Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712)

• On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today… Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2014 @ 06:18pm

  Re: Jimi who?

  You would be right if his music wasn't getting played, wasn't on radio all the time, wasn't iconic and used over and over again in all sorts of ways.
  
  
  it's not as if they have somehow magically locked up his music such that you cannot ever hear it, that you cannot see the many performances filmed, and so on. It's only a case of one film maker attempting to profit from that legend who has been denied certain rights.

• On the post: 11th Circuit Court On TSA Search Methods: Compared To A Terrorist Attack, Invasive Searches Aren't Invasive

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2014 @ 01:12am

  Much of the discussion only deals with balancing the Fourth Amendment against worst-case scenarios, rather than the mundanity that is the millions of un-hijacked, unmolested flights that occur every year… year after year.
  
  You need to go back and look at see what happened in the late 60s and early 70s when there was no security, no real checking. Plane hijackings were almost a common occurrence, to the point where people were joking about the best way to get to Cuba was to hop a plane in the US, because it was likely to get hijacked.
  
  So all of those mundane, nothing happening on them flights... you can trace that back to the basic fact that the passengers are checked, and as a result the system is safer for everyone involved.
  
  I don't feel that walking through a metal detector or getting a pat down effectively changes my rights as a citizen. Knowing everyone else got the same thing does however increase my confidence that everyone else on the flight isn't going to pull out a weapon or try to hijack the plane. In case you haven't noticed, you have to go through just about as invasive a process to get into most night clubs these days in big cities.
  
  That is a much bigger commentary on "we the people" than anything. "ya do it to yourselves, you do..." thanks to Thom York (and yes, see, you can spread culture without piracy!)

• On the post: Obama Administration Learns: If You Redefine Every Word In The Dictionary, You Can Get Away With Just About Anything

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2014 @ 10:23pm

  The real issue at hand here is that the structure of the US and it's AUMFs is that they are a bit of a hold over from the time of "we versus they" country versus country type stuff. Attempting to define the borders of ISIS at the moment is really slippery.
  
  Is the US bombing in Syria, or are they bombing in ISIS occupied land? While they purely technical may be that the land is still part of Syria, it's almost meaningless. ISIS isn't using the standard maps to define themselves, so it's almost impossible to use them to define war with them.
  
  The other part is naming them "al qaida" or "ISIS" or "wacky islamic idiots" doesn't really help an AUMF define who and where. These are not regular army, not regular forces. Who is and who is not with the enemy?
  
  It's not a game of words, it's a serious situation of trying to bend and twist the existing rules of engagement to do what they really were not meant to do. If they US followed it's rules to the letter, they would not be able to act against ISIS until they are declared a country and recognized as such, because anything less doesn't really add up to a "valid" AUMF.
  
  Would it be mean to point out that the term "FREE!" has be redefined on many occasions around here? Perish the thought!

• On the post: Rackspace Helps Kill A Patent Troll: Rotating Your Smartphone Is No Longer Infringing

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2014 @ 02:29am

  Re: Re: Re:

  No, it isn't. Rackspace had to take both a large risk and a large investment.
  
  I agree with you completely. Rackspace of course is a little bit lucky that the patent in question was perhaps a little easier to strike down. However, it's the fact that they fought and won that is an investment in the future. Other companies who are trolling for a fast payday may think twice about hit them.
  
  You are also correct that big companies don't want to disturb the patent universe too much, and they are much more likely to pay off a marginal patent holder than fight, because they may be on the other side next time around.

• On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 07:10pm

  Re: The terrorists have already won

  You got it exactly right. It's part of the issue at hand, which is the most significant effect of terrorism isn't the people it hurts directly, but the change of attitudes and lifestyles of those who fear it.
  
  We have nothing to fear but fear itself, right?
  
  In a spectrum of potential responses and actions from the public, this guy reporting on what the guy was writing is probably way down there at the 1% most worried. He is a victim of terrorism because it's made him scared of everything.
  
  Reading Tim's post and seeing get all upset about it just shows that he doesn't really understand that not all people think in exactly the same manner as everyone else, and not everyone has the same reactions. Then again, it is the Techdirt way to call out the 1% situations and try to make people think it's generalized and common.

• On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 07:06pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  and you sir Paul, are a baiting troll. You lose again!

• On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 11:56pm

  It's a wonderful story... but not about Emma Watson or anything else. It's a great story about how the masses are lead, sheep like, to the double temple of celebutards and clickbaitdom.
  
  It's like an internet perfect storm. Take one naturally occuring thing, add another unnatural thing, and boom baby, you get traffic as them the sheeple all show up looking for whatever is the next big thing.
  
  Somewhere, there is a 4chan dweeb snickering and posting anonymous "got you!" messages. The whole internet gone done been had.

• On the post: Rackspace Helps Kill A Patent Troll: Rotating Your Smartphone Is No Longer Infringing

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 09:22pm

  This is the way to deal with it. Push it to the very end, and not only don't pay them, but effectively put them out of business.
  
