Violynne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1974) comment rss

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

    Violynne ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2009 @ 05:12am

    Tossing two cents into the pool...

    It's a good start, but like others, Felicia seems to fall into the "give it away and pray" trap -- while it's great to rely on the good grace of donors, she could do much better if she gave her fans a better reason to buy.
    First, note I support the fan model, but I've a question regarding this statement.

    In Felicia's situation, does it occur that something so "simple" is probably not as easy to implement as you'd suggest?

    The $1,000 to play with Felicia sounds like a good idea, but what if Felicia can't open up time to do so?

    Techdirt just recently published an article about being careful what's offered.

    Suddenly, I find myself reading a contradiction. I'm sure Felicia would love the opportunity to open up those profit margins, but if they're slim now, could the very reason "praying" is due to the slim profits to invest in scarce items?

    Trying to come up with ideas to create value is much more difficult than it sounds, especially if such value on scarcity involves an initial investment which current funds may not cover.

    Maybe the crew of Floor64 could do pro bono work with her in exchange for reporting the changes in building scarcity showing an increase in profits so that readers can see for themselves given Felicia isn't a "big star".

    At any rate, it's still nice to see some are making changes, as slow as they may be.

  • On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes

    Violynne ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2009 @ 12:45pm

    Alas, no worries!

    Apple is also pushing (to unsuspecting people under the pretense of an update to existing software) iPhone software for Windows users!

    Hey, a round of applause to Apple, who blocks everyone's app, installs sneaky software, and believes DRM is the best thing since sliced bread.

    As long as customers are buying, Apple couldn't care less about the rantings of others, regardless how much it makes sense.

    This attitude once pushed them near bankruptcy and it's appalling this company has learned *nothing* from its past.

    One day, I hope to see Apple degrade into a useless core of dead seeds for stupidity such as this. Of course, with RIAA (et al) making more pushes to lobby Congress for change... it's all but inevitable.

  • On the post: DRM Doesn't Enable Business Models; Blind Fear Disables Business Models

    Violynne ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2009 @ 07:39am

    Re: DRM Facilitating Business Models

    ...places limits on something currently available is incorrect. In fact, the very act of limiting something ...it creates value...
    Guess what, genius. I'm one of those consumers and I've yet to find any value in a purchase in which DRM limits my use.

    Let me give you an example. I purchased Adobe's software suite which required me to "activate" it upon installation. Great, no problem, been there many times.

    But then I bought a laptop and re-installed the software, noting the desktop copy was removed. I went to register the product again, and imagine my surprise (sarcasm) that my legally purchased software was locked, FROM USE, because the code was already registered.

    That's right, this is a pure example of a DRM limitation placed upon my legally purchased product and actually *removed* the value from it.

    With the piss poor customer service, it took *three days* to re-activate my software after providing DNA to these asses I was the rightful owner.

    This doesn't create value. It takes it away, so much so, this will be the *last* purchase I do from Adobe ever again if such draconian restrictions apply.

    I fully understand these programmers need funds to continue improving (laughable) their products, but to do so at the frustration of paying customers is the *wrong* way to do it.

    So you'll excuse me if I tell you to take your definition of value and shove it along with the mindset of these other idiots who are more out for protection, rather than truly adding value to warrant a purchase to begin with.

  • On the post: A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]

    Violynne ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2009 @ 03:42am

    Hold on a second...

    Does Lily really think those mix tapes of songs lasting 30 seconds to 1 minute weren't downloaded?

    Curious, what artist releases songs that are 30 seconds to 1 minute long?

    Sounds to me like she downloaded the entire song, then cut out what she didn't want to use.

    It doesn't surprise me her blog was taken down. Everyone who posted pretty much told her to go "beep" herself. And rightfully so.

    It's amazing how the internet works. Anyone can be a troll and be respected (for idiocy), but come off as a hypocrite and people post against you that normally wouldn't do otherwise.

    Lily, grow up already or do us all a favor and just keep your mouth shut.

