Skout 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (37) comment rss

  • On the post: CenturyLink Won't Provide DSL, Wants To Block Competitor From Getting Fed Funds To Offer Wireless

    Skout ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2009 @ 07:51am

    Wow

    Subsidies exist to spur development. This isn't YOUR tax dollars competing with you, Michial (and others), but OUR tax dollars stimulating an economy in an under-served market.

    And Sinan, while I understand your POV, why wouldn't we support a company with an idea to provide them with broadband which is not currently provided? Your mentality that they choose to be farmers equates to them giving up internet service is flat out stupid.

    In this case, ESI asked for $3M funding to construct infrastructure from government funds set up FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE. If you disagree with the government subsidizing infrastructure, well.. sorry about that, but that's what government does. They're not asking the government to pay for their subscription fees, or give them free cable tv - they're asking for funding to offer such services.

    In a perfect world, we might all like to see this sort of thing financed by third-party VC or loans, but in poor economies, one does what one must, and if approved, this WOULD create wanted services and jobs.

  • On the post: Is Everyone Who Received Monday's Metro Toronto Guilty Of Child Porn Possession?

    Skout ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2009 @ 08:51am

    Re:

    "This is unlike Mr Downloader the other day,"

    The thing is, it IS the same thing. An accidental download (and piracy has nothing to do with that) is the same thing as an accidental posting, photo, and anything else. The ONLY thing that delineates this is that it's in Toronto, Canada, not the US of A. You can't treat one accident one way, and another accident differently.

    I think Mike's point here is pretty simple: accidents happen, and people shouldn't be facing jail time and sexual predator tagging because of them.

  • On the post: Compare The Process Between Engstrom's Internet Bill Of Rights And ACTA

    Skout ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2009 @ 08:12am

    I'm reminded of a fictional story I read a long time ago, where all the "dumb" criminals were rehabilitated or put to death, leaving only the really smart criminals behind to commit the crimes.

    Even putting aside the issue of being innocent until proven guilty (which is a HUGE issue to any sane person), don't these guys realize that if you push people off the internet, they're just going to go underground, before they ever get a chance to prosecute?

  • On the post: Dismissing The Freeloading Myth

    Skout ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2009 @ 01:03pm

    Wow, sounds like you struck a chord, Mike.

    First, file-sharing isn't necessarily unauthorized distribution. There's so much stuff being traded online for free that by pointing the finger at every person sharing files and calling them a criminal (or saying there is no defense for it) is ludicrous.

    For the illegal activities that ARE going on, there are PLENTY of defenses for it. Just as the recording and movie industries have defenses for their own crimes. There's always a defense for crimes. Whether you accept them or not is your business.

    As a file-sharer, let me inform you that I *do* go to movies, I *do* buy music online, I *do* rent and buy DVD/Blue-ray movies, and I do buy computer games on- and off-line. I am a customer. To be honest, I am a vexed, abused, irritated, and displeased customer, and when people like Anne (and the recording industries) refer to me as a criminal, it really pisses me off.

    We pay to see the movie in the theater, we pay to see it again on PPV, and again to see it on our supposedly-premium cable channels, or to rent the title on DVD/Blue-ray. We pay to own our own copy, and even then, they're trying to restrict us from recording images to watch at our leisure.

    Some people wonder why I'm so passionate about this topic. I myself wonder why so many people are not.

    The part about all of this that really saddens me is that with each post here, including my own, we only further garner Anne's utter garbage mentalities more attention.

  • On the post: Microsoft Tries To Silence Revelation Of Bing Cashback Flaws; Leads To Revelation Of Other Problems

    Skout ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2009 @ 11:10am

    lol@interval

    Too funny.

    I don't think anyone in my family uses Bing, but if they do, I bet they'll stop after they read my email about this. ;)

  • On the post: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?

    Skout ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2009 @ 07:10am

    Nothing new here at all. These crooks will do anything that benefits themselves. What Dark Helmet above said is absolutely the truth - they will abuse the courts and simply throw enough money at issues and claim all the while that they're poor because people 'steal' their work. Meanwhile, they're stabbing their artists in the back on a regular basis, stealing everything they can get their hands on, and laying claim to everything they can't.

    Copyright and ownership is going to be the basis of our next revolution. Eventually people aren't going to put up with it any more.

  • On the post: Don't Post Comments On StlToday.com Or They Might Tell Your Boss

    Skout ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2009 @ 07:24am

    I wonder how well he'd sleep at night

    ...if stltoday.com fired HIM for being a dumbass. I'm guess his self-righteousness might fade a little.

  • On the post: MPAA Gets Town To Turn Off Free Muni-WiFi Over Single Unauthorized Movie Download

    Skout ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2009 @ 06:05am

    I wonder how it was downloaded

    While I'm almost always on the side of freedom and sharing, I have to wonder what medium was used to download it, and I think that consideration show weigh heavily on any decision. If it was a torrent or kazaa, I think the admins of the system SHOULD be embarrassed and take it down.

    A free service run by taxpayers should be run by professionals who know how to control the system and prevent active illegal filesharing.

    Otherwise, carry on! :) As to NullOp above, hear hear! I'm not sure Hollywood will hear us correctly when we don't buy more of their offerings, but it's the only way we can voice our ire: STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCT.

