Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712) comment rss

  • On the post: Another Day, Another Anomaly: Paramount Issues DMCA Takedown On Ubuntu Linux Torrent

    Whatever ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2016 @ 01:38pm

    Actually, if you took the time to look, you would notice that the site has links to movie downloads on the lower left hand side of every page. There is the potential that the link to their movie was on that page at the time they pulled it.

  • On the post: The Super-Early Holiday Gear Sale (Plus Our New Math Is Not A Crime T-Shirt!)

    Whatever ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2016 @ 12:58am

    Re: Re:

    I have told you before, I just don't have the time. I can get them turned out as cheap as chips, good quality shorts (beefy Ts or Gildans) but it takes time and I don't really have it.

    if you want to pre-order a bunch (say like 100 or more) I will gladly process the order. FOB my town, by the way, so prepare to pay shipping and the boat might take a while to get there...

  • On the post: The Super-Early Holiday Gear Sale (Plus Our New Math Is Not A Crime T-Shirt!)

    Whatever ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2016 @ 07:41pm

    For the very last time... until next time.

    Artificial scarcity defined.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Whatever ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2016 @ 02:43am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, I dunno, let's ask Julian Assange (he's a saint around here, right?):

    http://thewire.in/5586/julian-assange-on-google-surveillance-and-predatory-capitalism/

    Or you could read the on Quora for some examples and extra links:

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-examples-of-Googles-evil-behavior

    You know, the basics.

    Oh, and thanks to the usual Techdirt "censors" for flagging my comment. You should be proud to provide censorship on a site that supposedly fights for freedom of speech!

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Whatever ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2016 @ 01:48pm

    "Over on the funny side, our top comment is one that pops up frequently whenever we level criticisms at Google (this time, over the Feedburner/Goo.gl link shortening fiasco). JD offered up the classic ironic-faux-troll:"

    Calling out Google over something minor while ignoring all the other "not evil" things they do is, well... draw your own conclusions.

    I am guessing Automattic is on that list now too... :)

  • On the post: Holy Crap: Wells Fargo Has To Fire 5,300 Employees For Scam Billing

    Whatever ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2016 @ 03:12am

    Re:

    I agree with you completely. I too was struck by that line in the story, as it draws a conclusion that cannot be drawn by the evidence.

    Rather it's much easier to picture a scenario where a number of employees over different locations and such came to the same basic conclusion: Faking it would work. When they had success (ie, the bosses didn't notice and they got their bonuses) they perhaps told some of their friends / co-workers how to do it. The word spreads, and soon a whole bunch of people are doing it.

    It's doubtful that the company would teach such a thing directly. However, their goal system and such set up the potential for such abuse, and they had little incentive (beyond perhaps customer satisfaction) to police it.

    Concluding that this was a "bank approved plan" is pretty much trying to write the conclusion to match your desires, rather than reality.

  • On the post: Terrible Ruling: EU Decides That Mere Links Can Be Direct Infringement

    Whatever ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2016 @ 06:32am

    Re: Re: You can hear the arm waving from here...

    "But that's not what this ruling says. If you don't put ads on the site and make no money of it, you're perfectly fine it seems."

    Not really. There is always some sort of benefit, even if it's indirect. Running a big pirate site (even an index) takes a heck of a lot of bandwidth, time, and effort. Most people cannot afford to keep paying that out of their pockets forever. They accept donations, they charge a membership fee, or they have links off to their commercials sites. Something as simple as linking to images stored on an image revenue style site could be considered commercial. It's pretty much impossible not to be commercial.

  • On the post: Calm Down, People: Data Shows Airbnb Isn't Really Driving Up Rent

    Whatever ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2016 @ 03:21am

    Re: Re:

    "I mean, what the hell are you even trying to say here? Are you trying to say that tourism is bad because the jobs it creates are lower end jobs? "

    The point is that low end jobs aren't useful if the costs of living go way up. Business owners raise prices, commercial real estate goes up (for all those tourist t-shirt places) and the money flows out of the economy and off to the owners of Real Estate Investment Trusts and the like.

    Most tourist only destination aren't rich places.

    "You've gone from merely trying to distract from the article or confuse the issue with falsehoods to outright stating nonsense."

    Unlike you, I have real work experience beyond avoiding taxes and bitching about people not speaking your language. Perhaps one day you will grow up and start thinking for yourself, but today clearly is not that day.

