ysth’s Techdirt Profile


About ysth Techdirt Insider

ysth’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 30th, 2019 @ 12:17pm

    Autoplay and addiction

    I don't think autoplay is opt out rather than in to addict people, I think it is to serve one more ad than videos you watch.

  • Jun 27th, 2019 @ 8:31pm

    (untitled comment)

    Our first mistake was giving the platforms the right to decide who could speak and what they could say.

    Is Cory saying private platforms don't/shouldn't have such a right? (Leaving aside issues around protected classes.) The point is not doing anything to incentivize or implicitly force them to constraint speech.

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 1:15pm


    Oops, comment on wrong post

  • May 9th, 2019 @ 1:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    Elizabeth Warren's plans to break up all of the big internet companies doesn't

    plan doesn't or plans don't

  • Apr 28th, 2019 @ 2:19pm

    HBO sues back?

    I would guess HBO doesn't normally release transcripts of its shows just for free...

  • Apr 17th, 2019 @ 11:44am

    Interstate and Defense Highway System

    Reminder that the only thing that got us federal highways was saber rattling: “in case of atomic attack on our key cities, the road net [would] permit quick evacuation of target areas.” etc etc.

    Makes me wonder what it's going to take to get a federal anti SLAPP law.

  • Apr 13th, 2019 @ 10:18pm


  • Apr 10th, 2019 @ 7:49pm


    I think. I don't actually know who Kobe Bryant is.

  • Apr 10th, 2019 @ 7:49pm

    (untitled comment)

    Black Mama should be Black Mamba?

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 12:17am

    Article posted at 0013 pacific


  • Mar 20th, 2019 @ 7:49pm


    In Seattle, the title is Councilmember.

  • Mar 11th, 2019 @ 2:51am


    Huh, guess it's been a month without.

  • Mar 11th, 2019 @ 2:47am

    (untitled comment)

    No retrospective post this week?

  • Mar 7th, 2019 @ 10:11pm

    nerd harder

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/05/fbi_china_warning/ :

    In the last year, Wray said, he had seen increasing signs the technology community and law enforcement were talking more reasonably about this. There may well be a way to combine strong encryption and lawful intercepts he said, if people are willing to put their heads together.

    So nothing really to worry about, we just need to nerd harder.

  • Mar 7th, 2019 @ 9:33pm


    If application alone sufficed to “ma[ke]” registration, §411(a)’s second sentence—allowing suit upon refusal of registration—would be superfluous.

    But in Oracle vs Rimini St, also unanimous, Justice Kavanaugh just wrote "redundancy is not a silver bullet" in response to Oracle's claims that "full costs" must be meant to include costs other than the types enumerated in the law.

    So which is it? I agree wholeheartedly with both rulings, but is this just a "I know it when I see it" kind of distinction?

  • Feb 24th, 2019 @ 12:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    Oh, good, it actually uses the 1923 version, not the subtly changed (posthumously?) later version.

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 10:46am


    Will he take on Marbury v. Madison next?

  • Feb 14th, 2019 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: EU Move To Fundamentally Change The Internet from Open t

    Yes, and not even licensed.

  • Feb 14th, 2019 @ 7:15am

    EU Move To Fundamentally Change The Internet from Open to Closed

    Despite the fact that even the staunchest supporters of Article 13 were asking for it to be dropped from the final version of the EU Copyright Directive, that didn't happen. In the final trilogue negotiations between the EU Council, the EU Commission and the EU Parliament, it appears that the agreed upon "compromise" is basically as bad as we feared. It will fundamentally change the entire nature of the internet. And not in a good way. As we recently discussed, the only way this makes sense is if the goal is to have the law be so bad that big internet companies feel forced to pay their way out of it.

    And it appears that's what we've got. MEP Julia Reda's summary of the final deal highlights many of the problems with both Articles 11 and 13. Here's the mess with Article 13:

    Commercial sites and apps where users can post material must make “best efforts” to preemptively buy licences for anything that users may possibly upload – that is: all copyrighted content in the world. An impossible feat. In addition, all but very few sites (those both tiny and very new) will need to do everything in their power to prevent anything from ever going online that may be an unauthorised copy of a work that a rightsholder has pointed out to the platform. They will have no choice but to deploy upload filters, which are by their nature both expensive and error-prone. Should a court ever find their licensing or filtering efforts not fierce enough, sites are directly liable for infringements as if they had committed them themselves. This massive threat will lead platforms to over-comply with these rules to stay on the safe side, further worsening the impact on our freedom of speech.

