Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the quoth-the-righthaven dept
As we sit among this midnight weary, seeing the storm so dark and dreary,Bravo! Now, can you top that next week?
The cloud that looms like clouds along the distant shore.
I was nodding, not quite napping, holding covers closer, wrap, wrap, wrapping.
Go to a keyboard, with a tap, tap, tapping, facing my chamber door.
I glanced on the internet for the Righthaven score.
I search for their stories, nothing more.
I read the stories from December, about seizures I can't quite remember...
Along with lawsuits that brought tears galore.
Such was the likes of Righthaven, even FUDBuster, who thought himself a maven,
"This suing potential does not need savin'!", tapping, tapping near my chamber door.
"Tis the truth, Sirrah." he implored. "The truth and nothing more!"
Ah, distinctly I remember, Righthaven lawsuits in November.
Their business model was weakening, bleeding on the floor.
Eagerly they wished for tomorrow, to extend their distasteful sorrow,
intent, now intent on reaching for the door.
The storm clouds reached for the shore,
Righthaven had determination, it seemed, forever more.
But as we see it merrily true, their model of business is run through.
Their model lays skewered, impaled as if by a boar.
"Ah sirrah, you are mistaken, here you are, have more bacon,
The route you have undertaken, Lies broken like a ship on the shore.
Your business model and intimidation are no more.
And so, like the Raven, of Poe's lore, I say and quote...
Coming in second on the insightful list (by a single vote over third place!) was a comment from lavi d on a different Righthaven post. This one concerned the question of whether or not those who had already settled with Righthaven might now seek their money back. That post ended with a quote from Steve Gibson, CEO of Righthaven, which quite clearly suggested that anyone who came seeking their money back might be targeted in new lawsuits. lavi pointed out another potential legal issue in the other direction:
“The statute of limitations,” he said, “is three years for copyright infringement.”For editor's choice, we have two other top scoring comments. First up, was one from an Anonymous Coward, talking about the rise of internet hacking and/or vigilante groups such as Lulzsec and Anonymous (even if those two now hate each other). Despite all the attention, this AC wanted to put it all in perspective:
What is it for fraud?
I'm fascinated, appalled, and kinda...psyched about these groups, strange as it may sound. Even stranger - I, personally, don't feel any great fear of them. Maybe I should, I don't know. But my gut isn't telling me I should. I don't get that twist at the pit of my stomach like I do when I read about banks foreclosing on mortgages they don't own, laws being considered like COICA or PIPA, or whatever round of TSA bullshittery is happening this week.And, finally, we a comment from a new community member, going by the name LadyMacbeth, responding to the odd compulsion a particular commenter on this site has. That commenter, while anonymous, is a self-confessed DC "policy circle" insider, who is deeply involved in getting things like PROTECT IP turned into law. His commenting style is to be about as insulting as possible, and lately he keeps trying to associate anyone who doesn't support PROTECT IP as being child porn supporters. It's these sorts of smear campaigns that are the reason why people hate politicians. I mean, there's simply no having a serious discussion on the issues with someone like that. That particular Anonymous commenter has been trying to exploit the child porn issue, but claiming that by even just bringing up the famous case of CDT v. Pappert (pdf), in which a very poorly thought out internet filtering bill was declared unconstitutional due to its massive unintended collateral damage, it means you approve of child porn. For anyone aware of the case, this is a preposterous and obnoxious claim, but apparently this commenter thinks it makes for good smear material (though, it really just seems to suggest a lot more about this particular person). Either way, Lady Macbeth decided to take him down with some facts and logic:
I fear my government and its actions far more than I fear anything like Anonymous or Lulzsec. Is that weird? Or does my gut know better than my brain?
It appears to me--:) although I'm new here so I could be wrong-- that child porn is the AC watchword-- One thing has nothing to do with the other, it's simply bullshit rhetoric designed to be as inflammatory and as diversionary as possible and it's working.Moving over to the funny side of things, as you know, Jay's comment already swept the awards for that, but coming in second place was MrWilson's initial response to my post about Righthaven's big copyright loss. Wilson saw my biases clearly:
AC has no clear and defensible argument. Even if the site DOES make money from the posting of those links.. it is clearly a discussion board/index of sorts.. and we could argue that Google is much more so. Albeit they are an index,they are also a chat software, and google docs are being used to link to things that are in violation too.. we could make the argument... could you find all 12 million Warez sites if you couldn't google them and get there to get your free/stolen/pirated software. It's all in how you see it, but since Google is pretty much sacrosanct, I'm guessing we won't see any infringement suits over their warez ihdexing and illegal download links.
The entire proceeding--hijacking sites-- is as unconstitutional as it gets, and child porn has nothing to do with it. In fact. I bet you can FIND child porn sites out there that aren't being seized.. the reality is that the media companies are holding the government by the throat because they are big donation factories LOL.
Realistically, if you REALLY even care about child pornography, then consider this... probably a thousand child porn sites escaped notice because the ICE was too wrapped up in kissing the corporate @ss and pulling down a few illicit tv show links..
As a Pennsylvanian who looked pretty closely at the child porn issue, it wasn't only an issue of child porn and thank goodness the judge was smart enough to know that.
You can not seize a property without due process. With no advance notice, no commentary at all, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Your website IS personal property or business property. It should be subject to the same protections under the law that your home is. Once we allow ANY property to be seized without notice, we open a door that should not be opened.
If free speech and a few links offends you,make you cry wolf.. or in your case.. child porn... I'm guessing you're part of some lock stepping media company,who pays you to suppress your common sense because people who do even a modicum of their own thinking, realize that sometimes you question the government and challenge their behavior--when it's wrong, it's wrong.
Geez Masnick, why do you consistently come out in praise of judges who rule against copyright extortionists?!?Just one editor's choice this week, because I like to shake things up that way. This one comes from DannyB, who channeled some Joseph Heller in explaining how it was that ICE assistant director Erik Barnett could pretend that no owners of seized domains were challenging the seizures, despite knowing that the owners of five domains have been trying to challenge the seizures. ICE spokespeople had explained that Barnett meant one kind of challenge, as opposed to the challenge that's actually being done. This didn't make sense to me, but DannyB broke it down:
Why do you support taking the caviar from the mouths of their children?
Any average asylum inmate can easily explain this. Barnett did not misspeak.Indeed. It does give me plenty to think about. And you too. Or you can start thinking about next week's comments. Until then...
Barnett is talking specifically about the type of challenges that count as having been filed. That's what the seized domain owners are failing to file. Instead the seized domain owners are filing the type of challenge Barnett is not talking about, specifically, challenges that do not count as having been filed.
None of these challenges have any specific type of name or designation. The process for filing a challenge does not allow you to select which type of challenge you wish to file: either
(1) the type that counts as having been filed, or
(2) the type that does not count as having been filed.
If you file a challenge of the 2nd type, it doesn't count and Barnett is still correct and did not misspeak.
Once the seized domain owners actually file the first type of challenge that Barnett is talking about (the ones that count as having been filed) rather than any other type of challenge (the ones which do not count as having been filed) then those challenges will count as having been filed.
It all makes sense.
I hope that cleared it up.
(don't think about it too much or you may end up in an asylum yourself.)