Violynne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1974) comment rss

  • On the post: Why Ralph Lauren Photoshopped That Model So Skinny… It Thought She Was Fat… At 120 lbs

    Violynne ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2009 @ 11:52am

    Re:

    Actually, having seen a recent picture of her, I can say that RL may have been right.
    So says the one who actually 'shoped the image.

    You're an idiot if you truly believe your own words.

    I have seen other photos of her (untouched) and she's more than suitable for pushing an exaggerated form to young girls who truly do have a pot belly, forcing their self-confidence over their looks even further into darkness.

  • On the post: Missouri Continues Arresting Cyberbullies: Don't Be An Online Jerk In Missouri

    Violynne ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2009 @ 10:36am

    Welcome to the United States of America...

    ... where in Missouri, your rights to Free Speech will land you a stint in the slammer.

    I'm absolutely appalled such a law was passed in the first place, but considering this all stemmed from a child, neglected by society, committing suicide, it's hard to dismiss the emotional attachment at its passing.

    Even still, it sickens me people are defending this nation through active service only to see it's all for nothing when basic rights are stripped without just cause.

    Too bad the military oath includes the words "both foreign and domestic" as I can see the latter becoming a problem when more laws such as this pass.

  • On the post: Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images… Pisses Off Stipple Artist

    Violynne ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2009 @ 12:33pm

    Re: perfect examples of lying thieving media to get their cut first

    *throws a dictionary at tripe*

    Use the damn thing, idiot. Then, get counseling.

    Or we'll see your face painted as "Idiots 100" and the first on the list.

  • On the post: Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images… Pisses Off Stipple Artist

    Violynne ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2009 @ 12:02pm

    All lawsuits...

    ... are about the money, Novak. Stop lying to us.

    After all, how damn difficult is it to write a letter to Cano asking to add your name to each painting you created to get this recognition you feel you deserve?

    Idiocy.

  • On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?

    Violynne ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2009 @ 11:56am

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

    That gets us back to the land of secrecy.
    How so? In using your chip production example, what harm would there be if AMD hits the market before Intel?

    Even by your own statements, a duo core processor was being designed at the same time. This is exactly my point in that patents covering expected innovations shouldn't be granted.

    Think about it: Where did Intel and AMD get their processor knowledge? I'm quite confident Texas Instruments was manufacturing microchips long before Intel became a household word.

    The patent system did nothing but award the first to market the rights to sell without competition, or paid licensing for such. It's absolutely pointless when, by your own example, innovation continues regardless of patent.

    Now, for the debate on your more challenging products. There's an inherent risk on manufacturing these types of products but you offer no proof other companies are willing to take the idea to rush to market, especially when there's no guarantee such a product will benefit them.

    This is why most companies build on the innovations of others.

    As for engineering theft, you'd be foolish to believe this doesn't happen, regardless of patents. In fact, many employees today are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, which hints at "secrecy" of developments.

    Think employees care about those agreements? Pfft. They're definitely hard to prove, especially in your AMD/Intel example of the duo core development.

    So far, you've not really defended a need for patents. If anything, you've only proven their use is for revenue protection, not innovation.

  • On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?

    Violynne ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2009 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is completely off-topic from your point (sorry!)
    Don't apologize, but I'm curious to know why you feel it's off topic.

    Granted, my examples of Microsoft and Adobe were off the mark, but the premise should be clear: IP is getting to the point in which any development, patented, is open to litigation to which expectations in design are hindered by lawsuits.

    GIMP, as you exampled, is open source software. Now imagine if company "Z" turns around and sues the makers of GIMP for use of vectoring functions because it calculates based on using sin and cosine, rather than tangents.

    Poor wording, I'm sure, but that's the gist of my original remark. Eventually, if things continue, software will cease to be developed because software companies can't afford to pay the extortion costs of an idea.

    Just ask Amazon who had to defend itself against the patent of "1 click checkout".

  • On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?

    Violynne ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2009 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Very nice debate on the pros of patent, but I've got an issue with your position.

    And it stems from this line:
    The patent system is how you plant a flag and claim on idea.
    Idea. Maybe we're going to debate semantics here, but ideas shouldn't be allowed to be patented without some sort of product to back it up.

    Even then, I discount your belief innovation would cease. Our history has shown, repeatedly, innovation continues without the need for patents to be used. Many, many products were introduced during the Industrial Revolution which bore no patent, and helped bring this country forward.

    If IP/patent issues were as prevalent as they are today, every history book would not include a reference to the Industrial Revolution.

    For companies to pay another for use of an idea is blocking progress. Yes, I do agree there are ways to use patents properly, but they're unnecessary. I would fully support your idea if most patents had a product on the market.

    Given you're knowledgeable of the patent system, tell us how many are sitting there collecting dust. One estimate I've read stated over 52% of filed patents bearing no product.

    That's an extensive amount of waste over this concept of an "idea" when that patent's sole purpose is now for litigation, not innovation.