    And with Article 11:

    The final version of this extra copyright for news sites closely resembles the version that already failed in Germany – only this time not limited to search engines and news aggregators, meaning it will do damage to a lot more websites. Reproducing more than “single words or very short extracts” of news stories will require a licence. That will likely cover many of the snippets commonly shown alongside links today in order to give you an idea of what they lead to. We will have to wait and see how courts interpret what “very short” means in practice – until then, hyperlinking (with snippets) will be mired in legal uncertainty. No exceptions are made even for services run by individuals, small companies or non-profits, which probably includes any monetised blogs or websites.

    If this becomes law, I'm not sure Techdirt can continue publishing in the EU. At the very least, it will require us to spend a large sum of money on lawyers to determine what our liability risk is -- to the point that it might just not be worth it at all. Article 13 makes a commenting system untenable, as we simply cannot setup a filter that will block people from uploading copyright-covered content. Article 11 potentially makes our posts untenable, since we frequently quote other news sites in order to comment on them (as we do above).

    This is, of course, the desire of those supporting both bills. It is not just to close the (made up, mythical) "value gap." It is to fundamentally change the internet away from an open system of communications -- one that anyone can use to bypass traditional gatekeepers, to a closed "broadcast" system, in which key legacy gatekeepers control access to the public, via a complicated set of licenses that strip all of the benefits and profits from the system.

    Not only will this do great harm to the general public's ability to communicate freely over the internet, it will do massive harm to artists and creators -- especially more independent ones, who will be effectively blocked from using these platforms to connect directly with their fans. Rather they will be required to go through "licensed" intermediaries, who will demand a huge cut of any money. In other words, it's a return to the pre-internet days, where if you wanted to become a professional creator, your only options were to sign away all your rights to giant conglomerate record labels/studios/publishers.

    It is incredible -- and incredibly disappointing -- that the EU is moving towards bringing back such a world, but that is what the latest agreement means.

    There is still a chance to stop this from becoming law, though it will take a lot of effort. As Reda explains:

    We can still stop this law The Parliament and Council negotiators who agreed on the final text now return to their institutions seeking approval of the result. If it passes both votes unchanged, it becomes EU law, which member states are forced to implement into national law. In both bodies, there is resistance. The Parliament’s process starts with the approval by the Legal Affairs Committee – which is likely to be given on Monday, February 18. Next, at a date to be announced, the EU member state governments will vote in the Council. The law can be stopped here either by 13 member state governments or by any number of governments who together represent 35% of the EU population (calculator). Last time, 8 countries representing 27% of the population were opposed. Either a large country like Germany or several small ones would need to change their minds: This is the less likely way to stop it. Our best bet: The final vote in the plenary of the European Parliament, when all 751 MEPs, directly elected to represent the people, have a vote. This will take place either between March 25 and 28, on April 4 or between April 15 and 18. We’ve already demonstrated last July that a majority against a bad copyright proposal is achievable. The plenary can vote to kill the bill – or to make changes, like removing Articles 11 and 13. In the latter case, it’s up to the Council to decide whether to accept these changes (the Directive then becomes law without these articles) or to shelve the project until after the EU elections in May, which will reshuffle all the cards.

    If you're an EU citizen, this next bit is important. Now is the time to start speaking up:

    This is where you come in The final Parliament vote will happen mere weeks before the EU elections. Most MEPs – and certainly all parties – are going to be seeking reelection. Articles 11 and 13 will be defeated if enough voters make these issues relevant to the campaigns. (Here’s how to vote in the EU elections – change the language to one of your country’s official ones for specific information) It is up to you to make clear to your representatives: Their vote on whether to break the internet with Articles 11 and 13 will make or break your vote in the EU elections. Be insistent – but please always stay polite. Look up your representatives’ voting behavior at SaveYourInternet.eu Call or visit your MEPs’ offices (in Brussels, Strasbourg or their local constituency) Visit campaign and party events and bring up the topic Sign the record-breaking petition and spread the word, if you haven’t yet Together, we can still stop this law.

  • Feb 6th, 2019 @ 5:56pm

    smartphone Contacts baffle me

    Smartphone Contacts baffle me.

    I have an android phone. I use it to make phone calls. In my list of contacts are people I call.

    I use it to send texts. In my list of contacts are people I text.

    I use the gmail app to read my gmail mail. In my list of contacts are people I have emailed.

    Why are these all in the same list? The apps serve different purposes; I can't see ever wanting to scroll through my contacts, then decide what method I want to use to contact them.

    I just don't get why any of this is phone data, not app specific data. Or rather, I get it, but I don't see how that serves me, rather than the companies who want my info.

More comments from ysth >>