vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2010 @ 04:31pm

    Re:

    "Again, I doubt if Mike would appreciate someone taking down Techdirt. Would you as the authorities to do something about it?"

    I imagine the FBI would want Mike to first prove sufficient damages to warrant an investigation. Proving damages resulting from a DDoS attack on a blog would seem to be pretty much impossible. If it were me then I wouldn't bother contacting them and instead spend the energy on technical measures to limit the effect of the attack.

    I don't think it would be any easier for Gene to prove damages in this instance and would bet that if the FBI did get involved, they would do so because of his celebrity status rather than following actual procedure. The fact that a DDoS is against the law doesn't mean that the FBI should be wasting its resources on cases like this.

    I happen to think that DDoS is a dumb thing to do and don't agree with the usual justification that they are akin to real world peaceful protests. However, I also wouldn't advocate spending resources on tracking down real world protesters that go too far if they haven't done significant harm.

  • On the post: UK Gov't Frees Up Gov't Works Under 'Open' License

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 06:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The above comment is mine - didn't realise I wasn't signed in."

    Your snowflake will be registered on the database of dissenters from lobbyist doctrine.

  • On the post: UK Gov't Frees Up Gov't Works Under 'Open' License

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 06:20am

    Re:

    "You keep saying the purpose of copyright is to encourage creation when talking about non-U.S jurisdictions.

    It's only explicitly so of the U.S due to language in the U.S Constitution and is not neccesarily true of other jurisdictions.

    In the case of once British Empire nations you'll have to go look at the copyright legislation itself to see if any purpose is mentioned."

    Read the full title of the Statute of Anne, which is widely regarded as the start of modern copyright:

    "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, During the Times therein mentioned, 1710, 8 Anne, c.19"

    That is a British statute and you don't have to read past the title to see the premise of 'encouragement of learning'. It was mainly France that pushed the alternative premise of author's rights. I don't think anyone else really took them seriously until the Berne Convention. To say that the economic premise originated from the US Constitution is wrong and shows a lack of care for anything that happened outside the US, even when it is the basis for US history.

  • On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2010 @ 03:49am

    Re: Their Linux phone is the bomb

    "Why, oh why, didn't they just stick with Maemo? Having a portable bash shell rocks, plus the weight of the open source community to develop apps... their only misstep was pricingt the N900 into the stratosphere. I loved my N810. :("

    The main difference between Meego and Maemo is that Meego is better. I have Maemo on my N900 and plan to replace it with Meego ASAP. I often use the bash shell and will continue to do so in Meego.

  • On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 08:07am

    Re: Sports depends on leveling the playing field

    "The reason copyright wouldn't work in football is that the league depends on the various teams to be as equal to each other as possible."

    That's not really how sports works. The playing field is supposed to be equal but the teams are all supposed to be striving to be unequal. Think of it like economics, the market is supposed to be fair but that does not preclude competition. Given the analogy you have to ask why is copyright 'good' for everyone but footballers.

  • On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 07:19am

    Re: Something I wrote in July

    "Nokia cannot survive by offering second-rate, years-late mobile OSes that are notably inferior to the best-in-class."

    I hope he wasn't talking about Meego, cuz then he'd be a fortune teller.

  • On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 07:14am

    Re: Re: It's a new world out there.

    "If Nokia were to embrace Android they could more or less maintain their current hardware dominance."

    I don't see how that follows. Nokia have nothing developed for Android; if they entered the market now then they would be at a severe disadvantage against those who have invested in the platform.

  • On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 07:10am

    Re: Re:

    "What the Nokia guy seems to want is to control the leading operating system"

    No, they want to control their implementation. The Meego platform is governed by the Linux foundation, not Nokia. For Nokia this means that their hardware can be mixed with their software for the least amount of effort and no strings attached. It makes more sense for Google to want to control the platform as they don't make phones.

  • On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 07:05am

    Re:

    "I don't really understand the logic in building a more robust Symbian or working on Meego when Nokia could just create a fork of Android and essentially have and OS nearly on par with the iPhone"

    Why would they do that when Maemo already surpasses Android and iPhone in many areas? The platform may not have the developers or market share at the moment, but as Meego fills in the gaps and applies the polish expected with Android and iOS then it may end up the only true smartphone platform. While iPhone developers struggle to even get their apps on the market and Android developers reinvent the wheel for every little thing, Maemo can already run pretty much the whole Debian repository of software with the only hold backs being user interfaces (apply QT) and hardware limitations (Moores law).

