vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: FBI Prioritizes Copyright Issues; Not So Concerned About Missing Persons

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2010 @ 12:02am

    Re:

    3. Cyber Crime
    • Computer Intrusions
    • Online Predators
    • Piracy/Intellectual Property Theft
    • Internet Fraud


    Funny how "Piracy/Intellectual Property Theft" comes under "National Security Priorities". Also, "Intellectual Property Theft"? Wouldn't that be identity theft?

    "Oh my goodness, we are more worried about sports bribery, cruise ship crime and jewelry heists than keeping CODIS updated in real time."

    I would hope that list is numbered for reference, not in order of priority.

    "Let's get serious and simply acknowledge that the FBI has a multitude of responsibilities covering a broad spectrum of law, and uses a multitude of people with a multitude of disciplines, some technical - some not, to handle its responsibilities."

    Why does 'getting serious' translate to ignoring the issue?

    "Frankly, I do not recall the last time I heard of a field agent being dinged for job performance because the agent fell behind in his/her DNA lab work."

    The article was about them investing more in investigating copyright issues than missing persons. Who suggested that they should be hiring more field agents to do lab work?

  • On the post: Hadopi's Secret Internet Spying Spec Leaked

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2010 @ 02:30am

    Re: Re: Is this even possible?

    "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooking" I had missed the bit where they plan to offer software to people. As a voluntary rootkit this proposal sounds even more ridiculous.

  • On the post: Pentagon Demands Wikileaks 'Returns' Leaked Documents; Does It Not Know How Digital Documents Work?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2010 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    "It 's hilarious seeing how he just keeps repeating the same things when the ppl asking questions want to know how he thinks they should "return" the documents. It's also quite interesting to see that he thinks NY Times and other papers who were informed by Wikileaks just "had insight", but are now (in his opinion) not in posession of the documents."

    That talk is a great example of a valid application of the 'information wants to be free' slogan.

  • On the post: Can We Please Stop The False Dichotomy Of 'Creators' vs 'Consumers' When It Comes To Copyright?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 04:57pm

    Re:

    "Stay classy, Mike."

    Not enough irony in your diet, James?

  • On the post: Wishful Thinking: Hollywood Believes Next Generation Of Kids Will Pay For Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 04:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    OCD is the right order in terms of circularity, like it should be. It's the look that counts.

  • On the post: Wishful Thinking: Hollywood Believes Next Generation Of Kids Will Pay For Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 04:39pm

    Re: Re: I think they're right.

    "And what evidence do you have to support that theory, besides outright speculation?"

    The fact that it is already happening? Many younger people who pirate or previously pirated are find ways to support artists directly. The evidence may be anecdotal but it's still evidence.

  • On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 04:17pm

    Re:

    "If that content producer would just give me the content when I want it, I would pay a reasonable price for that and they can make a living. It's not ideology that drove me to piracy, it's their stupid and quiotic drive to control how and when I consume."

    I find that for myself the issue is less about convenience and more about control over my money. One factor in convenience is choice of format, I would never buy from iTunes because they (I believe) only offer compressed formats. More importantly though, I'd never buy from a major label because more of my money will be working against me than for me. Two ways that can happen is the support of organisations such as the RIAA and the way the labels tend to work meaning that more of my money may go to artists I don't like than the one whose music I bought.

  • On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 04:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "What still hasn't been offered is the author's equivalent of the musical performance."

    Not all music lends to live performances either. An author may make money by talking, that would be the obvious equivalent, but still not a catch all. An author could write on commission, perhaps doing poems or short stories to compliment a fictional work with the advantage of having the insight to make sure everything is canon and therefore valuable even beyond the air of officialness. It's also worth pointing out that even live musicians sell t-shirts and such at gigs. Why not get paid to give a talk and then sell signed copies of your work afterwards?

  • On the post: Hadopi's Secret Internet Spying Spec Leaked

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 03:38pm

    Is this even possible?

    They want: "a system of alerts warning users if they are about to use a P2P connection: for example, "You are about to download a file using a P2P protocol - do you want to continue?"". How the hell do they expect to remotely inform a user that they are about to do anything? They could replace a web request with their own message but that's not going to be able to tell when you're clicking on a magnet link, or do anything while you're in a p2p application.

