Yeah, by all accounts Mr. Email independently created his EMAIL program without any knowledge of prior work. I really don't have any issue with that particular claim. Other claims, such as EMAIL being the first "true" email program, based on ever-increasingly narrow definitions of email, which eventually reduce to "It's not email because I didn't invent it. Therefore I'm the only real inventor of email.", or claiming that his particular program was instrumental in email as it exists today (in other words, paved the way for modern email), despite lacking any supporting causal evidence, those I have serious problems with.
His general behavior also disgusts me, but that really doesn't impact the validity (or lack thereof) of his claims.
I really don't see any link here between the RIAA and the Spanish government, other than both of them being wanting to squash speech and finding an effective method to do so. Is there any actual causal evidence between the two? "Pave the way" has a specific meaning, one which is not satisfied by merely providing an idea of methodology, and even that claim seems to have no evidence to justify it.
The RIAA may have done this first, but, not only was that in a different legal environment, without specific causal evidence you can't rule out parallel invention.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, people would watch more movies if cheaper and better.
You're probably correct, but, at least for myself, I enjoy the physicality of books. I'll buy hardcover copies of books from favorite authors, and I'm willing to pay a (reasonable) premium for the added value.
On the other hand, I don't buy paperbacks any more, preferring ebooks. There are actually a few instances where I got an ebook, and ended up liking it so much I then went on to get a hardcover copy of the same book.
It's a fairly recent development, but Steam's refund system is pretty great. You can request a full refund on any purchase for any number of reasons, including it simply not being fun. Refunds can only be requested within two weeks of purchase, and for games with less than 2 hours of play time, but that's plenty of time to try out the game. They also don't seem to be hard limits, for example I refunded a game that had 2 hours and 31 minutes of play time. I've definitely found that I'm more willing to make purchases where I'm not sure if I'll like the game, as getting a refund is pretty hassle free.
I'd imagine #3 might apply if they offered the songs as downloads, not just streams. The medium is still digital, but the intent switches to distributing a "permanent" copy.
I honestly cannot remember when or how I first stumbled across Techdirt. My account says it was back in 2006, but I think I lurked for a while before signing up. Damn, I was just 19 at the time... I probably came across it while researching something or from a recommendation from a peer or a professor, but those are just guesses.
Yeah, the article seems to completely miss that point. This is a good thing for government supplied equipment, but don't expect this to have any meaningful impact on consumer IoT security. Sure, some of the more commercially targeted IoT devices will benefit due to the multi-market development you're talking about, but the more egregious examples of poor IoT security usually stem from purely consumer focused goods. This legislation won't do much there. The provisions regarding security research might be the only thing that makes any real impact, though I need to do more research on the specific changes to law and how it pertains to the CFAA in order to be any more than vaguely hopeful.
There's not a lot of context in the article to go on, but I don't think the reporter was asking for an exact figure. If I ask you "How much do make?" I'm not looking for $72,324.18, just a rough ballpark like $70,000. An executive should absolutely know roughly how much the company pulls in in revenue, what their cost centers are, available capital, etc.
Though, in the guy's defense, there are plenty of reasons he shouldn't be sharing that information with a reporter, so maybe he purposefully feigned ignorance to deflect the question.
Maybe I'm reading his comment completely wrong, but where did he mention anything about the accuracy of the site? I read it as a comment on how terribly that company is run. Could be I'm just projecting though, because it seems to me like an absolute shit show over there.
Just a couple of random thoughts on the article from the perspective of someone who has some experience in founding/running companies.
First, S Corps aren't nearly as bad as the article makes them out to be. They're almost always a better choice than an LLC if you need pass-through taxation. The fact that corporations can't hold shares in an S Corp is the primary reason VCs won't touch them, as they'll usually invest through a corporate vehicle. Another reason is that the shareholder count limitation prevents an IPO, which VCs always push for. If you're planning to keep the company closely held, S Corps aren't a bad choice. Though I'll almost always recommend a C Corp, it's not any more difficult to setup and gives you greater flexibility if you happen to need it down the line.
Second, regarding the Board of Directors. Directors are elected by the shareholders, not appointed through resolution, so David's claims that there was no resolution to that effect are meaningless. Given that (at the time) there were two blocks of equal shareholders, whether or not a director could be elected without David's consent depends on tie-breaker provisions in their bylaws.
Lastly, regarding unilaterally exiting from their agreement, if David is CEO then he absolutely had the power to terminate the agreement, barring any explicit instructions from the Board otherwise.
I don't get this position. You're ok with the school collecting sales data in their cafeteria, and you're ok with the school giving funds to students that need them, but when they use the sales data to determine who needs funds they've suddenly crossed a line?
The cards in question are likely reloadable cards given out by the school for use in the cafeteria or school stores, not students' personal credit cards. (My school had the same thing.) Not that it matters, because the data is available to them at point of sale regardless.
I think the crux of the matter, at least for me, comes down to who has access to the data, not so much what they use it for. (Not that that implicitly means that I'm ok with whatever action, just that how they use data has no bearing on that judgment.) In this story, unless I'm missing something, there are two actors, the student and the school. Unless the cafeteria is owned (not just operated by) a third party, it should be trivially obvious that the school has access to that data. If nothing else they'll need to track sales just so they can do inventory management. It would seem a bit crazy to me to purchase something, but demand to have all record of the transaction erased, particularly when dealing with non-cash transactions.
Now, if this were a third-party, say a government agency monitoring private transactions and using it to, I dunno, decide who gets awarded public grants, that I would have a problem with, if it were done without the knowledge and consent of all other actors.
I'm glad somebody is responding to this event with a modicum of sense. This non-story has somehow resulted in a controversial firestorm, with pretty much everyone involved trying to put it out using gasoline. I wish I was surprised, but that's par for the course these days. I used to get worked up about partisan vitriol, about people who are too blinded by their fantasy of "us versus them" to behave in an objective and rational manner, but now I'm just too damned tired.
Neither of which explains the vitriol in the article. Maybe this is short-sighted, or maybe Netflix just thinks that net neutrality is a lost cause, at least in this administration, and are exploring other options to protect their business. I'm not going to fault them for doing what they need to do. This isn't their responsibility.
It's pretty clear that Netflix still supports NN, even if it's only lip service. Of course, a couple of statements here and there by Netflix probably has more impact than my meager donations to the EFF and random rants on tech blogs. I'll take a tepid ally over a straight-up enemy any day. So Netflix won't be swooping in to save the day, does that invalidate the good they've done so far?
In short, disappointment I can understand. Anger and outrage, on the other hand, not so much.
On the post: Lawyers Gearing Up To Hit UK With Corporate Sovereignty Claims Totalling Billions Of Dollars Over Brexit
Re: There's something corporations are forgetting about all this
On the post: How The RIAA Helped Pave The Way For Spain To Undermine Democracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tenuous link is tenuous.
I'm not the one who brought it up, and this article is also making claims about causal relationships without any supporting evidence.
On the post: How The RIAA Helped Pave The Way For Spain To Undermine Democracy
Re: Re: Tenuous link is tenuous.
Yeah, by all accounts Mr. Email independently created his EMAIL program without any knowledge of prior work. I really don't have any issue with that particular claim. Other claims, such as EMAIL being the first "true" email program, based on ever-increasingly narrow definitions of email, which eventually reduce to "It's not email because I didn't invent it. Therefore I'm the only real inventor of email.", or claiming that his particular program was instrumental in email as it exists today (in other words, paved the way for modern email), despite lacking any supporting causal evidence, those I have serious problems with.
His general behavior also disgusts me, but that really doesn't impact the validity (or lack thereof) of his claims.
On the post: How The RIAA Helped Pave The Way For Spain To Undermine Democracy
Tenuous link is tenuous.
The RIAA may have done this first, but, not only was that in a different legal environment, without specific causal evidence you can't rule out parallel invention.
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, people would watch more movies if cheaper and better.
On the other hand, I don't buy paperbacks any more, preferring ebooks. There are actually a few instances where I got an ebook, and ended up liking it so much I then went on to get a hardcover copy of the same book.
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Re:
On the post: Florida Utilities Lobbied To Make It Illegal For Solar Users To Use Panels In Wake Of Hurricanes, Outages
Re:
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
Re: Google is the outlier
On the post: Spotify Finally Realizes That Streaming Isn't Reproduction Or Distribution
Re: Terminology doesn't fit...
On the post: Techdirt Turns Twenty!
Re: Congrats and about that email....
On the post: Techdirt Turns Twenty!
No clue.
On the post: US Senators Unveil Their Attempt To Secure The Internet Of Very Broken Things
Re: They aren't trying to legislate China
On the post: Fact Checking Snopes On Its Own Claims Of Being 'Held Hostage' By 'A Vendor': Well, It's Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though, in the guy's defense, there are plenty of reasons he shouldn't be sharing that information with a reporter, so maybe he purposefully feigned ignorance to deflect the question.
On the post: Fact Checking Snopes On Its Own Claims Of Being 'Held Hostage' By 'A Vendor': Well, It's Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fact Checking Snopes On Its Own Claims Of Being 'Held Hostage' By 'A Vendor': Well, It's Complicated
Random Comments on Corporations
Just a couple of random thoughts on the article from the perspective of someone who has some experience in founding/running companies.
First, S Corps aren't nearly as bad as the article makes them out to be. They're almost always a better choice than an LLC if you need pass-through taxation. The fact that corporations can't hold shares in an S Corp is the primary reason VCs won't touch them, as they'll usually invest through a corporate vehicle. Another reason is that the shareholder count limitation prevents an IPO, which VCs always push for. If you're planning to keep the company closely held, S Corps aren't a bad choice. Though I'll almost always recommend a C Corp, it's not any more difficult to setup and gives you greater flexibility if you happen to need it down the line.
Second, regarding the Board of Directors. Directors are elected by the shareholders, not appointed through resolution, so David's claims that there was no resolution to that effect are meaningless. Given that (at the time) there were two blocks of equal shareholders, whether or not a director could be elected without David's consent depends on tie-breaker provisions in their bylaws.
Lastly, regarding unilaterally exiting from their agreement, if David is CEO then he absolutely had the power to terminate the agreement, barring any explicit instructions from the Board otherwise.
On the post: Fact Checking Snopes On Its Own Claims Of Being 'Held Hostage' By 'A Vendor': Well, It's Complicated
Re: Re:
On the post: Surveillance Used To Give Poor Students Extra Financial Assistance Discreetly. Is That OK?
Re:
The cards in question are likely reloadable cards given out by the school for use in the cafeteria or school stores, not students' personal credit cards. (My school had the same thing.) Not that it matters, because the data is available to them at point of sale regardless.
On the post: Surveillance Used To Give Poor Students Extra Financial Assistance Discreetly. Is That OK?
Third party doctrine
Now, if this were a third-party, say a government agency monitoring private transactions and using it to, I dunno, decide who gets awarded public grants, that I would have a problem with, if it were done without the knowledge and consent of all other actors.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Some sense
On the post: Netflix Admits It Doesn't Really Care About Net Neutrality Now That It's Big
Re: Re: So?
It's pretty clear that Netflix still supports NN, even if it's only lip service. Of course, a couple of statements here and there by Netflix probably has more impact than my meager donations to the EFF and random rants on tech blogs. I'll take a tepid ally over a straight-up enemy any day. So Netflix won't be swooping in to save the day, does that invalidate the good they've done so far?
In short, disappointment I can understand. Anger and outrage, on the other hand, not so much.
Next >>