from the no-subject dept
Moving on... topping the list of most insight was this "no subject" comment from Zakida Paul in response to the latest news on the Megaupload trial farce:
The only one who has come out of this in any positive light is Kim Dotcom. The farce of the whole case has pushed pushed public opinion in his favour, which is the opposite of what the entertainment industries and governments wanted.Given Kim Dotcom's background and general reputation prior to this lawsuit... the fact that he's the one coming out of it in a positive light is really quite stunning -- and may be the biggest failure of them all when it comes to this case. How do you take someone with a terrible reputation, some questionable business practices... and make them look good? As almost always seems to happen, the folks who pursue these kinds of legal claims never seem to think through the the response to their initial move. They must be some of the worst chess players in the world.
The NZ government look like America's bitch bowing to pressure from foreign governments.
The US government's reputation as the world bully has been solidified in their eagerness to do anything to appease big business.
The entertainment industries look even more like petulant children whining about big bad technology.
The various law enforcement agencies look like incompetent fools who can't organise a proper legal investigation.
Coming in second, is a simple ("no subject") comment from an Anonymous Coward in response to the story of how former Copyright Register Ralph Oman thinks that any new technology that impacts copyrighted content must be assumed illegal until Congress gives its approval for it. As the AC noted:
Now here is a perfect example of Copyright stopping innovation.For editor's choice... I'm actually going to post a series of comments responding to that same story about Oman's wacky comments. All are on the same general theme, which hopefully make the point. First up, DannyB's historical take:
Technologies such as Gutenberg's printing press should have to apply to the Pope and the King for permission to exist. Wouldn't want to rock the boat with disruptive new technologies.Next up, an Anonymous Coward's take on the same theme:
Sorry, Mr Ford. Motorized carriages are just too disruptive for the horse and buggy business. They could destabilize the economy. We can't give you approval to build the factory. Try China, I hear they have cheap labor.Same AC comes back with more:
Sorry, Mister Bell. Your telephone system could be disastrous for the telegraphy business. We can't allow that.Then Tunnen took two of the ones above, and added two more:
We're sorry Ford, your Model-T will be disastrous for the horse and cart industry.I'll stop there, but I think you get the idea...
We're sorry Edison, your light bulb will be disastrous for the candle industry.
We're sorry Gutenberg, your printing press will be disastrous to the scribing industry.
We're sorry modern science, your thinking will be disastrous to the alchemy industry. =P
Moving over to the funny stuff. We've got ComputerAddict with the (very) narrow victory with his comment concerning the US military declaring Wikileaks an enemy of the US:
[This comment has been censored due to fear of becoming the enemy]You should have seen the original comment!
Coming in second was something of a meta comment by Beech, taking a line out of Tim Geigner's post about Portugal realizing that personal file sharing was legal, and saying that it was so funny that it deserved to be voted funniest. And many of you agreed:
"Sure, that makes sense. Everyone knows if you're looking to avoid having to send letters and do paperwork, becoming a lawyer is the way to go. "Man. We gave Tim yesterday's coveted "favorites of the week" (the first three-peater), plus he even wins funniest comment on a comment he didn't even make... People: Tim's ego is already overcrowding our office space (despite the fact that he lives 2,000 miles away). Do we really want to encourage that kind of thing (okay, the answer is that, yes, yes we do).
Just decided that this quote deserves a shot at the "Funniest/Most Insightful." Tim for the win!
Editor's choice time. No Tims allowed. First up, we've got Grey Ferret jumping in with a comment on the Copyright Office's investigation into whether or not we should establish "resale rights" (i.e., a way for artists to get paid again and again every time their work is resold) for visual artists. GF cuts to the heart of the matter to show why this kind of "incentive" is clearly needed:
This is obviously needed since it will provide incentive for people to FINALLY start creating visual art in the U.S. Once this incentive is in place, I wonder who will become the first American visual artist??? Exciting times....Exciting times indeed. And that brings us to our final funny comment. On our story about a hospital tech deciding not to patent his special lanyard that protected hospital staff from being strangled, some took issue with the idea that this invention might even be patentable, citing some prior art. However, an Anonymous Coward noted how this tech's invention might distinguish itself in a way that could be patentable:
Maybe his have rounded corners.May all your inventions have rounded corners. Back tomorrow with more...