Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud Gavron Techdirt Insider




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 21st, 2021 @ 1:41am

    Re: it's all about control....

    don't worry sheeple!

    Don't worry, people who can't write at a third-grade level.

    a china firewall will be coming...

    I appreciate that for some people legalized drugs are a thing, but this is absurd.

    Learn to capitalize use a period (hint: looks like this ".") instead of an exclamation (hint: looks like this "!") and call your doctor in the morning letting him/her know you have ass-things coming out of your mouth.

    Night, Troll-eeple.

    E

  • Mar 21st, 2021 @ 1:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure EA is the problem...

    I know, you think "lawyer" is about "state to state".

    They'll teach you about venue in your 1L.

    E

  • Mar 19th, 2021 @ 1:22pm

    Re: "faces serious liability issues"? NO, a "provider" only fine

    ...a corporation cannot be jailed...

    Its directors and management sure can. Use a search engine and check out Kenneth Lay and Bernard Ebbers. There are many more, but these guys were tech CEOs within the last few years.

    Also you entirely missed the point when you wrote about fines:

    ...and SMALL ones at that.

    Mike's point that you missed that several hundred thousand dollars in fines is a rounding error for Google, FB, IG, etc., but it will kill sites (like TD) that can't afford it. (See e.g. Shiva Ayyadurai lawsuit or Hulk Hogan's suit against Buzzfeed.)

    It's all well and good to be uninformed and yelling at Mike without understanding either the history or the facts. You do great at that. Try standup comedy -- on Fox.

    E

  • Mar 19th, 2021 @ 11:09am

    Regulation and Balkanization

    Regulations can help creativity, freedom of expression, everyone is an author, but they can also be a dog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog

    Regulations, acts, laws, etc. like US CDA §230 (which many TD writers have discussed in detail) help creativity, self-publishing, and it protects you even if you are a dog.

    Unfortunately censorship and control oriented governments like China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and NOW THE UNITED STATES work hard on a daily basis to make the "network of interconnected networks" be the "network of firewalled networks" and worse yet "YOU, server host, YOU are responsible to ensure that no content makes it through our system.

    The Chinese were not the first and they won't be the last, and since regulations always flow down, like shit down a sewer (sans voter initiatives -- often gutted IF they are passed).

    If this was a Copia Institute post there would be questions for the reader on how to stop this very shitty incline. They say don't ask a question if you don't know the answer. They also say there's no such thing as a stupid question. They also say if you don't know, ask.

    It feels like the traffic stop where if you LOOK at the officer you're presumed guilty (of something) and if you DON'T LOOK at the officer you're just as guilty. Or at the airport, if you're NERVOUS at the TSA JBTs you're carrying contraband. If you're 100% COOL AND RELAXED you're carrying contraband.

    I'd love to see a win/win here, starting with keeping Sec 230 and maybe even adding it to it so that

    • Judges won't be hasty to remove protections Congress codified into law, and EXPLICITLY kept after the rest of the CDA was thankfully removed.
    • Add protections (like SLAPP equivalent and fee-shifting) so if a site is sued for protected UCG they can get a quick free dismissal and make their attorneys rich.

    Ehud

  • Mar 18th, 2021 @ 3:34am

    On behalf of Winnie the Pooh

    Truly I'm offended a lovable bear with such an upbeat attitude is being compared to Milo, Alex, Xi, Donny, and other pieces of human excrement. Sure, Mr. Pooh is not a real human being, but his kindness and actions are much more human than those people.

    It's awesome that software can be sold by... um... the people who wrote it. That's such a new concept. Next thing they'll tell me Microsoft sells Windows [licenses], Qualcomm sells Eudora [based on T-bird], and Apple sells MacOS [licenses]...

    AND THEY ALL DO THIS DIRECTLY!!! TO THE CONSUMER. My mind is blown.

    With respect to Pooh,

    E

  • Mar 12th, 2021 @ 2:48am

    Re: Re: Not sure EA is the problem...

    ... then you probably owe something...

    No, nobody owes you anything, not even "probably." You "probably" should either read the law or consult a lawyer prior to opining on something.

    Good-looking people even charge for the privilege of taking and publishing pictures of them... model release...

    Yes, if you sit for a photo shoot, put on the clothing/accessories for the shoot, take a few hours to do it FOR THE SHOOT you get paid for it. Depending on how famous you are the revenues go from $50/hr to $5000/day with residuals.

    However, when you're photographed without all that -- think TMZ.COM, ABC, BBC, RT, AFP, etc -- nobody pays you anything.

    So either go to law school... consult a lawyer... or stop spreading BS about this stuff. NIL is a myth that athletic organizations are trying to spread. If you don't work for them, don't pretend this is a real thing. It never was, and unless Congress passes laws modifying current code it never will be.

    Note: I am not a lawyer. I just know how to read. Try doing that.

    E

  • Mar 11th, 2021 @ 1:31am

    Re: Re: Bad news -- NO, you're WRONG.

    In America we don't just let lawyers decide everything.

    Is that you and the mouse in your pocket? The lawyers do decide everything, but that's after they get upgraded lawyer-->lawmaker.

    You do not have any rights to your likeness, like it or not. Neither do randos that say they're related to you. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

    If you don't like it, feel free to run for Congress and pass more stupid laws... and good luck finding a constitutional support for your ideas!

    E

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 7:47pm

    Bad news

    Sorry, relatives of dead people, you don't own the rights to their likeness.

    https://www.owe.com/resources/legalities/7-issues-regarding-use-someones-likeness/

    This means -- in simple words -- you have no rights to sue if someone uses your dead relative's likeness, your living relative's likeness, or your likeness.

    The court system has enough burdens to handle without these idiots who think intellectual property rights are a thing they have... but don't - under current US law.

    Ehud "I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a stupid litigious jerk" Gavron

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do SpaceX deserve the subsidy?

    I should pull myself up by the bootstraps

    Yes. You should. It's the American Dream™.

    ...robbing Africa...

    You're confusing Elon for his dad. Check out https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk and then go check out PayPal and other ventures he's been involved in.

    If you think these sources are biased google "musk emerald" and note that the references are all to his dad, not to Elon.

    ...the advantage of unearned wealth...

    I'm having trouble reconciling pulling oneself by the bootstraps and "unearned" wealth. It's either you earned it or you didn't.

    I'll go with Elon on this one.

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 7:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Do SpaceX deserve the subsidy?

    Oh and the subsidies for his sunblocker company are entirely justified as they don't go directly to him, he just reaps the benefits from the companies that receive them.

    Oh and he invested millions of dollars in his companies to get them to where they are now profitable. What have you accomplished that you can judge him?

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 6:26am

    People who can't read

    Why is paying an employee enough to sustain said employee within the local area considered to be insane?

    Why is it that you ignored everything I wrote and want to repeat that same stupid trope?

    Let me summarize it for you in small words. NOBODY is saying employees shouldn't get paid. In fact I DID SAY I'm in favor of higher minimum wage.

    Neither Elon Musk nor Jeff Bezos nor Larry Ellison nor any stockholder is responsible for paying for that out of their own pockets.

    Ever.

    Get it yet? If not I can use smaller words.

    E

  • Mar 9th, 2021 @ 8:23pm

    Re: Re: SpaceX, Broadband, and corporations

    Thank you for the corrections, education, and rabbit hole :) I had heard Gwen Shotwell say StarLink would be going public last year and just [wrongly] assumed they had. Thanks for clarifying that.

    I do agree that if SL didn't take advantage of available government programs like (formerly CAF) RDOF there would potentially be ramifications with upset shareholders.

    The dividend thing... you're right, but I left that out to simplify things, because then someone would say "Oh hey, when they make lots of money I get dividends" but the opposite is not necessarily true - again as you say governed by a shareholders' agreement.

    Thanks for this!