    I see no significance to a patent if its only purpose is to protect an idea. The patent system allows for companies to take advantage of a short term monopoly, but over 52% refuse to use this advantage. Why?

    I do agree with your position innovation doesn't stop regardless of patent disputes (and enjoyed the statement such products aren't removed from the market), but I draw the line when such disputes are over the idea, not a product.

    I'm also against the idea of patents being given over reasonable expectations of design. For example, a patent over the "1 click checkout"? Absurd, and even you should agree.

    As a once software developer, patents shouldn't be allowed here, either. Software isn't a damn idea. It never will be. Such idiocy deserves outcry from the business world, but instead, they're too busy filing their own patents on the possibility someone will use a "2 click checkout" software code.

    All too much, we hear of how badly patent disputes can be. Especially in the pharmaceutical world in which products from discovery can save lives.

    This alone should tell you patents are about money, not ideas.

    But as a supporter of patents, maybe you'll change your mind should your life be in jeopardy and wouldn't have been because a simple pill would have changed the outcome, but instead sits as an idea in the patent office.

    I hope this never happens to you, but the possibility it could happen should scare the crap out of you.

  • On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?

    Violynne ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2009 @ 08:15am

    Re: Re:

    Reality: IP without use has no value for anyone, not for the public and not for the rights holders.
    Reality: IP's only purpose is to obscure the fact all innovations are built off the innovations of others.

    That PII computer you're referencing owes its existence from the works of others, which in turn owes their products to the works of those before them, and so on.

    Show me any proof that anything created today wasn't built off the works of others.

    IP prohibits innovation through the misguided assumption it's to protect ideas. No, it's not ideas in protection, but a blockade from others using the knowledge of old to reproduce similar, if not identical, products.

    And for what? Right. Revenue.

    IP is creating a slippery slope when it comes to who owns what. Imagine, for a second, laws in IP get so strong, Microsoft has the right to charge for data you created using Excel. How about Adobe coming after everyone who used Photoshop for copyright infringement.

    Works created from the works of others should have no IP protection, but rather, an open source so that others can do the same.

    Profiting will come from selling such expertise, not the product of it.

    When (excuse me, if) people learn this, issues of copyright and patents disappear, as well as copyright and patents themselves.

  • On the post: Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help… Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help

    Violynne ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?

    To answer your question, yes, photo manipulation is art.
    Maybe I should clarify. Nah, no bother.

    The photo manipulator could have saved thousands of dollars by drawing a stick figure wearing a pair of jeans.

    But I get your gist, in case you think otherwise. I guess I should have been more specific to the image mentioned.

  • On the post: Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help… Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help

    Violynne ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 11:36am

    Wha? Did my comprehension skills just fail me?

    will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork
    Artwork?

    Caliber?

    While I've no problem with people using technology to create artwork, I have to draw the line at photo manipulation being deemed on the same level.

    To each their own, I guess.

  • On the post: As If Performance Royalty Threat Wasn't Enough, ASCAP, BMI Want To Increase Radio Royalties

    Violynne ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 11:01am

    Re: If it wasn't for revenue...

    err: who can't sing, not think...oops

  • On the post: As If Performance Royalty Threat Wasn't Enough, ASCAP, BMI Want To Increase Radio Royalties

    Violynne ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 11:00am

    If it wasn't for revenue...

    ...radio stations should buck the trend at carrying label music and work with artists who want airplay but can't get it without a label contract.

    It strikes me as odd the music industry isn't paying radio to air their goods. After all, it's an advertising platform, so when did this model get backward?

    Unfortunately, the teenagers out there will still want their idols who can't think, and without them, it's hard for a station to make change.

    Music's success shouldn't be based on what label the artist is contracted with.

    Here's hoping radio station owners help with "piracy" by playing music freely available, by the artist, online.

  • On the post: Washington Redskins Won't Let Washington Post Blogger Show Photos Of Upset Fans; WaPo Caves

    Violynne ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2009 @ 12:25pm

    Silver lining to the cloud...

    At least the fans didn't have to pay to read the news.

    Because then WaPo would have to go through the hell of refunding monies to subscribers for removing the *news* people would have been paying to read.

    So, those three readers who subscribe only for the sports section, be sure to thank WaPo for caving.

  • On the post: FBI Investigation Into Programmer For Freeing The Public Domain

    Violynne ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2009 @ 09:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Whats the Issue Here?

    Miles, you are still an idiot.
    This statement from you has as much value as toilet paper once it has served its purpose.

    Once again, he did not modify a damn thing. Modification means the original programming was tampered with.

    This did not occur. But given you're going around calling people idiots, I can see how understanding this is a challenge for you.

    [///M]The drive lost some storage capacity since the script was introduced to the system thus reducing it original capabilities.
    Tell me you're not serious. The script's impact to drive space was so negligible, it took weeks to discover.

    [iamtheky]a script that constantly searches for certain documents and uploads them, that does not affect performance?
    As opposed to many users hitting the same system at the same time? Sorry, but the math doesn't add up.

