Being shown ads that are likely to be more relevant to you is probably no bad thing. But once cameras are in place, it would be natural for shops to start using them for other more complex tasks, like spotting known shoplifters.
Wait, wait, hang on a sec. Let me get this straight. There's probably no problem with targeted advertising--which everybody hates and esteems those who practice it only slightly higher than drug dealers and pedophiles--but trying to keep thieves (literal thieves, not digital-copying "thieves") from causing trouble for you is worthy of criticism?
With all these cases we see about estates causing trouble for people building on the existing work, does anyone else get the feeling that the portion of copyright that covers derivative works should terminate at the death of the author, even if other protections linger?
That's because right now, around the world, lobbyists and friends of Universal Music and its friends are pushing to make their own powers to not just take down videos and audio much, much stronger
His public defender crafted a motion to dismiss masterpiece, epic in length and containing a multitude of creative assertions that culminated in a not-completely-wrong point: to convict Hansmeier for engaging in bad-faith litigation would create a chilling effect on the act of litigation.
*sigh* Only a lawyer would say that this is a bad thing...
Once? It's been going on for decades now! It's been The Model of American Presidential Politics for longer than a significant number of voters have been alive.
Remember Bush Sr? He famously promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then he broke his promise and the people got sick of him and threw him out.
They elected a new guy who was essentially the anti-Bush: young, hip, and charismatic. And unfortunately also thoroughly corrupt and a sexual predator to boot. His presidency was one long mess of one scandal after another. (Everyone remembers Monica Lewinsky; remember all the rest of them?) And after 8 years of that, the American people were sick of it, and they threw him out.
Of course, it seems utterly bizarre now, but do you remember what Bush Jr.'s campaign platform was, the first time around? "I will restore dignity to the White House." It was sorely needed, and he did a great job of portraying himself as the anti-Clinton, so we elected him. We all remember how that went, though: he was utterly incompetent and in way over his head, especially after 9/11, and the Bush Jr. presidency turned out to be worse than the Clinton presidency. After 8 years of him screwing things up, we got sick of it and threw him out.
Well, you can guess what happened next, right? Yup: we elected the guy who managed to portray himself as the Anti-Bush. Hope and Change and all that. Well, things certainly changed, but it's been mostly more of the same changes we were getting through the Bush years: changes for the worse. The Obama administration was even worse than the Bush Jr. administration, and after 8 years of him screwing things up... well, it's not hard to guess what happened in the next election: we threw him out and brought in the guy who did the best job of portraying himself as the Anti-Obama. (His opponent being one of the worst presidential candidates in living memory didn't hurt either!)
And now everything's proceeding exactly on schedule: Trump's already showing himself to be even worse than Obama in virtually every area. And if we keep it up, we're likely going to throw him out and elect a (probably much younger) Democrat whose only real qualification is that he does a good job of depicting himself as the Anti-Trump, and he'll end up being even worse. (My best guess at the moment, based on media rumblings and rumors: Mark Zuckerberg.) Heck, it may not even take 8 years this time!
Scary fact: Bill Clinton was first elected President in 1993. The newest voters back then were born in 1975. Those people turn 42 this year. For anyone under the age of 42, this is essentially the only pattern they have ever known! And it'll probably keep happening until we finally elect a new President for who they are, rather than who they're not.
It seems their interpretation of free speech is that not only can they stand in the public square and spew their rhetoric, but they can force you to stand there and listen. Shove it down your throat, in other words.
Well, these are the guys who defend the Citizens United ruling on free-speech grounds, so why should we be surprised to see this?
On the post: AT&T Claims Forced Arbitration Isn't Forced... Because You Can Choose Not To Have Broadband
Oh yeah! People around here pull it out all the time to defend the indefensible. DRM comes to mind, as do Facebook's myriad abuses...
On the post: As Predicted, Cox's Latest Appeal Points To SCOTUS' Refusal To Disconnect Sex Offenders From Social Media
On the post: Copyright Office Admits That DMCA Is More About Giving Hollywood 'Control' Than Stopping Infringement
Earth to the Copyright Office: It's called copyright. It's not called accessright or usageright.
On the post: Bob Murray's Lawsuit Against John Oliver Is Even Sillier Than We Expected
There's an odd definition of "again" being employed here...
On the post: Facial Recognition Software Brings Personalized Ads To The Supermarket
Wait, wait, hang on a sec. Let me get this straight. There's probably no problem with targeted advertising--which everybody hates and esteems those who practice it only slightly higher than drug dealers and pedophiles--but trying to keep thieves (literal thieves, not digital-copying "thieves") from causing trouble for you is worthy of criticism?
