jameshogg 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (13)
-
On the post: The Wonky Donkey: How Infringement Helped Create A Best Seller… Which Would Be Impossible Under Article 13
-
On the post: The Satanic Temple Apparently Believes In Copyright And Is Suing Netflix For $50 Million It Will Not Get
jameshogg ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2018 @ 11:31amWell that's a headline you don't see every day. "Relgious cult complains about blasphemy of its symbols."
...oh wait, you pretty much do see that every day. -
On the post: Court Dismisses Bogus Charges Brought Against Nevada Man Who Pissed Off Local Cops By Using The Crosswalk
jameshogg ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2018 @ 07:06amIf you yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, and people get injured trying to escape in panic, that's a safety issue regarding the building itself.
Yelling fire when there really is a fire can cause the same injuries in said burning crowded theatre, and I think injured people in this situation would be quite ready to blame the design of the building and lack of crowd control first and foremost, and not really be ready to entertain the possibility of shifting the blame had the yelling been false.
Point is, when you've got a powder keg, any random spark that sets it off is nowhere near as important or dangerous as the powder keg itself. Would we also ban fire drills on the basis that they too are falsely shouting fire using their sirens, and people get hurt leaving the building? No, you'd blame something else that deserves it. -
On the post: 9th Circuit Never Misses A Chance To Mess Up Copyright Law: Reopens Led Zeppelin 'Stairway To Heaven' Case
jameshogg ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2018 @ 09:46amWhat is it about copyright courts that just keep retrying and retrying until an infringement is found, and then stop there? That's always the impression I get.
-
On the post: Free Speech Pro-Tip: You Can Yell Fire In A Crowded Theatre
jameshogg ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2018 @ 06:58amRe:
"The phrase clearly refers to causing a panic by falsely convincing people their lives are in danger when they are in fact not in danger."
Dumb fire drills. Always putting lives in danger. -
On the post: Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia
jameshogg ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2017 @ 03:55amRe:
You know what they say about a man who represents himself... with a monkey.
-
On the post: Multiple Titles Using Denuvo Cracked On Release Day As Other Titles Planning To Use It Bail On It Completely
jameshogg ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2017 @ 08:12amI wonder... if a Computer Science student at university was ever given an exam on encryption for DRM uses, how that exam would go? Perhaps something like this:
"Alice wishes to send a message to Bob without Eve being able to intercept and read the message. Please write an algorithm that allows Bob to read the message whilst preventing Bob from reading the message." -
On the post: With Court Ruling, Fan Subtitles Officially Copyright Infringement In Sweden
jameshogg ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2017 @ 01:42amRe: Re: Med domstolsregleringen, Fläktens undertexter Officiellt upphovsrättsintrång i Sverige
"You want to translate this page? Well too bad, our Content ID algorithms won't let you."
-
On the post: With Court Ruling, Fan Subtitles Officially Copyright Infringement In Sweden
jameshogg ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2017 @ 02:01amImagine having the absolute nerve to say speakers of a certain language in a certain country should be forbidden from watching a movie in its full. Or reading a book. Or any free expression. While others can do so. At the sole whim of a copyright holder. In any other situation this would be called discrimination, or in even worse cases than this, xenophobia and racism.
I mean, let me really, really get this straight: if the viewers of these movies decided not to get the fan translations and instead decided to learn how to speak English as a second language, then imported the raw movies to enjoy them in that second language, *it is the viewers who are in the moral wrong and the imports should be banned in order to appease the pathetic solipsism of the copyright holder who doesn't want his movie to even be translated within the privacy of the viewers' own minds?*
Because there is no difference there. -
On the post: Music Industry Is Painting A Target On YouTube Ripping Sites, Despite Their Many Non-Infringing Uses
jameshogg ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2017 @ 02:47pmWhat is it that makes people think they're entitled to stop others pressing CTRL-C and CTRL-V within their own homes? These people do not understand the concept of boundaries, privacy, property rights, anything.
"Behold our new policy: the digital-analogue rights management pen hybrid! Now programmed to burn to a crisp its own ink supply upon detecting the writing of infringing poems, even if they're only a toe over the line of fair use! All of our newly government regulated pens connect to a server - yes, only ONE server! - with incredible UDP technology to download all hash signatures of any literature ever written or ever will be written! 100% legal and only $700 each! (A high-speed non-encrypted deep-packet inspection ISP is required, any server costs for the literature hash signatures is passed onto the consumer as agreed upon purchase). Warranties do not cover accidental infringement, deliberate hacking of pens or self-inflicted injury."
Take THAT, big-tech cyber-utopians! You see what YOU brought about, here!?"
Remember, the only thing stopping these scenarios is basic common sense and thankfully massive impracticalities. They would *if they could*. -
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
jameshogg ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2017 @ 07:20am"In the Deadline piece, however, Nigam alleges that hackers have previously reached out to pirate websites offering $200 to $5000 per day “depending on the size of the pirate website” to have the site infect users with malware. If true, that’s a serious situation and people who would ordinarily use ‘pirate’ sites would definitely appreciate the details. For example, to which sites did hackers make this offer and, crucially, which sites turned down the offer and which ones accepted?
It's important to remember that pirates are just another type of consumer and they would boycott sites in a heartbeat if they discovered they'd been paid to infect them with malware. But, as usual, the claims are extremely light in detail. Instead, there's simply a blanket warning to stay away from all unauthorized sites, which isn't particularly helpful."
I can't hear you over the sound of my Virtual Machine snapshots. -
On the post: Film Director's Op-Ed Ignores Reality To Push Hollywood Lobbying Talking Points
jameshogg ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2017 @ 03:53amYes. I'm saying the risk-seeking attitude that he's part of to get new material and less comic-book movies is now in this day and age leading to the opposite and the need to play safe.
An assurance contract method of making a profit would mean if a brand new idea was thrown out to people, you can be safe in the knowledge that there's no harm done if people don't back it, because you won't be throwing money away. In other words, plenty of new material, but no "risk" in the same way. I'll admit though this is only if people want new material. If people want to stick to comic-book movies, well, it can't be helped if that's the market. But at least there's plenty of room to experiment freely with no pain, to throw out ideas and see if people will pledge towards them. -
On the post: Film Director's Op-Ed Ignores Reality To Push Hollywood Lobbying Talking Points
jameshogg ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2017 @ 02:50amWhy do lobbyists for Hollywood like to talk about creative risk-taking as if it's a good thing?
I don't find it a very attractive idea to force working-class creators into the role of entrepreneurial risk-takers against their will. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that when you don't have as much money as others and you are really struggling to make money in the creative world, gambling what time and earnings you have on something as creative "risk" doesn't seem to strike me as wise.
Because that's what copyright forces creators to do. If a creator invests tons of his own labour and money into a project, and then waits to know what the copyrighted benefits will be AFTER that investment, he can't exactly guarantee that recuperation unless it's a known brand of art with plenty of corporate backing or at a minimum selling your soul to a middleman for SOME prospect of return, which is unlikely for artists who are not the top 1%, and of course puts that corporation in the natural position of offsetting all the downsides of any risk onto anyone but themselves (by that I mean the hard-working creators). Just look at the way some musicians have been bankrupted because of this.
Whereas... if you revolve creative economies around assurance contracts, not copyright, look what happens: <i>you know what you're going to make from a project BEFORE you invest all that labour and money</i>. When a band does a gig, we know what the profit will be before the gig starts. When a magazine sells monthly, they know what they will make from their monthly subscriptions before they write their columns. When a crowdfunded piece of art is about to start, we already know how much is made before. When you take tons of time, effort and care into setting up an expensive nature shoot, it doesn't matter if a monkey pressed the shutter, you've still made the money you were going to make anyway because of the assurance contract system of gathering your customers' fees beforehand, and you don't end up down a road of despair and depressing lawsuits.
In each of these cases the creator doesn't gamble - he knows what his profit is going to be, and hence doesn't slave away for what could be nothing in the end.
In fact... if you were to take a job, any job, which was meant to support your daily life, your daily expenses, why on Earth would you sign an employment contract that said "we don't know how much we can pay you because we have no idea if your labour will succeed or not" unless you were anything but the most adventurous risk-taker who thinks it'll all be fine when it comes to pay the bills? No! You want to know what you're damn salary is going to be! Like anyone else!
Why is it that copyright folk want creators to be paid "just like anyone else who has a job" and not be made to work for free, but then immediately demand to be treated <i>differently</i> from any other employee with things such as not even having a basic guarantee of salary?
That's one reason why assurance contracts are superior to copyright, never mind the Monopoly Money connotation copyright has.
Assurance contracts are not callous enough to keep demanding that poor creators take risks all the time, with no guarantee of income.
How to always claim copyright is in the right:
"I have the right to stop all derivatives of my work because these are lost sales I am missing out on. My livelihood is at stake."
*said derivative actually increases sales for the original*
"I hereby give permission for this particular derivative to be put up. You see? Because copyright allows me to give permission where I want, those additional sales are actually because of copyright law working in my favour!"
This whole mentality is set up as what we might call an "unfalsifiable claim", a sign of weak rational thinking and intellectual dishonesty. If the test for lack of copyright enforcement is strung up so much that it can't be tested properly, the mentality isn't valid at all.