    If anything, the scripting would actually improve performance, not hinder it.

    In this instance, the PACER folks should be thanking Aaron by providing a faster way to give people what they want.

    Less time on the system provides better performance than 20 people looking up individual records.

    I get most people aren't in the IT field, but even common sense should be applied here.

    For those that don't get it: A debit card is faster at a checkout than is writing a check. Aaron just supplied the card reader.

  • On the post: FBI Investigation Into Programmer For Freeing The Public Domain

    Violynne ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2009 @ 06:41am

    Re: Whats the Issue Here?

    The issue is not with the data he was accessing, but that he modified a system that he had no right to modify.
    The problem is, though, he didn't modify the system.

    By definition, he never touched the original source, altered its performance, or prevented others from accessing the same.

    If anything, he enhanced the system by introducing additional scripting to benefit the results which would be no different than running the current version. It just did it faster.

    In addition, there's absolutely no reason why Aaron should be a target to a system that allowed the introduction of the script to begin with.

    It was, by my additional reading, pretty evident such code addition wasn't frowned upon to which expert skills were needed to add the script in the first place (re: hacking).

    Hell, even Techdirt's comment posting scrubbing removes possible injection code. To think this system wouldn't is the fault of the code owner, not its users.

    I'd agree with you if actions were taken to which Aaron hacked to modify, but this is not the case here.

    In other words: Taxpayer dollars were wasted over the stupidity of the software developer as not to block such things in the first place.

    The scapegoat being Aaron, and unjust at that.

    So, by your logic, the FBI should have its computers removed for arbitrarily using its software to find Aaron's home address, given there were misuses by the FBI because of inaccurate "hacking" allegations.

  • On the post: Edwyn Collins Can't Give Away His Music Thanks To MySpace, Warner Music

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Time to sue?

    Tell me how this isn't a violation of copyright for these labels to sell copies of a song they don't own?

    Wouldn't a fast track to court be a way to cease the selling as well as recoup $80,000 per infringement and possibly wake this industry up?

    Damn, at $80k per infringement, they'd retire peacefully. I could see billions made from this lawsuit, possibly putting these offenders out of business.

    Go, Collins! Sue these idiots into non-existence!

  • On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Makes Up Things About Intellectual Property

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2009 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Idiotic statements from *our* government? Surely you jest!

    "Own someone else's business without doing anything: Suing For Profit!"
    Ooh. I like. I'll run with this:
    "Start Your Own Business: Suing For Capital".

    Gold.

  • On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Makes Up Things About Intellectual Property

    Violynne ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2009 @ 09:22am

    Idiotic statements from *our* government? Surely you jest!

    ...from the Apollo program and the PC, to the Internet and iPods...
    How interesting. Apple, the manufacturer of iPods, is absolutely notorious for restricting IP.

    The internet? Think it would be where it is today if anyone in content distribution had the foresight to see where it would be today (turning people into thieves, damn it! )?

    The VCR, anyone? Yes, all because it would turn us into thieves.

    So, basically the CoC is calling American thieves giving it's using numbers perpetuated by our usage, not global. Because those numbers look damn familiar, especially by those regurgitated by the RIAA.

    Sure, let's pass laws restricting IP even further, so all these claims against patents (for obvious innovation) and copyright infringement (because fair use is stealing!) can fuel the true innovation of this country.

    I'm working on called "How to own a business (and not run a business) but make revenues from other businesses: Suing For Proft!" It's a working title.

    Because if IP laws get any tighter, it'll be a best seller.

  • On the post: Felicia Day Building Acting Success The Entrepreneurial Way

    Violynne ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Tossing two cents into the pool...

    Anyone who can't afford the time to rake in effortless 1000$/hr wages does not have a problem making money.
    Again, YOU don't have any idea how her schedule is, and neither does anyone here.

    While the auction/block times are good ideas, one can't assume this is applicable to Felicia. That's all I'm saying.

    For all we know, she probably had this idea but couldn't enact on it.

    But the gist (which you clearly skipped over) was that finding ways to create valuable scarcity is harder than whipping out a "Anyone who can't afford" comment.

    And since that was the entire basis of your rant, it looks to me like you were just trying to poke fun at mikes expense.
    It wasn't a rant. I'll assume you don't read every article on Techdirt, but I'll excuse this statement because of it.

    Mike knows I only poke fun at him in his content=ad remarks, and even then, I do side with him on some regard.

    Wow, how miserably that failed!
    Coming from someone whose reading comprehension skills can be outdone by an 8 year old, I can't help but laugh at this statement.

  • On the post: Felicia Day Building Acting Success The Entrepreneurial Way

    Violynne ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 06:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Tossing two cents into the pool...

    WTH? Apparently, I had lost my cookie and didn't notice I was logged out.

    Possibly an opportunity to present the message BEFORE submitting, rather than after?

Next >>