PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the las-vegas-dreams-dashed dept
It's been a good week for articles that interest me personally, a good thing as I've been asked to write this post about my favorites! First mention has to go to Jonathan McIntosh's great recap of the problems he's had to go through at the hands of Lionsgate. In short, despite his Twilight remix video having been mentioned by the US Copyright Office itself as an example of fair use, he still struggled to convince YouTube to keep it up since Lionsgate didn't want to keep it up without obscuring it with ads (despite the current version being ad free and not monetized by McIntosh in any way himself). It's a nice illustration of how even those who try to keep within the law fall foul of corporate greed if they decide they don't like something. If something already illustrated as fair use can be treated like this, imagine the problems faced by anyone in a grey area!
On a similar note, rapper Kid Cudi yet again noted how disappointed he was in his label's commitment to his new single, just one year after having similar problems with his last album. While some were noting that he was silly to have signed for a label in the first place, this was another illustration as to how even successful artists can be let down by the legacy industry and how many artists simply don't need them.
Something slightly more disturbing to me personally is the story about a gambling software programmer being shut down and raided. The story appears to go that despite offering services that are perfectly legal everywhere that he licensed the software, he fell afoul of the US's inexplicable anti-gambling obsession anyway because he's based in the US and people in NY may have somehow touched his software. As someone who working in Gibraltar, a place whose industry is largely built by offshore gaming companies (some of whom were similarly attacked when US authorities suddenly decided that their companies were offering illegal products), this is a worrying trend. It also sadly means that my dreams of being invited to help set up a Las Vegas branch of one of those companies might still be a long way away!
On a lighter note, UK police were arguing about who first thought up their Twitter offers of free iPads to lure the stupidest criminals alive into their arms. Neither of them apparently remembering the episode of The Simpsons where Homer was successfully lured by the promise of a free boat.
Meanwhile, back in the entertainment industry, Sony offered the most naked example yet of profiteering and the back of what should be public domain material when they released a new Bob Dylan compilation entitled the "Copyright Collection Volume 1." Regionally restricted, of course, and containing rare material that will inevitably be pirated as it's not available anywhere else. It's particularly odious because the mere 100 copies they released were openly intended to stop classic material from going back to the public under the original deal made when they were recorded. At least they've dropped the pretense of helping the fans, I suppose.
The movie industry also made some wrongheaded moves in an attempt to promote their silly Ultraviolet service (yet another in a long line of DRM that offer customers less than a pirated version under the pretense that it somehow benefits the consumer). The pretense is that by offering free movies with purchases of TVs and Blu ray players, they can convince people to use and love it. Having unfortunately tried it myself (unsuccessfully) on a movie I received for Christmas, I suspect it will just let people know not to bother.
Finally, on a lighter note, it's nice to see some figures for Kickstarter's year and their great success in funding a wide range of projects. Over 2 million people funded projects this year (myself included), so here's hoping that many more independent artists get funded in 2013!
Re:
"Subscription-based games are, by definition, a method of DRM. If the only way to play the game is to play it online with an authenticated account while they deign to run the online servers necessary, this is in effect DRM"
Of course but, also by definition, those services are rental services with no reasonable expectation of owning the titles, so the standards applied will be different.
"Most likely this incentivizes them to write games such that there are single-player modes that require no online authentication"
The problem here is not the authentication, it's the removal of servers. This means that no new digital copies can be purchased, and online game modes go away. Making games solely single player will help with the problem of losing online content, but it won't help with the fact that new purchases with unlicensed content must be illegal.
Re: Re: Experiences as an author...
"TP, your post is super-vague"
Of course he is, which he is whenever he's not posting outright fiction.
He's stated before that he makes games to publish on itch.io, then whines that they're not massively successful simply by virtue of being on there. Of course, the issues surrounding an out of print game riddled with licensed content are going to be vastly different compared to his experience, but as he's regularly demanded that old games be completely removed from history in order to reduce his potential competition, you shouldn't take him too seriously.
Re: Re: Re:
"Not being called "Dump" - failed"
Meh, why bother making up silly nicknames when his name literally means "fart" in UK English?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so easily corrupted, then WER
"What’s to stop a person from walking in and taking someone else’s ballot?"
The fact that it's a felony with high penalties if you're caught, but very little tangible effect on the overall election result if you're successful?