On the post: Wikileaks Attempts To Bully Wikileaks Documentary With C&D Notices
Re: Wikileaks lost it a long time ago
Maybe we need something like The Circle that's about a Wikileaks lookalike rather than a Facebook/Apple mashup. :P
On the post: Cable Industry Lobbyist Proclaims Cable TV Industry 'Failing' While Advocating Against Broadband Consumer Rights
Obamacare for the Internet?
On the post: Comicmix Wins Against Dr. Seuss Estate On Trademark Infringement Claim, Copyright Claim In Serious Jeopardy
With all these cases we see about estates causing trouble for people building on the existing work, does anyone else get the feeling that the portion of copyright that covers derivative works should terminate at the death of the author, even if other protections linger?
On the post: Another Day, Another Bogus YouTube Takedown Because Of A Major Label
With friends and friends like these...
They must have lots of friends!
On the post: Government Knocks Hansmeier's Attempt To Talk Court Out Of Federal Prosecution
*sigh* Only a lawyer would say that this is a bad thing...
On the post: Snowden Explains How The Espionage Act Unfairly Stacks The Deck Against Reality Winner
Re: Re: Re: Re: New record?
Umm? Did you live through the same last 8 years that I did? o_0
On the post: Snowden Explains How The Espionage Act Unfairly Stacks The Deck Against Reality Winner
Re: Re: New record?
Once? It's been going on for decades now! It's been The Model of American Presidential Politics for longer than a significant number of voters have been alive.
Remember Bush Sr? He famously promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then he broke his promise and the people got sick of him and threw him out.
They elected a new guy who was essentially the anti-Bush: young, hip, and charismatic. And unfortunately also thoroughly corrupt and a sexual predator to boot. His presidency was one long mess of one scandal after another. (Everyone remembers Monica Lewinsky; remember all the rest of them?) And after 8 years of that, the American people were sick of it, and they threw him out.
Of course, it seems utterly bizarre now, but do you remember what Bush Jr.'s campaign platform was, the first time around? "I will restore dignity to the White House." It was sorely needed, and he did a great job of portraying himself as the anti-Clinton, so we elected him. We all remember how that went, though: he was utterly incompetent and in way over his head, especially after 9/11, and the Bush Jr. presidency turned out to be worse than the Clinton presidency. After 8 years of him screwing things up, we got sick of it and threw him out.
Well, you can guess what happened next, right? Yup: we elected the guy who managed to portray himself as the Anti-Bush. Hope and Change and all that. Well, things certainly changed, but it's been mostly more of the same changes we were getting through the Bush years: changes for the worse. The Obama administration was even worse than the Bush Jr. administration, and after 8 years of him screwing things up... well, it's not hard to guess what happened in the next election: we threw him out and brought in the guy who did the best job of portraying himself as the Anti-Obama. (His opponent being one of the worst presidential candidates in living memory didn't hurt either!)
And now everything's proceeding exactly on schedule: Trump's already showing himself to be even worse than Obama in virtually every area. And if we keep it up, we're likely going to throw him out and elect a (probably much younger) Democrat whose only real qualification is that he does a good job of depicting himself as the Anti-Trump, and he'll end up being even worse. (My best guess at the moment, based on media rumblings and rumors: Mark Zuckerberg.) Heck, it may not even take 8 years this time!
Scary fact: Bill Clinton was first elected President in 1993. The newest voters back then were born in 1975. Those people turn 42 this year. For anyone under the age of 42, this is essentially the only pattern they have ever known! And it'll probably keep happening until we finally elect a new President for who they are, rather than who they're not.
On the post: Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
Who's that?
On the post: Telenor Looks To Lead The Anti-Troll Fight In Europe
Ah yes, ISPs, those shining crusaders that Techdirt is always praising for their consumer-rights-protecting virtue.
On the post: Strike Three: Lexmark Can't Use Patents, Trademarks Or Copyright To Block Third Party Ink Cartridges
On the post: Piracy Killing Hollywood So Bad That Disney Made More Money In 2016 Than Any Studio Ever
Look at the first paragraph
On the post: Senate Should Either Fix Or Get Off The Pot On Copyright Office Bill
Isn't that a direct contradiction?
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
Re: Re: How about no?
Well, these are the guys who defend the Citizens United ruling on free-speech grounds, so why should we be surprised to see this?
On the post: FBI Insider Threat Program Documents Show How Little It Takes To Be Branded A Threat To The Agency
On today's episode of Techdirt Advertising Theatre...
http://imgur.com/a/A1BVy
(from the the-markdown-link-says-i-can-embed-images-but-they-don't-actually-show-up-when-i-hit-preview dept)
On the post: Judge Alsup Threatens To Block Malibu Media From Any More Copyright Trolling In Northern California
That's odd, seeing as how that's a name that makes sense in this context, but not in German. In Spanish, "Guardaley" means "law-guard".
Next >>