PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the talking-favorites dept
This weeks' "favorites" post comes from PaulT, an English sysadmin living in Spain, who frequently chimes in with smart observations from his perspective.As is becoming traditional, I'd like to start by both thanking Mike for the opportunity to write this post, but also noting that it's a bit more work than I'd originally thought it would be!
As a foreign resident in Spain, who suffers no end of problem because of the entertainment industry's regional policies, I found Alex De La Iglesia's comments to be heartening. The distribution of legal content in this country is a mess, and a full decade behind the US and my native UK in many ways. It's great that such a talented director is using his position to protest the more backward direction his peers wish to take, though it's a shame that he's abdicating his responsibility in order to do so.
While the music industry is a little bit ahead of the movie industry in their adaptation to the modern marketplace, they do still seem to miss the point on a regular basis. Recently, one of the things that illustrated this was Nokia's "Comes With Music" platform, which seemed to offer very little to address piracy. I predicted that it would be a failure from the start, due to its built in content expiry date and platform restrictions. These not only make it a poor competitor to legal services such as iTunes and Spotify, as well as highly inconvenient compared to piracy. Hopefully, its failure will hammer these lessons home again so that the music industry can concentrate on more viable models.
Thirdly, we have a nacho cheese lawsuit that I'm sure will bring repeats of an ongoing argument. As Mike correctly notes in the article, the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit from a few years ago is a dividing issue with people holding it up as both a valid suit and the epitome of frivolous actions. I'm on the side that feels it's valid (she should have been more careful, but it should not have been served so hot), but we'll see how this new action turns out. I feel that the parents should have been more careful, but it's right for Disney to be punished if their cheese was excessively hot.
A little late to the game, but it was nice to read a rundown of the ridiculous Fox News claims about the videogame Bulletstorm and its supposed incitation to rape. It's nice to see not only that such blatant lies are addressed, but also a mini masterclass in the various ways in which such things can be intelligently and effectively debunked.
Talking of ridiculous claims, we have a few stories about copyright that show how the system is being misused. Rihanna was sued due to some frankly quite generic S&M images in her new video being of some passing resemblance to a photographer's previous images. We have the TSA claiming that copyright is the reason they can't pass over images of their security scans. We also see the interesting question as to whether or not a recent technological marvel only succeeded by violating copyright. Such innovations may be in jeopardy (no pun intended) if the copyright maximalists get their way.
Another theme that seems to have emerged this week was the issue of internet censorship and its misuse, along with unfortunate collateral damage along the way. As the UK is apparently willing to follow the US's lead and France implements internet censorship on the pretense of fighting child porn, there were a few stark reminders that such things tend to have a lot of unintended consequences. Hopefully, Hillary Clinton will follow through and actually enable internet users to be free from this kind of thing, but I somehow doubt it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nice selection, but...
It was Mom and Dads job to make sure it was safe for him to eat.
For the record reheated cheese does need to ne brpught to a temperature of 165 degrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice selection, but...
It bother me that people keep putting more power in the hands of incompetent authorities and that same power will be used to harm them in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice selection, but...
In the same way, if nachos are served at a burning temperature, then whoever tries it is going to be burned. In that case, it was a little boy, but if Mom and Dad had taste-tested it, they would have been burned. For all practical purposes, it's the same.
The food was too hot. Someone was burned. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice selection, but...
In the McDonalds case, should the woman have been more careful? Yes. Should they have been held responsible for her spilling the coffee? No. Should they have been held responsible for heating the coffee so far beyond its normal temperature that much more severe injuries were inflicted than spilled coffee would usually inflict? Absolutely. They weren't sued because she spilled the coffee, they were sued because it had been heated beyond normal guidelines and because increasingly harmful as a result.
The same here. Disney aren't responsible for the accident itself. But, if the injuries were exacerbated by excessive heating of the cheese, they share responsibility for the severity of the wounds, even if they're not responsible for the actual accident.
I'm a believer in parental responsibility, and the parents should have been more careful and controlling of their child. But, accidents do happen and food should not inflict severe wounds when they do unless that is somehow unavoidable. I'll await a verdict before deciding if that was the case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
Techdirt logo kool-aid cups available on our web site:
http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
but but KOOLAID.
but but CULT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100826/09354110786.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20110202/23230912933/star-wars-is-remix.shtml
I followed your master's example, I included Free and Cwf+Rtb. This is exactly the kind of thing Mike expects from his minions and you call it unoriginal, stupid and uncreative. Could it be that you do not always agree with your puppet master?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
I don't see how any of the links you provided demonstrate that. Please elaborate. Saying that copying is good does not mean that originality is not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
Copying is a very important part of the arts. Ask any artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
So this isn't art?
http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/altesnational/in-the-conservatory
If that's not art then what is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
We are getting off on a tangent here. My point was that I followed Mike's example and you called it 'uncreative'. My point was not to be creative, my point was to follow the example, like a good fanboi. Seems to me that many of the more prolific 'insiders' here only see it Mike's way. How could my Strokefest ad go wrong if I follow the example? Copying is where it starts right? Could it be that the Mike formula isn't perfect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
Just like there's no point in arguing what is or what is not copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/10510310426.shtml
Or this?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/03220211427/why-do-the-various-copyright-pre-settle ment-lawsuit-factories-keep-copying-each-other.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
The Jonestown folks didn't drink Kool-Aid. They drank Flavor-Aid, dammit!
