RobShaver 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (240) comment rss

  • On the post: Why You Should Be Paying Attention To Kevin Smith

    RobShaver ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 02:19pm

    Four-walling is not new

    Four-walling has been used by filmmakers for a long time.

    From Wikipedia

    Use of the four-wall technique has been generally uncommon, except during the late 1960s and 1970s when a host of U.S. companies engaged in this method.[5] They tended to operate in states such as Utah, Oregon, Florida and Texas, but shunned major markets like New York City and Los Angeles.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_wall_distribution

    Here's a reference to it from 1974
    http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/fourwall/

    And just to prove I know how to Google ...
    http://www.releasing.net/index2.html
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/four-walling
    http://www.b-independent.com/production/4walling.htm
    http://www.videomaker.com/learn/Distribution/four-walling/

  • On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them

    RobShaver ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2011 @ 11:34am

    Define Famous

    So who will define who is famous? Who will keep the list? If someone isn't famous then won't writing about them automatically make them famous? If a newspaper wants to write about Ted Kaczynski do they have to notify him before publishing? Can you write about a famous dead person? If so, who do you notify?

    I don't see much danger of any rules like this getting enacted.

  • On the post: Columbus Dispatch Issues Takedown On Famous YouTube Video Of Homeless Guy With Great Radio Voice

    RobShaver ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Dear Old Media Company

    Here's their reasoning, such as it is: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/columbus-dispatch/T9JG877NU02MHP799#lastPost

    I left this comment on that page:

    Dear Old Media Company,

    Copyright as currently practiced in the USA is stifling innovation, communication and, in some cases, free speech. Everything is copyrighted. Copyright lasts (effectively) forever now. Fair Use is only a defense after you are sued (which means you've already lost if your're the little guy).

    The "unauthorized" posting of this video to YouTube did you nothing but good. Your take-down order did you nothing but harm.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Just Weeks After Cutting Off Wikileaks, Amazon Brags About How US Federal Gov't Is One Of Its Biggest AWS Customers?

    RobShaver ( profile ), 31 Dec, 2010 @ 12:02pm

    Denial of Service

    So when Amazon (and all the financial institutions) refusing to service Wikileaks, wouldn't you call that a "Denial of Service"? And, since it all came at about the same time could you call it an attack on Wikileaks? Further since it's many different companies, is it not distributed?

    Oh, but it's all okay because they claim "Terms of Service" violation.

  • On the post: Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?

    RobShaver ( profile ), 22 Dec, 2010 @ 08:40am

    Here's a link to the original FCC news release

    "FCC ACTS TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM AND OPENNESS"

    http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

    I like to see the original document before writing to my congress person.

  • On the post: Harvard Newspaper Staff Apparently In Need Of A Lesson On Copyright Basics

    RobShaver ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2010 @ 01:40pm

    Re: Open Source

    So that means you've never met an open source programmer? There's a lot of them. Why do they do what they do? Have you ever met a volunteer? Why do they do that?

    I think you've lead a rather sheltered life. Might be fun to get out there and meet some of these folks.

  • On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned

    RobShaver ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2010 @ 01:37pm

    Let's all write a sequel CITR

    So I suggest each and every person reading this blog and who is against banning books for any reason bang out a hundred page book "Pitcher in the Oats: the Unofficial Sequel", then set it up at a print-on-demand site like Amazon and/or put in a torrent. What would happen if there are hundreds or thousands of these floating around? Would they ban them all? Would they sue us all?

    I just got Dragon Dictate software. Perhaps it can be a stream of consciousness treatises on what Mr. H thinks about how intellectual property rights have run amuck.

    "It was the best of times (for patent trolls), it was the worst of times (for innovation)."

    I know ... different book.

  • On the post: Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet

    RobShaver ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2010 @ 11:58am

    My email to Nike

    Dear Nike,

    I just read that a guy, Mr. E. Bateman, ordered what he thought were a legitimate pair of Nike trainers on-line. As it turned out they were counterfeit. Nike sued him and won. Is this true?

    If this is true then I can never buy your shoes again because I may not know if they are counterfeit or not. You must realize that is the only way I can protect myself from litigious companies such as Nike appears to be.

    Sincerely,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Does Saying You Wouldn't 'Buy' A Congressional Seat Mean You Don't Care About Politics?

    RobShaver ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2010 @ 08:46am

    This is my post in YouGov about this survey

    One major fallacy in your poll is your assumption that one of these two parties, or any other party, represent me, my beliefs or my aspirations for our government. It is my considered opinion that anyone who can succeed in getting elected in the current state of the US election environment has had to compromise his/her principals to the point that he/she is no longer fit to hold the office. Why don't you poll that?

    So I would have said ZERO too, because neither party has earned my trust to act in good faith after being elected. To conclude that Americans do not care about who governs them based on this highly flawed and poorly conceived survey says more about you than it does about the Americans who participated.

    "YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization" ... you get paid for doing this?
    "What the world thinks" ... not if this is an example of your work. Think again.

    So, no, I care little about politics, but I do care about my country and how it is governed and how it's operated. Maybe your little survey did reach the correct answer but asked the wrong question.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Does Saying You Wouldn't 'Buy' A Congressional Seat Mean You Don't Care About Politics?

    RobShaver ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2010 @ 08:44am

    Here's my post on YouGov about this

    One major fallacy in your poll is your assumption that one of these two parties, or any other party, represent me, my beliefs or my aspirations for our government. It is my considered opinion that anyone who can succeed in getting elected in the current state of the US election environment has had to compromise his/her principals to the point that he/she is no longer fit to hold the office. Why don't you poll that?

