PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the las-vegas-dreams-dashed dept
It's been a good week for articles that interest me personally, a good thing as I've been asked to write this post about my favorites! First mention has to go to Jonathan McIntosh's great recap of the problems he's had to go through at the hands of Lionsgate. In short, despite his Twilight remix video having been mentioned by the US Copyright Office itself as an example of fair use, he still struggled to convince YouTube to keep it up since Lionsgate didn't want to keep it up without obscuring it with ads (despite the current version being ad free and not monetized by McIntosh in any way himself). It's a nice illustration of how even those who try to keep within the law fall foul of corporate greed if they decide they don't like something. If something already illustrated as fair use can be treated like this, imagine the problems faced by anyone in a grey area!
On a similar note, rapper Kid Cudi yet again noted how disappointed he was in his label's commitment to his new single, just one year after having similar problems with his last album. While some were noting that he was silly to have signed for a label in the first place, this was another illustration as to how even successful artists can be let down by the legacy industry and how many artists simply don't need them.
Something slightly more disturbing to me personally is the story about a gambling software programmer being shut down and raided. The story appears to go that despite offering services that are perfectly legal everywhere that he licensed the software, he fell afoul of the US's inexplicable anti-gambling obsession anyway because he's based in the US and people in NY may have somehow touched his software. As someone who working in Gibraltar, a place whose industry is largely built by offshore gaming companies (some of whom were similarly attacked when US authorities suddenly decided that their companies were offering illegal products), this is a worrying trend. It also sadly means that my dreams of being invited to help set up a Las Vegas branch of one of those companies might still be a long way away!
On a lighter note, UK police were arguing about who first thought up their Twitter offers of free iPads to lure the stupidest criminals alive into their arms. Neither of them apparently remembering the episode of The Simpsons where Homer was successfully lured by the promise of a free boat.
Meanwhile, back in the entertainment industry, Sony offered the most naked example yet of profiteering and the back of what should be public domain material when they released a new Bob Dylan compilation entitled the "Copyright Collection Volume 1." Regionally restricted, of course, and containing rare material that will inevitably be pirated as it's not available anywhere else. It's particularly odious because the mere 100 copies they released were openly intended to stop classic material from going back to the public under the original deal made when they were recorded. At least they've dropped the pretense of helping the fans, I suppose.
The movie industry also made some wrongheaded moves in an attempt to promote their silly Ultraviolet service (yet another in a long line of DRM that offer customers less than a pirated version under the pretense that it somehow benefits the consumer). The pretense is that by offering free movies with purchases of TVs and Blu ray players, they can convince people to use and love it. Having unfortunately tried it myself (unsuccessfully) on a movie I received for Christmas, I suspect it will just let people know not to bother.
Finally, on a lighter note, it's nice to see some figures for Kickstarter's year and their great success in funding a wide range of projects. Over 2 million people funded projects this year (myself included), so here's hoping that many more independent artists get funded in 2013!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How?
The person posts what they wish to post, other people respond. Every other form of communication I've mentioned has some kind of intermediary that can have control, especially if a broadcast is not live. TV has producers who can demand edits, as does radio. Newspapers have editors. Billboards typically have someone approving what goes on them. Live events usually have moderators. In formats when people are allowed to respond, the responders are going to be selected from a large pool of potential people and will have their responses filtered in some way, whether that's for time, relevance or something else.
The only major difference is that with social media some of the work is automated, but this can be waived for the speaker if it's an official government communication (as in, not the self-deluded whining of someone who chooses to use his personal account while in office) and then would apply mainly to the comments.
/div>Re: Re: Re: I just hope…
It seems like it, but my casual observation tells me that there's often an inverse correlation between how much effort the writers put into the title and the value of the overall package. Kudos to them for not trying to shoehorn some "patriot" or "freedom" or such nonsense intended to get an emotional response into it, but the fact they put the effort in to make it recursive gives me pause.
/div>Re: I just hope…
I can't comment on the content of the bill, but the cutesy recursive acronym for the title doesn't fill me with hope.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
"Border policy yes."
Unless the border is with Ukraine, in which case they're optional, apparently....
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Other news sources are available. While it's something of a side note given that he does (currently) have any remaining direct power, it is notable when you see a former US President gushing about how much of a genius the Russian president is for invading a sovereign nation while trying desperately to tie it in with his own election failure.
Not surprising to anyone who was paying attention to the actual evidence of wrongdoing related to Russia during his tenure, but it's a rather notable set of comments in the wider geopolitical sphere that would have been unheard of back when the US elected statesmen instead of reality show con artists.
/div>Re:
"Continuing to prove that the right wing's issue with moderation isn't that it exists, it's that they've lost the ability to do it, both culturally and online."
It's not that they can't do it, it's just that they've lost the need to try and sugar coat it. When people are "censored" elsewhere for things like homophobia, transphobia, racism and spreading false information, those things seem to have become so central to their identities that they take it as a personal attack. Meanwhile, they see no problem with doing the same for speech they disagree with, because they seem to consider anyone who thinks differently to them as an enemy rather than equals with differing opinions.
I suspect that Pravda - sorry, Truth - will follow the same trend as all them do - a brief spurt of interest, followed by diminishing audiences as the hate is allowed to thrive and dissenting voices tuned out. Until they're back into an echo chamber that nobody else would ever consider looking at, the audience as tired of hanging around with people like them as the rest of us are, and the people funding the grift take their money and run once it's clear they've emptied the well.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI gene
"So, their concern is someone may develop something beyond the base and not also open source it?"
Yes, the concern is that proprietary giants routinely take from the work of others without giving back, and are then known to attack open source projects with patents and copyright claims if they try to improve the base product in the same direction. This is literally why open source licences were created in the first place.
"Guess I just call the claim of ‘free as in freedom’ as bull."
Freedom isn't free, and no freedom is absolute. You can't take from the food bank just because you don't want to pay for your own lunch.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weighted fault
Again I'll defer to you on the cars I haven't driven. All I know is that in the car I have, the console itself was an optional extra, I still have manual seat, windows, mirror, etc. controls and the safety warnings appear on the dashboard display, not the central console (which covers GPS, rear parking cameras, CarPlay/Android Auto, etc. - all optional).
/div>Re: Re:
"Well it’s hundreds of sales in resale, per day. As I linked to. That would be thousands per month."
OK, I apologise, I missed the "per day" part and assumed it was a month for some reason, it was late. But, it's still a cottage industry in largely used tapes. That doesn't really support what you seem to be trying to say.
But for comparison, I had a quick look at NES games and it seems there's way more sold than VHS tapes. But nobody's claiming that NES is a popular viable format for new releases.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=nes&_sacat=139973&LH_TitleDesc= 0&LH_Complete=1&_oac=1&LH_Sold=1&_ipg=240&_pgn=1
It's cool that VHS collectors are still a thing. But, it's a niche market where new releases are often small run sales gimmicks, and your claim that DVD didn't affect sales is laughable. By all means run with your hobby and I wish you good times, you don't have to misrepresent things to enjoy it.
/div>Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary, this is a fairly important exercise and not merely a sideshow, despite the obvious circus atmosphere.
There's 2 things at play here that are worth keeping an eye on. The first is that it's yet another example of a retort to all the complaints about "Big Tech" and social media in general. The right will whine endlessly about how they're being "censored" and that the "monopolies" be shut down.
But, each of these new services are illustrations of how that's not really true since competing services keep appearing, and illustrations of how on some level "censorship" is required for such a service to operate effectively. If even services like Gettr and Truth require heavy moderation despite being set up as "free speech" venues, then how can it be argued that Twitter is wrong to do the same? They will argue about that, of course, but if the next time the mainstream services have to appear before congress to account for their actions, it's good that claims about censorship and monopolistic activity can be countered with "our many competitors feel they are required to do the same level of moderation".
The other things is that whether the rest of us like it or not, Trump is still relevant. He's still the defacto head of the Republican party, he's still surrounded by worshippers, and he's still eligible to run again for office. Until those things change, it's good to keep an eye on his, and after his hilariously failed attempt at a service before (which turned out to be a blog, despite earlier promises of something else), what happens on this service is worth keeping an eye on.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this actually a good thing?
"I believe you’re approaching this as if renting removes the owner right of control."
Whereas you seem to think that opening a property up for public accommodation means that they can still treat the property as if they have no additional responsibilities as a result.
That's not how it works. Once you open things up to the public, you have to abide by certain compromises. This includes access to utilities.
"What if"
Just once, it would be nice if you could have a conversation based on verifiable facts, rather than stupid strawmen you construct to argue a what if scenario that doesn't exist.
"It’s a good debate on who has greater rights, the owner or the renter"
What's the subject? If the subject is that the owner wants control of his little fiefdom and finds it more profitable to force the renters into inferior service for basic utilities, usually the renters' rights should supercede the owner's. If he wants complete control, all he has to do is not open up accommodation to the public.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"politicians shouldn’t be using social media, another company’s private property, for official communication."
Do you have the same opinion when they use other forms of private property for communication, such as radio, TV, newspapers, billboards, appearances at privately-held venues, etc.? Or just social media?
/div>Re: Re: Re:
Meh, at least PV provided names and evidence, as clearly forced and misleadingly edited as it was.
AC can't even identify which platform he supposedly worked for, let alone his position there, and those would be the very basic things required to even start to evaluate his self-proclaimed authority, let alone his conclusions.
/div>Re:
I really feel for the athletes, especially in the more niche sports. You get to the top of your game in a sport most people don't really care about outside of Olympic coverage, and in the relatively short time of your life where you can prove yourself, it's torpedoed by politics.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Clearly
"There seem to be a decent amount of folks who would like to transition away from twitter, if an alternative could reach critical mass for its user base"
Yes, and I'm all for them because they help prove the point that the rest of us have been making - that you should use alternatives instead of trying to destroy the platforms everyone else uses just because you're butthurt over your Klan buddies being told to leave.
But, nothing will reach "critical mass" until it attracts enough people to do so, and that usually has nothing to do with external forces.
"It's difficult to reconcile why folks want to move out, with another platform if it's just doing the same thing."
There's plenty of places such people congregate - Stormfront, Free Republic, the_donald, 4chan, 8kun, etc. They don't reach critical mass because most people don't want to hang out with such a crowd.
/div>Re: Clearly
"So far, these cases are based on objective rules violations, and not political disagreement"
...and if the rules state that you can be banned due to political disagreement it would still be fine. Very hypocritical, considering how the Trump cult whined about being banned elsewhere, but fine.
But, you still haven't provided examples of people who have actually been banned for such disagreement elsewhere. Weak attempts at spinning other rules violations as being political, but no real examples.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 was created because there was some doubt over this in the Prodigy case, it just clarified that the first amendment applied however successfully the platform chose to moderate.
/div>(untitled comment)
I have noticed that a lot of the recent furor over NFTs has revealed that a lot of people really don't know what they actually are.
For the uninitiated (and of course correct me if I'm wrong), the "problem" that NFTs are meant to fix is that while physical works have a fixed original state from which copies can be traced back to, there's no such thing in terms of digital work, and since identical copies can be created with zero effort, you can't claim to be the "owner" based on the work itself. For example, if you have a print of the Mona Lisa, people can trace the art back to the original painting and people know that you don't have the original in your house. Whereas if you create a work digitally and publish it online, nobody can tell if you have the "original" or not.
So, NFTs attempt to resolve this "problem" (I keep putting that in quotes because I don't know if it's one that's really important overall) by assigning a unique blockchain identifier to the "original" copy. So, no matter how much that is copied and shared - which will happen with any image online - you can always trace the original owner.
Note what that doesn't do - it doesn't grant the owner of the "original" any ownership or rights over the copies. It doesn't make it so that someone can't copy the JPG that the NFT backs, and it certainly doesn't grant any ability to revoke copies of the "original". It just mean that if you're trying to trade a digital good then you know it's a confirmed original. Which is why I understand the use of NFT in things like gaming (though I don't really like them there either), since it provides a way to inventory digital goods. But, the idea that you can do anything with an NFT created from an infinitely duplicatable image and have additional rights because one of them is on the blockchain just tells me that you don't know what it is.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Wait…
I'm only basing my opinion on what you're previously said here.
"I think Ukraine is a dictatorship at far greater risk and threat to the world than anyone else.
"I think Ukraine is a dictatorship at far greater risk and threat to the world than anyone else."
Da, comrade.
"I do not know where he stands."
He's literally talked about it in the last 48 hours.
"I blame Clinton"
Of course you do...
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do self-proclaimed "libertarians" always end up resorting to comments about how incest and age of consent laws are optional? It's a weird trend.
/div>More comments from PaulT >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by PaulT.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt