Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week

from the new-feature-time dept

Okay, we’re launching a new feature this week, to see how it goes. We’ve had these voting buttons on comments for a while, which will show when certain comments are voted to be particularly insightful or funny, but thought we might as well do some more to promote those. So we’re experimenting with highlighting the most insightful and funniest comments from the past week.

On the most insightful comment, the highest voted comment came from Mike C. in response to the article about the fines the Canadian recording industry had to pay for infringing on the copyrights of artists, his comment, titled Let me see if I get this right read:

1) The major labels end up paying $45 million for over 300,000 cases on infringement. That works out to $150 per incident and yet they want $150,000 per incident here in the USA.

2) The labels get to CONTINUE to perform the acts of infringement as long as they “promise” to pay the artists infringed against in a “timely” fashion.

Yeah… and they wonder why we call them two-faced…

In second place, we had a tie, with one comment from Spaceboy, responding to a question as to why it was unconstitutional that the DMCA blocks you from modding your own devices by explaining why people should be able to do what they want with a product they bought:

It’s unconstitutional because it breaks fair use. I can’t rip a DVD without breaking DMCA, yet I have the right to make legal backups of all my media.

In the case of the PS3, it’s a product, and as consumers we should be able to do whatever the hell we want with it. I can mod my car to make it go way faster than the speed limit, but I am not breaking any laws until I actually go over the speed limit. The Jailbreaking software adds functionality back to the PS3 that Sony stripped away, and no one should be put in jail for modding their hardware.

Voted equally insightful was this comment from Hephaestus concerning Twitter’s response to the government’s request for info on various Wikileaks volunteers. Hephaestus decided to make a larger prediction, noting that “this seems to be the year that the US Government will try to quash the 1st amendment and privacy on the internet”:

I wonder if this will work out better for the US government than it did for the record labels. I some how doubt it. With RIAA and the labels you had an annoyance. With the US government you have a world superpower that is a threat to the first amendment and free speech on the internet. Confiscating domain names, shutting down peoples access to financial services, violating the first, fourth, and fourteenth amenedments of the constitution, calls for the assasination of the head of a foreign news organization. All in all power blatantly abused at the highest levels of government.

With RIAA and the labels actions we have seen a slow gradual change in technology. With the US government getting involved in online affairs I expect to see a huge, and very fast increase in encryption usage and distributed systems. The words “Wake Up Call” come to mind.

I wonder who will win this battle over free speech, freedom to express our thoughts, and privacy on the internet? The billions of us or couple tens of thousand of them.

For the funniest comment, the runaway winner (by far), was on our post about California’s new higher copyright infringement fines, and the comment came from a non-registered user with the accurate username of Mr. Smarta** who broke out the sarcasm with his post:

Those numbers are incorrect. After careful counting and using systems of evaluation that are perfect and without contest, the actual number of jobs lost due to piracy is about 32.5 billion jobs last year. Got that??? Over five times the planet’s entire population was laid off!! You can’t contest that. Every single person was hired and fired over six times. My boss called me in and said “Sorry. We have to let you go. Piracy is rampant and cost you your job.” To which I replied “We sell engine blocks!!!” So there you have it. Someone trading a CD online cost some poor fast food employee his job because that one CD screwed up the burger he was making.

And $58,000,000,000??? What a load of crap. I’ll have you know that the actual loss last year alone was over three hundred times the gross domestic product. Got that?? Three hundred times of our stuff just suddenly was taken out and shipped overseas. Know what we have left now? Rocks!!! That’s it! Rocks, and maybe some sand somewhere. Piracy cost us everything the United States owned. I hope you’re happy now. Download one copy of the movie ‘Inception’, and suddenly some other country repo’s the entire continent. What a bummer…

Nicely done. Coming in second was a comment on our story concerning the World Erotic Art Museum suing Thomas Hawk for posting some photographs he took at the museum on Flickr. In its defense, the Museum noted that there was an “unspoken and unwritten understanding” that visitors wouldn’t post such photos online, to which a commenter named Burton questioned:

If the understanding is both unspoken and unwritten, how is it conveyed, mime?

And, in the honorable mention category, we have a comment from Crade, which scored the combined highest on both the insightful and funny scales, in discussing the TSA’s warning that wearing scanner resistant clothing means they’ll have to grope you:

“My favorite might be the undergarments with the 4th Amendment printed in metallic ink”

They should make some that say
“If you can read this, you are violating my rights”
or maybe
“Am I safe yet?”

And there you go… Everyone’s favorite comments of the week…

Filed Under:

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
113 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

and remember this

300,000 artists prolly had more then one tune
so you could be looking at as many as a million infringements and they were done COMMERCIALLY which should have had the rcmp step in and in the end if found guilty 20,000 FINE per infringement

YOU figure it out how much the record industry owes , no one has the song count.

