Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the you-are-just-the-entertainment dept
Why do you guys have such a hard time believing that normal, hard working, paying people also come here?Not surprisingly, the guy who made the original comment chose not to respond.
I work in the aerospace manufacturing industry. We make parts for those airplanes you jet around the country in.
We have nothing to do with watching movies (productivity loss), or listening to music (safety hazard).
We make parts that go into airplanes.
I read those laws.
Our industries don't even come close to touching each other, and yet, your laws were going to make my job as an IT Administrator way harder, with zero compensation for it.
Your laws were going to make it harder for communication between our customers and vendors.
We already have problems just from trying to keep information secure, so the hackers and terrorists can't get in and figure out how to build these planes...or how they are made to figure out how to attack best.
Not to mention the traceability required when performing that kind of manufacturing....to make sure the damn things don't fall out of the sky....
And yet, you wanted to pass laws that would affect the very thing that would allow us to be able to communicate this information in a timely manner....ALL because YOU don't want to evolve, and came in late to the game.
I am not Google.
I am an American Citizen, working in an American factory, providing American manufactured parts (metal to finished part) to companies across the world.
You, sir, are just the entertainment.
Coming in second was a comment from That Anonymous Coward, responding to the news that ISPs will be ready to start acting as Hollywood's internet copyright cops come July, by turning on their six strikes plan.
Actually its time to sue the telcos.As for the editor's choice awards for most insightful, we'll give the first one to Chosen Reject who had quite an excellent explanation of not just the difference between copying and stealing, but also what the mindset is of those who think copying can be stealing:
If they want to take actions based on mere accusations while taking peoples money, then they obviously do not need rights of way or easements. I think its time they start paying for every pole, and returning all public funds they used to expand their networks.
They are there to provide a service to the people paying them, not some lobbyist group with no actual legal standing in the contract between the customers or the municipalities.
As has been shown time and time again, this process of detecting infringement is flawed on a serious level. To take away a service that has been paid for without any legal basis seems like a slam dunk class action lawsuit against every ISP taking part in this. This would be akin to Ford/GM/Chrysler coming and taking away your car based on a neighbor calling in they saw a blue car speeding and you own a blue car.
The process which makes every attempt to look fair, limits the responses to these letters to a very select few choices, all of them leaving out the defenses offered legally and ignoring the best answer of misidentification. It is more of the corporations are always right and you must give into them.
I could see a court ending someones "right" to internet service, but this avoids the pesky hassle of the law being involved at all. This will lead to more things happening at the ISP level that the end customer will end up subsidizing to make work to keep the **AA's from suing, despite not having the standing to do so.
I look forward to the FCC explaining how this is all legal and correct, with much spin and feigning ignorance of what is happening.
IP Rights and Corporate Rights keep trumping the rights of the people. Its time to vote with our wallets, and with lawsuits. There needs to be a clear loud response like the antiSOPA/PIPA campaign that the balance has shifted to far and we are unwilling to accept it any more.
I'm going to share my thoughts with you, but I'm going to do so under your definition of stealing. That is, you need to pay me for them or I will declare that you stole them. Why? Because if you read further you will have my thoughts without having paid for it, so you aren't entitled to them.The second editor's choice award goes to a great comment from an Anonymous Coward, responding to RIAA and MPAA execs talking about how their "opponents" beat them on the SOPA debate. This AC noted the root of the problem:
Stealing is wrong, we both agree on that, but apparently we disagree on why stealing is wrong. I (and almost every other person out there) thinks stealing is wrong because you are taking something away from someone else has the right to that thing. You apparently think stealing is wrong because someone acquired something.
Did you spot the difference? You hate that people have something, whereas most human beings hate that someone took something away from someone else. We dislike the taking away, you just dislike the having.
Stealing is stealing, copying is copying. In both situations someone ends up with something. In only one situation does someone lost something. That you equate the two shows that you don't like people having things.
If they stopped using the word "opponent" and instead used the word "customer" they might have an ah-ha moment.Moving over to the funny side of the comments, we had a bunch of comments at the top of the votes all clustered very closely together, but eking out a first place finish was, amazingly, another commenter responding to the same critic (bob) who wrote the comment that got someone the win for most insightful. So, critic bob gets extra "inducement" points this week for creating comments so ridiculous that they inspired responses that won both the most insightful comment award and the funniest. Way to go bob! Thanks for contributing.
The specific comment that won was an Anonymous Coward's response to bob's incorrect belief that emailing the MPAA/RIAA a scanned image of a dollar bill was a form of counterfeiting. The AC summarized what most of us were thinking pretty succinctly:
And suddenly a thousand professors of economics, finance, logic, and law cried out in terror.Coming in second was Suja on the story of the UK agreeing to extradite a student to the US for his site that had links to content, some of which was infringing. Another regular critic (you're off the hook on this one, bob) said the lesson in all of this was "Don't Steal Content." Which is funny, because Richard O'Dwyer didn't. Suja explained more specifically:
linking is stealing too now?For editor's choice, we actually have a comment that only works if you read a set of three comments together (from two different Anonymous Cowards) in discussing Yahoo's decision to sue Facebook for patent infringement:
what ISN'T stealing these days?
tell you what... DON'T MAKE POSTS, you're stealing my fuckin' braincells
AC 1: Yahoo will be a great case study in the future (if it isn't already).Ah, trademark humor.
AC 2: you forgot the "!"
AC 1: You're right. Yahoo will be a great! case study in the future.
And the second editor's choice award also refers to the Richard O'Dwyer case, and one AC's questioning the priorities of law enforcement:
The streets are now clean from the scum, and we can all feel safer tonight knowing this criminal won't threaten the people of the world with unauthorized linking.And, on that note, we'll be back tomorrow with more shivers to send down your spines...
Can you imagine, he was actually linking to videos on the Internet. VIDEOS! AT WHO KNOWS HOW MANY FRAMES PER-SECOND!
Sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it.