    As Meego ties together development for tablets, netbooks and phones while giving developers tools to make application portability as painless as possible, the platform has the potential to do stuff none of its competitors can. All it needs is for people to jump on board. If Android damaged Meego in any way it was by being a hype killer. There was so much hype around Google doing a Linux phone, the fact that it was just barely Linux was glossed over.

  • On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 06:51am

    Re: Re:

    "I think that like of reasoning is crazy, it would be better to have everyone having to pay Nokia and having to fallow them around?
    "

    I don't understand your point here. Maemo currently offers more freedom to developers than Android and Meego will offer even more freedom to manufacturers as well.

  • On the post: Band Claims File Sharers 'Are Going To Hell'

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 04:01pm

    Re:

    "Which is funny because property rights in the US are natural rights. "Natural rights" is another way of saying rights given by God. The purpose of the Constitution and the government is to protect those God given rights."

    I would bet that if Mr Garvey read Locke's treatise, he would misinterpret it as intellectual property existing purely from the 'sweat of the brow' argument.

  • On the post: Band Claims File Sharers 'Are Going To Hell'

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 03:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Brimstone!

    "Bravo, Sir. While this indeed seems like an axiom, do you have a link or research that can back this up? I desire to share the findings of said research with certain people... :-)"

    Here you are.

  • On the post: 'Pre-Settlement' Shakedown By ACS:Law Doesn't Seem Quite So Profitable

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 03:26pm

    Re: ACS:Law

    "While I HAVE to pay for access to the internet, I REFUSE to pay for content."

    I find this statement troubling and feel it needs exploring. While you refuse to pay for content, do you seek out ways to support artists you like in other ways; such as the means by which you access that content, or buying merchandise?

    I often pay for content for the sole reason that by supporting an artist I help ensure that I have new content to enjoy. While relying purely on fan investment probably isn't a good business model for artists, as a fan direct payments can be a more useful way to spend your money than buying endless merchandise.

  • On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 03:12pm

    Re: The content distribution companies could adopt BT to lower their distribution costs

    "I currently live in a 3rd-world country."

    I live in the UK and have enough trouble accessing legitimate media distribution.

    I don't see how third world governments can justify any sort of Intellectual Property when it is guaranteed to hold them back (after all, the US was built on ignoring UK IP law). If you weighed up the advantage of being truly competitive without strong IP against bowing to international pressure then short of disproportional threats I would still say ditch IP.

  • On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 03:00pm

    Re: Your list is a little odd

    "For example, initially, radio was infringing on artists' IP. Their songs were being broadcast without compensation."

    One word: payola.

  • On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 02:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: bs re Hollywood

    Nevermind, I just clicked on the wrong sources on the Wikipedia page. Most of them are fine.

  • On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 02:46pm

    Re: Re: bs re Hollywood

    To be fair, that Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. I found a nice Google Books excerpt instead from American Media History.

  • On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 02:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Actually, I can think of no reasonable construction of the proposed legislation that would subject Wikileaks to its terms."

    You mean, apart from it being a site dedicated to releasing unauthorised copies of other peoples content; otherwise called copyright infringement?

  • On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2010 @ 02:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "There is nothing within the metes and bounds of copyright law that provides a rights holder with anything other than an opportunity to be renumerated."

    It allows them to be recounted? Funny typo, I'm sure you meant remunerated.

    Paying someone for services rendered is already adequately served by property and contract law. Why do the 'creative' industries get special treatment?

    Nothing stops artists being remunerated for their work just as well as any other person. Copyright is the treat that seems to have caused some to lose the ability to compete in the real world.

  • On the post: Football Helmet Maker Drives Competitor Into Bankruptcy With Patent Lawsuits

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2010 @ 01:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Please note I never made any statement that Schutt was "kaput". I only stated that it was not noted in the linked article the type of bankruptcy involved. I also stated that in the linked article is appears that Schutt was facing money problems far removed from Riddell's patents."

    But where was it assumed otherwise?

Next >>