  • On the post: FCC Poised To Let Hollywood Break Your TV And DVR

    Skout ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 07:17am

    I've submitted my letter to the chairman on this, and everyone else should, too.

    It doesn't matter if the technology can be circumvented. Ultimately, it always can be. The problem is in the FCC supporting their DEMAND for it.

    If this technology had some consumer incentive, they could sell it as a service and people would buy it. ("Get access to movies before anyone else does!") But it's obvious that they realize people are NOT that eager for this technology, and since they can't SELL it to us, they're out to FORCE it on us.

    Don't let them get away with this. Where do they get off punishing us?

  • On the post: EMI Sues Music Site Offering Beatles MP3s

    Skout ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2009 @ 09:51am

    How is this theft?

    One of my major complaints against the music and movie groups (game publishers, too!) has always been that they're not offering what their customers want, and this is a classic example: people obviously WANT the Beatles music in MP3 format, and are willing to pay for it, BUT NOBODY IS OFFERING IT. Stealing it is the ONLY option! Why is it copyright infringement to take copies of something that doesn't exist in the market?

    These people aren't stealing revenue from groups, because the groups aren't selling this material. I'm not legitimizing piracy - I'm simply pointing out what I see as a major flaw.

  • On the post: Court Tells Pirate Bay Founders They Can No Longer Work On The Pirate Bay

    Skout ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2009 @ 12:35pm

    ...but the judges involved aren't biased or anything.

  • On the post: Whaddaya Know: Obama Administration Seeks Delay In Handing Over Telco Immunity Lobbying Info

    Skout ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2009 @ 04:32am

    weird?

    It's not necessarily that we believed. We're guilty of a more innocent crime: we WANT to believe. This isn't worse than what we had under Bush. But it's more of the same, something we'd hoped was voted away. More than a little depressing.

  • On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing

    Skout ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2009 @ 12:19pm

    Day after Thanksgiving, eh?

    Maybe a minor detail, but it doesn't seem to me that Nov 29 is the day after Thanksgiving. If something like this is planned, might wanna solidify a date.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asks Administration For Its Thoughts On Cablevision Remote DVR And Copyright

    Skout ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2009 @ 11:43am

    Real-world equivalent

    It's not a trap, it's product, whether virtual or physical, and it has to be treated as product or property. The company storing the product is benefiting monetarily from someone else's product.

    I guess I should have stated from the beginning that I am offering only the devil's advocate view; I surely feel that people should be able to record what they want, how they like, as they like, but I can also see that it presents problems for the people trying to run a business with that product.

    As for
    "Neither your or Dr. Kopp E. Wright examples make sense. Cablevision (Store B) isn't reselling the television shows; it's storing a user-requested time-shift recording."
    and
    "Time shifting is legal, but you've both failed to actually address why it matters where the recording is stored."

    While Cablevision says its only storing them for its subscriber, there's no real way for Cablevision to prove that. Whether you/them wants to admit it, it *IS* taking possession of product and storing it, and the owners *ARE* at least allowed the option to fight for just compensation.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asks Administration For Its Thoughts On Cablevision Remote DVR And Copyright

    Skout ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2009 @ 08:55am

    Real-world equivalent

    Dr. Kopp E. Wright has the correct mindset, whether feigned or not. While we as the consumers might want this sort of product, and want to see it established for our better entertainment, the simple fact is, the distributors have nothing to gain by granting it.

    Look at it from a material product perspective, even if it isn't that at all:

    Store A is offering a promotion, where customers are invited to sample Brand X free. People come in the store, have as much as they like of Brand X, and since they're already there, probably buy something.

    That doesn't give me the right, as Store B, to come in, take as much of Brand X as I want, and offer it in my store. I'd have to pay, or convince Brand X to do it in my store for free, too.

    The TV stations have to pay for the rights to broadcast shows. We appreciate being able to record and then skip the commercials that pay for most of that. Wanting to store someone else's product wherever you like sounds good for consumers, but it's flat out bad for business.

  • On the post: FCC Setting Conditions For XM-Sirius Merger (Finally)

    Skout ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2008 @ 02:55pm

    "Shouldn't the people who pay the bill decide on the programming choices?"

    You would think so, but my guess is, that's exactly why everyone has dragged their feet on this. The FCC is far too used to being in control of what gets said, shown, or aired, and a model where the customer gets to choose that is simply irrational (or worse - irritating) to them.

    As for "some old guy": there's millions of us. Just because you aren't interested doesn't make the medium itself disinteresting. I wonder if you still use rabbit ears.

  • On the post: Dude, You Just Got Pwned By My Mom

    Skout ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2006 @ 07:38am

    Re: Government's Role

    :: How could the government seriously entertain the notion that they could find true concesus for the general public?

    They don't even begin to entertain that notion. They entertain one even worse: that they think they know what's best for the general public, more than they themselves do.

    What's worse is, edicts come from not the largest mentality in the nation, but usually the loudest and most influential. A group of moms banded together to complain about the "evils of xbox" are going to get far more consideration than a bunch of geeks who are too busy monitoring what their kids are actually doing with their free time.