  • On the post: Time For A Quick Lesson In Why The DMCA Safe Harbors Are Important And Make Sense

    Violynne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2009 @ 12:17pm

    Makes sense, but...

    Those complaining about the safe harbors seem to wish for a world where liability is applied to the easiest target, rather than the accurate target.
    The problem with DMCA, as I see it, is it allows for targeting to begin with.

    Worse, it's open to significant loopholes which can not protect those who can't/refuse to stand up against abusers. Even YouTube (Google) can't stand up against it, taking down videos which don't infringe at all.

    The DMCA is based on "Guilty first, then innocent" which is completely contradictory to the Constitution. We're all pirates until we can prove we're not. That's a problem.

    I've read the DMCA, and I see quite a few loopholes, and the example above points out one of them. I'll keep my mouth shut to the others as I definitely don't want any idiotic lawyer getting an idea to run with it.

    On the front, the DMCA is good, but it is on borrowed time. After all, if Copyright law was skewed to the point of ineffectiveness, does anyone here really think Safe Harbors stands a chance? Foolish thinking.

    Enjoy the internet while you can. I see drastic changes forthcoming which will benefit no one other than those who want more millions in their pockets.

    And Mike, while I stand firm with you in regard to new models in use with internet distribution, I can't believe anyone in the entertainment industry is going to change when historic proof shows these morons will never adapt to change.

    The history of the VCR and Napster are but two examples of incredible stupidity at failing to adapt, but in both cases, never once has this industry introduced such technology to add more value for consumers.

    I applaud this lesson, but it's not going to change the minds of the CEOs hell bent on screwing us over to protect their house payments.

  • On the post: Frugalista! Frugalista! Frugalista! Now… Where's My Cease And Desist?

    Violynne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2009 @ 09:56am

    Posts of the Day to...

    GeneralEmergency and Dark Helmet.

    Expect to receive my medical bills for having to bite my tongue to keep from laughing out loud, jerks.

    It's been a while having a good laugh like this.

    Now, on topic...

    ... oh, forget it. Other replies pretty much take care of this for me.

  • On the post: Having ISPs Fight Piracy Could Cost More Than Claimed 'Losses' From Piracy

    Violynne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2009 @ 06:26am

    "Teh Interweb is Teh EVIL!"

    Ironically, it's the internet which is actually changing my spending habits to save more cash, rather than spend it.

    I don't copy music, TV shows, or movies for myself. No reason to. But there are plenty of places online which I can listen or watch for free.

    Well, aside from movies, but I haven't watched anything out of Hollywood for quite some time. It's all turned to garbage, IMO, so why contribute? The only movie I *would have* spent money on was the latest Harry Potter, but thanks to Rowling's idiotic and very stupid decision to sue a fan pretty much killed that. She's off my list forever.

    It's absolutely amazing how much is offered to me at no cost (aside from annoying ads I can't skip), and most of it isn't produced by those working to kick off others.

    I fear the day when the U.S. starts work on this "kicking off" mentality. It's coming and it's just a matter of time.

    But it'll be interesting to see who's left to kick off as these very industries, instead, are suing the hell out of everyone which is pretty much the same thing.

    Stupid, stupid people who need to loosen their neckties to get the blood flowing back to the brain.

  • On the post: Why Did Apple Approve Spotify?

    Violynne ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2009 @ 05:04am

    Re:

    ...there are people out there these days who have no concept of a loss-leader...
    That's because some of these people, including myself, knows that iTunes isn't a loss-leader.

    Especially when Apple makes over $0.50 per transaction of every song purchased. Where's the "loss" in this?

    The only "loss" Apple suffered with iTunes is when RIAA demanded $0.30 more per song, driving consumers away to those sites still offering the same for $1.

    I see nothing as a loss-leader when the product is stamped with the Apple logo, whether it be software or hardware.

    So, on topic, the *ONLY* reason Apple is allowing Spotify is due to the FCC of late and Apple simply wants to look good on paper.

