Seegras’s Techdirt Profile


About Seegras

Pirate from Switzerland

Seegras’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 2nd, 2015 @ 6:02am


    This just reinforces what I've been saying for a long time - when it comes to 'terrorism' many in the government have taken the attitude of "the ends justify the means".

    That attitude comes straight from the terrorists playbook.

  • Sep 1st, 2015 @ 3:57am

    Re: EU vs US companies

    First of all yes, the EU parliament does seem to have something against Google for whatever reason.

    No. It's actually the EU Commission. That body which is supposed to be the executive, isn't elected, and meddles in the legislative's (the parliaments) territory.

  • Aug 31st, 2015 @ 1:11am


    You DO NOT create new content using characters that have been created by another person who owns the copyrights to it.

    Like fanfiction? I cannot exactly see where the "owns the copyright to it" is in there, because "create new content" implies it's NOT copyright violation.

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 12:06am


    Yeah, it's kinda obvious.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 2:40am

    Re: Re: I'm trying

    Linux is not for everyone, but neither is Windows.
    I'd also say Linux is not for everyone, but then, Windows is for nobody ;)=

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 2:12am

    Re: Re: What a joke.

    I started using Linux in 1995.

    And one of the reasons was Windows 95. I had a beta in summer 1995, and came to the conclusion that this was the same DOS-based shit as Windows 3.11, in a nicer packaging.

    Just at this moment, a friend lent me his Linux install CD, and I was hooked. I still had DOS and Windows 3.11 for maybe a year or two on the other partition, but then came Quake in 1996, and that was the point where I threw out DOS and Windows. Obviously, they weren't needed anymore, the important games were working on Linux ;).

    My machines run Linux ever since, sometimes I had some Windows in a VMware, but never on the metal. But lately, wine has obliterated the need for most Windows VMs, because it's so much faster and runs about 90% of all Windows applications and 80% of all games, out of the box. Of course, now I don't even run wine so much, since a lot of games now get ported.

    In any case, apart from OCR, Desktop Publishing and Image Manipulation, there is no need to use anything but Linux. And for the above three things, MacOS X has always been better than Windows anyway.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 1:59am


    Fixed it:
    This is going to be the best Microsoft operating system of all time.

    But arguably, the best Microsoft OS might have been Xenix, although it was a miserable Unix, it was still Unix, hence better ;).

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: BBC is well trained

    The Virginia Police did this.

    Somebody needs to remind them. Sic semper tyrannis.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 3:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?


    And §15 differentiates between "fixed" ("in körperlicher Form") and "non-fixed", but that's not related to eligibility.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 2:43am

    free markets

    Free markets work best if everyone can participate, as consumer AND as producer.

    Airbnb is exactly doing that. And I can't see why this should be a tax problem, as the income made with renting out your apartment is subject to normal income tax. Why would you have another tax on it?

    Of course, incumbents don't like free markets...

  • Aug 24th, 2015 @ 7:38am


    Could anyone explain why the Attorney-General is behaving like he's the legislative?

    I my understanding, Attorney-Generals don't make laws. Ever.

  • Aug 23rd, 2015 @ 1:27am

    Re: Re: Piracy double standard

    Addendum: And claiming to have the right to invoke DMCA takedowns, means you need to claim copyrights. Which absolutely is copyfraud if you do that with public domain material.

  • Aug 23rd, 2015 @ 1:21am

    Re: Piracy double standard

    It's called Copyfraud.

  • Aug 21st, 2015 @ 5:25am

    Re: Re:

    What other science does he claim "harms America"?

  • Aug 21st, 2015 @ 5:22am

    Re: Candidate lineup

    Here's where it's going

  • Aug 20th, 2015 @ 1:10am

    Re: Re: cameras


    Besides, this is not porn, because there is no pornographic context.

  • Aug 19th, 2015 @ 5:21am

    Re: Warning before movies

    Piracy is actually a crime:
    "Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft (or) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state"

    However, copyright infringement is not; it's civil law, not criminal law (except in some countries where real criminals wrote the law).

