10:1 on black, 5:1 on red, and 2:1 on yellow.

    This is the one time the House isn't in favor to win.

  • On the post: Venezuelan Government Blames Video Games For Violence, Implements Widespread Ban

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 11:08am

    Re: English as a video game language

    That's a pretty weak argument.
    Reading comprehension lesson time:
    "I learned English *** THROUGH *** video games."

    Not from. Big difference. Many of my friends not native to America share similar stories at having learned through movies and antiquated TV shows.

    Hell, even I'm taking this approach learning Japanese *through* anime and *from* course books. Best way to learn dialogue, speech, and inflection which *no* book can do.

    Agreed the ban is beyond moronic and it's nice to see the statement on how it provided a benefit, rather than another negative.

    Of course, he could always take up arms and overthrow the government. When the media requests where he got his knowledge, he can quip "Why, from 'The A-Team', of course!"

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 09:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Even if they see value, people won't pay unless they have to, and only after they have explored every possible way to avoid payment.
    That's crap, and you know it. Techdirt's proven time and time again people *are* buying.

    If piracy was so devastating, then why are theaters booming? Think about this, as they'd be the first line of casualties. Could it be those record-breaking years were just lies?

    I still haven't seen Britney Spears standing on a street corner with a sign reading "Will sing for food."

    Nor have I seen any proof that piracy is causing ill effects to the *entertainment industry*. Can you? Show me.

    Comcast's introduction to the piracy world is nothing more than an attempt to extol revenues from *innocent people* simply because a few don't want to pay.

    I appreciate you calling me a pirate despite any evidence to the contrary. You obviously represent the entertainment industry.

    So, I have to ask: What the hell did I ever do to you to:
    -have my $300 DVD player turned into a paperweight because it couldn't recognize the new DRM layer?

    -force me to pay extra-ordinary markup on infinite goods so to offer DRM free music?

    -lock my software because a computer glitch refuses to validate with your server?

    -force me to pay for television stations supported by ads?

    -take away my rights as a consumer for using content via fair use?

    -force YouTube to take down my video of a dancing baby because there's a licensed song playing in the background?

    -call me a thief because I refuse to buy $16 CDs and $20 DVDs and simply do without, given I'm the *true* definition of a lost sale?

    Whatever. The entertainment industry in this country is forcing the hands of innocents, and this includes Comcast.

    I get why Burke made the statement, but *that's not his damn job*, especially when innocent consumers are footing the bill.

    Rant? Maybe, but my letters to these industries have had no affect. How about yours?

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 07:32am

    Which means I have purchased the right to view ALL of those channels.
    Actually, you're confusing distribution with service. You have the right to use the services to view distributed content.

    You're *not* paying for the television show.

    In fact, several cable companies had to deal with Viacom's ridiculous request for an increase of licensing fees.

    Thus proving the two separate entities.

    And $200 to pay for "ALL" channels? What the heck do you watch worth $200 a month or were you shanghaied into paying extra for that tier so you can watch a channel otherwise not available?

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Violynne ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 05:48am

    Re:

    While I am sure his comments will get the standard Techdirt drubbing, the reality is that he is correct. It doesn't sound nice to say it, but at this point, the consumers are wrong, and here is why [snipped]
    AC, you're completely wrong on the "why". Please read the COO's statement again regarding changing consumer habit.

    That's a problem, because without this habit, Comcast wouldn't exist.

    Consumers are easy to deal with: show them value, and they'll buy it. It's Economics 101 in terms of supply & demand.

    Comcast wastes *no time* in offering special "bundles" to new consumers based on this very consumer habit. 3 offerings for $99/mo. That's value. But allow me to go back further in time.

    When cable was introduced, it revolutionized television because it gave consumers many more choices. "Free" TV was limited, so consumers sought the value of paying for those additional channels.

    As technology was introduced, cable companies took advantage and sold services to consumers.

    Seriously think about this. Why is a *cable company* offering telephone and internet services? By your logic, these companies should be regulated to television broadcasts only.

    Instead, we see *adaptation*, which is a great thing. However, there's a problem with this adaption in terms of the industry: Monopolies.

    Comcast is in power to "change" consumer behavior simply because it *knows* options do not exist. For consumers, there aren't many ways to access the internet or watch TV through the speeds/offerings available in their area.

    Thus, consumers will be *forced* back to "free" television if they choose to walk away from Comcast.

    Why? Because if Comcast is successful, every other business will take the same approach. Time Warner, Adelphia, AT&T, and even Verizon, to name a few, will jump on this bandwagon.

    That's not innovation anymore. That's monopolistic control and it harms consumer choice. By stating "consumers' must change" is stating "we're in control and they've no choice but to comply."

    Steve Burke is *completely* missing the mark by failing to realize his consumers are opting for new choice *using their service*. Just because they no longer want to watch a show dedicated to a specific time slot doesn't mean the value to obtain it is lost. It's just changed to fit the *consumer's* need.

    Additional proof is Comcast's "relationship" with Time Warner to provide on-demand movies (which will be SOC locked soon, it looks like) behind a cable wall, meaning one has to shell out $50+ *per month* to watch a movie which can be rented as low as $1.

    See a problem with that? It's revenue protection. It's equivalent to the RIAA's arguments about lost revenues because simple math dictates a $1 song isn't going to return the same profits as a $16 CD.

    So why punish the consumers for failing to offer choices? They did so with their services, so it boggles my mind they've just *stopped* innovating.

    Personally, I think it's crap to charge consumers $40+ for a phone service utilizing the same system as the internet connection, but obviously it's still *cheaper* than a phone line with long distance "subscription". Consumers make this choice because Comcast (et al) offer the *cheaper* service against their competitor.

    Steve Burke is *wrong*. He'll find this out when consumers do decide "free" TV is better than Comcast's monopolistic approach to removing the value they enticed them with initially.

    But hey, sometimes a company needs to make mistakes before they realize their error in judgment. Let Mr. Burke try, and fail.

    Because he'll quickly realize once a consumer is screwed by a company, they'll never come back. Comcast's revenue stream will be greatly affected by this decision than the "losses" they're seeing now.

  • On the post: Oh Look: Hollywood Doesn't Need To Break Your TV To Release PPV Movies Early

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 12:45pm

    Re: I haven't ranted in a while...

    Lesson: don't listen to authority...ever, because they suck at life.
    That'll be $199 for the use of my soapbox.

    And I know it's mine, because I disabled the SOC, painted works created by someone else, and it's pink.

    Send payment, via money order, to...

    I did chuckle. The "rest my hat" line did it.

  • On the post: Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VPN + security = Hulu viewing?

    Well, you're the one who asked how they were any different.
    Uh, no. I was relating the *security* with the question, not the applications.

  • On the post: Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 08:27am

    I have an answer.

    I thought that was what counterfeiting laws were for -- so why even bother with copyright?
    Simple. When the judicial system fails to convict those who counterfeit, the civil system will tag them with statutory damages.

    It's a fail safe system.
    /sarcasm

Next >>