  • On the post: ACLU Seeks To Unseal Docket In FBI's Tor-Exploiting Takedown Of Freedom Hosting

    Whatever ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2016 @ 07:33pm

    Re: Re:

    Here's the thing: If FBI (or other law enforcement) use a weakness in a system to obtain information about criminals or to prosecute them, I don't see the issue. The weakness exists, and they used it.

    In the case of TOR, there are a couple of potential issues that have been out there that they may have exploited. It's not really very much different from going undercover and becoming part of the criminal gang to gather information and move to an arrest.

    Does anyone have proof that they broke the rules, or merely exploited a security failure in TOR? Somewhere along the chain of TOR, someone knows the original IP of the user, and someone knows the original IP of the site they are visiting. They have to. It's the weakest points. Taking steps that can exploit that weakness isn't breaking the law, it's using the criminal's own tools against them.

    Social contract? Wow, that smacks of desperation, especially when talking about people who hosted and aided drug dealers and worse...

  • On the post: Calm Down, People: Data Shows Airbnb Isn't Really Driving Up Rent

    Whatever ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2016 @ 11:39pm

    You can play around with the numbers a bit and make them say anything you want.

    If the units are removed from the rental marketplace equally (high price, low price, etc), then the initial effects are negligible. However, the question is the long term effects.

    In the long run, if property owners can make more money renting out a unit on AirBNB for a couple of weekend a month and have less hassle for things like collecting rent and doing maintenance, then more of them are likely to head that way.

    In cities like New York where new reasonable price rental stock isn't coming to market (mostly higher end stuff) the potential issues of even a few thousand units out of the rental market can be significant. Rental prices may not be affected only because those who can no longer afford just move away, and the remaining market remains steady with slightly less demand to match the slightly less offered property. Think of it as digital era gentrification.

    In a property market there are many drivers, and it will always be hard to attribute any change in price to any one thing. It is overblown to blame them singularly, but they may be a long term tipping point in the overall functioning of the rental market.

    "Airbnb can provide plenty of other benefits for residents as well -- from alternative revenue sources for homeowners to more tourist dollars coming in to cities."

    This is true, but at the same time you have to remember that the tourism business generates a lot of low end jobs, baggage handlers, wait staff, hotel clerks, and so on. They are often WalMart level income jobs which do little to bring prosperity to the community. Tourism is good business for property owners, hotel owners, and the like, but there isn't quite as much trickle down as people would like to think.

  • On the post: Nintendo DMCAs Fan-Game 'No Mario's Sky', Devs Rename It 'DMCA Sky'

    Whatever ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2016 @ 08:19pm

    I guess my problem with this is simple:

    Did the game designers use Mario specifically to either get a boost by association, or hoping to get the sort of result they got? it appears to be marketing, plain and simple.

    Their original game didn't need Mario. The reference and the use of assets in that manner seems futile and risky, unless of course you are hoping to get a whole bunch of exposure online for the results through sites like Techdirt and Torrent Freak.

    I dunno, seems like you guys are getting played!

  • On the post: Chinese State Patent Troll Absorbed By Smartphone Maker Xiaomi, Adding To Its Patent Hoard

    Whatever ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2016 @ 06:06pm

    Xiaomi makes some pretty incredible products and stunning prices, and they have been quickly snapping up market share in Asia with their products. They are a serious competitor that is giving Samsung some serious concerns and may replace Apple as the desired product in the market (especially with the new Apple phones being, well, not all that anymore).

    They look like they are ready for a patent war, and with the backing of the Chinese governement, they may yet win. Apple can attack them in the US, but the Chinese government can easily pull the plug on Apple's distribution in China overnight without notice. Apple would be bringing a lawyer to a gunfight, and lawyers tend to get knocked off first!

  • On the post: ACLU Seeks To Unseal Docket In FBI's Tor-Exploiting Takedown Of Freedom Hosting

    Whatever ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2016 @ 04:21pm

    It seems more like an attempt to reveal methods to make it easier for those who want to hide their activities to hide better in the future. It doesn't seem to be anything that is particularly needed or required, nor would it influence the case.

    Trying to pry out the methods can only have one real goal, and the court shouldn't allow criminals to benefit from the crimes of others to better protect their illegal activities.

  • On the post: Terrible Ruling: EU Decides That Mere Links Can Be Direct Infringement

    Whatever ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2016 @ 03:57pm

    You can hear the arm waving from here...

    The EU courts are, if nothing else, ballsy in their willingness to stand up against technology that has benefits and incredible harm.

    I think the courts get it right by starting not in the middle of technology (workings of a hyperlink), but rather with the much more basic concepts of artist rights. No technology required to explain those rights, they are basic and fundamental.

    After that, the court also does something that US courts have been loath to do, accepting the basic concept that a website is a complete publication regardless of where the content is located. So if you have a site called "download free hollywood movies" and you provide links to 1000 files of pirated material on someone else's servers, you should still be liable because your website as a whole functions as pirate site. Making the product available (by linking to it and making it possible for poeple to obtain it via your website) should be considered piracy in and of itself, the intent is there.

    Swept up in this of course will be the search engines. To comply with this ruling, Google (and others) will have no choice but to work from red flag knowledge. No longer will they be able to keep a site with 100,000 or more valid DMCA notices against it in their results. They will clearly have to avoid that sort of situation.

    My feeling is that this will lead to a sort of net-split. The real world will be cleaner and more legal, but it will drive many to hide in the (ominous music please) dark web. But that will have accomplished what copyright holders have always pushed for, driving piracy out of the mainstream and into the dark corners of the world.

    Oh, yeah, Youtube is fucked. :)

  • On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater

    Whatever ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 07:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta giggle at this...

    Evidence? Just read the site, silly!

  • On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back

    Whatever ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 07:02pm

    Re: "You don't know that."

    Wow, are you full of shit.

    Research would help you. Mom had a DUI dismissed in 2004. Son is on the second time around (first time charges withdrawn likely because witness (officer) not available for a deposition).

    Neither of them are at their first time through the system.

    No matter how hard you try, you can't overcome the facts with stupid made up stories... Sorry!

  • On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back

    Whatever ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 03:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "However the mom didn't know her son was driving drunk, she didn't loan out the car for him to drive drunk, "

    You don't know that. Does he have a history? Was he going to meet his friends at a bar? Was he headed to a "beach party" or "frat party"? That information isn't in the story and you can't draw any conclusions.

  • On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back

    Whatever ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 03:53pm

    Re: Re:

    " Or, do you actually support parents being held responsible for the actions of their 30 year old children?"

    If they are loaning them cars, then well... it sort of answers itself.

    "Given that the US is filled with people who are living paycheck to paycheck and need a car to get to work to make that money, this would seem to be a big problem."

    Actually, given that the US is filled with people who want to live the American Dream on a Walmart salary. Those are the people who drive cars they can't maintain, can;t insure, and generally ruin it for the rest of us.

    "You don't see the problem with successfully claiming that you were not involved in a crime, yet being left with the same penalty as if you were?"

    Someone still has to pay for the towing and storage, and so on. It's logical that someone stopped for DUI has the car impounded, and fees would apply. I don't agree with the idea of a manditory X or Y amount flat fee, but even a tow, imound, and a few weeks of storage could run well more than $1000 without trying. So successfully claiming you were not in a crime doesn't make the rest of the reality disappear.

  • On the post: Another 19th Century Moral Panic: Theater

    Whatever ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 03:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta giggle at this...

    Yup, and that is the assumption that Techdirt (and others) try to push. Since it's not "theft" in their reading of the law, clearly it's legal! Basically, it's a trick of making you choose "theft or not theft" and be choosing by inference if it's legal or not. It sort of short circuits the discussion of the greater implications by both the legal and moral issues of piracy.

  • On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back

    Whatever ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2016 @ 03:55am

    Sort of hard to get much sympathy for drunk drivers, or the parents of young drunk drivers. Generally drunk driving suspects are given a Breathalyzer test, and the findings are considered sufficient for prosecution.

    Now, let's look a the "outrageous" numbers in the story.

    "The city made $8.3m from civil asset forfeiture of vehicles alone between 2010 and 2015, according to the Albuquerque Journal, seizing more than 1,000 cars every year."

    Well, let's do the math, shall we? 6 years, more than 6000 cars. That is $1300 or so dollars per car seized. That's a far cry from the $4000 figure, which suggests that the paper has lumped in all sorts of different cases to try to build a mountain out of a series of much smaller cases and unrelated cases. As an example, you can easily get to $1300 dollars pretty quickly at $10 a day, money for towing, etc - for a car left in a tow zone and never claimed (it happens all the time).

    For what it's worth, the police could just claim the vehicle is evidence, and allow the owner to make a court claim as to their non-involvement. That would likely cost about the same and give a similar result.

Next >>