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
I remain ignorant of both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That was Mike's cry of the week, only mentioning it in the last paragraph is telling. I notice most of the koolaid-heads around here didn't fall for it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What amazes me is that you guys don't seem to see that Mike gets his manties in a knot over something, and his posts go from somewhat information (but slanted) to "oh yeah, well look at this! and this! and THIS!" as he tries so hard to slam things he doesn't like. It's like watching a kid upset because someone took away his favorite toy or wouldn't give him desert after dinner.
That's why the "but but CENSORSHIP!" comment, because he got so worked up over censorship that he ended up agreeing with a Chinese firewall creator. Friggin' hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because you missed the point doesn't mean it wasn't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything on the internet is free. I'm pretty sure is says so right in the bible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Time is money.
Opportunity costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After all, Jesus was the original pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It needed BBQ sauce!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've posted this before, but in the likely case that you intentionally missed it, I'll post it again.
Censorship is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shutting down sites made up mostly of infringing videos, helping people connect to illegally pirate stuff? You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law.
Shutting down child porn sites? You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law.
Remember: We wouldn't tolerate that behaviour "in the real world", so why would we tolerate it online? If you consider this censorship, then you consider all laws to be censorship, which would be silly.
More importantly, if you consider it censorship, then the Kool aid is having the desired effect, allowing you to remain a loyal Techdirt reader and not to question some of he more simple concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The above are examples of that. A legal point of view is shut off from mainstream media television and broadcasting airwaves.
Shutting down only the illegal sites isn't what I have a problem with (other than for the purpose of copy'right' infringement, but my problem there is with copy'right' law itself), it's all the legal sites that they are 'accidentally' shutting down in the process, without taking the time necessary to avoid making such dumb mistakes, that I have a problem with. It makes the process of creating websites more expensive and risky which makes the expression of various points of view on those websites more expensive as well. and passing more laws (ie: COICA) that can be used to assist these people in much more easily shutting down sites they don't like can also lead to abuse. Not to mention it can make Internet connections more expensive which at least partly denies us the points of views of those who can't afford an Internet connection as a result and it at least partly denies those who can't afford an Internet connection as a result some of the various points of views expressed on the Internet.
The censorship abuse mentioned above didn't happen immediately all at once. It happened incrementally over a very long period of time. Public airwaves used to be open to everyone to use, but one day the FCC took over. At first, after taking over, they placed requirements on the minimal amount of competition that must exist in the market as an attempt to pretend that taking over public airwaves was about serving the public interest. Taking away something rightfully belonging to the public and immediately handing exclusive use of it to big corporations will lead to public outrage. but, over time, as people got more and more used to not freely using public airwaves to communicate with (since they were slowing becoming prohibited from doing so), the FCC started allowing more and more of those public airwaves to be controlled by fewer and fewer entities. Now the FCC grants a monopoly on public airwaves use to a hand full of corporations and various state/local governments grant monopoly power to corporations for cableco infrastructure use. The result is that a hand full of corporations (like five) control a considerable majority of information distribution channels outside the Internet and the result is that dissenting points of view are censored.
Censorship isn't something that just happens all at once. It's an incremental process resulting from laws get passed that artificially make open communication more expensive. and to say that it can't happen, or that this is not the governments intent, is absolute nonsense. The laws in place that grant monopoly power over cableco and broadcasting use are intended to result in the censorship of dissenting views, and that is their result, so there is good reason to believe that many of the Internet laws the government wants to pass are intended to do just the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Eighty-four thousand. 84,000.
Eighty-four thousand websites all �breaking the law� on Friday? Then all of a sudden they started getting legal again Sunday evening? But some sites were still breaking the law until Wednesday?
When ICE says 84,000 sites have an illegal point of view, then ICE is the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and what's worse, most of this is probably censored from our one sided mainstream media. Censorship is a reality and it's bad laws that enable this censorship to continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1 domain. 84,000 sub domains that are not legally under the control of the registrar. One way to shut it down. 84,000 third level domains, 84,000 pages, 84,000 blog entries, it is all the same thing at that level.
More than anything, it is an indication of 84,000 people who need to discover that domains only cost about $8 a year, and none of this would happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is simply untrue. You could easily shut down just the illegal sites. I don't know why you keep insisting otherwise, other than technical cluelessness.
More than anything, it is an indication of 84,000 people who need to discover that domains only cost about $8 a year, and none of this would happen.
Sorry, but that's not how the First Amendment works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Today on Name That Fallacy we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Using any position of power to exert control over information may be considered censorship. You have the issue the wrong way around when you say people cannot get any access, as it is not the person accessing the information who is censored. If someone doesn't read an article because it comes up with a government mandated warning saying 'don't read this article' then that is censorship.
"You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law."
The two are not mutually exclusive.
"If you consider this censorship, then you consider all laws to be censorship, which would be silly."
Censorship is not really an inherently bad word. The reason it tends to be considered bad is because people tend to believe free speech to be important, so censorship is treated with caution. Laws that require advertisers to tell the truth are technically censorship, but you may not find the same people arguing against them as might argue against censorship on this issue.
"More importantly, if you consider it censorship, then the Kool aid is having the desired effect"
That's what you consider to be the more important part of your post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. No. This is so far from the truth it's difficult to take you seriously. In China, speaking out in favor of Falun Gong is "illegal." So it gets shut down. So, by your reasoning, that's not censorship, because it's illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm... I missed commenting over the weekend thanks to other commitments but I do wonder at this.
Only mentioning it in the last paragraph is telling because... what? Because I decided not to dwell on a particular subject in multiple paragraphs? Because there were other things I wanted to comment upon? Because I ended up rushing the last couple of paragraphs because the bar I was writing the post in started to fill up with my friends at the beginning of happy hour and I didn't want to have to proof read any more text?
I notice that you ignore the wide range of other points made over the week to focus on some random "theme" you've read into the posts.
Funny how some people around here - especially those who can't be bothered to log in - see conspiracies among those who actually agree with Mike on some points. Well, you'd rather dismiss agreement as "kool aid drinking", so it's obviously a waste of time trying to discuss this further...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still hold that the last example had too much rhetoric to count as either "intelligent" or "effective". Come on, a hateful diatribe about how hateful Fox News is? That's not about to change anyone's mind. We need logic and facts, not propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Justice Department, which in the last few months has gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court, says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed. But others involved in the case say that what the government is trying to avoid is public embarrassment over evidence that Mr. Montgomery bamboozled federal officials.
�The Justice Department is trying to cover this up,� Mr. Flynn said. �If this unravels, all of the evidence, all of the phony terror alerts and all the embarrassment comes up publicly, too. The government knew this technology was bogus, but these guys got paid millions for it.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's simply untrue. Lots of folks engage here regularly with those with dissenting views, and we keep our comments wide open for exactly that reason. If we didn't want dissenting viewpoints, we'd moderate the comments.
However, if your views are repeatedly ridiculous and deserving of ridicule, then don't be surprised if you get ridiculed. But, it doesn't seem to stop those folks from coming back, so I don't see how that's discouraging anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, if your reviews are ridiculous by my standards, because I don't agree with you, I will belittle you, I will call you out, I will tell you to grow up, and I will refuse to actually address any issue that is brought up. I won't call it being discouraging, but perhaps disparaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. I will -- as I have done repeatedly -- explain my position carefully, back it up in great detail over and over again. If you then continue to insist that up is down and black is white, I may start belittling you, because at that point you deserve it.
I have plenty of patience and information to back up my positions for those with an open mind interested in learning. I have little patience for people who have no intention of understanding basic concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Care to contribute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
�
According to a Friday afternoon article in Information Week, an ICE spokesperson has confirmed the mooo.com takedown.
The article has more.
That helps to settle concerns about whether it really happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
You want to "prevent a similar messtep in the future", how about following due process...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
You � �yeah, you!� � are not going to get due process.
It's the flip side of �Everything's fucked up�
It's a two-tiered system now: People who are above the law. And scum who don't even deserve a trial. Don't even deserve any kind of hearing. Don't even deserve someone telling them what they did wrong. All you need to know is that they're bad and poor and jailable and wrong.
That's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
Now, if they can send a few of those Republican financer types to the slammer, that might help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
Not that I agree with him, IMO, to the extent that I might, what he's saying isn't a republican vs democrat issue.
It's more of an issue of how big corporations and their leaders can scam the public out of tons of money and never see jail (ie: limited liability, if the corporation is fined the corporation/stock holders pay and not those who conducted the crime, etc...) yet if some poor person steals a CD, they go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown
Sorry! My bad!
BUT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just you... Happy drunks vs angry drunks?
I also see a growing tendency by those that dislike TD but can not seem to get enough of it to become much more aggressive and mean spirited on weekends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't have it both ways
Seems to me that these observations are very selective and self-serving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't have it both ways
... that'd be nice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a new book I just read that asks everyone to know their 'responsibility' when it comes to good government. Remember, its the duty of a patriot to protect his country from it's government (I think T. Paine).
Great read for what's happening now in Wisconsin & across America. I recommend it. Remember, it's We the People...
www.booksbyoliver.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]