    E

  • Mar 9th, 2021 @ 7:17pm

    SpaceX, Broadband, and corporations

    TL;DR

    1. Broadband to underserved communities IS important

    2. SpaceX will get my business when they enter my market

    3. Corporations and their shareholders are not the same

    1. SpaceX will be delivering broadband Internet access to underserved communities. Whether it's the lesser developed countries, Mississippi, your grandad's RV, or a billionaire's yacht, low-latency is a must for VoIP. It's also a must for interactive serves where a "back and forth" suffers from RTT delays.

    2. I look forward to having it as an option so I can pay my $99 to StarLink and not to Comcast. The $500 installation fee is a bit rough but there's value in never ever dealing with Comcast again.

    3. Now as to the corporations, previous poster wrote:

      First note that the subsidy is going to SpaceX, not Elon Musk. Bluntly, saying this is a subsidy to a rich man is just a lie, one I really wish Karl would stop repeating.

    This is the same insanity about Bezos being so rich he could pay his workers more. A shareholder is not "responsible" for corporate debts any more than he's "entitled" to take money out of its coffers when times are good. That's why it's called a corporation.

    I own stock in several public and private companies. When they do well they don't send me moare money but my stock tends to appreciate. When they do badly they don't request moare money from me but the stock tends to depreciate.

    Bezos spent YEARS losing MILLIONS and [I wish I'd bought Amazon stock then] and during that time nobody said to the stockholders "There's a cash call and you need to invest more."

    Understanding how corporations work, why they're not "people" but they are "entities" and why their shareholders are not responsible for the debts they incur -- this is fundamental to economies worldwide.

    Pre-empt: Yes, Musk and Bezos are CEOs so they do exercise the discretion to change plans. However, both are CEOs of public corporations and so have a fiduciary duty... not to their employees, but to their shareholders. This is part of the "contract" that encourages people to invest in public companies.

    It's a simple tradeoff. Nobody is forcing me to buy 10 shares of Coca Cola. I do so because I think its value will appreciate. People on the other side of that same transaction think it will depreciate. In no way, shape, or form is that money going to Coca Cola. They can file an 8-K and issue more shares at the then-current price, but the buy/sell in the markets is about stockholders.

    One final note. A lot of stock is owned by institutional shareholders, retirement funds, firefighters' and police unions, etc. They would be prohibited legally from investing if there was an undefined potential liability.

    I'm sorry I went long. It gets so tedious watching blame successful people and being demandas that these people fund the SJW wish-of-the-week. I do think that employees are generally underpaid in the US and I do favor a higher minimum wage... funded by the corporation, not the stockholder or CEO.

    E

  • Mar 7th, 2021 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Re: Not sure EA is the problem...

    I do appreciate you taking all the context and quoting one line, but I'll be your Huckleberry.

    Would it be OK if ABC made an entertainment product...
    Yes. Perhaps you've watched ABC. If not, "Love Boat".

    ...why would it be OK for EA to make an entertainment product...
    That's what they do.

    ... without the player's permission?
    The player's permission is not required. Now go back, and read my whole note where I mentioned that it's legal to report about news and statistics and players without paying them.

    Do I personally think NCAA athletes should be paid? I already said that. Is it legally required - no.

    Is the player's permission required - also no.

    Don't confuse ethics, justice, and the law. They are three very different things.

    EA is not acting unlawfully here. Sadly neither is the NCAA. Ideally, well I covered that above and you couldn't be bothered to quote it so I'm guessing you didn't read or understand it. I'll summarize for dummies:
    NCAA should compensate athletes IN RETURN FOR WHICH athletes should get a degree and not leave for pro sports after a year.

    None of this bears on EA. Just like it doesn't bear on ABC, BBC, NPR, or your momma talking smack about that guy on the team that beat up the other guy.

    E

  • Mar 7th, 2021 @ 12:18am

    Not sure EA is the problem...

    I think the NCAA and their "conferences" (thing Big-10 or Pac-12 etc.) are the real problem. The "students" aren't there to study anything. They go to these institutions to be "athletes".

