Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   The eejit (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 3:50am

   
   

   And coming up next on World's Stupidest Criminals, a forger who filed a patent infringment claim on his way of making money.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Nicedoggy, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:00am

   
   

   This is just priceless.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Jim McGinn, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:06am

   
   

   Streisand effect in 3...2...1...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:30am

   
   

   pretty sure I saw in the cliff notes version of the bible that copyright was one of the most evil deeds a man could attempt.
   
   So the agenda of encouraging hatred towards copyright must be on the right path, correct?
   
   Yea. Oh, and everything should be free. Like, go make me a sandwich. And stop complaining about it. If you don't like working on a sandwich that I want to consume right now, then clearly you have a problem with your business model. ok, fine.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:34am

   
   

   Typical troll. YouTube video equates to sandwiches.
   
   At least get on the topic.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Nicedoggy, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:37am

   
   

   Re:

   Bum go find a baby for rent that you can use to get more money when begging.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:42am

   
   

   Re:

   1) you can't copyright a sandwich... perhaps the recipe for making it, but not the sandwich itself.
   
   2) My business model doesn't involve making sandwich's. So your demands seem strangely out of place. Unless... are you a Troll sir (or madam as the case may be)?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   senshikaze (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:51am

   
   

   Re: Re:

   1) you can't copyright a recipe:
   http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:14am

   
   

   Re:

   And after the break, the story of the bank robber that tried to patent his business model:
   
   Mr. B.R. Bank Robber: Yeah, my business models is pretty simple: I steal money from banks and try not to get caught. It's a real no brainer.
   
   But major financial institutions complained about the patent saying that there is already loads of prior art:
   
   Scumbag-uh-Economist: Did you see all those economic meltdowns in the past few years? We've been doing this for ages and getting away with it, so there's plenty of prior art. The USPTO should carefully consider this, because this patent could ruin an entire industry that is based around generating money out of doing absolutely nothing other than move other people's money around - the very basis of our economy!
   
   Stay tuned for more developments.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Gracey (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:15am

    
    

    ...only in Canada, eh?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Schmoo, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:20am

    
    

    Er, what? I think you'll find the names passed on by Google from the notices will be along the lines of John Doe, John Smith, etc.
    
    Abuse of copyright law? yes. Stupid? I see no reason to assume so... more info required.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:25am

    
    

    Re:

    They still have the IP addresses

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:28am

    
    

    Re:

    You must not have been in Chicago in the mid-90's....

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:33am

    
    

    Sci-Fi Future!

    Imagine a (not unlikely) future where this could happen. Give (some) people "representational rights" or some such legalistic piffle to allow them to control how and when they appear in the press. Then, use those "property rights" to leverage a DRM system, installed by law in all cameras, to keep just anyone from taking a picture of a "Rightsholder". Those Rightsholders would quickly become a privileged class, a kind of computer-enforced aristocracy.
    
    And, given the really-o truly-o inability of DRM to work perfectly, it would enable some lower class people, who bear a weird, not-always-humanly-discernable resemblance to a Rightsholder, to almost magically disappear from images. Including Police Cameras. Which would lead a small fraction of them, the Ghosts in the Machine, to live a life of crime.
    
    There, great book plot idea, yours for free!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:39am

    
    

    The amusing thing is that with Canadian privacy laws, the information gained from these submissions may not be allowed in court.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Liz, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:51am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    IP addresses aren't conclusive proof either since they can be easily spoofed.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    -, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:55am

    
    

    Re:

    Yeah, the whole post is nonsense. Unless the people who send takedown requests are stupid, there's no additional risk of identification.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Kaden (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 5:57am

    
    

    I can state with absolute certainty that Vancouver is home to the stupidest criminals in all of creation.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Greg G (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 6:09am

    
    

    Re:

    If Google were smart, and I think they are, anyone complaining and wanting something taken down would be denied if giving a name such as John Doe, Jane Smith, unless conclusively proven that that is, indeed, their real name.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 6:52am

    
    

    Re:

    Oh Cana-duh?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 6:55am

    
    

    Re:

    with Canadian privacy laws, the information gained from these submissions may not be allowed in court.

    
    
    [citation needed]

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    The eejit (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 7:35am

    
    

    Re: Sci-Fi Future!

    I see what you did thar! -.-

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Michael, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    
    

    be careful

    Some of the rioting was organised... you don't want to be in the police report as having identified the wrong rioter if you live in Vancouver... the triads are vengeful. Anonymous tips are far safer.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    jimbo, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    
    

    so copyright law has never been abused before then?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Trails (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 8:25am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    Um, what scumbag economists?
    
    Economists had NOTHING to do with the meltdown. It was analysts and investors practicing varying amounts of deceit and doublethink.
    
    Economists are all about modelling, it's much more abstract. They don't get to play with actual money (unless they start a highly succesful blog, then mansions, lamborghinis and lingerie models).

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Schmoo, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 9:03am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    OK, if Big G is smart, they'll catch numpties like me who put no thought into their fake names. What about the ones with a bit more imagination?
    
    As an aside - just curious - is there a legal issue with singling out some people for a more thorough vetting than others based on a name? I mean, what constitutes a fake name is somewhat subjective, isn't it? And some people are going to take offence if their real name triggers a you-must-be-joking type response. Even if it's not a genuine concern, you've still gotta watch the legal trolls, right? Won't somebody please think of Randy Baumgardner!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    Joe, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 9:19am

    
    

    Not to interrupt the hens clucking, but I'd like to see a bit more proof this actually happened. The video in question here was a guy getting a nut shot from a tear gas canister, not a looter. There was a casual sidebar that other protesters are making takedown requests but nothing sourced.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    Miff (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 11:39am

    
    

    Out of curiosity

    Has anyone ever been prosecuted for perjury for filing a false DMCA complaint?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    These people were caught rioting on video. It's safe to assume they aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    Fred von Lohmann (profile), Jul 11th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

    
    

    triply stupid

    Generally speaking, copyright is owned by the person taking the video. Hence, if you're in the video, you're generally not the copyright owner (unless you hired the cameraman).

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment