Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(FundAnything)   Adam Carolla needs your help to fight patent trolls and save podcasting. Makes a simple, cogent and sober argument on his FundAnything page, making many wonder what he's done with the real Adam Carolla   (fundanything.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Adam Carolla, legal defense, Marc Maron, non-practicing entity, podcast  
•       •       •

3431 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 12:40 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-05 10:04:39 AM  
carolla: the girl part of the Man Show.
 
2014-03-05 10:08:29 AM  

Cewley: carolla: the girl part of the Man Show.


Don't you say that about Mr. Birchum.
 
2014-03-05 12:47:00 PM  
Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.
 
2014-03-05 12:49:43 PM  

Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.


What would Prager think?
 
2014-03-05 12:52:01 PM  
I can't believe there is actually a company out there self-described as "non-functioning" (or non-producing), that actually invests it's entire business plan in claiming ownership of things they didn't invent.

So, using this model, I could claim to have invented air, and charge everyone on the planet every time they use it.  This goes for everything from balloons to air travel, to breathing.
It seems pretty simple in my view for the courts to strike down this sort of thing for the nonsense that it is.

Patents are there for protection.  Not to beat people over the head until they pay you.
 
2014-03-05 12:53:18 PM  
For justice!

/and also to save Adam a buck
 
2014-03-05 12:55:27 PM  

durbnpoisn: I can't believe there is actually a company out there self-described as "non-functioning" (or non-producing), that actually invests it's entire business plan in claiming ownership of things they didn't invent.

So, using this model, I could claim to have invented air, and charge everyone on the planet every time they use it.  This goes for everything from balloons to air travel, to breathing.
It seems pretty simple in my view for the courts to strike down this sort of thing for the nonsense that it is.

Patents are there for protection.  Not to beat people over the head until they pay you.


And even worse, once you pay for the extortion, it comes back to haunt you.

"No no no! You paid SnarcoPatentWorksAlpha. We represent SnarcoPatentWorksBeta - it's an entirely different company and we share joint licensing rights with the other guy."
 
2014-03-05 12:59:05 PM  

Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.


I don't really care about the political angle on this one, I'm in favor of it because fark patent trolls
 
2014-03-05 01:01:10 PM  

Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.


TFA says that the fund is for all podcasters who get sued by these trolls.
 
2014-03-05 01:04:22 PM  

durbnpoisn: I can't believe there is actually a company out there self-described as "non-functioning" (or non-producing), that actually invests it's entire business plan in claiming ownership of things they didn't invent.


Like MIT's licensing office? Crazy, right?

So, using this model, I could claim to have invented air, and charge everyone on the planet every time they use it.  This goes for everything from balloons to air travel, to breathing.
It seems pretty simple in my view for the courts to strike down this sort of thing for the nonsense that it is.


Actually, they claim ownership in things that other people  did invent, who then sold the rights to them. For example, I invent a new cold fusion system, but I can't afford to build plants and become an electric utility. So I sell my rights in the invention to you. You then talk to every power company in the US and offer them licenses.

Patents are there for protection.  Not to beat people over the head until they pay you.

Patents are also there for protection of small inventors.
 
2014-03-05 01:05:02 PM  
Sorry brah, I gave all my poor person money to Zach Braff and Veronica Mars cause they needed it first.

Holy hell, fund your own battles, you rich pricks.
 
2014-03-05 01:05:37 PM  
There needs to be a coalition or fund to fight the patent trolls to the death; I'm just not sure this is the right one.  Isn't this the Trump-touted Kickstarter-clone that is a worse deal for its users?

Wouldn't some kind of federal injunction against suing only in Texas backwaters go a long way to keep idiots from ruling in favor of the trolls?  It's become a cliche at this point.

Still, it is interesting to hear that they've gone after one of the biggest targets in podcasting; Carolla's supposed to be one of the only ones making any money (even though his particular namesake show is dreary and unlistenable).  Usually the trolls snipe at smaller prey.
 
2014-03-05 01:07:08 PM  
I think a better way would be for Carrolla, Maron, Maher and all the other players to form their own LLC called TrollBusters for the legal funding.  They each pitch in 100K and then solicit investors so they can countersue for damages.  Split the net after the lawyers cut.
 
2014-03-05 01:07:43 PM  

Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.


4/10, since you did get legit replies.
 
2014-03-05 01:09:18 PM  
It appears that this is the patent, linked from their description page here.
 
2014-03-05 01:10:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Actually, they claim ownership in things that other people did invent, who then sold the rights to them. For example, I invent a new cold fusion system, but I can't afford to build plants and become an electric utility. So I sell my rights in the invention to you. You then talk to every power company in the US and demand they pay you for their existing windmills because your patent at some point mentions a way of supporting a turbine using a steel support structure.


FTFY
 
2014-03-05 01:11:54 PM  
I always thought Carolla was laugh out loud funny on love line back in the day. Used to listen to him all the time.
 
2014-03-05 01:14:39 PM  

Far Cough: There needs to be a coalition or fund to fight the patent trolls to the death; I'm just not sure this is the right one.  Isn't this the Trump-touted Kickstarter-clone that is a worse deal for its users?

Wouldn't some kind of federal injunction against suing only in Texas backwaters go a long way to keep idiots from ruling in favor of the trolls?  It's become a cliche at this point.

Still, it is interesting to hear that they've gone after one of the biggest targets in podcasting; Carolla's supposed to be one of the only ones making any money (even though his particular namesake show is dreary and unlistenable).  Usually the trolls snipe at smaller prey.


Would be better to go after the patent lawyers who encourage the suing for large sums. If you hadn't noticed, a lot of the patent troll associations are simply former patent lawyers who bend and twist the original patent to include any variation on the process. Lawyers farked this up, not inventors.
 
2014-03-05 01:15:57 PM  

Another Government Employee: I think a better way would be for Carrolla, Maron, Maher and all the other players to form their own LLC called TrollBusters for the legal funding.  They each pitch in 100K and then solicit investors so they can countersue for damages.  Split the net after the lawyers cut.


Therein lies the problem. Except in very rare cases, you can't countersue simply because you were sued, you need to have a cause of action - i.e. one that you could have initiated a suit of your own with. The rare exception is for a frivolous lawsuit, and that's not just one that you win, but one that, even at the time of filing, the other side had no possibility of winning. As in, even if your hands were tied and you were gagged and you weren't able to respond, a jury  still couldn't believe their allegations in the complaint.

Now, that happened for the copyright cases with Righthaven and Prenda Law, but that's because Righthaven didn't actually own the copyrights that they were suing over (that's not an issue here), and because Prenda engaged in fraud and forged signatures of their fake CEO on various things, violated discovery orders, sent out demands after they were ordered not to, etc. (unlikely to be an issue here either).

This is actually the real reason that troll companies are around - if Apple sues Samsung, Samsung can sue Apple back because Apple also makes products that may infringe Samsung products. But if "Apple Licensing Entity, LLC" sues Samsung, Samsung can't countersue, because ALE doesn't make anything.
 
2014-03-05 01:17:50 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Theaetetus: Actually, they claim ownership in things that other people did invent, who then sold the rights to them. For example, I invent a new cold fusion system, but I can't afford to build plants and become an electric utility. So I sell my rights in the invention to you. You then talk to every power company in the US and demand they pay you for their existing windmills because your patent at some point mentions a way of supporting a turbine using a steel support structure.

FTFY


In this case, that patent does legitimately describe podcasting. They're not really stretching it at all.
Now, in the future, if they started going after YouTube playlists or something, that might be more of a stretch.
 
2014-03-05 01:21:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Theaetetus: Actually, they claim ownership in things that other people did invent, who then sold the rights to them. For example, I invent a new cold fusion system, but I can't afford to build plants and become an electric utility. So I sell my rights in the invention to you. You then talk to every power company in the US and demand they pay you for their existing windmills because your patent at some point mentions a way of supporting a turbine using a steel support structure.

FTFY

In this case, that patent does legitimately describe podcasting. They're not really stretching it at all.
Now, in the future, if they started going after YouTube playlists or something, that might be more of a stretch.


Isnt the podcasting patent dispute I regards to a mail order tape patent that has been twisted into a podcasting patent, despite the numerous examples of prior history shown by EFF...
 
2014-03-05 01:22:24 PM  
This guy claims that his cassette by mail subscription service makes him the inventor of all episodic content delivery.  It would seem to me that the fact that magazines have been around for a few centuries would invalidate the patent.  After all, a magazine is subscription based content delivery, and if the medium is irrelevant to the distribution method then the patent is meaningless.
 
2014-03-05 01:22:32 PM  
It's hilarious how many of the Daily Show cult turned on Carolla as soon as they heard that Carolla was saying non-approved things, that he had said all along anyway.

You just got your cues from the usual places, and the hate was on.
 
2014-03-05 01:22:50 PM  
Ziggy, Zaggy, Oi, Oi, Oi.
 
2014-03-05 01:29:29 PM  

MyRandomName: Theaetetus: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Theaetetus: Actually, they claim ownership in things that other people did invent, who then sold the rights to them. For example, I invent a new cold fusion system, but I can't afford to build plants and become an electric utility. So I sell my rights in the invention to you. You then talk to every power company in the US and demand they pay you for their existing windmills because your patent at some point mentions a way of supporting a turbine using a steel support structure.

FTFY

In this case, that patent does legitimately describe podcasting. They're not really stretching it at all.
Now, in the future, if they started going after YouTube playlists or something, that might be more of a stretch.

Isnt the podcasting patent dispute I regards to a mail order tape patent that has been twisted into a podcasting patent, despite the numerous examples of prior history shown by EFF...


Stile4aly: This guy claims that his cassette by mail subscription service makes him the inventor of all episodic content delivery.  It would seem to me that the fact that magazines have been around for a few centuries would invalidate the patent.  After all, a magazine is subscription based content delivery, and if the medium is irrelevant to the distribution method then the patent is meaningless.


Nope, this has nothing to do with cassettes by mail. What appears to be the patent is linked above. Here's the abstract:
An audio program and message distribution system in which a host system organizes and transmits program segments to client subscriber locations. The host organizes the program segments by subject matter and creates scheduled programming in accordance with preferences associated with each subscriber. Program segments are associated with descriptive subject matter segments, and the subject matter segments may be used to generate both text and audio cataloging presentations to enable the user to more easily identify and select desirable programming. A playback unit at the subscriber location reproduces the program segments received from the host and includes mechanisms for interactively navigating among the program segments. A usage log is compiled to record the subscriber's use of the provided program materials, to return data to the host for billing, to adaptively modify the subscriber's preferences based on actual usage, and to send subscriber-generated comments and requests to the host for processing.

and here's Claim 1:
1. A media player for acquiring and reproducing media program files which represent episodes in a series of episodes as said episodes become available, said media player comprising:
a digital memory,
a communications port coupled to the Internet for transmitting data requests for data identified by specified URLs, for receiving downloaded data identified by said URLs in response to said requests, and for storing said downloaded data in said digital memory,
a processor coupled to said digital memory and to said communications port for performing a sequence of timed update operations, each of said update operations comprising:
downloading via the Internet the current version of a compilation file identified by a predetermined URL and storing said current version of said compilation file in said digital memory, said current version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing one or more episodes of a series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said episodes including one or more episode URLs identifying one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes,
processing the content of said current version of said compilation file to identify attribute data describing one or more newly available episodes in said series of episodes which were not described by attribute data found in a prior version of said compilation file previously identified by said predetermined URL and previously downloaded by an earlier one of said sequence of timed update operations, and
downloading one or more new media files identified by one or more URLs in the attribute data describing said one or more newly available episodes and storing said one or more new media files in said digital memory, and
an output unit for reproducing one or more of the media files representing episodes in said series at the request of the operator of said media player.
 
