pixelpusher220’s Techdirt Profile


About pixelpusher220

pixelpusher220’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 28th, 2015 @ 8:43am

    Copyright IS censorship

    the entire point is to prevent people from certain types of 'speech'.

    By any definition that is censorship.

    Fair Use and the limit-less, I mean limited, time frame are the supposed to be the balancing act of society vs creativity. (entirely a separate discussion)

    So yes, without Fair Use, it's only 1 side of the balance and you get predictable results from that 'scale'.

  • Apr 20th, 2015 @ 7:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly. Perhaps comparing the GPS locations of the car and of the phone may help.

    Or in the simplest case, are the 'relay' devices 1 way or 2 way? Having a back and forth handshake would at least require 2 way communication...or have something that requires a some delay that allows your phone to notify you and give you the option to say 'no' before it unlocks itself (and of course alert you that hey someone is unlocking your car!).

  • Apr 16th, 2015 @ 9:01am

    Next test

    File for permission to distribute flyers explaining just how badly the college fails 1st Amendment rights.

    Assuming they don't deny the application, on the day of the protest/distribution in the 'allowed zone', have someone else distribute the exact same flyers 'outside' of the zone.

    Grab popcorn and watch bureaucratic explode.

  • Apr 10th, 2015 @ 3:26pm


    The exact way it was handled? They talked to him and determined he wasn't a threat. Keep monitoring for hints of actual plans but until then he's just a lunatic ranting...which isn't a crime or many of us would have incarcerated grandparents.

  • Apr 10th, 2015 @ 2:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Silly article

    Since you have expressly stated your desire to punish people for things they haven't yet done...

    We should be arresting you for depriving people of their liberties without cause.

    I mean, here its just text on a page, but as you say, we can't tell when you'll turn into a fascist dictator - so we should eliminate the threat.

    We should also probably arrest anyone for having an alcoholic beverage, because we can prevent possible future acts of DUI.

  • Apr 10th, 2015 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Silly article

    Nobody said stop keeping track of him.

    But wholesale manufacturing of 'plots' like this is more time they aren't spending looking for actual criminals.

  • Apr 10th, 2015 @ 1:59pm


    yeah after the statement

    "Anything. Anything you think is good. I will follow you."

    how is this anything other than entrapment?

  • Apr 9th, 2015 @ 1:34pm


    Straw man argument that doesn't hold water.

    It is not discrimination to prevent a disruptive customer from frequenting your business.

    Refusing someone service for the color of their skin is entirely different than having someone actively disrupt your business.

  • Apr 9th, 2015 @ 1:01pm

    In theory

    yes let the system work.

    In practice, not so much. Allowing discrimination to manifest and people to suffer while the 'system' meanders its way to an unknown destination doesn't help those people.

    Unlike a business entity, the State of Indiana won't go out of business so the discrimination and suffering would continue much longer and only get worse as the economy of Indiana suffered.

    Allowing this to stand is Machiavellian...people suffered longer but now it's ok.

    That's not ok at least to me.

  • Apr 9th, 2015 @ 8:37am


    I do like how now even PAYING for content is being classified as infringement.

    It's not like Netflix provides content for free. Wouldn't it be fraud to take customers money and then not provide them the service they paid for?

  • Apr 8th, 2015 @ 8:10am


    Indeed. I'm amazed at how the fact that the government has been falsifying evidence as a policy hasn't basically brought every single government case to its knees.

    If we *know* the policy is to lie...how exactly can anything offered up as evidence be trusted?

    I just can't see how this isn't viewed as a fundamental threat to our system of government.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Privacy/Security?

    per this reddit review from a few months ago, I wouldn't expect much of anything 'customer friendly'.


  • Mar 30th, 2015 @ 9:27am


    Since the media covering these stories is often legally owned by the IP owner of the media being pirated, it's like a therapy session.

    There are uncomfortable questions that get raised once you start scratching the surface.

    So willful ignorance of the problem is the early stage. Denial will come next. Obviously the actual IP side is already at the lashing out stage.

