xz11111000000 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (27) comment rss

  • On the post: U.S.: We Have No Evidence Or Credibility On This Whatsoever, But Don't Use Huawei Because China Might Spy On You

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2014 @ 06:03am

    Damn Chinese. And they spy with pv solar panels too.

    So it's important to bring India to the WTO to force them to buy solar panels from a German company in the US to prevent Indians from making their own (and they live next to Muslim Pakistan, right?) and to keep the Chinese panels out of India and the USA with import duties.

    http://grist.org/news/u-s-tries-to-have-it-both-ways-with-solar-trade-policy/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Business%2520%2526%2520Tech%2520Feb%252019&utm_campaign=business

  • On the post: DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2014 @ 07:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM

    I think there is a difference in how the law treats personal use of physical media or software of a work purchased for personal use (where artist/owners presumably receive a royalty) and how it treats "public broadcasting" for profit, where license fees are distributed on a pro rata or other formula by licensing bodies such as RIAA etc., where the owners DO receive royalties.

    As far as I know, internet services such as Spotify are licensed as "broadcasters" and do pay these traditional bodies for use of the works. In fact one of the issues related to Apple's new broadcast service is the deal they cut (only in USA) achieves a lower effective royalty rate (as it was bundled with iTunes licensing for sales, apparently) .

  • On the post: DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2014 @ 07:43pm

    Problem with Doctorow's Proposal?

    Yes, we would like a media player with features that enable fair use, however, isn't the basic problem that a majority of existing media is owned by legacy companies that already have the law on their side and would be unlikely to license such a system?

    So then you accomplish what?

    Obviously many artists themselves might be interested to publish on such a system, in which case (eventually) there might be substantial libraries of media without the problem, but ....

    .... I don't see how that is used as the basis to sue to change existing law, if that is the/one intent.

    IOW, such a system I presume to have, in theory:

    (a) DRM to prevent pirating
    (b) Features to allow at least one full personal copy
    (c) Features to allow sampling for fair use

    Love it. Now, how do you use that to initiate a legal process to overturn the present law against hacking other DRM systems?

    Am I missing something? Please explain.

    Sincerely,

    Confused

  • On the post: New York Times Suffers Redaction Failure, Exposes Name Of NSA Agent And Targeted Network In Uploaded PDF

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2014 @ 11:24pm

    Re: NSA chick has a Twitter account with the NSA handle

    Damn, you beat me! #1 return on Google, LOL.

    Let me guess her password: 12345678

  • On the post: Chilling Effects: James Clapper Tells Congress That Journalists Are Ed Snowden's 'Accomplices'

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2014 @ 11:19pm

    Snowden et al ARE returning the documents

    One at a time.

    Gesh, Jimmy, have patience!

  • On the post: Google Dumps Motorola, Keeps The Patents

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2014 @ 11:15pm

    They also sold off the set top box biz for about 2Bn as I recall.

  • On the post: ODNI Tasks Researchers With Figuring Out How To Store Section 215 Collections Off-Site

    xz11111000000 ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2014 @ 10:58pm

    The solution is obvious, no?

    Sell the Bluffdale UT data center to Booz Allen for $1 and have them act as custodian.