Rather_Notsay 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (127)

• On the post: WSJ To Try Micropayments: What A Bad Idea

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 11 May, 2009 @ 06:33am

  Need a mechanism

  I wish WSJ well. Whether this or that web content is worth the micropayments, I lament that there is no micropayments scheme in place.
  
  Sending a check by snail mail costs the sender almost a buck. Typing in credit cards is a hassle, puts my entire financial life at risk. Both have transaction large transaction costs on the other end.
  
  There's lots of stuff I wouldn't mind paying a couple of bucks for, but there's no convenient way to do it. I spend five bucks at Arby's and don't complain. Within 30 minutes it's no longer usable, and within 48 hours virtually the whole thing has become the property of my local wastewater treatment plant. Yet I don't complain that there's no refund process.
  
  There are a lot of other things I wouldn't mind paying a penny for, but no one is going to pay 100 pennies in transaction costs.
  
  It's not rational that everything on the internet is free, it's a consequence of the irrational internet bubble, which created unreasonable expectations. It should be cheap, however, really cheap, since the cost of making a copy is very close to (but not equal) zero. The path forward will make the transactions cost a small fraction of the sale cost. Then the price to the consumer can be so small that he can consume vast quantities, but the profits to the producer will be enough to keep them going without having to bring in third parties to keep the game going.

• On the post: Going Too Far In Kowtowing To Copyright Holders

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2009 @ 12:46pm

  Just one more click

  Never mind the actual copyright issues, there's a pervasive attitude that just one more mouse click never hurt anyone.
  What does anybody think they're proving by forcing users to check some box that doesn't mean anything?
  
  When I try to book travel on my employer's officially sanctioned web site, I have to enter my "international travel authorization" number, even if I don't have one because I'm not traveling internationally. Somebody somewhere decided that those international travelers weren't properly entering their international travel codes, so they would make EVERYBODY enter one. It's just one more mouse click. Multiplied by thousands of users every day.
  
  When I fill out my expense report I have to check the box where I swear I'm not defrauding anyone, nor have I used the funds to commit any international crimes to bribe foreign officials even though it might be legal in their country. I can't get reimbursed for my legitimate expenses unless I swear that I didn't commit a crime with the money. It's just one more mouse click. Who the hell would admit that they did commit an international crime? (If you knew who I work for and what international crimes they have committed you'd really find that funny.)
  
  When I turn on my TomTom I have to swear that I'll drive safely. Some damn lawyer's idea that they'll be able to avoid one of those class action lawsuits brought on by the user's stupidity. They won't, of course, but it's just one more click. My clicker's clicked out. I'll sure never buy another TomTom, but that's just one of the reasons.

• On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2009 @ 05:37am

  Dave says:
  
  Copyright was intended to give artists temporary exclusive rights to profit from the creation of a desirable, tangible product, to wit: a stack of bound paper with a specific sequence of information imprinted upon it. Copyright was necessary in this world because widespread information sharing was only possible by imprinting it on valuable, and costly media.
  
  Actually that's exactly wrong. Except for the part about exclusive rights.
  
  The purpose of copyright then was the same as it is now: it's cheaper to produce a copy of someone's work than it is to create the work in the first place. The difference is that it was easier to police then. Typesetting and such was hard and expensive, because few people had the equipment to copy and because so few works were worth copying, since you still had to compete against the original publisher. It was trivial to trace the illegitimate copy back to the unauthorized publisher.
  
  They could pay the content creator by pricing the good a little bit higher than the mass production cost but less than the individually produced copy cost. Anyone who tried to cut costs by mass producing copies without paying the content creator would get caught and punished.
  
  That started to go away with the tape recorder and the copy machine, but it still wasn't (usually) worth the trouble. With digital copies and the internet, it's trivially easy and nearly free to make as many perfect copies as anyone wants. Hence, copyright is still a valuable concept, just unenforceable. The cost of an individually produced copy is zero, so the content producer gets fraction*quantity*0.
  