The real first question to ask is not "can you imagine this being a problem", the question is honestly "is there any evidence of this happening on a scale wide enough to require changing the current system?". I've seen no compelling evidence that it's a major problem at all, let alone one that requires wide-reaching electoral changes that risks disenfranchising so many more people.
We can discuss the solution to the problem in many ways, but first we need the evidence that there is a problem in the first place. Anything I've seen personally is little more than a rounding error, usually less. You may have evidence to the contrary, but I've not seen anything that passes a smell test or basic maths.
(untitled comment)
"we’re getting more traffic to our website now than in 2020, an Election year!"
Didn't it just launch recently? How is that a valid claim if... you know what? I'm not the target audience for his obvious cons, I'm sure his voters are dumb enough to think this is a valid claim.
"Meanwhile, a Trump advisor admitted to the Washington Post that the reason it was shut down was that Trump was embarrassed by how little traffic it was getting and how everyone was mocking the site"
Of course. The man is obsessed with ratings, and has made a career out of shielding himself from criticism. He can't keep up the charade of being a vastly popular figure misrepresented by the media if he has access to the primary numbers.
Re:
It's very simple. The rise of social media gave them access to a large mainstream audience that would never have normally entertained their ideas, and which in return profited them greatly. When removed from those venues, it was very clear that they would never be able to build an audience of that size on their own merits, so they have to resort to demanding that the places that don't want them be forced to let them back in.
Re: Re:
I honestly wish that was hyperbole.
Re:
The "mainstream press" is often run by millionaires or corporations with a vested interest in the "right"'s narrative. There's almost certainly a reason why clickbait and fluff pieces have replaced actual journalism that's not as simple as the bottom line profit.
Re: Re: We Know Why
"So do you also have an inherent right to Internet access since your ability to access this 'public square' would be hindered without it?"
An argument that the internet itself is a "public square" that everyone has a right to access would be a lot more convincing, especially considering how much banking, employment, education, etc. relies on it nowadays. But, these same people so often argue against attempts to make it so.
"Or haven't you thought that far ahead?"
Of course he hasn't...
"You have an option not to be on social media."
Also an option to be on any number of social media sites he wants. One of the major flaws in the argument is that they always seem to pretend that a particular site is a monopoly, whereas in reality most people are on at least couple of competing sites at the same time. They will argue that Twitter, Facebook or TikTok are "monopolies", yet most people I know who haven't been kicked off for ToS violations are on at least 2 of them simultaneously.
Re: Don't let them off the hook that easy
"One day an honest argument against 230 may be presented, but this is clearly not that day."
We can only hope that day will come. I, for one, can't wait for the day where I have a reasonable argument to get my teeth into as to why innocent bystanders should be held accountable for things that happened on their property without their prior knowledge, rather than the endless whining of losers who refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions...
Re: We Know Why
"When tech monopolies create the internet version of a public square"
No matter how many times you repeat this, or your demand for a communist takeover of private property, that doesn't make it true.
"Individuals can challenge a contract dispute in court, where they can conduct discovery, and present evidence of bias, fraud, or inequity."
So, why are you people whining in random forums about it rather than bringing these cases to court. Or, you know, going to the competing places that haven't banned you, an ability you have since there's so much competition available to people who don't pretend that people only use one social network at a time?
Re: Re:
"Just shy of 2000 years ago."
Huh. You specified 1850, and the English language didn't exist 2000 years ago. I wonder what you mean.
"Alternative left. That being the far left movement, the progressive movement, which has slid well beyond the historical Democrat core."
Globally, the Democrats are nowhere near the left. Practically, the Democrat platform has consistently shifted right in an attempt to placate the right that insists that even considering programs that have worked in many other places are tantamount to communism, even though that's not happened elsewhere they have been used. Meanwhile, the term "alt left" only started appearing after some people on the right realised that the "alt right" term coined by Richard Spencer in order to rebrand Nazis and white supremacy was being noticed, and tried to inject some "both sides" nonsense.
"Most of my Arrow (and other VHS tapes) come from Amazon 3rd party sellers"
I have a hard time believing that you're a fan of the same cult video label I am, but I respect you for supporting them if you are. However, when I tried pruning my collection a while ago, Amazon told me I was not allowed to sell them in the Marketplace unless I met some very strict criteria, and eBay downright blocked my sales minutes after posting because the covers were too graphic. My response was to find an alternative avenue, not to whine about how unfair they were. Well, I did complain, but I didn't even consider trying to force them to host the listings against their will.