2014-03-05 01:35:49 PM  

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.

4/10, since you did get legit replies.


Pointed sarcastic criticisms are not (always) trolling.  It was a good point.
 
2014-03-05 01:42:33 PM  
Patent Trolls are disgusting lot, but I don't understand why he would ask people to give a millionaire money to help the fight so he can keep using the technology that made him a millionaire.
Granted it, if he loses it would effect a lot of people less fortunate than him, but he is doing this for himself. He is the one being sued, he should put up the money.
  an obvious Democrat who believes everyone else should pay for his problems while he stands on a soap box yelling I'm doing this for the people.
 
2014-03-05 01:45:51 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: It's hilarious how many of the Daily Show cult turned on Carolla as soon as they heard that Carolla was saying non-approved things, that he had said all along anyway.

You just got your cues from the usual places, and the hate was on.


Hate?  I never found him funny on any show going back to LoveLines.  He's just not very funny; that and being a bore are the only things he's guilty of.  He can be a good guest for a few minutes -- he was actually great on Celebrity Apprentice -- but I tried his podcast for weeks and it was just awful.  He became boring old Stern without the saving grace of having been funny young Stern first.   Not every opinion is a political opinion.
 
2014-03-05 01:46:42 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: It's hilarious how many of the Daily Show cult turned on Carolla as soon as they heard that Carolla was saying non-approved things, that he had said all along anyway.

You just got your cues from the usual places, and the hate was on.


Actually, I was a big fan of his through the Loveline years, found his movie The Hammer amusing, and was a regular listener to his podcast. Then he got whinier and whinier about taxes and Mexicans, and it got old. Having Dennis Prager on all the time didn't help.
 
2014-03-05 01:47:13 PM  

wichitaleaf: I always thought Carolla was laugh out loud funny on love line back in the day. Used to listen to him all the time.


He still can be, except when he starts ranting about things of which he has no idea about.


barneyfifesbullet: It's hilarious how many of the Daily Show cult turned on Carolla as soon as they heard that Carolla was saying non-approved things, that he had said all along anyway.

You just got your cues from the usual places, and the hate was on.


Eh, I disagree with him on a bunch of things, but personally just thought his show got stale.  Same old stories, same old rants, too many shiatty live shows.
 
2014-03-05 01:47:38 PM  

Theaetetus: It appears that this is the patent, linked from their description page here.


I don't see any new product here.. just a particular arrangement of the legos.
 
2014-03-05 01:48:21 PM  
On further Googling, MyRandomName and Stile4Aly, it appears that this is the patent in question, but that you're not alone in thinking it was about cassettes. TechDirt did an article on it, saying "The patent in question, 8,112,504, was for an attempt to deliver news on audio cassettes," and it appears that  that was due to them listening to an NPR Planet Money story with half an ear. From the NPR article:
Back in the nineties, Jim Logan started a company called Personal Audio. The concept was simple - people could pick out magazine articles they liked on the internet, and his company would send them a cassette tape of those articles being read out loud. The cassette tapes didn't catch on like Jim hoped, but he had bigger dreams for the idea behind them.
He dreamed that one day you wouldn't need a cassette player, you would just be able to hear smart people talking about whatever subject you wanted, and that audio would be magically downloaded to a device of your choice. He says he dreamed of podcasting as we know it today.
Now Jim Logan did not create the technology to podcast. He himself is not a modern-day podcaster. But he did get a patent on that big dream of downloading personalized audio, and he claims to have the patent on podcasting.


So, basically, back in the 90s, Logan was doing this cassette delivery thing, but then came up with a new idea that wouldn't require cassettes and got a patent that covers automatic downloading of episodic content. For some reason, TechDirt read like every third word, and believed that the patent was on sending cassettes.
 
2014-03-05 02:01:22 PM  

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.

4/10, since you did get legit replies.


Adam C. Has an estimated net worth of 15 million dollars. He has gone on many rants about worthless welfare recipients getting food assistance. Now he wants me to give him a handout for legal expenses to protect his wealth from an easily defeated patent scam. As much as I think patent trolls are scum, you don't need charity to defeat them. Hire a good lawyer and sue for legal costs when you win.
 
2014-03-05 02:07:17 PM  

Loucifer: Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.

4/10, since you did get legit replies.

Adam C. Has an estimated net worth of 15 million dollars. He has gone on many rants about worthless welfare recipients getting food assistance. Now he wants me to give him a handout for legal expenses to protect his wealth from an easily defeated patent scam. As much as I think patent trolls are scum, you don't need charity to defeat them. Hire a good lawyer and sue for legal costs when you win.


It didn't add up.  The trolls are also suing ABC and CBS, they have bucks.
 
2014-03-05 02:16:43 PM  
Theaetetus:
So, basically, back in the 90s, Logan was doing this cassette delivery thing, but then came up with a new idea that wouldn't require cassettes and got a patent that covers automatic downloading of episodic content. For some reason, TechDirt read like every third word, and believed that the patent was on sending cassettes.

Is there even any liability on the content creator's part?  As far as I know, they don't have control of the delivery methods, which it seems this patent is geared towards.
 
2014-03-05 02:18:31 PM  
I will probably donate to this.....Carolla is probably the highest profile guy to get sued on this but Marc Maron mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmay have been sued, I know he talked about it on his podcast maybe 4-5 months ago.

