Killer Cool's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the the-good,-the-bad,-and-the-ugly dept
This week had a lot of articles that I really enjoyed. Between great articles, and good articles that spawned great comments, I had a hard time keeping this post short enough to keep anyone's attention. So, let's get to the week.
First, I really liked Monday's article about DRM lock-in. I always hate to see content producers getting caught up in a DRM craze. It NEVER works like they intend, since all DRM is quickly broken. The only differences between DRM schemes are in how the legit consumer gets impacted. When it doesn't work, it's either broken (and a huge waste of production money) or ineffectual (and a huge waste of production money). When it does work, it's only due to the fact that it doesn't feel like DRM. Take Steam. They are a great example of "feels okay" DRM... and consumer lock-in. I have over 200 games from them. I enjoy the competition's product (Good Old Games, etc.), but I feel obligated to check whether the products they offer are also available through Steam, since I've sunk so much money into them already. If they go out of business, I will lose access to all of my library, so it's in my best interest to make sure they stay in business.
Tuesday had great news for the Vandals. I've been following this story since the Mike first posted about it, two years ago. Yeah, it took two years for Variety to (effectively) drop a case against a victim who had actually complied with their demands. Seeing as how fair use/parody laws are a thing, I would have liked if the Vandals could have fought this out in court from the beginning. While I wouldn't wish a real fight in court on any reasonable person, SOMEONE has to stand up to the guys with the big guns, or they never go away. There was also a good write-up on why content isn't an end product. Mr. Grasmayer's breakdown of the benefits of viewing content as added value for a product was an interesting read. The discussion that followed in the comments, defending/clarifying some of the examples, was fairly enlightening for me, and more than a little entertaining.
Wednesday brought us the twin travesties of "Linsanity" trademark abuse and the MPAA trying to defend their stance on personal copying. Due to the widespread belief that everything has to be owned by someone, at least two opportunistic... jerks tried to trademark "Linsanity." What?! Apparently, since no-one had already registered the trademark, that means that someone MUST have a right to it. Right? Ugh.
As for the other article, I thoroughly enjoyed (read: gnashed my teeth and silently raged at) the self-righteous and condescending tone adopted by the MPAA (and, apparently, their toady). Obviously, being forbidden by law to conduct an activity that is only illegal because of DRM, and is, in fact, legal otherwise, is for our own good. Because (and I quote) "Think of ripping a DVD as the first step towards piracy. You may not intend it, but it happens often enough." According to this fellow, then, we must all forget that anyone who actually wants to pirate already has many highly functional tools at his disposal to rip movies from their discs. But that's ok. Mother says someone might slip up, so we should all just do as Mother tells us, and leave the (possibly) naughty toys alone.
Morons.
On a more cheerful note, Thursday brought us the tale of the latest censorship fiasco (JotForm). Despite the disheartening nature of the article, I still consider this a high point for the week, thanks largely to our very own Marcus Carab and his (mostly) calm discussion with a very determined AC. Long after I would have been reduced to incoherent sputtering, he kept dissecting and rebutting every claim about why, just this once, it would be okay to censor many people in order to slightly inconvenience some (allegedly) "bad guys." Bravo, sir!
Friday started with some schadenfreude, for me at least. When a service, whose sole purpose is to support a failing business model, tells the ones using that model to shape up, there is a serious problem. I mean, Takedown Piracy is telling their clients that they have a problem so serious, actions that would leave Takedown Piracy largely obsolete are the only real solution. But, in the meantime, they'll gladly take a chump's money, since he's too stupid to spend it elsewhere.
I leave you with this: Net-savvy entrepreneurs are quickly turning away from the USA. On the bright side, businesses (and their tax money) leaving is a story all politicians can understand. Contact your elected officials. Tell them jobs are being lost. Tell them tax money is disappearing. Tell them their policies' effects are damaging our economy. Tell them you can see for yourself that they are failing you, and you will not be quiet. Tell them that they should shape up before they are replaced.
For those that have gone too far, remind them that November is coming.
Y'know. Elections.
Re: Platforms Can't Induce
Well, well, Koby. You just came out and said it, huh?
You want Facebook to stop moderating and leave everything up.
Why are you so fond of terrorists and child pornographers, that you wish for them to do their business undisturbed on facebook?
Re:
Increasing the bottom line isn't inherently evil.
It's only awful and repulsive because it's being done while:
THAT'S why it's evil.
Re: It's the same "technicalities" as always.
Of course, by "violate the constitution," in both cases I meant "infringe on your rights as a citizen and/or resident of the United States."
Which isn't that difficult to not do. I go entire weeks without violating people's constitutional rights, and I expect no less of public servants.
It's the same "technicalities" as always.
Because, technically, the action was a clear violation of the Constitution.
If a bill is vetoed as unconstitutional, it was blocked on a "technicality."
If cops violate the constitution when they arrest and interrogate you, your conviction is tossed on a "technicality."
But it sounds bad to say, "Our cops and legislators don't respect the Constitution they are sworn to support, preserve and defend," so they call it a "technicality."
Re: I guess they'll just double down.
Well. Crap.
Anyways.
I can see where they are coming from, but it's their own damned fault. It's only due to massive efforts on the side of manufacturers (of all types, not just cars) that there is any confusion about whether these particular vehicles are representative of the manufacturer's intent/opinion.
It stemmed from the invention of product placements and such, but only because they have fought back when "truth in advertising" campaigns tried to make product placements be disclosed (FTC says it's unnecessary). So the (cultivated and encouraged) belief in the general public is: if you can see a logo, it's a product placement, and that means someone paid to have it there.
If not for their efforts to muddy the waters, there wouldn't be public confusion about media needing permission to have a logo showing (they don't). There wouldn't be nonsense like Mythbusters putting stickers over Diet Coke and Mentos labels, then saying "because lawyers." Because those things were legally purchased, and that should be the end of it.
And now, because of their long efforts to reinforce the belief that somebody has to get paid for everything (twice, sometimes!), a stupid lawsuit like this exists. And they thankfully failed, but only because not enough people were confused.
So I expect to see their efforts to confuse the public to mount ever higher, because all the money just isn't enough.
I guess they'll just double down.
Re: Re: Re: Moderation vs Censorship
I'm pretty sure you're just a colossal asshole, but I'll answer just in case you are simply horrendously and shamefully uneducated:
It doesn't. It simply outlines that one person's constitutional rights stop where another person's rights begin. According to law, and upheld by the Supreme Court, a person has a right to not be discriminated against for their race, age, color, religion, gender, veteran status, disability, being pregnant, or national origin. That right is where a business's right to refuse service stops.
Business owners can still tell people to fuck off for being in a different political party, having bad breath, not wearing a protective mask, passing bad checks, or driving the wrong brand of car.
Re: Moderation vs Censorship
If a mall refuses to let you have a demonstration in their food court, people who go to the mall will, in fact, not be able to hear you speak at that mall.
It does nothing to keep you from saying your piece at a different mall, outside of the mall, on your website, in a letter to a newspaper, in a phone-calling campaign, or any of many ways of expressing yourself.
The mall has not censored you. They have exercised their right of association (recognized as part of the first amendment by the Supreme Court) and told you to get off their property. Because it's NOT A PUBLIC FORUM. It's PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Even if these platforms get treated as publishers, they still don't have to let you say ANYTHING. Because they are PRIVATE PROPERTY.
If you want to get nit-picky and claim that "corporations aren't people, they shouldn't have rights!", then fine. The editors and/or owners of the platform have Constitutional rights that include refusing you service for any reason that isn't one of the categories protected by the Civil Rights Act.
Stop equating Constitutionally protected activities performed by private companies, owned by private individuals (whether singly or in a collective, aka "corporations"), with actions performed by a government official or body.
Re: "procedural oddness" + unique features = anomaly and who car
Well, for one, you care, or you wouldn't be so quick to try to downplay the ruling's significance. For another, even if people don't care, that does not mean it isn't important.
Every fair use judgement is important, whether it reduces fair use boundaries, increases them, or just reinforces them. All three outcomes change the way art is created in the United States: weaker fair use rulings reduce art produced, because speech that was legal last week isn't this week; stronger fair use increases art produced, because artists can support themselves by selling art that they were previously afraid to publish; even confirming current fair use limits increases art production, though to a lesser degree, since artists can be more confident of what kind of speech is or isn't legal.
Re: Re: silly
I got about 10 hours out of it.
Re: Re: Re:
No. That's a affirmation of our constitutional right to free speech, a free press, and freedom of association - the right to tell people to fuck off and remove themselves from our property, and take their hate with them.
Re: So did he have anything illegal on him?
There's no need to make any guesses about the guy who got arrested - because this story isn't about him. It about cops getting (properly) called out for an unconstitutional arrest.
This guy could have had evidence on his person that he was the Zodiac Killer, and because they arrested him unconstitutionally, he would have to be released, and that evidence would have one of two fates: never able to be submitted, or struck down on appeal.
Cops acting within the constitution keeps crooks from escaping justice. Because even convicted crooks have rights, let alone the merely accused.
Re: Re: It seems that things aren't quite as they appear...
Those are points 29 and 39, respectively. Markdown decided to renumber for some reason, even though they were non-consecutive.
Re: It seems that things aren't quite as they appear...
...
From the guy's own suit.
It seems that things aren't quite as they appear...
Leonard did, indeed, come up with the "original" design, but the current version (the one in contention) isn't the original. Nike kept sending him different versions of the logo, altered from the one he gave them, and it is one of those designs that is in use.
From what I understand of "derivative works," Nike can't use it if they don't have a license (I have no idea if they have or have had one), but as it is a derivative work that Nike created, Leonard sure as heck can't use it without their permission. Effectively, the current version of the logo is dead. Leonard can't take it, Nike can't use it.
Long live copyright.
Re:
With way more proof than there is for whatever this is "revenge" for.
I've lost track of which nebulous "crime" this is about.
Re:
...No. No, you are wrong. I will state this simply, just in case you are actually ignorant, and not willfully spreading misinformation:
Nobody, NOBODY, is required to defend their copyright to retain ownership of it. Everyone in the world can pirate Nintendo games for decades, and as long as it's within the allotted copyright time limit, Nintendo will be able to halt production and distribution of copies, and sue for actual damages (only their statutory damages will -maybe- be blocked).
As for the trademark, just like the Mouse, there is NO THREAT to their trademark. Nintendo is in NO DANGER of becoming generic. Almost everyone in the world born since 1960, and most born before that, know that Mario is a Nintendo property. Even villagers in Africa with literal grass huts know Mario and Nintendo.
And all of this would be moot if Nintendo was willing to write a letter to the modder, giving a limited-purpose license for the mod. That would invalidate any problems, and the project by this insatiable fan would still exist. Instead, they have chipped away at their fan base and it's enthusiasm once again.
Re:
It will, inevitably, be some variation of "common law," where common law means "what I wish was law" instead of it's real meaning of "jurisprudence."
Re: Not a good look
But think of the children! How are they supposed to protect the children by arresting people on accusations of having child pornography and then dropping the charges when asked to cross-examine the "witness", unless their code is secret?
Re: Actually "Gary" we only want YOU to be decent and not steal.
Are you kidding me.
If a person gets mugged in Walmart, you go after the mugger, not Walmart.
If someone steals a TV from a car at Best Buy, you go after the theif, not Best Buy.
If someone is selling cocaine near the candy aisle at Walgreens, you arrest the dealer, not Walgreens.
Hell, if the pharmacist is selling painkillers illegally at Walgreens, YOU ARREST THE ACTUAL CRIMINAL.
Why is the concept of personal responsibility so antithetical to your beliefs, especially since you have long spouted your SovCit ideologies?
More comments from Killercool >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Killercool.
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