  • Mar 23rd, 2015 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: Yes it does

    on the raising of capital front, indeed the recent years have shown a remarkable trend toward the little guy being able to do this effectively and nimbly. A very good development.

    Implicit assumption #2: The selling of the patent actually transfers something useful towards the actual innovation

    The innovation itself is entirely separate from the patent. One is real, the other is an entirely made up legal construct - so no the patent isn't going to do anything to the actual innovation. Except encourage people to innovate because there is some possible 'reasonable' return on their effort; which is the point no?

    And yet, you almost never see cases of someone selling a patent to encourage development of some new technology

    Never said that. Being small enough that you can't adequately bring it to market is an entirely valid reason for selling the patent. Some people are 'idea people' who are better suited to coming up with new innovative ideas but aren't good at bringing it to market. They should be given protection shouldn't they?

    If they want to try and fail to bring something to market...that's up to them, but selling their patents to someone who can would seem to be a way to encourage yet more innovation.

    It's a reasonable argument whether this is truly *needed* anymore, but it does encourage innovation. As to whether the existence of patent trolls negates that encouragement...perhaps, but simply throwing out the patent system entirely wouldn't be a great thing either.

    The 'knowledge transfer' also likely doesn't happen if someone figures something out in the garage but doesn't take it further because they won't see any return from the effort.

    The internet and modern connectivity are certainly helping people transfer vast amounts of knowledge without the patent system, but I would disagree that it isn't still a useful tool to be used.

  • Mar 23rd, 2015 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re: Yes it does

    You make my argument for me. If a little guy can't fight a lawsuit, it makes EVEN MORE sense to sell said patent for at least some return on the little guy's investment...

  • Mar 23rd, 2015 @ 9:35am

    Yes it does

    If I patent something but don't have the means to actually see it through, selling the patent is a reasonable way to use the patent system to encourage innovation.

    If a small time inventor isn't likely to see return, they are less likely to do it.

    Allowing them to sell their patents lets the little guy profit in world geared way to heavily to the big guy.

    That said, how you allow the sale to *only* 'big guys' who actually intend to produce the patented invention is the crux of the problem.

    IP laws need reform in many ways, but lets also not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  • Mar 17th, 2015 @ 11:00am


    Just reword the 'tax' legislation to make it a 'license' instead. i.e., Piracy no longer exists because everybody has now licensed every song they download...for one flat fee :)

    Sit back and watch the RIAA freak out.

  • Mar 16th, 2015 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Can't be used in court...I give you parallel construction. It doesn't NEED to be admissible, just gives them where to start looking for you and then make up a different plausible story.

  • Mar 11th, 2015 @ 3:40pm


    the statement is perfectly valid and so is your point.

    The issue with 3D printers isn't that they can print things covered under copyrights or patents.

    I can paint, draw or make anything I damned well want too and use it myself without there being an 'infringement' of those copyrights or patents.

    They expressly provide the monopoly over the consumer market...what I do on my own free time isn't the consumer market.

    Possibly patents might be violated if I can make and use something in my business otherwise under patent...but then it would be more of an argument that the patent should be invalidated if someone not skilled in the art can also make the same thing.

    Still though if you're not actively selling such things, it's hard to see how it rises to the level of someone wanting to prosecute you.

    In reality, nobody would likely ever know you printed a full size Princess Leia stature to, ahem, 'dance' with ;-)

  • Mar 9th, 2015 @ 9:58am

    mmmm waffles

    Remember this is Jeb Bush who was a pretty good leader on immigration issues; he had oodles of experience on the issue.

    Then in prepping for his presidential run, he wrote a book that basically assumed the GOP wave would continue, so he took the Tea Party line on immigration.

    Cue massive and quick national shift on immigration to favor amnesty.

    Jeb quickly claims he didn't really write the book...

    ..ok it's a little more nuanced than my description, but still pretty bad for his big issue.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/jeb-bu sh-flip-flop-immigration-pathway-citizenship/

More comments from pixelpusher220 >>