Carolla is not as "funny" as he used to be, every third episode is a right wing rant that I find boring.  and his show's format is kinda lame but still listen.  he gets these cool guests, and then he only gives them maybe 10 minutes (which half the time, he flips back to himself, telling a story about a name or situation the guest might have dropped), then the last 20 minutes of alison's lame "news", consisting of stories you read on fark 2 weeks ago.  let the people speak, aceman!
 
2014-03-05 02:23:17 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Theaetetus:
So, basically, back in the 90s, Logan was doing this cassette delivery thing, but then came up with a new idea that wouldn't require cassettes and got a patent that covers automatic downloading of episodic content. For some reason, TechDirt read like every third word, and believed that the patent was on sending cassettes.

Is there even any liability on the content creator's part?  As far as I know, they don't have control of the delivery methods, which it seems this patent is geared towards.


So, there's this doctrine called contributory infringement. If I have a patent that claims A+B+C+D, and you make a product with C+D, you don't directly infringe the patent... But what if your product is only useful when combined with A+B and has literally no other uses? And what if you advertise it as "C+D, for joining with A+B! Now all your A+B+C+D needs can be met!" At a certain point, you become responsible for contributing to the end-user's infringement, even if you didn't actually do it.

Now, that said, frankly, I think it would be tough with these particular claims to make a claim that Carolla's engaged in contributory infringement. The most he does seems to be providing data at URLs, and providing a compilation file identifying the data. Honestly, I can't see why he's not just pointing to some podcasting software maker and saying "indemnify me"...

... unless he's not the one bankrolling his defense, of course, and this really isn't about whether he infringes or not, but rather trying pursue some greater goal, like patent tort reform to protect big companies. But that would require him getting money from other people for th- hey!
 
2014-03-05 02:24:10 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: personally just thought his show got stale. Same old stories


ha.  today he told the story for the 91st time of seing Sex and the City 2 while high, and talking to TMZ.

adam carolla bingo:
"can i say this?"
shoulder roll
refractory period
Jimmy Kimmel
swinging a hammer
a decrepit piece of catshiat roasting in a hibachi with assjuice sprinkled on it
cum on the tits
every third 80s movie had the scene where ___
north hollywood high
my movie got an "R" for one use of "fark"
my parents were terrible
dr. drew
mangria
 
2014-03-05 02:34:55 PM  
Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk
Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.
4/10, since you did get legit replies.


Carolla can be a really cool guy talking about cars or doing interviews with interesting people. But get him wound up on this heavy handed biatching session about libertarian arguments involving taxes. The 'I got mine' inner douche presents.
 
2014-03-05 02:39:40 PM  

rickythepenguin: he gets these cool guests, and then he only gives them maybe 10 minutes (which half the time, he flips back to himself, telling a story about a name or situation the guest might have dropped),


That!  A big reason I gave up listening to his podcast.  Some really funny, talented people would come in as guests, and they'd barely get a farking word in edgewise.  He is a TERRIBLE "host" in that regard.
 
2014-03-05 02:49:29 PM  

Far Cough: That! A big reason I gave up listening to his podcast. Some really funny, talented people would come in as guests, and they'd barely get a farking word in edgewise. He is a TERRIBLE "host" in that regard.


every podcast:

0:00 to 0:02:  ads for other Ace Network podcasts
0:02 to 0:05:  greetings, shillling for live dates
0:05 to 0:35:  the daily rant about what happened over the weekend or that day:  had to drive to Dana Point in traffic, Lynette went to a Springsteen show, the bar in [name of city] played shiatty "syntho" music,
0:35 - 0:37:  break;  ads for other podcasts
0:37 - 0:39:  return, ads for live dates and Mangria signings
0:39 - 0:51 introduction of farking awesome guest, interruption of their stories with boring Aceman stroies we've heard a thousand times
0:51: - 0:52:  "how about some news, baby girl?  ___ , feel free to sit in and crack wise"
0:52 - 1:20: boring news you heard on fark 2 weeks ago, more Aceman stories
1:20 - 1:25: "let's bring it home, baby girl, how about one more?"  one last story you read 3 weeks ago
1:25 - 1:27 more live dates, thanks to guest, mangria signings, TV appearances, signoff


am i kidding?
 
2014-03-05 02:56:32 PM  

rickythepenguin: Far Cough: That! A big reason I gave up listening to his podcast. Some really funny, talented people would come in as guests, and they'd barely get a farking word in edgewise. He is a TERRIBLE "host" in that regard.

every podcast:

0:00 to 0:02:  ads for other Ace Network podcasts
0:02 to 0:05:  greetings, shillling for live dates
0:05 to 0:35:  the daily rant about what happened over the weekend or that day:  had to drive to Dana Point in traffic, Lynette went to a Springsteen show, the bar in [name of city] played shiatty "syntho" music,
0:35 - 0:37:  break;  ads for other podcasts
0:37 - 0:39:  return, ads for live dates and Mangria signings
0:39 - 0:51 introduction of farking awesome guest, interruption of their stories with boring Aceman stroies we've heard a thousand times
0:51: - 0:52:  "how about some news, baby girl?  ___ , feel free to sit in and crack wise"
0:52 - 1:20: boring news you heard on fark 2 weeks ago, more Aceman stories
1:20 - 1:25: "let's bring it home, baby girl, how about one more?"  one last story you read 3 weeks ago
1:25 - 1:27 more live dates, thanks to guest, mangria signings, TV appearances, signoff


am i kidding?


Nope, sounds dead on, and I stopped listening a year ago.  There are SO many other podcasts to spend your time with, and some are reliably good-to-great.  Even Alton Brown has one, which I didn't know until a week ago.  (It's... okay.)  I guess Carolla and Maron are both benefitting from first mover advantage.
 
2014-03-05 02:57:11 PM  
Well, since "podcast" is itself a stolen term, WTF do I care?

