Martin O'B’s Comments

• May 18th, 2010 @ 6:38am

  Re:

  on Confused Users Keep Racking Up Ridiculous 3G Bills, Wireless Carriers Keep Helping Them
  I find that both hilarious and terrifying. I just got smart phones for my wife & I. Looking at my account on the Verizon Wireless page, a little widget shows my data usage as:
  
  286,626.95 of Unlimited data used.
  
  First of all, what units are they measuring my data in?
  Second, how can it be unlimited if there is a limit?
  
  There's not even a little star next to Unlimited telling you to read your contract! If I look at that (as a new data plan customer), why would it even occur to me to look into the fine print in my contract for any info on my data plan's limit when the main account info page says UNLIMITED?
• May 15th, 2010 @ 11:28am

  Re: Copyrights applicable to film sets?

  on Viacom Still Not Getting It -- Files Bogus Takedown And Kills Some Free Transformers Buzz
  If the film makers have copyright over their sets, that would only mean that you can't physically reproduce the set. Filming something happening ON the set (a video audiovisual reproduction of an event) is totally different from making a physical copy of that environment.
• Feb 27th, 2010 @ 4:05pm

  Re: UM does having an unlocked house door mean that?

  on Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
  Your analogy is wrong. It's more like you left your front door unlocked, and when I walked up to the door and knocked, you invited me in to wander around and look at anything I wanted to look at.
  
  With open wifi, if my computer tries to connect, and there isn't any security, your router will assign me an address on your network and let me connect.
• Nov 17th, 2009 @ 5:11pm

  Re: While a bit troubling...

  on Psystar Loses Big To Apple
  Even if they did buy a copy of OSX for each computer, I recall another issue in this case is that they were buying upgrade copies of OSX, since the only way to get a full install of OSX is by buying a Mac.
  
  If Psystar bought an upgrade disc, hacked and installed it, and sold it, that most likely isn't a valid/legal copy anyway.
• May 23rd, 2009 @ 3:38pm

  Re:

  on Missouri: Text Messaging While Driving Is Fine, As Long As You're Over 21
  That's the one thing that nobody seems to realize on this topic. It's not holding the phone while driving that causes the problems. It's the act of talking to someone not in the car, whether you're holding the phone or on a headset.
  
  When someone is in the car with you while you talk, they can help alert you to problems that you may not notice, possibly due to you talking to them. When they're not in the car (just on the phone), they can't see that your swerving into the other lane and get your attention.
• Oct 23rd, 2008 @ 2:24pm

  Re: The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code (as Martin)

  on Is The Indictment Of The Palin Email Hacker Legally Correct?
  But if the emails were already in Palin's account, he wouldn't be intercepting them, would he? Wouldn't this be more of a 'stored communications' thing, which I thought was totally different?
• Jun 4th, 2008 @ 7:27am

  But it wasn't analog

  on Microsoft: It's Not The Broadcast Flag, It's A Different Flag
  CGMS-A is for protecting ANALOG content, and this was recorded (or not recorded) from digital, which is even MORE messed up...
• Jan 29th, 2008 @ 9:51am

  (untitled comment)

  on How Kevin Martin Got Over A Million People To Look At A Woman's Naked Buttocks
  Another thing that humors me about all this fuss is that buttocks & breasts are NOT reproductive organs!
• Jan 8th, 2008 @ 2:16pm

  Re: Calculating speed limits

  on National Motorists Association Challenges Cities To Prove Red-Light Cameras Are Safer
  Land of the Free: Maybe you're thinking about the 85th Percentile Rule?
• Oct 19th, 2007 @ 8:25am

  (untitled comment)

  on Is It Copyright Infringement To Skip Commercials?
  So now it's copyright infringement to NOT watch a commercial?
• Oct 10th, 2007 @ 9:36am

  Re: Re: Re: Last I checked (as Martin)

  on Anti-Online Gambling Law Challenged In Court
  The Constitution DOESN'T grant rights. It enumerates them.
• Sep 21st, 2007 @ 9:31am

  Of course CC is (as Marty)

  on Creative Commons (And Virgin) Sued For Teen's Photo Being Used In Ad Campaign
  The funny thing about CC is this: the CC license "rides" atop Copyright.
  
  Let's say you grab a CC-Licensed pic from Flickr to use for some purpose. You decide that you don't need to do as the CC License says, because you don't think it's "legal". Well, if the license isn't "legal", then the pic is still covered by US Copyright. In THAT case, you have absolutely no rights to do anything with the pic unless you get explicit permission from the owner!
  
  All the CC License says is, "If you use this , you must abide by the rules set forth in the license." Nothing "illegal" about that. If you choose to ignore the license, you still have to obey copyright.
• Aug 22nd, 2007 @ 1:53pm

  How can it be trespass? (as Martin)

  on Can We Please Stop Arresting WiFi Users Using Open Networks?
  His computer asked the WAP for an IP address, and the WAP gave him one. Sounds like the open WAP access was very authorized. If the person running the WAP didn't want strangers to use it, he would instruct it to not let strangers use it (lock it down).
  
  Well, that's my argument...
• Aug 1st, 2007 @ 7:21am

  I've done it before

  on Once Again, Online Availability Doesn't Dampen Box Office For Simpsons Movie
  In early 1999, when 'The Matrix' came out, I downloaded about 3-4 different versions of it. I'd burn it & bring it home, and my brother would sit down and watch it with me. About 20 minutes into it, one of us would call the theater and see what showtimes were still available that night.
  
  In the end, I ended up seeing it in the theater AT LEAST 6 times. Yah, piracy really cost the studio on that one!
• Jul 21st, 2007 @ 4:26pm

  Re: Re: i find the issue to be

  on Potter Publisher Says Selling Legally Obtained Copy Is Illegal
  There are 2 issues that need to be separated here:
  
  It was legal to sell the book, yet was likely a violation of the (original) seller's contract. The contract violation is likely a civil matter, and is between the publisher & shipper, and has nothing to do with the guy selling it on Ebay.