"I have never complained about apple’s terms for listing"
It's the very subject of this conversation. Apple have rules, which include rules about moderation. Parler repeatedly violated them, and thus were removed. They were reinstated when they agree to abide by them.
"My issue here is the agreement drastically changed the rule. We went from hiding material but not blocking it—To blocking it completely."
That's really not what happened. There's a lot of apps that have been removed because, for example, they went through the approval process only offering public domain movies then switched to full on piracy of new movies after approval. Apple removing those apps was not a statement on how they deal with PD apps, it was a simple case of dealing with contract violations.
"This is an issue Parler created"
Parler have created no situation other than choosing to moderate one platform differently to another. Which is not new. Also, not something that Apple are doing.
Re: Re:
As is often pointed out, these people don't have a problem with the speech so much as they have a problem with the reach. They have no problem with Parler or Gab blocking speech they don't agree with, other than the fact that those platforms naturally attract smaller audiences, so they feel the need to bully more popular platforms into hosting them.
Re: The question
"I guess the "question" is: how is that not compelled speech?"
The answer, sadly, is that some people believe that speech they agree with should be mandatory, while speech they disagree with should be verboten. Some of these people get elected to office, where they repeat such silly notions in order to retain their position.
(untitled comment)
"the removal of Project Veritas’s James O’Keefe from Twitter provide more than enough proof to justify the reaction."
A guy famous for lying in order to dishonestly manipulate political races is proof of a reaction? OK, but I'm not sure the thing you meant to prove is the thing you proved..
"O'Keefe was banned because Twitter claimed he was artifically amplifying his tweets"
Oh, and he was banned for attacking the platform hosting him and not for the other content of his posts? OK...
"You can't just say -- as Olsen does -- that because there are regulations on broadcast TV and radio, that there's no problem with applying similar rules to totally private systems that don't rely on public spectrum."
Well, you can say that, but it would be hoped that more people understand the completely stupid idea of doing so.
Re: Re: Re:
"Anyone who stands against an audit looks like they have something to hide"
"An" audit? Sure. An audit being undertaken by a clearly partisan set of people who not only are coming up with ridiculous stories of what they expect to find that don't pass any test of reality, and are destroying the usefulness of the very equipment they're investigating in the process? Why would anyone be for that?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so easily corrupted, then WERE by "De
"Something the Dems are as unwilling to o do as the Reps."
Duuur both side bad duurrrr. What a predictable response.
"This is stuff anyone can come up with."
Sure, if you reject the many cases where this has been difficult for people, it's really easy! Documentation can be lost or destroyed, and there are cases where getting new copies have been extremely difficult. Homeless people may find it difficult to prove a recent address, and I'm not sure what it's like where you live, but where I live the utility bills on rentals are not in the renter's name. You might find it easy to do everything you're mentioning, but not everyone does - and those are the people we're concerned about being disenfranchised through attempts to crack down own non-existent fraud.
This is a fun game, but it's been played too many times, and factual reality does tend to make your side somewhat less convincing. Come back with evidence that there's enough fraud to even bother changing the system, then we can start talking about how to deal with the people whose right to vote you will inevitable make more difficult to exercise.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so easily corrupted, then WERE by
Yes, I tend to not to respond to posts I haven't read yet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have One Simple Challenge for you.
"Nothing compared to the time and energy people on here ADDRESS posts"
It doesn't matter how obvious misinformation is, sadly. As we have seen many times, people vote and act on some of the most hilariously bad lies if they fit their preconceived desires to be true. If people put in time and energy to lie, then other may feel the need to put in time and energy to ensure that the lie doesn't influence any readers.
"checking boxes on corporate talking points"
I hope I'm reading this incorrectly, but - are you seriously trying to say that addressing factual reality is a corporate conspiracy now?
Re:
The problem is, real fact checkers will always return the same results. It doesn't matter who does the research on the 2020 election, for example, an honest fact check will always return the facts that there is no evidence of widespread fraud, the election has been certified as fair by multiple bodies both inside and outside of the US, and there's no reason to believe the claims of fraud.
That's not what these people want. They want the fact checking to be removed, so that their constant claims of fraud will be believed by people likely to vote for the losers next time around, and it's easier to pretend the election was stolen than it is to deal with the issues that led to them to lose.
More comments from PaulT >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by PaulT.
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