B Pickel 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (39)

• On the post: First Grader Investigated For Sexual Harassment For Kicking A Bully In His Private Parts

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2011 @ 10:10pm

  Re: Re:

  if he touches himself, would that effect his parole?

• On the post: Porn Giant Vivid to Take Legal Action Over HTC Vivid Name

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2011 @ 07:24pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Vivid may play in the online entertainment marketplace, under the name ?Vivid Entertainment?
  Espn also plays in the online entertainment marketplace, under the name ?ESPN?
  The difference with Espn is that;
  one, the name is made up,
  two, it?s the name they trade with,
  three, they use a ?name? not an adjective
  
  If your point was the case, I fail to see why Vivid entertainment has not gone after the following companies/people for also using ?vivid? in some of there names:
  vivid Sydney - vividsydney.com
  vividwireless - www.vividwireless.com.au (maybe vivid did branch out into this )
  vivid group - www.vividgroup.com.au
  Vivid publishing - www.vividpublishing.com.au/
  vivid ? the Japanese band
  vivid ? the album by living colour
  Vivid imaginations - a uk toy company (not those kind of toys ;) )
  Vivid ? a centre for the production and exhibition of media art

• On the post: Sen. Joe Lieberman Asks Google For A 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Button

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2011 @ 07:42pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,

  Maybe it's time for a report stalker button?

• On the post: RIAA Admits It Wants DMCA Overhaul; Blames Judges For 'Wrong' Interpretation

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 07:49pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "A real host would allow you to upload files, and would serve those files when someone requests them, and nothing more"
  "just giving you storage and a net connection that you can work with"
  
  so a site hosting a torrent file (loaded by a user) is protected under your discription?

• On the post: The Many Killers Of The Film Industry: Volume One

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2011 @ 06:51pm

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

  "...and goes out of their way to obtain illegally."
  You forget the rest
  
  They then watch the first 10min, realise what they downloaded is shit, and click delete.

• On the post: Bad Move By Google: Hiding Search Referral Info… Unless You're An Advertiser

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2011 @ 08:13pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  then that explains why i can still access my rum

• On the post: State Government In Australia Seeks To Issue $12k Fines If You Insult Its Gaming Minister Michael O'Brien

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2011 @ 07:02pm

  Re: Re:

  Penal colony? like australia?

• On the post: Mainstream Press Account In Australia Makes The Case For Why 'Piracy' Is Not The Problem

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2011 @ 06:55am

  Re: Re:

  You could be right that it might be a small market (compared to other places with a population of 21 million /sarc) but I haven't seen the local TV/movie mobs complaining about their losses in "this" small market

• On the post: Mainstream Press Account In Australia Makes The Case For Why 'Piracy' Is Not The Problem

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2011 @ 10:26pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Decimation

  Don't be to hard on him, he learnt to argue from the internet
  http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-06-03/

• On the post: State Department Pulls Top Secret Security Clearance From Diplomat Who Linked To Publicly Available Info

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2011 @ 10:05pm

  Re: Re: Re: Who's head is in the sand?

  Wait, didn?t he "link" to an exposed classified document? is that the same as "posting" classified information?
  from what I?m understanding he didn't make the document available, just the same as Google is not held responsible for making the document available by also linking to the document.

• On the post: Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2011 @ 04:31pm

  an idea

  if only there was some sort of royalty collection agency that would just collect all money on behalf the artists ? actually, Never mind

• On the post: Free Justin Bieber: Do We Really Want Congress To Make Bieber A Felon?

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2011 @ 04:19pm

  Re:

  sounds like good leverage for a record label...
  
  Talent scout : We saw your youtube videos and we'd like you to sign up with us
  Kid : mum, should i?
  Mum : i don't know this deal doesn't seam fair
  Talent scout : sign with us kid, or you'll be going to gaol(jail)

• On the post: Beyonce May Get Sued For Copyright Infringement Because Of The Way She Danced

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2011 @ 09:46pm

  Re: Re:

  it's a non issue if their policy also prohibits religion

• On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 10:13pm

  Re: Copyright...

  MAC, I think your example of using a software in that scenario starts simular but falls away from this issues raised/concerned within the article
  
  As per your scenario I can see where your coming from;
  I made/designed/created something(in your case a widget) and now someone was obtained it without compensation and has packaged it with other ideas/equipment that you
  a) Hadn?t thought of.
  b) Had thought of but couldn?t/hadn?t implemented.
  c) Had thought of and is currently working on releasing it.
  And then option d) Had thought of it and already has a released version competing in the market place.
  
  Now as you go down thought the options you will find that people become more irate about this violation (often called theft) is generally because of the more money they potentially lost. What they don?t see (or turn a blind eye to)is that as you go further now the list the original something (widget) now has a larger marketplace to be used in or even demand for more or possibly improved versions to replace it. You can sue them or you can approach them and try to strike up a licensingsubscriptionproduct pricing deal with them (you know offer them first access to upgrades or quicker/better support of the product).
  
  Now if your just chasing the ?entitled? money the first approach of suing them seams the best way to obtain the cash, but the second approach is a much more sustainable long term approach.
  
  The issue I get from the article is not that they didn?t purchase the music but that there was conflicting beliefs on the terms set up in the original licensing agreement.

• On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 09:15pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  wouldn't a DJ also be classed as a "performance by an artist" and as such should also play X+Y?

• On the post: PETA Jumps The Dolphin-Free Shark; Opens Own Porn Site

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 07:18pm

  Re:

  Or "Kiddy Porn"
  
  (previously know as baby goat porn)

• On the post: Guy Accused Of Being Part Of Anonymous Banned By Court From Using His Real Name Online

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2011 @ 10:54pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Is your handsome profit $350?

• On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2011 @ 06:23pm

  Re:

  Overcast, I think your on the right track, but I believe they are applying a basic high school algebra trick.
  Lets start values of one ?download? equals one ?lost sale?, we have an equation something like this;
  X = 1 & Y = 1 where X is the downloads and Y is the lost sale both being in a qty of 1
  Therefore we can assume X = Y = 1 or more simply X = Y (hands up if lost you yet)
  Now lets start the maths magic machine of the MPAA (patent pending)
  (multiply both sides by Y )
  XY = Y^2
  (subtract both sides by ?X^2)
  XY ? X^2 = Y^2 ? X^2
  (now Factorise)
  X ( Y - X ) = ( Y + X )( Y - X )
  (Divide by the common factor of ( Y ? X ) )
  X = Y + X
  Substitute values for X & Y
  1 = 1 + 1
  Thus
  1 = 2 or
  one download = one lost sale + one download
  now using the proof above we substitute one download with its value and
  we then get
  one download = one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (one lost sale + (?etc))))))
  Now this has a fundamental flaw but looks logical, but I dare say they are using this

• On the post: Some Old Guy Can't Come Up With Any New Ideas; So He Says There Are No New Ideas & It's Twitter's Fault

  

  B Pickel ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 04:22pm

  Re: Re: I agree with Neal.

  Tldr, but your point sounds about right