  • On the post: Why World War I Recordings Won't Enter The Public Domain Until 2049

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2010 @ 03:19pm

    Re: wow.

    "The California statute (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/653h.html ) doesn't include an expiration date. I don't see recordings prior to 1972 enter the public domain in 2049, or ever (at least in California)."

    The expiration date is part of the California Civil Code: "The author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972, has an exclusive ownership therein until February 15, 2047". The linked report references it in the section on California.

    I am unsure where 2049 comes from. The guy who said it has his own page, which suggests 2067 would be the correct date for other states.

  • On the post: Hey NY Times: Can You Back Up The Claim Of $200 Billion Lost To Counterfeiting?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2010 @ 11:33am

    Re:

    "Actually, Clifford can provide support for her claim. All she has to do is link to the report in question. Clifford didn't claim that there were $200 billion in losses. Rather, she truthfully reported the fact that losses have been estimated to be $200 billion."

    Linking to a report that does not support her claim would not support her claim, however pedantic you're being. It doesn't matter if she calls it an estimate when the numbers have been deliberately fudged or are fabricated, because that's not an estimate. If it were then you could say that it is estimated that there are one billion aliens on the moon, because some guy said so.

  • On the post: Connecting With Fans… In The Porn Industry?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2010 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird

    "I've heard of BDSM, FFM, and CFNM porn....but what is this 3D acronym? Three dongs? That doesn't sound like good porn...."

    Is that one too many for you? I guess it's aimed at a female audience.

  • On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2010 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Potential of earnings goes along way. And the current system holds said promise. So any art created under the current system is invalid as a form of proof that without said potential, output would not falter."

    You seem to be saying that artists not making money using copyright keep going solely because they have the 'potential' to make money via copyright. Do you have any evidence to back that up? I can offer Amanda Palmer as evidence to the contrary. She started giving her music away because she was not making any money via copyright.

    "The outpouring of art created under the current system and the obvious affordability of art for the masses goes along way to arguing that copyright does achieve this."

    That sounds like painting a car while someone is upgrading the engine. You could say that the increase in speed coinciding with the new colour goes a long way to arguing that the paint job made the car faster. Oh, sorry, weren't you talking about cars?

    "I disagree. I think the public is willfully ignorant of the benefits of copyright."

    You've just accused pretty much everyone of being deceitful. Why do you think the public is wilfully ignorant? Have you been waving evidence of the benefits of copyright in our faces?

  • On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2010 @ 03:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Who said anything about not listening?"

    I don't know, is that a trivia question?

    "I did no such thing. I am happy to treat each argument individually. However, to date most individual arguments I have encountered on this subject forwarded by people with limited understanding have been unsurprising. Doesn't mean I don't listen or that I dismiss anything."

    Of course not, you just make vague statements about most people who disagree with you being uninformed. I don't really understand why you would care about the majority being uninformed if one person in the minority has a compelling argument though, unless you were being dismissive.

    "If many people are going to claim to have reasonable solutions, it would be nice to see them actually have reasonable solutions. Hardly seems to be a demanding requirement."

    Again, you are pointing to the 'many' ignorant people to avoid talking about the ones that aren't. Let's try again; do you need many people with a reasonable solution, won't one do?

    "If you're paying under ten dollars for a copy of a book, you're not "keeping artist employed". You are contributing, yes. But you are not single handily supporting the art form. "

    How much should I be paying and would that single handedly support the art form? I have to confess that I do not have enough money to single handedly support any art form.

    "Obviously, I was speaking on how society as a whole ensures that art remains accessible to the public while still encouraging artistic growth."

    Obviously, I was giving an example of how that can happen. If you're going to argue that it isn't enough, then argue that. I would agree that donations alone aren't enough and didn't suggest otherwise.

    "And you're content to twist words out of context. If there is a definitive answers that would apply across all platforms, we would not be having this discussion."

    I did no such thing! You said: "few people seem to have a reasonable solution to the riddle of keeping art profitable yet distributing it for free" and I pointed out that implied you already had a reasonable solution. You were too busy pointing out how few they were to bother mentioning the specific applications of the solutions.

  • On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2010 @ 02:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "What? Why do you have to pay "no matter what"? There's lots of art I'm not interested in. I don't have to pay for it."