  I don't know how to fix that. The only way the old way is going to keep going is for the masses to decide that it's a good thing worth supporting. If there was sufficient social pressure to not copy certain items it might be possible to keep the old ways going for a while. Trouble is the organizations that profit from copyright have traditionally gone out of their way to raise contempt for it. It's hard to have much respect for a system that still requires payments for "Steamboat Willie" and "Happy Birthday".
  
  If I was king I'd drastically cut the term of copyright, to something like ten years for personal copies, somewhat longer (maybe 20 years) for publishing a copy for sale or other profit. The latter would include not only re-printing someone else's book, but also hosting a web site with someone else's content on it. It might be possible to get that system to work on those terms. Expecting people to pay a buck for an MP3 of Woody Guthrie never will.

• On the post: Rethinking Handing Copyright On To Heirs Beyond Death

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2009 @ 05:45am

  Re:

  Why would they kill him? What's the incentive? If the author is dead, NOBODY gets to make the sort of profit off the work that a copyright monopoly allows.
  
  Suppose I'm a publishing company, and I want to re-print an out-of-print book. I go to visit the author to get permission and find that he's is sitting in a nursing home on life support. If I trip over the cord on the way out I can proceed with my original business plan AND not have to pay any royalties.
  
  But seriously, more important from a legal standpoint, everyone should be able to know what the law is. If the limit is 50 years, and I pick up a book that says "(c) 1958" then I know it's in the public domain. I shouldn't have to check the obituaries.

• On the post: Using The DMCA To Stop Patients From Rating Their Doctors

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2009 @ 03:44pm

  Pretty sure that contract is invalid

  I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but at least the last time I checked you can't just sign away copyright like that. Under a specific "work for hire" agreement the employer holds the copyright for work produced and paid for, but just telling someone (under duress) to sign an agreement transferring the copyright to work not yet created (without consideration) won't hold up.
  
  Here's another question: If a medical professional refused treatment because of unrelated business considerations, isn't that at least a very serious breach of medical ethics?

• On the post: Is Voicemail The Next Thing To Fade Away?

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2009 @ 07:15am

  Network phones

  I've always hated the klunky interface to voicemail. Part was the limited bandwidth of a 12 key kepad, but the byzantine menu trees on top the limited interface made it bad squared.
  
  I'll agree that the voice will never go away, but the practice of recording voice messages and listening to them at a later time probably will. The recorded message rarely conveys more information that "call me." It takes more time to compose and hear it than it's worth.
  
  We recently got network phones at the office. Voice messages go to email, so we can listen to them on any .wav player. Much better. Even better is the caller ID makes most of them unnecessary. When you come back from lunch you see who called and you call them back. It's only a waste of time to have to listen to the message. Most everyone has figured that out now.

• On the post: Making The Tough Choices To Save The Economy?

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2009 @ 01:54pm

  Do we have the nerve?

  There are two options. One is we can continue to borrow money from foreigners (or fleecing them, as in the mortgage debacle) in order to buy off domestic special interests, or decide that we're going to live within our means and create some hope of long-term prosperity and maybe even buying our sovereignty back.
  
  The former is the banana republic economic model. GWB set us well along that path. BHO has decided to double (or triple or quadruple) down.

• On the post: Latest Digital TV Transition Hiccup: Not Enough Converter Boxes

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2009 @ 02:23pm

  Wasted coupons

  How many people didn't need a coupon, but since it didn't cost anything they got one anyway just to jack the system around?
  
  I can think of one.

• On the post: Local Newspaper Sues Other Local Paper Over 'Stolen' Obituaries

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2009 @ 12:42pm

  Hot and New?

  Does anybody else find humor in associating the phrase "hot and new" with an obituary?
  
  Victor Frankenstein, maybe. Or more likely Froederick.
  
  "Check the Scranton Times for hot, new bodies, Igor. They always have the freshest obituaries."

• On the post: UK Government To Set Up Online Feedback For Public Services

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2009 @ 07:06am

  Negative feedback on your noggin

  If you leave negative feedback on the cops do they come around and give you another opportunity to rate them?

• On the post: Amazon Uses DMCA To Try To Block Other Ebooks From Getting On Your Kindle

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2009 @ 09:23am

  Like I needed another ...

  One more reason to not buy a Kindle.

• On the post: Truth Is No Longer An Absolute Defense Against Libel?!?

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2009 @ 01:14pm

  Why the double standard?

  If our hero had been canned, then set up staplessucks.com, everyone would have been defending him. Even if he hadn't set up or whoever_last_fired_him_sucks.com. Even if he had in so doing released what could have been considered company sensitive information it would have been cheered as an inalienable right to free speech, a blow for freedom, much needed sunshine on the internal workings of a big corporation.
  
  So why is it when the company fires the guy for a good reason it's "private information", or harassment, or "publishing for the purpose of hurting someone", or just "the dumbest things" to simply reveal the barest facts of the situation.
  
  This smells like a judge (and a bunch of armchair lawyers) who like to "side with the little guy" whether or not the little guy is wrong.

• On the post: Throwing Money At Problems Usually Is Not The Solution

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2009 @ 05:57pm

  Bailing out perpetuates the death spiral

  The purpose of bankruptcy is to separate the good assets from the bad liabilities. The car companies have a load of bad liabilities, stemming mostly from deals forced on them in the fifties, when they were flush with cash. Those agreements, which they made in good faith, are no longer viable, so they need to stop dragging down good assets.
  
  Don't bail them out, they will be forced to file Chapter 11. We can hope they will be taken over by somebody who knows something about making cars.
  
  And yes, I do think a healthy automobile industry (and all the supporting businesses) is essential to a healthy United States. Having them on perpetual life support so they can continue to service outdated labor agreements is not the way to make them healthy.

• On the post: Cash4Gold Apparently Threatening Bloggers With Defamation

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2009 @ 09:57am

  Re: Spelling fail

  OK, you've proven that you can take a correct sentence and turn it into an incorrect sentence.
  
  Let me try
  
  Then some sights, including Consumerist republished a list of "10 confessions" ...
  
  The company, not surprisingly, denys all of this, and says you can't trust a disgruntled former employee.
  
  Do I win?

• On the post: Cash4Gold Apparently Threatening Bloggers With Defamation

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2009 @ 09:54am

  Who to trust?

  Who is more believable, a disgruntled former employee or a gruntled current one?
  
  Jesse says:
  
  I think it is possibly time to rethink the utility of defamation.
  
  Really. Given the Streisand effect, a company (or person) that hasn't actually done anything wrong ought to be thrilled to be handed a public forum to promote themselves in.

• On the post: Can The Solution To Spam Be Hoax Spam?

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2009 @ 01:40pm

  A way to make this work

  I think I know how to make this "educational" spam concept work. When someone responds to it they get a message back with a local address where the (natural male enhancement|hot teenage virgins|$45 million in frozen Nigerian funds) can be picked up. When the respondent shows up they are put on a plane, given a pointed stick and some OD fatigues, and dropped off in Afghanistan. Pretty sure they won't do it again.

• On the post: Why Is It So Difficult To Opt-Out Of Copyright?

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2009 @ 07:50am

  No Copyright Clearinghouse

  I've wondered if if it would be possible to assign your copyright to an third party that exists solely for the purpose of not enforcing copyright. They have a automatic reply mailer that answers "yes" to all requests.

• On the post: What Would Pushing Back The Digital TV Transition Mean?

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2009 @ 06:01pm

  Re: Inadequate Education?

  The "converter boxes for the poor" is about as silly as you can get. Anybody who is too destitute to pay $40 for a converter box needs to be spending their time working or sleeping instead of watching Oprah.
  
