Y'know, as much as I'm against IP, I still think that keeping some tiny amount of patents around would be better than none at all.
And yeah, yeah, we've had this argument before, and I've been unable to argue for patents at all. One of these days I'll have to dig into a big pile of research and do some thinking.
My understanding is that 'prior art' would involve a patent application. So unless nintendo also patented this, there would be no prior art.
It, uh, wouldn't be the first time a site . . . sorry, company or individual was sued for patent infringement for something they implemented well before the plaintiff applied for the patent.
Re: Re: Re: A good salesman can sell ice water to anyone...
"Canada made Inuit the official name for its indigenous people"
Eh, not quite. The biggest group of perma-frost northern Native Americans in Canada is the Inuit, and they do pretty much have their own province, Nunavut, but we have other native groups up in the perma-frost, and we have plenty of other native groups not quite that far north.
If the dreamcasts discs didn't fall apart and were unusable within a week of buying them, most people wouldn't have cared to crack the copy protection.
Well, I've already stated my viewpoint.
If you ever come across my poetry? Do whatever you like. Laws besides copyright exist to catch those exceptional cases where I should care.
The booklet, sticker & packaging costing 2.45E altogether sounds a bit odd to me, but not an unreasonable price if someone else is doing all the labour of putting these together.
Personally, I just assumed that a lot of people who are interested in such policies live in the capital. Either because they moved there because they were interested, or that it was hard not to be interested when constantly inundated with politics.
Up here, we have a lot of political pundits and critics living in Ottawa, what a surprise . . .
I'm sorry, but if Mike can point at two posts, and without saying anything else, can say, "the same person wrote these two posts", discredit someone, is that actually Mike discrediting the person? Or the person discrediting himself? Mike here isn't even going that far, but only saying "this person has commented negatively before".
"posting some of what he finds to discredit his critics."
I'm sorry, but if someone can point at two posts, and without saying anything else, can say, "the same person wrote these two posts", discredit someone?
Further, tell me exactly who, and how to identify them in future posts, Mike has discredited?
What, you can't tell me how to identify AC in the future?
And further again, who is he discrediting here? He said that the person who wants to murder people has posted negatively before; He's discrediting the person who wants to murder people? By saying that person has posted here before? Run that by me again?
Is it possible that you are referring to Mike discrediting you because he made a statement that you cannot confirm/deny that directly contradicts the statement you made to try to discredit and shame Mike and some of the commenters here?
Of course, if you feel discredited by that, that means you made a statement you could not prove in the first place, and are upset that Mike has pointed this out.
So I'll presume intelligence on your part, in that I'll presume you are not the one being discredited here, and ask you again, exactly who is?
He hasn't revealed much. All he's revealed is that 'this comment maker has commented before, negatively'.
If you had said: "I'm concerned that Mike is viewing this information", maybe I'd have some sympathy, but complaing that Mike is revealing that this particular user, who we still aren't able to identify unless Mike points him out again and references this post in that pointing out, has posted before? Yeah, that totally rips that AC's privacy to shreds.
Well, it doesn't take a genius to compare these two cases.
1) The difference between the evidence:
Mike, comparing IP addresses to other IP addresses on techdirt. RIAA/MPAA comparing IP addresses to real people.
Now, to find out whether two IP addresses represent the same person, we have a variety of tools. First, we can look at whether they are the same. Mike can check the internet browser they use, some of its settings, which OS they use, etc. etc. If all of those match, it's a fairly close bet it's the same person. If this matching occurs again and again, you've probably identified someone.
Mike can also, humanly, compare the posts & writing styles, or run those through mechanical analysis to boot.
There aren't many false positives, since two people would pretty much have to be running the same setup, using the same software, and same software versions, and the same TOR exit node, in order to match each other.
To find out whether a single IP address represents real life person, we only have the comparison to an IP address that was assigned to a machine at the time. Those logs aren't always correct, we have to be concerned about proxys and TOR exit nodes, (whereas in Mike's case, we don't care since we're comparing an unknown identity to an unknown identity, here we're matching a real identity to a unknown), but we also have to be concerned with which machine was being used at the user-end, (the machine connected to the router may have been connected to another machine which used the connection), and who was using the machine; In a roommate situation, this usually proves impossible if they deny it.
Summary: Matching two unknown entities is easier than matching an unknown entity to a real person. This is true not only of the internet, but also of real life. We can tell if two break-in cases or two murder cases were committed by the same person/people; But we have great difficulty finding out who that person/people are.
2) Mike isn't charging someone in court, he's accusing them on his blog. He isn't accusing them of a crime, even, just of being someone on his blog who regularly comments negatively. We ask a much smaller burden of proof, (ie: We don't ask innocent until PROVEN guilty), because the consequences . . . are barely existent here. Fining or arresting the wrong person? Rather larger.