  • Aug 19th, 2015 @ 5:12am

    Re: To the MPAA:

    Piracy doesn't kill your revenue - not watching your movies kills your revenue.

    No. "not paying for your movies kills your revenue". It doesn't matter whether I don't buy the blueray or don't go to a theatre, or don't pay for a download. It's all the same. Whether I'm still watching the movie, or a different movie, or read a book, doesn't matter at all.

    Or to put it differently: You only get revenue from me, if you get me to pay for your movie. This means:
    - Offer something I like
    - At a point in time I like
    - To a price I'm willing to pay
    - Without mistreating me (like: searching me for cameras, or putting DRM onto your products etc.)

    It's simple. can do it for computer games, you could do it for movies just as easy.

  • Aug 19th, 2015 @ 4:58am

    Damage calculations

    Now to calculate damages correctly, we can apply several models.

    Suppose somebody has put a song illegally onto the internet, and some other people might have downloaded it.

    a) We calculate damages from the actual amount of people who downloaded it, and multiply it with the sales price. Yes, the people who had downloaded it might also put it onto the internet illegally, but then these people violate copyright, and not that somebody that put it initially there. So these need to be sued separately. This has a further problem that it's very hard to quantify if using peer2peer technology, but we could divide the outgoing peer2peer traffic of the file by the size of it, and get a number. Probably something like 20, multiplied by $1.

    b) We deem the first person to put it up illegally to be responsible for all the infringement that might arise further down. Since we don't sue everyone else, we don't have any numbers who might have re-published it, and whether they've even republished it. With peer2peer, we can at least assume they've republished it illegally. So we could take the above figure and assume that everyone republished it 20 times. So this would end up at something around $400 for the above example. Now, since bandwidth is finite, sharing multiple songs and other materials would probably lead to smaller amounts of the work being sent out illegally, so a whole album might be sent out only 5 times at all, so this still wouldn't amount to a lot, maybe 5x5x$12 = $300 for the above example.

    Obviously, it's rather difficult to even get exact traffic stats, and they also could be inflated artificially by the rights holder himself, this is probably not the right way to do it.

    We could instead base the whole damages upon something else:

    c) The amount of people that could have bought the song, if it hadn't been made available illegally. As it happens, the number is 0. Because those people spent their money somewhere else in the economy: The bought coffee, computer games, went to the movies, etc. So that's not really a good number, and we can't discern people who didn't buy the song but a cup of coffee instead, from the people who didn't buy it because they bought a weeks food instead.

    d) The amount of people who would have bought it, if it hadn't been made available illegally. This is more interesting, but also hard to figure out. Obviously all fans would have bought it. You might get a ballpark figure of how many there are from homepages, social media and concerts. But it will probably be lower than the amount of songs already sold. You might use past sales, but then, you already have illegal copies in there, so these will be less than the possible amount. Probably the only way to find out is a survey and do statistics. Just ask a random set of people, worldwide, and ask them if they already bought, or would buy the song for $1. Which would be a huge effort.

    But there still might be another way: Statistics on economy and spending.

    e) Since the money not spent on paying for the song, the money was spent on something else. That "something else" is totally uninteresting if it's food or housing or other necessities. It's only interesting if money was spent on entertainment, and the amount happens to be known for a lot of countries. From this we can actually figure out the percentages for the different kinds of entertainment (in the US it's around $1000 a year for audio, but including equipment), so we need the number spent for audio recordings alone. If we divide that number by the average total amount of audio recordings acquired within a year (from sources published legally and illegaly both, as well as free/open content/commons/public domain; probably needs a survey), this will give us a price somebody will actually pay for a song. (And now I've gotten lost on the damages part, but that price is in itself interesting, because it's the price you want to sell your songs at).
    Ah yes, we need to know what percentage of the population, on average, has a certain song. This will be rather low. Multiply that with the population times the price somebody will pay, you've got your damages.

    Needed for (e) are surveys on the amount of songs acquired in a year, on average; and on the chance a song has to be among them, on average. But this actually sounds doable, at least in certain countries.

  • Aug 19th, 2015 @ 2:56am


    Yes. -as-you-might-think.shtml

More comments from Seegras >>