Jason 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (227) comment rss

  • On the post: Harper's Magazine Publisher Shakes Verbal Fist At Google; Romanticizes Own Profession; Quotes Teletubbies

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2013 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    "like an 'editorial,' only more self-serving...[and sadly, public]"

  • On the post: Beyonce Meet Streisand: Publicist Tries To Remove 'Unflattering' Beyonce Photos From The Internet

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Meh.

    A respectful approach, if a little naive. Credit the character of the publicist, but not the competence.

  • On the post: Harper's Magazine Publisher Shakes Verbal Fist At Google; Romanticizes Own Profession; Quotes Teletubbies

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2013 @ 10:35am

    HEADLINE CORRECTION

    "Harper's Magazine Publisher Shakes Verbal Fist At Google; Romanticizes Own Profession; Quotes Teletubbies, sings their theme song, and names them in the order of which are his personal favorites.

    Oh, but with proper capitalization (poof!)

    There.

  • On the post: French National Library Privatizes Public Domain Materials

    Jason ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2013 @ 02:06pm

    Re: I may be missing the point

    You are. If that we're the case, then it should be perfectly legal to cut/paste, scrape, or mine the documents for the text (and any other images published with the original), and create your own digital work based solely on the public domain content of the file. Based on the "exclusive contract," that can hardly be the idea, and what would be the point?

  • On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not

    Jason ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2013 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re: Sounds like may be guilty of contract violation; not copyright infringement

    "It does not follow logically that there can/should be all three"
    ***as it pertains to degree of variation

  • On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not

    Jason ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2013 @ 10:57am

    Re: Sounds like may be guilty of contract violation; not copyright infringement

    Jeffry, both issues can and would be raised on the grounds that if he is in violation of the contract, then the license would be void, also.

    Some clarification of the logic is probably worth noting (MASNICK correct me if I'm wrong about your view on this):

    Although Mike's wording may seem to suggest that merely seeking protection is the de facto violation, nothing in the wording of the "shall not be subject to protection" suggests that the protection-seeking, in itself, is a prohibited action (note the passive mood of the clause), rather it's stating that the licensee will, in all likelihood, have no hope of having any such claim enforced for the derivative work.

    HOWEVER, the direct implication of such a claim is that the work, which he has already produced and distributed, probably included variations in arrangement, melody, character, etc, that are not permitted under the license per the "shall not change" clause. Otherwise, what else could he be seeking protection for?

    This would then mean that all of copies of the work that have already been distributed were distributed under a license that was probably void from the start, making each a likely violation of copyright.

    I agree with Mike, this seems kinda crazy. As others have noted, it suggests a nullification of the kind of transformative use reserved for the public domain under fair use.

    It does not follow logically that there can/should be all three: licensed use, fair use, and some in-between degree of use of a copyrighted work that does not overlap with the some part of the other if and when the user has a license.

    It's almost like saying everyone now suddenly should have to have performance insurance in case they accidentally vary the work in the "x < OH SHIT! < y" zone. That insurance being a direct license. To me this would seem to negate the very purpose of the compulsory license.

  • On the post: Man Detained By TSA For Writing 4th Amendment On His Chest Wins 1st Amendment Argument In Court

    Jason ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2013 @ 09:58am

    Re: Circular logic WIN!

    *made us have tow

  • On the post: Man Detained By TSA For Writing 4th Amendment On His Chest Wins 1st Amendment Argument In Court

    Jason ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2013 @ 09:57am

    Circular logic WIN!

    "But Tobey?s antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey?and the distraction he was creating ? from the scene."

    Your Honor, we had to harrass Mr. Tobey, not because of any wrongdoing but because his actions made have to leave our duties in order to go harrass him.

  • On the post: Why Must Patent Supporters Rewrite History In Attempt To Have The Feds Subsidize Patents

    Jason ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2010 @ 03:56pm

    Re:-*sigh*-

    "But, if you take a $10 chunk of silicon and craft 1000 $500 microchips, you have created wealth."

    Exactly which is why my business plan is so simple: 1. Create a bahzillion microchips. 2. Place them in my money bin. 3. Strap on a stripey one-piece and start swimmin'!!

  • On the post: Does It Make Sense To Ban Players From Xbox Live Just For Using A Glitch?

    Jason ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 04:12pm

    More like a bitch than a glitch

    Honestly, this is no different than a dead man's switch on a bomb. Wake up people, this kind of thing happens all the time. If you don't like it, then go play Old School Warfare where the enemies play nice.