Like I said, the spammers will flood the market place, and you'll need a hell of out a lot more 50-100 to sort through the viagra ads.
But let's look at the idea that they're looking for the keyword 'viagra'. I'm going to search up a few things in google, and see what comes up with 'viagra' or other questionable medicine results.
Viagra: no questionable ad results.
erection: Questionable seeming ad; But legitimate
building plans, truss design, architecture, nothing
Architectural rod: fake viagra
rod, sword, longsword, nothing
British literature: questionable medicine site.
Celtic, bodhran, drums, sex, rock 'n' roll, nothing
Conclusion: If they're all competing for the viagra keyword, they're showing it well. Looks like google might've already banned the viagra keyword, showing as there is no result for that.
Now, 'erectile dysfunction', OTOH, has plenty of bad-ads.
And hey, no one might look for 'erect timepieces', but if they happen to be looking for a bit of Lord Bryon, maybe some Shakespeare, they might just happen across an ad.
(If I had to wager, I'd say that the viagra sellers, or maybe it's one viagra seller behind multiple fronts, is putting up a lot of random adwords with a low daily budget on multiple adwords accounts. Just to be clear, both architecture and rod didn't show any ads, but architectural rod, and architectural did.)
50 or 100 people? Man, someone's drastically underestimating the number of ads that pop up per second.
And if they did hire people, guess what would happen? You'd go from, say, 50-100 ads, to 50000-100000 ads as the spammers hope to get through the shields, the needed personnel would jump up greatly, and the overall ad quality would decline.
Just deny viagra ads? Well, several troubles with that. One, google gets sued for just about everything they do. At least one legit viagra company would sue google for denying viagra ads. How? I dunno, but I can guarantee it would happen.
Two, the viagra sellers would just call their product something other than 'viagra'. Lemme look at my spam box, and see what else it's called:
"Replica watch: make your timepiece stand erect"
"Cialis"
"Little blue pill"
"viagra"
"The men's pill"
"Unsheath your rapier after swallowing this"
Conclusion: If we follow your solutions, genuine viagra sellers will have complaints, which may be valid, false viagra sellers will still get through, google will spend a lot of money to hand-monitor ads, but will still be forced into inefficiency, and the ad quality will decrease.
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re:
And yeah, yeah, we've had this argument before, and I've been unable to argue for patents at all. One of these days I'll have to dig into a big pile of research and do some thinking.
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re:
It, uh, wouldn't be the first time a site . . . sorry, company or individual was sued for patent infringement for something they implemented well before the plaintiff applied for the patent.
On the post: How Confusion & Lack Of Clarity In Copyright Law Make Reviewing Poems Difficult
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt = copyright & patent whining?
Much more insightful :p
On the post: Being First Isn't The Most Important Thing, Getting It Right Is
Re: Re: Re: A good salesman can sell ice water to anyone...
Eh, not quite. The biggest group of perma-frost northern Native Americans in Canada is the Inuit, and they do pretty much have their own province, Nunavut, but we have other native groups up in the perma-frost, and we have plenty of other native groups not quite that far north.
On the post: Being First Isn't The Most Important Thing, Getting It Right Is
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Confusion & Lack Of Clarity In Copyright Law Make Reviewing Poems Difficult
If you ever come across my poetry? Do whatever you like. Laws besides copyright exist to catch those exceptional cases where I should care.
On the post: JSTOR Freely Releases Public Domain Papers That Greg Maxwell Already Freed
But maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they have planned.
On the post: How Much Does A Band Make From Various Music Platforms?
Re:
The booklet, sticker & packaging costing 2.45E altogether sounds a bit odd to me, but not an unreasonable price if someone else is doing all the labour of putting these together.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Up here, we have a lot of political pundits and critics living in Ottawa, what a surprise . . .
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but if Mike can point at two posts, and without saying anything else, can say, "the same person wrote these two posts", discredit someone, is that actually Mike discrediting the person? Or the person discrediting himself? Mike here isn't even going that far, but only saying "this person has commented negatively before".
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but if someone can point at two posts, and without saying anything else, can say, "the same person wrote these two posts", discredit someone?
Further, tell me exactly who, and how to identify them in future posts, Mike has discredited?
What, you can't tell me how to identify AC in the future?
And further again, who is he discrediting here? He said that the person who wants to murder people has posted negatively before; He's discrediting the person who wants to murder people? By saying that person has posted here before? Run that by me again?
Is it possible that you are referring to Mike discrediting you because he made a statement that you cannot confirm/deny that directly contradicts the statement you made to try to discredit and shame Mike and some of the commenters here?