    Uh, then that's not art you want. Besides, the chances are you do pay indirectly for stuff you don't want, as shown in my example.

    "The scenario you describe (paying the artist directly either through purchase fees or donation) doesn't mean the work isn't protected by copyright."

    They've given it away for free. Sure, it's still 'protected' by copyright, but it was not a factor in the purchase. You're very defensive about copyright for someone who complains when people mention it.

    "And if you look at the comments you are responding to, you will see that I already clarified that I was speaking of two separate topics. Copyright, and ensuring compensation for artists."

    So I'm not allowed to bring copyright up again? I'm sorry, I missed your suggestion for compensating artists. Mine was to send them money.

    Let's have another attempt at the point I was trying to get across. You had said: "Art might always be created. But will it be the art you want?" in response to someone saying that art will not die. I gave an example of how the freedom to choose, which is currently restricted by copyright, is better for getting the art you want. This is evident in the lengths people will go to in order to support artists despite copyright.

    While you may not like that the example had copyright in it, the point was that people given a choice are likely to act in their own self interest and support the artists they want more from.

  • On the post: Second Lawsuit Over School Webcams Involves Student Who Was Photographed 469 Times Over 2 Months

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2010 @ 08:05am

    'Trusted' computing.

    I was one of the first kids at our school to get a laptop. Looking back I can't imagine ever trusting the technicians not to spy on us. I remember they got caught copying a paid version of a popular shareware game from one of the laptops, only because it was found on a share on one of their computers. You can bet that if a kid had been caught doing something as ghastly as violating copyright then they would have been punished severely.

  • On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2010 @ 07:56am

    Re: Spam

    "If I got an email like that I would assume it was phishing or spam. It reads like it was written by someone who has a limited grasp of english. Maybe Warner Bros. is looking for better writers."

    The grammar is pretty poor. What's with the first exclamation mark? What's with using an Oxford comma for one list but not for the next? Why do they refer to Bloggers in the third person and then say 'your'? Not the kind of thing you'd expect from a professional marketing department.

  • On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2010 @ 07:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Art might always be created. But will it be the art you want? Subsequently, it makes sense to have at least a passing interest in how your favorite type of art (style and subject matter) may continue. "

    But copyright fails to give people the 'art they want' because it forces them to pay for it no matter what. For example, I'd rather give Amanda Palmer £10 via Bandcamp, for music she offers for free, than buy a £10 CD off the shelf. I'd rather do this because if I'm paying £10 to Bandcamp then the majority of that money goes directly to Amanda Palmer. If I buy a CD off the shelf then most of the money is guaranteed not to go to the artist and may well fund competing artists whom I have no interest in.

    Please explain how copyright helps me choose what art I want better than me sending a cheque straight to the artist.

  • On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2010 @ 05:29am

    Re:

    "Yes, people can comment on anything they want. But an educated/experienced opinion will likely carry more value than an uneducated/inexperienced opinion.

    Only if manifested in their opinion. This is the internet, trusting people's qualifications and experience seems rather silly compared to just listening to what they have to say. Some of the most ignorant people here have been the ones flaunting their credentials (Ronald J. Riley, I'm looking at you).

    "People like to talk about how Copyright is "wrong". But my experience seems to indicate that most people commenting barely understand what copyright actually is and how it works"

    So you dismiss the argument? How many people do you think 'barely understand' it? Have you anything to show that you understand it better than everyone who disagrees with you?

    "Furthermore, few people seem to have a reasonable solution to the riddle of keeping art profitable yet distributing it for free"

    You need many people with a reasonable solution? Perhaps that is why you are not in favour of copying, you don't understand that one person with a good idea can share it with many people for mutual benefit.

    "The answer often given to this problem is "It's not my job on how to keep artists employed"."

    Speaking for myself, I keep artists employed every time I spend money on them. I don't need to answer that 'problem' because I already fulfil my obligation as a consumer in a competitive market. You could just read techdirt.com for some examples of how other artists are making money and learn from those.

    "In short: There's alot of talk going on. But not alot of answers."

    You've already admitted the answers are there, apparently you're content to ignore them.

  • On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2010 @ 05:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Uh, I meant part of the marginal cost. It's actually a variable cost.

Next >>