    I'd even wager that this was originally an intended feature with unintended effects, then when too many people bitch about it, so the mods called the ban.

    Instead of banning people they ought to instantly send you to a secret level called 10,000 virgins only to find that they are eternally whining about how you chose to play the game.

  • On the post: Does It Make Sense To Ban Players From Xbox Live Just For Using A Glitch?

    Jason ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 03:49pm

    Re:

    "It only temperarily bans knowing cheats."

    Not true. I watched the tutorial. It would be perfectly easy to stumble upon this exploit and find yourself banned with no idea of why.

  • On the post: Does It Make Sense To Ban Players From Xbox Live Just For Using A Glitch?

    Jason ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 03:32pm

    Drawn a line down the middle of the room...

    Just do like my roommate and I did.

    Here's your space for playing with your crazy suicide bombing glitch, and here's mine. Then, make a one-time, permanent ban in the no-nonsense arena for violators.

    Honestly, how hard could it be?

  • On the post: Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying

    Jason ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: The lesson the MPAA is teaching

    Somebody forgot to tell the theater people, because they constantly advertise it as such in their little pre-film commercials.

  • On the post: Is Streaming Infringing Content Still Considered Piracy?

    Jason ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2009 @ 09:49am

    Re:

    Watching a movie is downloading. It's just that your brain deletes most of the content when you're done viewing.

  • On the post: The Trouble With Hulu… Too Many Competing Interests

    Jason ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2009 @ 01:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: users don't want to subscribe, and don't want to pay in any manner

    The story goes that Winston Churchill was seated at a luncheon next to Margaret Thatcher once shortly after she was elected to her first office in Finchley.

    The bright young politicienne quickly stood out in conversation, and so it happened that Churchill turned to her and flatly asked if she would sleep with him for a million pound sterling.

    Not to be done in, she instantly masked any feeling of offense and quipped back, matter of factly, "Why of course, a million quid is a million quid, after all."

    "Then would you sleep with me for fifty pence?," he asked.

    "Absolutely not, and I don't care who you are, sir, I will not be called a whore," came the calm reply.

    To which Churchill rebutted, "Madame, the fact has already been establish, we only negotiate the price."

    -------------------

    "I am certain that few users would actually watch the videos with 15 minutes of commercials per viewing hour."

    Well yes, but most anyone will watch when the ads are less than a minute/hr.

    Hulu doesn't need more ads, they need to command a higher price (hopefully from their advertisers).

  • On the post: The Trouble With Hulu… Too Many Competing Interests

    Jason ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2009 @ 01:14pm

    Re: Re:

    *15-30 second ads

  • On the post: The Trouble With Hulu… Too Many Competing Interests

    Jason ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2009 @ 10:10am

    Re:

    Bullshit. There's no point in blocking the ad, and nobody I know does it, because honestly it's more interesting to watch a new ad than to watch a black notification screen ticking away.

    The ads are significantly shorter than regular TV ads by half. There are fewer per show, and they often give you options for how you view the ads. Just because you don't understand the opportunity they have to make something great doesn't mean it isn't HUGE.

  • On the post: The Trouble With Hulu… Too Many Competing Interests

    Jason ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2009 @ 10:00am

    Re:

    Exactly!!!!! Thank you!!!!

    ATTENTION MEDIA EXECS:

    Despite my general opposition to the concept of copyright and other IP, despite my feeling that I should be able to share information however I choose, EVEN SO, I STILL PREFER TO VIEW AD-SUPPORTED CONTENT ON HULU BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF A FAIR EXCHANGE.

    AS LONG AS HULU DOESN'T SUCK(which perception is going to vary within your audience), then I'm happy to sit through your 15-30 ads, I even check out your long-form ads from time to time when the option arises. I have even clicked through to the website when the ad was interesting.

    BTW it doesn't seem like you care when I click "Dislke Ad," such as when I'm watching cartoons with my kids and you show ads with naked women in the shower or graphic violence or worse those damned PETA ads.

    Tip: If I click dislike, then you are wasting the opportunity to sell me something else when you continue to show the same ad over and over.

  • On the post: Last Call For Techdirt DMCA Takedown Shirt

    Jason ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2009 @ 04:10pm

    Re: Georg Bush Xmas Cards

    NO FUN! From your subject line I thought you had actual Christmas cards w/W. (wuh-wuh)

  • On the post: Last Call For Techdirt DMCA Takedown Shirt

    Jason ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2009 @ 04:07pm

    Re: What If...

    No, he's SELLING the shirts, not giving them away as prizes!

Next >>