Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Care? (Score 1) 126

by Travelsonic (#46735017) Attached to: Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves
What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.

Comment: Re:That's it (Score 1) 243

by Travelsonic (#46620903) Attached to: Dropbox's New Policy of Scanning Files For DMCA Issues

Yet again its forced outrage against basically something which is common sense

*sighs*... I hate these phrases - faux outrage, forced outrage, since they are used in the least applicable places. Misleading outrage isn't forced - it's still misleading, but it's still real. I's like when you mishear that somebody was banging your GF, and you momentarily get pissed before the person repeats themselves... the outrage in that split second was no less real.

Comment: Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 381

by Travelsonic (#46506083) Attached to: <em>Sons of Anarchy</em> Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases

Personally, just a side note, I've seen people use that alone to justify the position of it being theft - it annoys the hell outta me since the criterion those people use is idiotic - legitimate, legal competition does the same, but their reasoning would label it such. Heh, sidetracks from the discussion at hand, pay no mind. :P

Google

Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy 381

Posted by samzenpus
from the samcro-hates-piracy dept.
theodp writes "Over at Slate, Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter argues that Google's anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content, which is bad for artists and bad for consumers. The screed is Sutter's response to an earlier anti-copyright rant in Slate penned by a lawyer who represents Google and is a Fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute chaired by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that receives funding from Schmidt and Google. 'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit. Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. People access Kim through Google. And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it's presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word "parasite."'"
Facebook

The Era of Facebook Is an Anomaly 260

Posted by Soulskill
from the let's-get-back-to-business-as-usual dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Speaking to The Verge, author and Microsoft Researcher Danah Boyd put words to a feeling I've had about Facebook and other social networking sites for a while, now: 'The era of Facebook is an anomaly.' She continues, 'The idea of everybody going to one site is just weird. Give me one other part of history where everybody shows up to the same social space. Fragmentation is a more natural state of being. Is your social dynamic interest-driven or is it friendship-driven? Are you going there because there's this place where other folks are really into anime, or is this the place you're going because it's where your pals from school are hanging out? That first [question] is a driving function.' Personally, I hope this idea continues to propagate — it's always seemed odd that our social network identities are locked into certain websites. Imagine being a Comcast customer and being unable to email somebody using Time Warner, or a T-Mobile subscriber who can't call somebody who's on Verizon. Why do we allow this with our social networks?"

Comment: So? (Score 1) 373

by Travelsonic (#46267495) Attached to: Report: Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) Scans Your DNS History

...but all Steam users have agreed to abide by specific online conduct and not to use cheats.

So?
Doesn't necessarily mean "any means necessarily" is necessarily what they agreed to, or legal - especially something to goes that far without being explicitly confined. *sighs* I wish people who cite the EULA, etc not as an argument, but as a shutout to opposing arguments would just shut up and learn that it doesn't cancel out all arguments, particularly since it being written doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, nor does it negate that people will/can have an opinion about it.

Comment: Re:Cue the climate change deniers ... (Score 1) 684

by Travelsonic (#45879221) Attached to: Polar Vortex Sends Life-Threatening Freeze To US
Doubting AGW != denying all climate change - climate does change over time, it's just the science behind AGW is very much up for debate in favor of, or in opposition of, it doesn't matter. Skepticism != outright denial, skepticism of one aspect of something != outright denial of it or something similar to it.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 170

by Travelsonic (#45860591) Attached to: Facebook Being Sued Over Mining of Private Messages

Fine, to which FB will reply "Read the TOS/EULA" and then win.

Only in a world where it being in a TOS automatically makes it legal and unchallengeable, which this is only if you are an idiot.
Not saying this is one of those times, but whether they win or lose is not based on it being in the TOS, but it being in there + either FB being able to prove it is legal, or the plaintiffs being able to argue its illegality. TOses, contracts, have been deemed either in whole or in part illegal/void before.

Comment: Re: It's not a relevant topic for Slashdot. (Score 1) 894

The irony is that most of the posters attacking the USA, calling them Nazis (as in Godwin's Law) and vowing never to visit, refuse to reveal their home countries

Irony how? And you do know that all that Godwin's law states is that as a discussion goes on, the likelihood of mentioning Nazis, Nazi Germany, etc increases - and that it is only the corollary that actually attempts to make use of the law to set forth any judgements - illogically too, IMO - about such uses?

Comment: Re:As usual, summary is inflammatory (Score 2) 183

by Travelsonic (#45754819) Attached to: DoD Public Domain Archive To Be Privatized, Locked Up For 10 Years

Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.

*facepalms*

NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.

Comment: Re:"No one loses anything" (Score 1) 246

by Travelsonic (#45620581) Attached to: Piracy Offers Heavy Metal a New Business Model

A typical pro-piracy comment in Slashdot is that "if I make a copy, no one loses anything"

Pro-piracy, or a response against the act of comparing it to literal theft? Those are not the same thing [being pro-piracy, using a statement to express the idea that an analogy is bad] in of itself.

Comment: Re:Maybe, but... (Score 4, Informative) 246

by Travelsonic (#45569541) Attached to: Piracy Offers Heavy Metal a New Business Model

Do you ever see any anti-piracy posts that are modded up on Slashdot so they can be read without drilling down?

When the post is actually rational, does not involve assumptions, does not involve being hostile, does not involve taking people's words out of context? Yes. It's not often it is seen, however, because a lot of the posts flame people, take their words out of context, or just try to pass off opinion as fact without any citations... so no shit, they get modded down and responded to w/ hostility more often than not.

What hath Bob wrought?

Working...