    How to fix:

    • if you're a "student" then you must maintain decent grades without some trainer doing your work. I think B- or better, but it could be higher or lower
    • If you sign up for a 4 year degree (BS, BA, etc.) you have to stay at that same school and can't "go to the national league".
    • NIL is bull. If you're playing public sports you don't have "magic" rights to your name, image, or likeness. That's not a thing, isn't codified in 17USC as a thing, and never has been.

    WHAT DOES EA OWE YOU? Nothing.
    WHAT DOES THE NCAA OWE YOU -- A lot, because they do make billions of dollars selling your NIL.
    How is this different? Players have a contract with NCAA affiliated schools and in so doing have an interest in their financial future. EA is no more than a game company, which in lots of ways is like a news company. If Reuters or AFP or ABC or NPR want to report on a player's progress (or even show video) they owe nobody anything.

    ESPN game highlights? Free.
    Sport clips? Free.

    Keep that in mind next time it's "blame EA" time. It's not.

    E

  • Mar 6th, 2021 @ 3:40am

    NIL

    Well there are separate topics here.

    NIL can be used because that's how it works. Reporting news or sports stats does not require a license. Factual reporting or replays are free of license no matter how much NCAA feels about it.

    Then there's the part where the NCAA (for one) wants to collect these fees -- even though not deserving them -- and hold 3rd party vendors like EA required to pay them.

    And finally there's that part where NCAA (for one) doesn't want to compensate the players, so first, they collect a fee they shouldn't be entitled to.... secondly... don't compensate the players... and third... prevent EA (e.g.) from being able to profit from it.

    I have my own opinions, and I'm not a lawyer, so with that in mind

    • players are public performers and their images and stats are public
    • one can include them in a game without paying anyone anything
    • unrelatedly they SHOULD be allowed to collect for being NCAA stars

    E

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 2:47pm

    Pretending it's not an insurrection. LOL. Not.

    ...had more American flags...

    And used them to beat up cops and wanted to hang the Vice President of the United States.

    I note that the word insurrection is in single quotes. Perhaps that is sarcasm, or maybe it's just a lack of understanding of what an insurrection is. It's a violent uprising against authority or government, which is exactly what the trespassing hooligan mob did on January 6th.

    No two ways about it.

    E

  • Mar 5th, 2021 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Next time just tattoo 'gullible' on your heads...

    Given you're a nobody who won't sign her name, I don't expect anything from you and don't think you "seem" anything.

    Really if you can't add anything at all AND can't sign your name, just slink back to your PS3 and tell mom to make more mac and cheese before you go back to high school.

  • Mar 4th, 2021 @ 6:40pm

    30,000 foot view (9.144 Km)

    You buy a house to rent out. You rent it to ONE renter. The state comes along and says "Hey it shouldn't be fair that they can only rent this house from you. It must be listed on VRBO or AirBNB or whatever so people don't have to go through you to rent your house."

    No they don't.

    Example2:

    You open a store. You rent the building. You hire staff and you pay them. Then you make deals with vendors. Vendors provide products.

    Simple, right?

    Then you put out advertisements to let potential customers know they can buy THESE products from THESE vendors at YOUR store.

    You don't therefore create an obligation to allow other people (customers) to buy your (vendors') products outside your store. That's between the customers and the vendors.

    Oh? Did you sign an exclusivity deal so only you can sell the vendors' products and one assumes you get something in return? That's lawful.

    Pass a law requiring that you allow people to violate your exclusivity to sell whatever to whomever but you still have to do what you said in your exclusive contract? Nagh.

    The State of Arizona (sorry, I live here) is wrong here 100%. We may not like Google or the other people taking 30% of a cut for setting up the agora... but they did, and vendors pay it, and so do customers.

    Suck it up, Arizona.

    Ehud
    Tucson (Arizona)

  • Mar 4th, 2021 @ 3:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: So how does DMCA apply to contract disputes?

    Which was made abundantly clear if you bothered to read.

    What is today, "be a dick day"?

    Oh. Sorry. I guess nobody bothered to read something they clearly replied to. God, you so smart.

    E

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>

.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it