Of course, if you feel discredited by that, that means you made a statement you could not prove in the first place, and are upset that Mike has pointed this out.
So I'll presume intelligence on your part, in that I'll presume you are not the one being discredited here, and ask you again, exactly who is?
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you had said: "I'm concerned that Mike is viewing this information", maybe I'd have some sympathy, but complaing that Mike is revealing that this particular user, who we still aren't able to identify unless Mike points him out again and references this post in that pointing out, has posted before? Yeah, that totally rips that AC's privacy to shreds.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The difference between the evidence:
Mike, comparing IP addresses to other IP addresses on techdirt. RIAA/MPAA comparing IP addresses to real people.
Now, to find out whether two IP addresses represent the same person, we have a variety of tools. First, we can look at whether they are the same. Mike can check the internet browser they use, some of its settings, which OS they use, etc. etc. If all of those match, it's a fairly close bet it's the same person. If this matching occurs again and again, you've probably identified someone.
Mike can also, humanly, compare the posts & writing styles, or run those through mechanical analysis to boot.
There aren't many false positives, since two people would pretty much have to be running the same setup, using the same software, and same software versions, and the same TOR exit node, in order to match each other.
To find out whether a single IP address represents real life person, we only have the comparison to an IP address that was assigned to a machine at the time. Those logs aren't always correct, we have to be concerned about proxys and TOR exit nodes, (whereas in Mike's case, we don't care since we're comparing an unknown identity to an unknown identity, here we're matching a real identity to a unknown), but we also have to be concerned with which machine was being used at the user-end, (the machine connected to the router may have been connected to another machine which used the connection), and who was using the machine; In a roommate situation, this usually proves impossible if they deny it.
Summary: Matching two unknown entities is easier than matching an unknown entity to a real person. This is true not only of the internet, but also of real life. We can tell if two break-in cases or two murder cases were committed by the same person/people; But we have great difficulty finding out who that person/people are.
2) Mike isn't charging someone in court, he's accusing them on his blog. He isn't accusing them of a crime, even, just of being someone on his blog who regularly comments negatively. We ask a much smaller burden of proof, (ie: We don't ask innocent until PROVEN guilty), because the consequences . . . are barely existent here. Fining or arresting the wrong person? Rather larger.
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strange that you've never heard of this thing called 'marketting'.
On the post: DailyDirt: Don't Drink The Water?!
Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Don't Drink The Water?!
When I click on the amoeba link from the frontpage, it links to techdirt.com. In this 'read more' page, it links correctly.
What's up with that?
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or that they do, but also contain other unsafe ingredients.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But let's look at the idea that they're looking for the keyword 'viagra'. I'm going to search up a few things in google, and see what comes up with 'viagra' or other questionable medicine results.
Viagra: no questionable ad results.
erection: Questionable seeming ad; But legitimate
building plans, truss design, architecture, nothing
Architectural rod: fake viagra
rod, sword, longsword, nothing
British literature: questionable medicine site.
Celtic, bodhran, drums, sex, rock 'n' roll, nothing
Conclusion: If they're all competing for the viagra keyword, they're showing it well. Looks like google might've already banned the viagra keyword, showing as there is no result for that.
Now, 'erectile dysfunction', OTOH, has plenty of bad-ads.
And hey, no one might look for 'erect timepieces', but if they happen to be looking for a bit of Lord Bryon, maybe some Shakespeare, they might just happen across an ad.
(If I had to wager, I'd say that the viagra sellers, or maybe it's one viagra seller behind multiple fronts, is putting up a lot of random adwords with a low daily budget on multiple adwords accounts. Just to be clear, both architecture and rod didn't show any ads, but architectural rod, and architectural did.)
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
Re: Are they actually Google ads?
I completely missed the "AdChoices" at the bottom, and assumed due to style that is was AdSense.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
Re: Re: Re:
And if they did hire people, guess what would happen? You'd go from, say, 50-100 ads, to 50000-100000 ads as the spammers hope to get through the shields, the needed personnel would jump up greatly, and the overall ad quality would decline.
Just deny viagra ads? Well, several troubles with that. One, google gets sued for just about everything they do. At least one legit viagra company would sue google for denying viagra ads. How? I dunno, but I can guarantee it would happen.
Two, the viagra sellers would just call their product something other than 'viagra'. Lemme look at my spam box, and see what else it's called:
"Replica watch: make your timepiece stand erect"
"Cialis"
"Little blue pill"
"viagra"
"The men's pill"
"Unsheath your rapier after swallowing this"
Conclusion: If we follow your solutions, genuine viagra sellers will have complaints, which may be valid, false viagra sellers will still get through, google will spend a lot of money to hand-monitor ads, but will still be forced into inefficiency, and the ad quality will decrease.
Next >>