  On the other hand, I would already have a $40 converter box for the TV I watch out in the garage, except that I'm waiting for my coupon to come in. Why pay for it if Uncle Chump will give it to me for free?

• On the post: Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2009 @ 10:58am

  Re: Re: Micropayments

  Heh. Uh, no. Your unsupported assertion makes no sense. Right before you is a case for a system that would allow small payments with small transactions costs and limited risk. I'm not going to give them my credit card (entering all those numbers, risking tens of thousands of dollars in potential fraud) for a dollar payment. I'm sure not going to give my kids a credit card under the same circumstances, or pay PayPal whatever outrageous price they charge per transaction these days, but a simpler system with limited losses, I could do that.
  
  Which is a worse "mental transaction cost", getting a game for a buck on line or having to drive to a store and get a shrink wrapped disk for $50?
  
  Let's look at the bigger picture. Why is it that we have no problem laying out fifty bucks a month for cable TV that leaves no residue (and we might not enjoy the programming) or a similar price to go to a movie (that we might not enjoy) or for a tank of gas (that will just turn into air pollution and might take us places we don't enjoy), or for a restaurant meal (that we might not enjoy and will just be solid waste polluting nearby waterways inside of 48 hours) but we balk at paying a similar price for software that could give us hours or days entertainment or perhaps profitable usability? Strange.
  
  Obviously, people find it cheaper as a total package, combining cash expenditure, effort, and moral comfort, to get the illegal version than the legal one. That moral comfort part of the expense gets driven down by a culture of getting software for free, which is driven by the perception that the legal price is immorally high. Whether it is or not, if the price can be lowered, it can have a multiplier by making illegal copies less socially acceptable. Hence there's a multiplier effect. Not only would there be more copies of the individual title paid for, it would drive more sales of all software. It's pretty much impossible to lower that sale price without lowering the transaction cost.
  
  I want software developers to get paid, and it's best if it's done directly, so their interests are focused on making the buyers happy rather than catering to advertisers or T-shirt buyers. Pointing out the counterproductive behavior of copyright holders is useful, but somewhere, somebody's cash has to leave their wallet and end up in the wallet of the person sitting down at the keyboard writing code. Otherwise the Mountain Dew runs out and so does the code. Just complaining that big copyright is doing it all wrong and asserting that they should rely on the kindness of strangers doesn't get software developed or music recorded.

• On the post: Creative Destruction Happens Quickly; Those Who Wait End Up In The Rubble

  

  Rather_Notsay ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2009 @ 10:08am

  Re:

  MW has a point, but at least in my town (and I suspect every other town in the country) I don't count on the editors of my local newspaper to do any editing, save to slant things to their own political biases.
  
  I don't know how to solve the newspaper problem, but the original article is saying that when the end comes, it will come quickly. They need to embrace that. The more they sit around and hope that a new and more draconian copyright enforcement scheme will save the old ways of doing things, the less effort they will expend on figuring out how to make a living in the new order. And I want them to make a living in the new order, it's just going to be impossible to do it by controlling the number of copies of a physical good.
  
  Contrary to Techdirt dogma, I would like a pay scheme, a subscription probably. True, I would like to get good stuff for free. Yes, I have more than enough passwords to remember. More importantly I would rather pay for something that I want than rely on the kindness of strangers with their own agenda. I want the reporters working for ME, not for the advertisers.
  
  How I imagine this working with PBS would be that individuals would sponsor one episode a year of a show they like. That's a lot more direct than having an entire season sponsored by business advertising, oops, excuse me, "Enhanced Underwriting". Kill the pledge drive, kill the government funding of propaganda, if you don't pay for the show you like, it ceases to exist. As often as I felt like paying for the ego trip I could watch my favorite show and see my name on TV. They could cancel their subscription to the Nielson ratings because they would know for sure what the viewers like.

Next >>