    So I would have said ZERO too, because neither party has earned my trust to act in good faith after being elected. To conclude that Americans do not care about who governs them based on this highly flawed and poorly conceived survey says more about you than it does about the Americans who participated.

    "YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization" ... you get paid for doing this?
    "What the world thinks" ... not if this is an example of your work. Think again.

    So, no, I care little about politics, but I do care about my country and how it is governed and how it's operated. Maybe your little survey did reach the correct answer but asked the wrong question.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog

    RobShaver ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2010 @ 01:50pm

    Re: Pulling a Daryl, AnitMike, etc ...

    A link looks like this:

    http://www.something.com

    That is an embedded video which ... is ... on ... his ... blog.

    With your definition everything on a web page is just a link.

    You are the one who should learn how the internet works ... DUDE.

  • On the post: TSA Claims You Need To Be Naked Scanned Or Groped After A Flight?

    RobShaver ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    why he needs to go through the scanner/groping process after the flight

    @Mike, you asked, "why he needs to go through the scanner/groping process after the flight"

    After hearing what the TSA guys had to say, I thinkhe had to be re-screened because A) the Paris screening wasn't up to TSA standards and B) this screening was after leaving customs where the passengers had access to their luggage and would be released into the airport post-screening area to reach other flights. The fact that Matt's travel terminated in Cincinnati didn't matter to them.

    So it sounds like if they had an exit into the pre-screening part of the airport, they could have let him go.

    That's the only logical reason I can think of.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship

    RobShaver ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2010 @ 04:01pm

    Oh Darryl, always on the side of Hitler.

    Oh Darryl, always on the side of Hitler.

    Just remember that everything Hitler did was perfectly legal at the time and everything the USA founding fathers did was ilegal at the time.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship

    RobShaver ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2010 @ 11:02am

    VCR: Evil Infringement Engine

    When the VCR was first introduced there was no pre-recorded tapes. It's only use was to record programming from the television ... copyrighted programming. So it was, indeed, dedicated to infringing and the TV channels objected and sued.

    Here's one version of that history.

    "[T]he United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held Sony liable for contributory infringement. The court also held that the Betamax was not a staple article because its main purpose was copying. It went on to suggest damages, injunctive relief and compulsory licenses in lieu of other relief."

    The Supreme Court nearly agreed with the Ninth Circuit but eventually reversed in a 5 to 4 decision. Had Universal City Studios, Inc. prevailed I believe that all the devices mentioned would have never been allowed to exist.

    So now you're arguing pretty much the same argument that would have prevented them from being legal.

    Read your history. It is repeating.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: TSA Does Full Grope Search On Screaming Three Year Old [Update]

    RobShaver ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2010 @ 03:06pm

    Forth Amendment

    I still don't understand why the forth amendment does not apply here. They pick people at random with no probable cause and they have no warrant.

  • On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents

    RobShaver ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2010 @ 03:02pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Dear Mister I-Like-Living-In-A-Police-State,

    Just how far do they have to go before you'd draw the line? Full cavity search okay with you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

    Why doesn't the fourth amendment apply here? They have no probable cause and no search warrant.

  • On the post: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly

    RobShaver ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2010 @ 02:22pm

    Re: MONOPOLY

    @Tim Wu ... okay, now define "dominates a market".

    From Wikipedia:

    In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

    Or

    (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"

    These are the "standard" definitions I find and they don't seem to match yours.

    When we had one phone company in the USA, Bell Telephone, that was a monopoly ... single seller. Apple has a monopoly on OS-X and Microsoft on Windows but I don't thing that's the same thing exactly.

    So I looked for a legal definition and found this:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

    monopoly n. A business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations, and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies, or prohibit restraint of trade. However, limited monopolies granted by a manufacturer to a wholesaler in a particular area are usually legal, since it is like a "license." Public utilities such as electric, gas and water companies may also hold a monopoly in a particular geographic area since it is the only practical way to provide the public service, and they are regulated by state public utility commissions.

    Still I'm not sure I'm clear on what your "dominates a market" definition really means. I think clear definitions facilitate any discourse and would love to see some clarification on this.

    Peace,

    Rob:-]

  • On the post: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly

    RobShaver ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2010 @ 01:54pm

    Monopolies can be avoided ...

    "Forgoing Google and Amazon is just inconvenient; forgoing Facebook or Twitter means giving up whole categories of activity."

    I'm on both Facebook and Twitter but I go weeks at a time without looking at them. I've found little utility in either.

    "harder than bypassing Starbucks, Wal-Mart ... "

    I've set foot in neither in months. I guess monopolies don't affect everyone the same.

  • On the post: Pizza Shop Sues Former Employee For 'Stealing' Recipe

    RobShaver ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2010 @ 08:35am

    Trade Secret

    Could the recipe be considered a trade secret?

  • On the post: Texas Supreme Court Cites The Wisdom Of Spock On Star Trek

    RobShaver ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2010 @ 02:17pm

    Re: Not so fast

    @SuperSparky, thank you, thank you, thank you for saying this. It's what I was formulating.

    Three times before I was ten one government department or another in the USA forced my family to sell our property to them for "the good of the many" at a price they insisted was fair, but was not.

    Now, as we know, the government can make YOU sell your property to them if they decide they can get more tax revenue by giving/selling it to someone else.

    So think twice before you embrace "the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one". SuperSparky got it exactly right and StarTrek set it up and then knocked it down. I see many missed the lesson there.

    The USA used to be the poster child for individual rights but no more. Look how many people we have behind bars. Prisons are a growth industry and the prison companies are writing the laws to make sure the prison populations continue to grow.

Next >>