NAMELESS ONE says:

OH and

THE US CONSTITUTION does not apply outside of the USA. JUST like the DMCA….
we have our own law just seems that the harper govt and rcmp do not want to charge hollywood when it violates it.

SO from this precedent we can determine that civilly commercial infringement is as low as 150$ per infringement to maybe as low as 75$ per infringement.

And criminally the 20,000 FINE per INFRINGEMENT no longer applies at all.

THANK YOU HOLLYWOOD im a go start selling autocad now.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Honestly, I don’t like some of the new content here. Favourite stories? Favourite comments? Does anybody want it? I certainly don’t, the only thing it does is pop up in my updates scanner and thus makes me come here just to see that nothing interesting was published.”

CwF + RtB stands for Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy. The connect with fans part is what mike is doing here. He is allowing the individuals here to engage the people that visit this site. He is practicing what he preaches … school is now out, now run along and go home and do your homework.

Rose M. Welch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

…the only thing it does is pop up in my updates scanner and thus makes me come here just to see that nothing interesting was published.

It’s all weekend extras (probably because people like myself were sad without Techdirt on the weekends). However, with that in mind, you can safely ignore any weekend updates.

See? Easy fix. 🙂

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Does anybody want it? I certainly don’t, the only thing it does is pop up in my updates scanner and thus makes me come here just to see that nothing interesting was published.”

I found it interesting. I have to wonder what ‘update scanner’ you’re using that can’t provide you with the title of the article before you’re forced to come here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I think you’re onto something here. Have you considered putting that on a T-Shirt? You can’t fit what you said on a T-shirt, but I think you can put what you meant.

The words “Paid To Troll” on a T-Shirt would be well received with my Bangalore Team, especially if they approve my capital request for the Hurricane 400 t-shirt cannon.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

‘I wonder what makes you think anybody is actually “forced to come here.”‘

I wonder what makes you think I intended it to be taken literally. I know my jokes aren’t funny, but they’re usually pretty obvious (unless they’re too British). I’m sorry if the image of someone being forced to visit Techdirt caused you any distress.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s funny. You’ve probably been reading this site for years and the *one* thing that Mike keeps saying over and over is RtB+CwF.

Now, here he is, practicing what he preaches and you act like he’s doing something *bad* by adding value to his fans?!

..and like a lightbulb going on, it is obvious to me that you aren’t a troll, you *honestly* don’t understand what Mike is talking about. Very sad.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

you mean those ones people hit the ‘report’ button on for being excessively trollish or spammy? (or in some cases excessively repetitive and annoying, which is almost-but-not-quite the same thing)

mentioning them would be rather … redundant. kinda the anti-thesis of the entire point of the report button, really…
(and the ‘report’ed ones are still there. people can click and read ’em if they want to.)

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Suggestion

I’ve noticed that if you browse past the first page of comments on a profile then the insightful/funny icons don’t show up. I would find the feature more useful if you could keep track of it on older posts. The first page seems to use a special style unique to the profile page while anything older seems to use the same style as the articles.

Anonymous Coward says:

Vote? What Vote?

“We’ve had these voting buttons on comments for a while, which will show when certain comments are voted to be particularly insightful or funny,”

What a joke, there is no “voting” process. It’s just Mike marking which comments he finds “insightful or funny” and then claiming they were “voted” that way.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?

Ignoring the fact that proving a negative is very difficult: We have buttons that say “Insightful” “Funny” and “Report”. Occam’s Razor says that we should tend to the simplest answer until we can trade simplicity for a more thorough answer. Thus, the simplest answer is that the buttons are there to allow us to vote.

If you have proof that they do not work as expected, feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.

If clicking something has no measurable effect for you, it could be as simple as that comment did not get whatever arbitrary number of votes required to get the flag. See above for why this answer is the more likely answer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Vote? What Vote?

Ignoring the fact that proving a negative is very difficult:

No need to prove a negative. Just prove in the positive that the voting system is on the up and up.

Occam’s Razor says that we should tend to the simplest answer until we can trade simplicity for a more thorough answer.

OK, the simplest answer is that the buttons don’t do much.

If you have proof that they do not work as expected, feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.

If you have proof that they really do anything, “feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.”

Some people are really gullible enough to believe anything Mike tells them.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Vote? What Vote?

“No need to prove a negative. Just prove in the positive that the voting system is on the up and up.”

Can we get some more sophisticated trolls please? Resorting to an argument from ignorance is desperate. You don’t know whether the voting system is ‘on the up and up’. Using this lack of knowledge, you assert that the voting system is not ‘on the up and up’. Given that both of us are at least equally ignorant, where does the burden of proof lie? General convention (and good sense) places the burden on the person making the assertion, which would be you.

Further, it is taken for granted that the system is ‘on the up and up’ because while we do not know whether Mike is deceiving us, we can presume that he would claim not to. Given that he definitely knows then you would have to make the further assertion that Mike is deceiving us. So, not one, but two assertions for which you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

So, I see your two ad ignorantums and raise you an ad hominem: troll.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Vote? What Vote?

General convention (and good sense) places the burden on the person making the assertion, which would be you.

Um, no, that would be Mike, if he’s asserting that the system is “on the up and up.” Otherwise, he’s just making stuff up.

Further, it is taken for granted that the system is ‘on the up and up’ because while we do not know whether Mike is deceiving us, we can presume that he would claim not to.

Now you’re making unfounded assumptions. Of course, I can see how you’d like to think that your own brownie points were awarded based on some type of merit rather than Mike’s whims, huh?

So, I see your two ad ignorantums and raise you an ad hominem: troll.

You can’t handle the truth.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Vote? What Vote?

People have, on several occasions, accused you of being a paid shill for some industry or another. I’ve always thought that was going a little too far and not worth bringing up without any evidence – but now I see that you approve, and that you believe the burden of proof is on you.

So, please prove to us that your comments are your own and that you are not paid to be here. You’re asserting that these are your real opinions, so prove it – otherwise you’re just making stuff up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Vote? What Vote?

People have, on several occasions, accused you of being a paid shill for some industry or another.

Huh? You apparently think that AC is one person. That’s funny. Please, give us more of your great internet wisdom…

So, please prove to us that your comments are your own and that you are not paid to be here. You’re asserting that these are your real opinions, so prove it – otherwise you’re just making stuff up.

Likewise!

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Vote? What Vote?

No, there are a handful of ACs who face that accusation and unless I’m mixing up my random avatars, that’s one of them.

And yeah dummy, I know it’s a stupid request and totally unfair – that was my whole point. He is for some reason challenging Mike to prove that the comment voting system isn’t rigged, even though that’s a wildly paranoid and unfounded theory – so I’m letting him taste his own stupid medicine.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Vote? What Vote?

“Um, no, that would be Mike, if he’s asserting that the system is “on the up and up.” Otherwise, he’s just making stuff up.”

So, by not saying anything he’s making stuff up? I think I preferred the logic in your previous post.

“Now you’re making unfounded assumptions. Of course, I can see how you’d like to think that your own brownie points were awarded based on some type of merit rather than Mike’s whims, huh?”

If you want to believe that I crave attention from Mike then that’s OK. I’m sure he’s as comfortable as I am with the ‘complete stranger who happens to frequent his website’ nature of our relationship.

“You can’t handle the truth.”

That you might really be unbelievably ignorant rather than a troll? If that’s the truth then I’d rather stay ignorant myself, thanks.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?

As far as I know Mike has not revealed the threshold of votes on either button necessary to make a badge appear. I believe the goal was to make it less of a war-of-numbers and more of way for readers to simply and casually respond to comments that resonate with them.

But if you want to assume nefarious intent for no good reason, I can’t stop you. I have no idea what would be gained by rigging it, though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Vote? What Vote?

As far as I know Mike has not revealed the threshold of votes on either button necessary to make a badge appear.

That’s easy, it only takes one vote: Mike’s.

“…I can’t stop you.”

Too bad, huh?

I have no idea what would be gained by rigging it, though.

Are you really that naive? Do you really have to have such obvious things explained to you or are you just feigning ignorance? Alright, here you go (just to see what excuse you’ll come up with next): How about putting forth one’s own personal opinion while claiming that that it’s actually the opinion of a bunch of “voters” instead? A lot of politicians would LOVE to be able to get away with one (doesn’t keep them from trying, though).

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Vote? What Vote?

“How about putting forth one’s own personal opinion while claiming that that it’s actually the opinion of a bunch of “voters” instead?”

To what end? ‘Hey, look what is proved by a bunch of anonymous people on my blog voting this comment most insightful’. Oh my Spaghetti! What power we have given him.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Vote? What Vote?

Yes, thanks AC, I can understand how rigging the votes would allow that, but I fail to see what purpose it would serve. How would faking the consent of a handful of commenters (and faking their comedic impact) actually benefit Techdirt or Mike in any meaningful way? Do you picture the team sitting all day long watching the comments, saying “ooh, this guy deserves an LOL badge, let’s give him one!”

I’m not coming up with excuses, I’m just refusing to follow you down a silly path of grasping at straws. You are so desperate to discredit Techdirt that you are slinging accusations that don’t make any sense. It’s as if you said oh god, there’s nothing much in this post for me to criticize since it’s just aggregated comments, what can I do? What can I claim? I know! I’ll accuse him of just making it all up.

Are you really so paranoid that you ACTUALLY think the votes for the pointless, semi-fun little comment badges are rigged? I find that quite difficult to believe, and quite unhealthy if true.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Vote? What Vote?

Yes, thanks AC, I can understand how rigging the votes would allow that, but I fail to see what purpose it would serve. How would faking the consent of a handful of commenters (and faking their comedic impact) actually benefit Techdirt or Mike in any meaningful way?

Then I suppose you would also agree that it would serve no purpose for me to make anything up either or that the poll showing that 90% of Techdirt readers agree with me was somehow rigged. Good, I’m glad we got that out of the way.

Do you picture the team sitting all day long watching the comments, saying “ooh, this guy deserves an LOL badge, let’s give him one!”

Do you picture Mike “sitting all day long watching the comments” at all? Nah, we know that he never reads them, does he? (sarcasm)

I’m not coming up with excuses, I’m just refusing to follow you down a silly path of grasping at straws. You are so desperate to discredit Techdirt that you are slinging accusations that don’t make any sense. It’s as if you said oh god, there’s nothing much in this post for me to criticize since it’s just aggregated comments, what can I do? What can I claim? I know! I’ll accuse him of just making it all up.

Huh? By your own reasoning, what purpose would any of that serve? How would it profit me?

Are you really so paranoid…

Oh boy, there you go again. Enough with the name-calling, already.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Vote? What Vote?

So… Techdirt is either a) a community of people who, for the most part, don’t agree with you on these issues and thus vote differently from you, or b) an Orwellian police state where all thought and expression is manipulated by the godlike Michael Masnick as he cackles away on his throne

are you really prepared to say you are 100% sure it’s the latter and not the former?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Vote? What Vote?

So… Techdirt is either a) a community of people who, for the most part, don’t agree with you on these issues and thus vote differently from you…

According to the poll, 90% *agree* with me. You must be in that other 10%.

the godlike Michael Masnick as he cackles away on his throne

You’re the first to suggest here that Mike is godlike or has a throne. Wow, a true fanboy.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Vote? What Vote?

You’re the first to suggest here that Mike is godlike or has a throne.

Yeah, I was totally stating that as my own opinion, and it was no way meant as a mockingly exaggerated version of yours. In fact there was measurably no sarcasm in that statement, just like in this one. I considered putting “/completelyliteral” at the end, but I see you figured it out anyway.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Vote? What Vote?

What a joke, there is no “voting” process. It’s just Mike marking which comments he finds “insightful or funny” and then claiming they were “voted” that way.

Just to clarify: this is simply not true. I mean, why would I even bother setting up the whole voting process then? I could just as easily set up a post that says “these are my favorite comments.” The voting system does work, and the comments selected were based on the actual votes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?

Just to clarify: this is simply not true. I mean, why would I even bother setting up the whole voting process then? I could just as easily set up a post that says “these are my favorite comments.”

One possible reason was given above. Try reading.

By the way, the votes for the above poll have been counted and the results are in!

Percent of Techdirt readers who think the comment voting system is rigged: 90%
Percent of those who consider themselves fan-boys: 0%
Percent who dropped out of high school: 0%

Of the 10% who don’t think it’s rigged, 90% admit to being either fan-boys, high school drop outs, or both.

Hey, those were the votes, so you know it has to be true!

Anonymous Coward says:

Poll

Here’s a poll for Techdidrt readers. Do you think the voting system here is rigged? To vote, just send an email to ixun2cdjwsahzbl@jetable.org with VOTE as the subject and three words in the body. Each of those three words can be either YES or NO to answer the two following questions in order:

Is the Techdirt voting system rigged? YES or NO
Are you a Techdirt Fanboi? YES or NO
Did you drop out before graduating high school? YES or NO

I’ll let you know how the Techdirt readers vote later.

Todd Eastman (profile) says:

The problem with the voting buttons

I don’t use the voting options very often because they are unbalanced. With the choices of “insightful,” “funny,” and “report” you have two positive choices, and one really negative choice. My suggestion is to add “disagree” and to remove “report” and replace it with “inappropriate.” This would provide readers with a more balanced list of options, while providing you with statistics to facilitate the removal of abusive commenters.

Anonymous Coward says:

Vote? What Vote?

Yeah, I was totally stating that as my own opinion,

Fair enough.

….it was no way meant as a mockingly exaggerated version of yours.

That’s good, but I don’t engage in such worship.

In fact there was measurably no sarcasm in that statement, just like in this one.

If you say so.

I considered putting “/completelyliteral” at the end, but I see you figured it out anyway.

I bet you like to joke about bombs in airports too, don’t you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Vote? What Vote?

It’s not name calling. I am making a very clear statement of my opinion: the people accusing Mike of rigging the votes are being paranoid. I stand by that.

When you attack the messenger, you’re engaging in name calling, even if you stand by it. I’ve seen people (often in a group) call other people terrible names and “stand by it”, too. I’ve got news for you “Marcus” (or whatever your real name is), standing by it doesn’t make it right, especially when you choose to it anonymously on the Internet.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...