The original podcast.

http://griffintechnology.com/itrip
 
2014-03-05 03:11:41 PM  

FTGodWin: Well, since "podcast" is itself a stolen term, WTF do I care?

The original podcast.

http://griffintechnology.com/itrip


I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that something from 2001 doesn't predate something from 1996.
 
2014-03-05 03:12:35 PM  

rickythepenguin: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: personally just thought his show got stale. Same old stories

ha.  today he told the story for the 91st time of seing Sex and the City 2 while high, and talking to TMZ.

adam carolla bingo:
"can i say this?"
shoulder roll
refractory period
Jimmy Kimmel
swinging a hammer
a decrepit piece of catshiat roasting in a hibachi with assjuice sprinkled on it
cum on the tits
every third 80s movie had the scene where ___
north hollywood high
my movie got an "R" for one use of "fark"
my parents were terrible
dr. drew
mangria


Yeah, you summed it up nicely.  And I get that, as a "radio" show, you need to repeat material because you're always getting new listeners that haven't heard it, but the show as a whole just got too repetetive for me.  And I hated the live shows because it always seemed like he was in "performance mode" rather than the more personal setting of the studio.


Theaetetus: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Theaetetus:
So, basically, back in the 90s, Logan was doing this cassette delivery thing, but then came up with a new idea that wouldn't require cassettes and got a patent that covers automatic downloading of episodic content. For some reason, TechDirt read like every third word, and believed that the patent was on sending cassettes.

Is there even any liability on the content creator's part?  As far as I know, they don't have control of the delivery methods, which it seems this patent is geared towards.

So, there's this doctrine called contributory infringement. If I have a patent that claims A+B+C+D, and you make a product with C+D, you don't directly infringe the patent... But what if your product is only useful when combined with A+B and has literally no other uses? And what if you advertise it as "C+D, for joining with A+B! Now all your A+B+C+D needs can be met!" At a certain point, you become responsible for contributing to the end-user's infringement, even if you didn't actually do it.

Now, that said, frankly, I think it would be tough with these particular claims to make a claim that Carolla's engaged in contributory infringement. The most he does seems to be providing data at URLs, and providing a compilation file identifying the data. Honestly, I can't see why he's not just pointing to some podcasting software maker and saying "indemnify me"...

... unless he's not the one bankrolling his defense, of course, and this really isn't about whether he infringes or not, but rather trying pursue some greater goal, like patent tort reform to protect big companies. But that would require him getting money from other people for th- hey!


Thanks for the explanation.
 
2014-03-05 03:33:43 PM  

Far Cough: Nope, sounds dead on, and I stopped listening a year ago.


i love aceman but yeah, it is just so very godamn formulaic.  verging on OCD how scripted it is.  with so many options out there, if the guest is boring or the show just another canned Aceman show, i just delete.  nerdist is so much better since the guests are allowed to "breathe", even if i don't know who it is.  like the one now, she plays some sci fi character in a show i'm not even watching but the talk is engaging.  maron too.

still prefer jay mohr's mohr stories.  on the current jerry cantrell eipsode, mohr asked a question i submitted.  the question was actually, "single coils or humbuckers, and who owns the three legged dog from that one album?"  mohr didn't ask the guitar question but cantrell answered re the dog.  so Slam didn't say, "this question cam eto me from [twitterhandle]" but it was my question.  yay me?
 
2014-03-05 03:37:22 PM  

FourDirections: Loucifer: Not very bootstrappy begging for a handout like that.

I don't really care about the political angle on this one, I'm in favor of it because fark patent trolls


You deserve to be sent to Gitmo. This is 'Mericuh. The political angle is the only thing that matters here.
 
2014-03-05 03:40:41 PM  
Filed in 2009? Shouldn't be very hard to find prior art, right? I mean, podcasting isn't just 5 years old.
 
2014-03-05 03:53:11 PM  

Klopfer: Filed in 2009? Shouldn't be very hard to find prior art, right? I mean, podcasting isn't just 5 years old.


The specification dates back to 1996.
 
2014-03-05 04:03:34 PM  

Theaetetus: The specification dates back to 1996.


and going to what i said above about Maron possibly being sued, maybe six months ago he sounded the call for fans to research any examples of preexisting technology;  i'm no patent attorney but apparently, you can't patent something that either already exists (well DUHHHHH) but apparently, you can't patent an idea that may already be "out there".

so maybe six months ago Maron is like, "we're in trouble, podcasters are under attack, please let us know if you have any examples that would defeat the podcats trolls."  maybe 1-2 months ago Maron gives an update and says some fan found some Frank Zappa book from either the late 70s or early 80s, where FZ wrote about a technology format where users could, using telecom lines, be able to obtain an artist's works and listen to them from their own homes.  now, it isn't exactly "FZ predicted iTunes and on-demand content", the argument is, "FZ predicted a rudimentary on-demand system" that  mya, just may, be interpreted as preexisting technology and thus, outside the realm of the company's patent.

that's the gist of what i recall Maron saying.  perhaps not entirely correct, but basically, "crazy Frank predicted this shiat decaaaaaaaaaaades ago, go fark your grandma's mouth, patent trolls."
 
2014-03-05 04:12:51 PM  

rickythepenguin: the argument is, "FZ predicted a rudimentary on-demand system" that mya, just may, be interpreted as preexisting technology and thus, outside the realm of the company's patent.


Prior art, 1977 and earlier.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-05 04:19:45 PM  

rickythepenguin: so maybe six months ago Maron is like, "we're in trouble, podcasters are under attack, please let us know if you have any examples that would defeat the podcats trolls."  maybe 1-2 months ago Maron gives an update and says some fan found some Frank Zappa book from either the late 70s or early 80s, where FZ wrote about a technology format where users could, using telecom lines, be able to obtain an artist's works and listen to them from their own homes.  now, it isn't exactly "FZ predicted iTunes and on-demand content", the argument is, "FZ predicted a rudimentary on-demand system" that  mya, just may, be interpreted as preexisting technology and thus, outside the realm of the company's patent.


The problem there is two-fold.

First, if piece of prior art doesn't describe how to do something, it's considered "non-enabling prior art" and is only available for what it actually describes. So, HG Wells wrote about a time machine, but that doesn't mean you couldn't get a patent on a time machine - his writing wouldn't teach someone how to build a time machine.  Similarly, if FZ's writing isn't detailed enough, then it's only available for the limited bits in there. And sure, the broad concept of "instant access to an artist's works" may be unpatentable, but that doesn't mean that claims to specific implementations are not.

Second, in order to show a claim is invalid, you have to find one or more pieces of prior art that teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. Going back to that claim posted above, there's at least this element: "a communications port coupled to the Internet for transmitting data requests for data identified by specified URLs".FZ's writing certainly wouldn't describe that, so, by itself, it couldn't invalidate the patent. At the least, you'd need to combine it with another piece of art on network cards and HTTP GET requests... which, of course, exist and pre-date 1996, so that's certainly possible. But you then need to do this with every single element in the claims - find a piece of prior art which describes that element - and show that it would be routine for someone to combine them. That's probably going to get difficult somewhere around here:
... said current version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing one or more episodes of a series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said episodes including one or more episode URLs identifying one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes,
processing the content of said current version of said compilation file to identify attribute data describing one or more newly available episodes in said series of episodes which were not described by attribute data found in a prior version of said compilation file previously identified by said predetermined URL and previously downloaded by an earlier one of said sequence of timed update operations...
 
2014-03-05 04:21:57 PM  
Yeah but he's kind of a douchebag, isn't he?
 
2014-03-05 04:26:18 PM  
For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.  And if the international telephone system and the postal systems aren't the direct precursors of the Internet, I don't know what would be.

Patent lawyers should be ashamed, or worse.

God damn Sears and Montgomery Ward Catalogs are prior art for this nonsense.
 
2014-03-05 04:38:17 PM  

Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.


You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.
 
2014-03-05 04:53:51 PM  

Theaetetus: The problem there is two-fold.



some good arguments beyond my ken.  all i can say!

i wonder how the VCR arguments (time shifting) might apply to the debate;  as i recall some opposed VCR technology on patent grounds but i think that the VCR industry was able to win (and keep making VCRs) on some kind of time shifting argument; something like, "you can tape a show at 8PM on monday and with this technology, watch it at 9PM friday, that's a permissible use of copyrighted material".  i am just spitballing here but that doesn't seem all that far removed from podcasting;  you can download (record) something now, listen to it later.  or not at all.

but that, to be my own devil's advocate, is not the same argument necessarily.  the podcast trolls seem to arguing a technological basis, not so much "what do you do iwth it?" argumnet.  dunno.  not a patent attorney.  but i love me some podcasts.  would suck if they went away.
 
2014-03-05 04:54:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.


Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.
 
2014-03-05 05:01:11 PM  

Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.

Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.


And one term, mistyped by me,
corrected with some pedantry.
And then he quotes the Bard, we see?
Lord, what fool this Farker be!

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.

We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits. You're the one ranting about Columbia House and calling things phony, without even referring once to what it's in the claim.
 
2014-03-05 05:07:49 PM  

Theaetetus: Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.

Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.

And one term, mistyped by me,
corrected with some pedantry.
And then he quotes the Bard, we see?
Lord, what fool this Farker be!

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.

We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits. You're the one ranting about Columbia House and calling things phony, without even referring once to what it's in the claim.


a.  "Mistyped"?  Really?  Are you always this much of a coward about your own mistakes?  You chose the wrong word and sounded kind of stupid for it; live with it.  It was not a typo.  Shart happens.

b.  I was taking about where the trials are being held and how the outcomes there are hardly determined by the intellectual or legal rigor of the arguments.  Nice reading comprehension, counselor.
 
2014-03-05 05:13:25 PM  

Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.

Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.

And one term, mistyped by me,
corrected with some pedantry.
And then he quotes the Bard, we see?
Lord, what fool this Farker be!

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.

We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits. You're the one ranting about Columbia House and calling things phony, without even referring once to what it's in the claim.

a.  "Mistyped"?  Really?  Are you always this much of a coward about your own mistakes?  You chose the wrong word and sounded kind of stupid for it; live with it.  It was not a typo.  Shart happens.


a1. Whatever makes you feel happy.

b.  I was taking about where the trials are being held and how the outcomes there are hardly determined by the intellectual or legal rigor of the arguments.  Nice reading comprehension, counselor.

b1. Changing the goalposts? Really? Are you always this much of a coward about your own mistakes? You claimed Columbia House was invalidating prior art and sounded kind of stupid for it; live with it.  Trying to suddenly change the topic to forum selection doesn't make up for your earlier stupidity. Shart happens.
 
2014-03-05 05:19:46 PM  
Not very strong.

Here's what I wrote; again, it was entirely about where the trials are held.  It was posted subsequent to, and separately from, the Columbia House post.  You really don't read very well for someone who claims to be a lawyer.  Is that why you fart around trolling Fark?

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.
 
2014-03-05 05:25:28 PM  

Far Cough: Not very strong.

Here's what I wrote; again, it was entirely about where the trials are held.  It was posted subsequent to, and separately from, being called out on the Columbia House post.


FTFY.

Look, I sympathize. You hate patents, because you don't understand them, and you fear what you do not understand. But there's always a possibility to learn, if you open your mind, and with knowledge, your fears will disappear. We're here for you, man.
 