    But you can bet those in charge are fuming at having to do so.

  • On the post: Following Your GPS Over A Cliff Is No Excuse For Bad Driving

    Violynne ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2009 @ 08:38am

    Re: That's too bad.

    Well news flash, computers are only as useful & intelligent as their users.
    Uh oh.
    Enstein's quote about human stupidity just entered my mind.

  • On the post: Why Don't More TV Shows Try To Connect With Fans?

    Violynne ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2009 @ 10:26am

    ---

    Why aren't TV shows more actively working to connect with fans?
    Because people would get upset the connection's interrupted with a 4 minute block of advertising.

    I jest, of course.

    I had to think about this for a second. I know the tour is an example, but I just don't see myself attending a touring show from cast members of a TV series.

    I'm sure there are some who'd love to meet the actors, and that's great for them. As for me, I can't think of a way which would "connect" me to a show moreso than ensuring the episode is marked for recording on my DVR.

    For me, it's the story I'm tuning it for. The actor has nothing to do with it, really. Case in point: Law & Order, which no longer retains the original cast but I still tune in.

    With that, I would still like to see ideas. Just because I can't think of anything doesn't mean it should be ignored.

    Side note: the creators of Battlestar Galactica did a good job with interviews of the creators and stars, as well as auctioning off memorabilia from the show when it ended.

    A connection, sadly, I missed out on.

  • On the post: Win A Copy Of Kevin Smith's New Book

    Violynne ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2009 @ 04:24am

    Re: Re: The dog's name...

    Someone paid for the Crystal Ball level of Techdirt!
    Ironically, a feature I requested have the option to be disabled!

    It just happened to turn out that I was going to submit a story about an Oregon man who distributed Oregon's public law but was found to be in copyright violation!

    I enabled the CB feature to see if TD was working on the story, when I saw the Kevin Smith article open.

    As a fan of Kevin, I read the article. When I saw the dog question, I knew the answer, so I posted it.

    Now my CB is disabled again. Heh, I wonder what the chances are of this happening again are.

    SIDE NOTE: Just a thought, seeing how the CB feature could be useful for submitting stories, any reason why it couldn't be placed on the right side?

    I know this sounds picky, but that "wasted space" atop the page irritates me. It's hundreds of pixels that take away article positioning.

    No offense, but I really don't want to see half my screen taken up with a message asking someone to shut Techdirt up.

    Feedback, baby. Just had to offer it.

  • On the post: Win A Copy Of Kevin Smith's New Book

    Violynne ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2009 @ 12:11pm

    The dog's name...

    ... is Shecky.

  • On the post: Google: Flipping Off The Newspapers

    Violynne ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2009 @ 12:06pm

    THAT was for a great laugh.

    I enjoyed every letter of that statement.

    You go, Google!

    I'm glad the monetizing aspect was ditched because I would have been very pissed if I were greeted with a "Yous gots to pay to view, thief!" message while trying to read the news, available anywhere else on the web at no cost.

    Kudos for this statement and especially for the attitude to which it was presented.

    Print that, Murdoch. It's news.

  • On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design

    Violynne ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2009 @ 09:01am

    No subject

    I'm having trouble understanding where there's a copyright violation.
    Do you not read your own articles? ;)

    The new way to do business is as follows:
    Do something, matters not if you're hired by a company or not.

    Then, expect royalty payments for the remaining years alive simply because it was created and covered under copyright.

    It's the American way!

    Note: I think it's about time that ONE step be re-introduced regarding copyright and that's one must register the content to be covered.

    This way, stupid crap like this ceases.

  • On the post: Best Practices In Online Promotion Of New Music Offerings

    Violynne ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2009 @ 05:57am

    Oh, so close!

    It's a shame Bas only targeted the music industry, because the premise of the paper can be applied to any distributor of digital goods.

    I would have loved to cite this well written document in debates for those who don't understand "freeconomics", but sadly, the message is going to be lost simply because it's specific to an industry.

    Maybe Mike will take on the responsibility to write a similar paper regarding the digital world?

    In my experiences, there just seems to be no convincing these anti-free model people as they're deadfast to point out two common replies: "These people are popular" and the "They didn't make the same amount of money."

    Ugh. It's so tiring to argue against these responses, especially when the debate finally reaches "the artist".

    Recently, I had a spirited discussion with an old acquaintance discussing this very issue. To defend my position, I pointed to several Techdirt articles. The reply I got was this:
    "Of all people, I can't believe you've swung to the socialist side to think artists shouldn't get paid for their works."

    The comment made me chuckle, so I replied:
    "Of all people, I can't believe you expect people to pay to view your works when they didn't ask you to create them in the first place. So why expect them to pay after the fact instead of turning them into fans to buy later, once you decide what's truly worth selling?"

    The expectations of payment is something which clouds the minds of those who want to make a living off artistic works rather than understand the consumer, which they are to other artists.

    I'm hoping a definitive paper gets written in the future which can dispel this foolish thinking, but until "proof" shows success, this paper won't change the minds with this thinking.

    One thing it does do is it shows doing something is better than doing nothing. Let's just hope that message is taken away from the reading.

  • On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes… Blames Craigslist

    Violynne ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2009 @ 12:29pm

    Welcome to the digital age.

    If it's on the internet, it's bad. Nevermind crime's been part of human history since we crawled from the primordial soup.

    I find this sheriff's remarks to be no different than others who blame the internet for their woes.

    It amazes me people think that people can be controlled simply because it is the internet.

    I love the sidewalk example. I'd like to see this sheriff walk out and control every living human being in his jurisdiction. After all, he has the exact same tools available to him that Craigslist does.

    Such idiocy.

    I wonder how are forefathers would react if they saw this country today.

    I'm guessing the "innocent until proven guilty" would immediately get tossed as the internet clearly shows this isn't applicable.

  • On the post: The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion

    Violynne ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2009 @ 06:52am

    Re: Re: I can see this side of the argument.

    What kind of stupid question is this to ask?

  • On the post: The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion

    Violynne ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2009 @ 04:05am

    I can see this side of the argument.

    I was one of those who remarked that articles relating to issues outside the United States shouldn't be here (make a Techdirt for those countries instead).

    All these types of articles do is get people's discussions to go all "full of rage" as readers think it's happening in this country.

    I get the whole "we're not just limited to folks here", but why discuss the idiocy of other nations (especially you France and UK) when we've enough on our plate to deal with?

    Of course, I've not stated anything against these types of posts for a long time. I just simply ignore them now. Admittedly, I do peruse the comments just to get a chuckle from those who post comments.

    At any rate, I'm an Insider, so it obviously doesn't matter that much to me. So I can see this side of the argument.

    Ironically, those people who say one has to be an expert should read the comments from those very experts! They get the same crap Techdirt gets.

    Because "expert" is a misleading term on the internet. People demand 15 linked sources before they find the article credible. I wish these people would stay off the internet.

    Any, keep up the good work. I'll still read regardless of the article's source material.

  • On the post: Disney Sued For Selling The Pixar Lamp… And The Lawsuit Makes Sense

    Violynne ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2009 @ 06:57pm

    Luxo shouldn't sue, but get even.

    I think Luxo should give away free Pixar movies (via a DVD copy) with every lamp purchased.

    Hey, what's good for the goose, right?

  • On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Make Content More Like Physical Property

    Violynne ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2009 @ 08:56am

    DRM failure #10,234,884,234 and counting.

    I read about this yesterday and thought about submitting it, but decided not to because it was so blatantly stupid, I thought it was a hoax.

    I still think it's a hoax.

    Because the developing idiots still don't get that DRM is bad regardless how "well" it's designed to work with consumers.

    Here, steal my folder. You can't do squat with it unless you have the key.

    Where's the key? Always in the last place I look.

Next >>