  I doubt that anyone else looking for a quick payday will knock on Rackspace's door any time soon.

• On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 10:14am

  Re: Re:

  As for the real world... snorts READ more about Australian history, our laws, and also the rest of the world before you go spouting what YOU think should be or in your view 'is' the reality.
  
  History really isn't relevant here. What can I say? The Australian government raises the terror level warning to it's highest in ages, they arrest a bunch of people in a plot to behead someone in Australia, and you don't expect people to be a bit jumpy? Oh, add to that the missing Malaysian plane and the one recently shot down, and there are plenty of reasons for flyers to be a little on edge.
  
  Tiger Airlines are in the wrong here absolutely.
  
  I suspect the airline, like many others, chooses absolute saefty and minimum risk compared to making Mr Buckworths feel good. They don't have a lot of space to take risks.

• On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 07:41am

  Re: Re:

  The guy was drawing something about terrorism in the open, because every single real terrorist would do it instead of keeping a low profile. I'd imagine they also openly discuss their plans with law enforcement at the airport before boarding.
  
  Welcome to "out of context". Go back and re-read the whole thing based on the issue of domestic terrorism being front and center in people's minds right now is Australia, and you may understand that someone can be more than a little jumpy.
  
  I don't think the guy was intending to anything bad, but I am certainly not too upset at someone who might have thought it. Maybe they are a little wild in the brain about it, but I can imagine some might take it the wrong way.
  
  It's like the old joke, if you see your friend Jack on a plane, never yell "HI JACK" really loudly to get his attention.

• On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 07:38am

  Re: Re:

  Wonderful long post, but you missed the point entirely. Your Washington post links are a perfect example. YES, you are more likely to be killed by obesity than a terrorists, but when the guy next to me writing about terrorism is up and making weird looking drawings, I get concerned that I have won the proverbial lottery and the payout is sitting next to me.
  
  Whatever, the man who time and time again advocates for a society where fear mongering and scare tactics are acceptable and where the authorities are never wrong, even when they are.
  
  Wow, an an adhom too! How sweet.

• On the post: Netflix/CRTC To Showdown Over Confidential Business Information The Government Refuses To Protect

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 12:57am

  Re: I don't even think Netflix is in Canasa.

  Generally, the view is that the CRTC may have some jurisdiction because it's distribution of programming to Canadians, which means there is a transaction occurring with a Canadian customer in Canada. It's the very same reasons why you cannot buy or own DirecTV or Dish Network stuff in Canada (though many have over the years).

• On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2014 @ 06:14am

  Tim, you try too hard. You are trying to be outraged but wow, you are way off the mark.
  
  If I saw this guy next to me on the plane writing stuff about terrorism and making weird drawings, I would be worried too. Considering that Australia just rounded up a group who were planning public beheadings in Australia, I would say that there is no over reaction here at all.
  
  If you are offended by this, well... then you need to get out more or something, because you are missing the real world.

• On the post: Netflix/CRTC To Showdown Over Confidential Business Information The Government Refuses To Protect

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 07:49pm

  Re: Re:

  Thing is, if Netflix pulls out, someone else will come into the space and will do it under the CRTC rules. That would likely be one (or more) of the existing legacy TV players, as the Canadian broadcast industry is very concentrated in the hands of a few companies who have been willing to play by the rules.
  
  Most channels from the US are available in Canada, but as "Canadian" versions, often partially or nearly fully owned by Canadian media players, and including Canadian content in the mix.
  
  The CRTC can actually pretty much make it impossible for Netflix to operate legally in Canada if they want. Netflix is standing up to them, but at the same time they likely realize that they are on very thin ice.

• On the post: VoIP Pioneer Worried About Net Neutrality Reclassification — But Without It, Broadband Providers Could Kill VoIP Startups

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 04:55pm

  if the Comcasts, Verizons and AT&T's of the world are too powerful, we wouldn't have that either, because they'd make sure to degrade or block such services, driving users to their own services, or requiring innovative services like Pulver's to pay a toll just to reach their subscribers.
  
  This is a gross overstatement.
  
  These companies realize that if they degrade the internet experience to the point of making it useless, people will not pay - or a competitor will be able to successfully enter the marketplace and grow by offering what these companies are "blocking". Quite simply, out and out blocking of LEGAL services is just not a functional concept for ISPs who want to keep business.
  
  Yes, they will give preference to their own services. FioS will always have bandwidth for their TV services, even if other services have to fight for bandwidth. Cable TV will always get their cable signal through regardless of network congestion, and phone companies will always have the phone working even if the internet is full of people pulling down stremaing video and making VoIP stutter. Those things are unavoidable because their have set the technology up in that manner, the internet was an addition to their services, and not the root.

• On the post: Netflix/CRTC To Showdown Over Confidential Business Information The Government Refuses To Protect

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 04:48pm

  the CRTC wants to pretend that the internet is a walled broadcasting system, like television
  
  Wow, talk about not getting it.
  
  They don't think it's a walled anything. They think that anyone delivering content by subscription to Canadians should be subject to the same laws as any other cable provider / cable network / cable channel. They look at the internet as a different delivery method, not a law free zone.

• On the post: Web Inventor Tim Berners-Lee Gets To The Core Of Net Neutrality Debate: You Need An Open Internet To Have A Free Market

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 07:15am

  Re: Re: Nice but...

  If an ISP can't support the level of service I need, they shouldn't offer it. NN doesn't enter into it.
  
  As I have mentioned before, many people make the mistake of assuming that your connection speed (the speed at which your modem device connects to the local ISP network) is some sort of guarantee of an absolute internet speed. it is not.
  
  Not true at all. Net neutrality doesn't mean that ISPs must provide any kind of minimum service. What it means is that ISPs can't play favorites. It's really as simple as that.
  
  You are correct, sort of. In practical terms, it means that every "5 meg" connection has to deliver 5 meg end to end in theory, which is NOT how IP networks are generally built. IP networks built to "surf the web" have always been oversold, because if you had to pay the real cost of your connectivity, most Americans would still be stuck at 512k and thanking their lucky stars for it. It's only really in the last couple of years that the costs of the connectivity has dropped below the physical costs of maintaining it.
  
  So what happens? Right now, if everyone actually asked for their full connectivity speed as actual 100% bandwidth, you run into networking issues. Standard solution is some sort of traffic shaping or QoS to make sure that everyone gets some. The problem is that if (as an example) streaming video is the big part of the traffic surge, and the ISP manages their network by traffic shaping that stuff, they are changing the balance of the internet and thus, picking winners and losers. If they don't add enough bandwidth to support the streaming companies, they are ALSO picking winners and losers (or at least turning all of them into losers). So the only way they can avoid NOT having any influence on traffic at all is to have enough bandwidth to the level of peak for every user at all times.
  
  In a business where they have traditionally been doing ratios between 10 to 1 and 25 to 1, this represents a huge cost increase. It's unlikely that you will see that happen. The unintended result of net neutrality will likely be the ISPs turning down the connections. Your 10 meg "peak" connection will get suddenly get reclassed as a 1 meg "constant" and they will provision enough bandwidth for that. That would be at 10 to 1. At 25 to 1, you wouldn't even get 512k.
  
  Look, it's pretty simple: net neutrality isn't specifically about setting minimum bandwidth standards for ISPs, because in the end, to be truly compliant it has to happen anyway. Anything less (any network saturation with "management") could pick winners and losers. One could even argue that if Comcast refuses to add more bandwidth and increase customer connection speeds, they are picking a winner and loser between their own cable product and other streaming products / IPtv providers.

• On the post: Could Taking A Selfie In A Museum Violate Copyright Law?

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2014 @ 01:26am

  Re: Re: good story... but

  Thanks for the ad hom. Perhaps a few people will down vote your obvious personal attacks. One can hope, right?
  
  My examples were all related to personal use, not commercial ends. So the selfie that sells for millions... yeah, guess what - it's commercial and those who can will certainly come after you for their money. A selfie that you just send to your friends won't get much attention, would it?
  
  Do you have a list of these laws that you think that it is OK to ignore, and what is the arbitrary limit that you think is where the line should be drawn?
  
  No, it is called common sense and tolerance. The "beeeeeelions of dollars" example is a crock of shit because it cites examples where there are few if any cases EVER.
  
  So if I emailed 1 song to someone, that is not copyright infringement, what about 2? how about 100?
  
  Actually, it is. The point is while every example IS technically a copyright violation, nobody gives a flying crap about the little stuff. 1 song? Do you think anyone will check? 100? maybe. 100 to a mailing list? Probably yes. You would have to use a little common sense and a little self control, and nobody will knock your door.
  
  "This is why idiots like you and the rest of the piracy apologists are not respected by anyone with any sense of morals."
  
  FTFY.

• On the post: Could Taking A Selfie In A Museum Violate Copyright Law?

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 10:42pm

  good story... but

  Well, as per usual, what is missing here is that little concept called "common sense" and "practical application of the law". Nobody is going to get sued for a selfie that doesn't show anything in particular, but generally if they say "don't take pictures here" then a selfie would get you in trouble.
  
  The "4.55 billion" story you point to is also pretty much a crock of shit. You don't see people getting sued for copyright infringement as a result of unintentional appearance of copyright items in personal pictures. Forwarding a picture someone sent you be email to someone else? Are you kidding me? Posting it up on social media might be an issue, but private one to one email pretty much shows no intent to violate anything.
  
  Trying to use stuff like this to condemn copyright is pretty much the biggest reach possible - and pretty sad.

• On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 11:54am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  RTFS - that is what is in there.

Next >>