2014-03-05 05:30:08 PM  

rickythepenguin: i wonder how the VCR arguments (time shifting) might apply to the debate;  as i recall some opposed VCR technology on patent grounds but i think that the VCR industry was able to win (and keep making VCRs) on some kind of time shifting argument; something like, "you can tape a show at 8PM on monday and with this technology, watch it at 9PM friday, that's a permissible use of copyrighted material".  i am just spitballing here but that doesn't seem all that far removed from podcasting;  you can download (record) something now, listen to it later.  or not at all.


Those arguments (from Sony v. Universal, also known as the Betamax case) were about copyright infringement and fair use. They don't really apply here, since no one is claiming copyright infringement of their podcasts.
The analogy would be if someone put out a live-streamed show, and you then recorded and time-shifted it for personal playback. A copyright issue, but not a patent one.

but that, to be my own devil's advocate, is not the same argument necessarily.  the podcast trolls seem to arguing a technological basis, not so much "what do you do iwth it?" argumnet.  dunno.  not a patent attorney.  but i love me some podcasts.  would suck if they went away.

Yeah, exactly. And podcasts won't go away... This troll wants royalties, not to shut down competitors. In fact, no troll ever wants to shut someone down, because royalties are their revenue stream. Instead, he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.
 
2014-03-05 05:45:39 PM  

Theaetetus: Far Cough: Not very strong.

Here's what I wrote; again, it was entirely about where the trials are held.  It was posted subsequent to, and separately from, being called out on the Columbia House post.

FTFY.

Look, I sympathize. You hate patents, because you don't understand them, and you fear what you do not understand. But there's always a possibility to learn, if you open your mind, and with knowledge, your fears will disappear. We're here for you, man.


So you now admit you were completely moronic when you quoted a paragraph about the trial venue and responded as if it had something to do with your own blathering on Fark?  ("We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits".)  Just so we're clear about your prevaricating and poor reading skills.

I'm no lawyer and don't want to be.  I think you might bring some value to the table as you claim to be one.  But you are so clearly unpleasant in most respects that I'm going to have to promote you from Farkie "minimally legible brown" glasshole to full bore ignore, effective immediately.  Dealing with ill-conceived attacks from intellectually and morally suspect people such as you is not a fun endeavor.  Troll on without me, you antagonistic farkwit.
 
2014-03-05 05:48:34 PM  
I'm sorry.  It was actually a very dark nearly illegible grey.
 
2014-03-05 05:51:56 PM  
I just wonder why he thinks I've got Google Glass.
 
2014-03-05 05:54:13 PM  

Theaetetus: he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.


And I just want to use your card. Y'know at the grocery store. And only on salad. Salad's healthy. You don't want to pay for my quadruple bypass, right? Much cheaper if you just give me your credit card on Sundays and I go buy a couple heads of lettuce, assorted roots, cukes, and some balsamic vinegar. I'll bring it right back. Hell, why don't you just open an account at the grocery store and top it off for me.
 
2014-03-05 05:56:57 PM  

doglover: Theaetetus: he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.

And I just want to use your card. Y'know at the grocery store. And only on salad. Salad's healthy. You don't want to pay for my quadruple bypass, right? Much cheaper if you just give me your credit card on Sundays and I go buy a couple heads of lettuce, assorted roots, cukes, and some balsamic vinegar. I'll bring it right back. Hell, why don't you just open an account at the grocery store and top it off for me.


Y'see, I bought these vegetable seeds off of some guy at a flea market. So now you all owe it to me to put vegetables IN my salad bowl. I don't want to grown them myself, so it's best if you just give me your garden veggies, but since they'd rot, I'll settle for enough money to go shopping and to pay for my expense of you sending that letter.
 
2014-03-05 06:21:21 PM  
aviewfromtheright.com
 
2014-03-05 06:35:05 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: [aviewfromtheright.com image 450x658]


Dude, that magnifying glass design infringes on 6 patents, and that photograph is copyrighted.  Luckily for you I think that pictured document might be considered public domain.  You'll probably be out in 5 years.
 
2014-03-05 06:47:38 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: [aviewfromtheright.com image 450x658]


I recently bought a patent for a method of exchanging ideas between individuals by means of visual immagery conveying verbal constructs. That'll be $1,523,479.87
 
2014-03-05 06:49:34 PM  

Theaetetus: They don't really apply here, since no one is claiming copyright infringement of their podcasts.
The analogy would be if someone put out a live-streamed show, and you then recorded and time-shifted it for personal playback. A copyright issue, but not a patent one.


yeah, that's what i was getting at in my devil's advocate response....it isn't rrrrreally the same thing.  similar on a level but not the same argument the patent trolls are making.  ehhh.  that's why carolla has burnt, per his last podcast update, i think $50,000 on patent attorneys juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust in efforts so far to get the case transferred from the Texas pro-patent jurisdiction to California.
 
2014-03-05 07:22:25 PM  
Maybe the patent suit is for beligerent, loudmouth, misogynistic, elitist butthole? And we just didn't hear about them going after Glenn Beck.
 
2014-03-05 11:05:22 PM  

Shadowtag: Maybe the patent suit is for beligerent, loudmouth, misogynistic, elitist butthole? And we just didn't hear about them going after Glenn Beck.


Only three of those shoes fit!
 
2014-03-05 11:15:53 PM  
So you're saying he's not loud?
 
2014-03-05 11:35:17 PM  

Far Cough: So you're saying he's not loud?


He's not a mysogynist.
 
2014-03-06 06:38:05 AM  

Theaetetus: rickythepenguin: i wonder how the VCR arguments (time shifting) might apply to the debate;  as i recall some opposed VCR technology on patent grounds but i think that the VCR industry was able to win (and keep making VCRs) on some kind of time shifting argument; something like, "you can tape a show at 8PM on monday and with this technology, watch it at 9PM friday, that's a permissible use of copyrighted material".  i am just spitballing here but that doesn't seem all that far removed from podcasting;  you can download (record) something now, listen to it later.  or not at all.

Those arguments (from Sony v. Universal, also known as the Betamax case) were about copyright infringement and fair use. They don't really apply here, since no one is claiming copyright infringement of their podcasts.
The analogy would be if someone put out a live-streamed show, and you then recorded and time-shifted it for personal playback. A copyright issue, but not a patent one.

but that, to be my own devil's advocate, is not the same argument necessarily.  the podcast trolls seem to arguing a technological basis, not so much "what do you do iwth it?" argumnet.  dunno.  not a patent attorney.  but i love me some podcasts.  would suck if they went away.

Yeah, exactly. And podcasts won't go away... This troll wants royalties, not to shut down competitors. In fact, no troll ever wants to shut someone down, because royalties are their revenue stream. Instead, he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.


Bolded to emphasize that point. As a podcaster, I can tell you that alone will shut down most podcasts, because the vast majority of podcasters do this for the love of podcasting, not because we make any money on it. My websites are a farking money-pit, to be honest. I've been running them for well over a decade, spending hundreds of dollars a year for the hosting, upkeep, and content creation, all out of my pocket. I have yet to make a single dime on any of my ventures, be they my blogs or podcast.

Oh, but happy days are soon to come, as I'm getting ever-so-close to the pay-out threshold on Google Ads! Why yes, in maybe a month I'll finally get a check from Google for $100 (gross, what I get after taxes are withheld, I have no idea at this point)! It's only taken over three years to earn that much from running their ads, but at least it will pay about half of the hosting costs for my websites this year. If I'm lucky, eventually I might be able to earn enough on those ads to pay for the hosting and URL costs each year, but that's it. All the time I put into those websites and podcasting, yeah, I'm not making any money for that.

So if this case is won, and suddenly I now have additional costs just to put out a podcast, my show gets shut down immediately, as would thousands of other small podcasts like mine. Maybe the big shows like Corolla has would survive, but the hobby of podcasting would effectively be destroyed.
 
2014-03-06 08:57:46 AM  
Compare the difficulty of the following:
(1) Describe what a program is supposed to do, and outline the major steps and general flow of data.
(2) Code the program and get it to run.
(3) Debug it.

Anyone who has ever coded anything knows that (2) is several orders of magnitude harder than (1).  (3) is several orders of magnitude harder than (2).  Software patents do (1), then take credit for (2) and (3).  There's a really good reason the vast majority of people in tech fields hate software patents.
 
2014-03-06 09:38:13 AM  
Theaetetus - Is there a statute of limitations on patent suits?  If so, what are the criteria for that SoL to run?
 
2014-03-06 10:55:47 AM  

CourtroomWolf: Compare the difficulty of the following:
(1) Describe what a program is supposed to do, and outline the major steps and general flow of data.
(2) Code the program and get it to run.
(3) Debug it.

Anyone who has ever coded anything knows that (2) is several orders of magnitude harder than (1).  (3) is several orders of magnitude harder than (2).  Software patents do (1), then take credit for (2) and (3).  There's a really good reason the vast majority of people in tech fields hate software patents.


Beautifully and succinctly put. Some might argue the difficulty of 2 vs. 3 but the point stands. And as software is by definition so malleable, it is trivial to generate new "1"s. Unlike the physical world, there are nearly no practical constraints, nearly no physics to contend with. Mile high 85 degree virtual ramp, no problem. Every sophomore's late night BS session is suddenly a trillion dollar patent portfolio. The entire concept of "software patent" needs scrapping, yesterday. Copyright despite its own abuses does a decent enough job on its own to protect works, not bullshart.

As you imply, even tech patent OWNERS hate them, as they impede everything. This is so unlike real patents, which owners typically cherish. Software patents overall are akin to filing a patent on cutting wood and suing the construction industry. They are a disease on innovation, progress, industry, and liberty. Those who would perpetuate them stand opposed to those principals and should be ignored or shunned as the malignancies they are.
 
2014-03-06 02:17:02 PM  

Krashash: Theaetetus - Is there a statute of limitations on patent suits?  If so, what are the criteria for that SoL to run?


6 years from expiration of the patent.

I think what you may be more interested in is the doctrine of laches, which says that if you know about an infringement and you unreasonably and inexcusably delay bringing suit, you may lose the ability to get an injunction. Best example is if you get a patent on something and then wait while it becomes a standard, knowing that many people are using your invention (and possibly even encouraging more people to do so), only bringing suit many years later when they're trapped due to an installed base and can't reasonably change to a new standard. The court will not give you an injunction that would allow you to demand exorbitant royalties or force them to abandon their business.

... however, reasonable monetary damages can still be available. They'd be smaller than what you could get via the injunction-extortion route, though, as they should be.
 
2014-03-06 03:51:47 PM  

Theaetetus: Krashash: Theaetetus - Is there a statute of limitations on patent suits?  If so, what are the criteria for that SoL to run?

6 years from expiration of the patent.

I think what you may be more interested in is the doctrine of laches, which says that if you know about an infringement and you unreasonably and inexcusably delay bringing suit, you may lose the ability to get an injunction. Best example is if you get a patent on something and then wait while it becomes a standard, knowing that many people are using your invention (and possibly even encouraging more people to do so), only bringing suit many years later when they're trapped due to an installed base and can't reasonably change to a new standard. The court will not give you an injunction that would allow you to demand exorbitant royalties or force them to abandon their business.

... however, reasonable monetary damages can still be available. They'd be smaller than what you could get via the injunction-extortion route, though, as they should be.


Thanks. Being a federal thing, I wondered what types of equitable defenses might be available.
 
2014-03-06 05:09:29 PM  
Reading the patent claims the most obvious loophole to me is to communicate between your media player and server using IP addresses instead of a URL.
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report