<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Latest Techdirt Comments</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<description>Easily digestible tech news....</description>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c202</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:41 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c202</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I think these issues can be a bit more subtle. It's hard to tell (I haven't watched all three videos yet to know) the extent that the person recording is associated with the group. I can see why the cop would ask the person in part two to either sit down or stand further away otherwise the cop would be unable to turn his back to the cameraman (who can then potentially attack the cop or remove evidence from the scene when no one is moving). It's also hard to tell what previous engagements exist, there could have been prior contexts where this person has had issues with the cops on similar issues and that's why the cops just want this person out of the way.<br />
<br />
Also, if the person is not associated with the group there could be an issue of privacy if the camera holder is really close to the cops discussing the matter. Perhaps the group being questioned by the cops don't want cameras on them. Granted, they are in a public place but when being questioned by cops they maybe asked private questions or questions that they may not want on tape, especially if those questions involve giving the cops useful information on other people who may retaliate.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c743</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gwiz]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:41 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c743</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> Attacks of all kinds are about the only response. </i><br />
<br />
<br />
Bullshit, Blue.<br />
<br />
You have been refuted so many times that it's becoming pathetic. Any argument that disproves what you say you simply ignore and pretend it doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
It must be getting pretty hard to type with your head buried that far in the sand.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c199</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:37 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c199</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I've often wondered... Would it be illegal to <em>tell</em> a cop that your cellphone is live-streaming and cloud-saving the footage, even if it wasn't? (Occurred to me after a scene in Cory Doctorow's Makers, when a journalist whose phone actually <em>is</em> doing that puts a cop on the spot -- "you're being watched live right now" -- and gets him to back down)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bad idea</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121101/03265320901/eff-reminds-us-that-open-wifi-isnt-bad-thing-should-actually-be-encouraged.shtml#c670</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[anonymous]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:06:55 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121101/03265320901/eff-reminds-us-that-open-wifi-isnt-bad-thing-should-actually-be-encouraged.shtml#c670</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If all of the bandwidth in the world was shared, people wouldn't have space for larger downloads because it would ALL be choked by EVERYONE. I like to download and watch videos and I like them quick.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c179</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymouse]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:04:58 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c179</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Finger guns are no laughing matter...<br />
<br />
<a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJzni-eqOiw' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJzni-eqOiw</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c158</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:04:25 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c158</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Watch part two of the video.<br />
<br />
<a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZkN2PFhAw' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZkN2PFhAw</a><br />
<br />
I'm not necessarily siding with the cops but the person recording this thing also seems to be annoying and possibly interfering.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c152</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:03:48 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c152</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Next they'll be arresting 7 year olds for throwing imaginary hand grenades.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1346</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:03:08 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1346</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Not intending to commit a crime is not a defense for committing a crime. Even if Scroll Kit weren't intending to monetize this, though they clearly are, the effect would be that they are actually benefitting commercially, directly from this promotional material. </i><br />
<br />
Commercial use is only part of one of the four factors used to determine fair use.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c144</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jessie]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:02:20 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c144</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Come on.  Have you seen pictures of these guns?  They are pointed down the length of the camera, coming out the top near where the old school antenas would be.  The cameras on most all phones are located on the front or back of the camera, not the top.  <a href='http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cell-phone-guns.shtml' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cell-phone-guns.shtml</a><br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I suspect we'll have to wait for a tragic event, probably involving the loss of life of a cell phone owner to see anything done to stop this.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1330</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:02:15 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1330</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> It's about using copyrighted content to promote a commercial service without permission. </i><br />
<br />
The point is that if it's fair use (and of course you can disagree about that) then permission isn't required.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1329</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:01:03 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1329</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Okay, not TechDirt but say The Daily Dish or Newsweek. How is what Scroll Kit did different than that scenario?</i><br />
<br />
It isn't different.  If they used a single article for demonstration purposes, it would have a pretty good fair use claim.  If they used all the articles, not so much.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1315</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:00:04 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1315</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>What if the roles were reversed, and it was the NYTimes demonstrating a new layout tool using some freelancer's piece without permission or compensation?</i><br />
<br />
That would make no difference.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c119</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:37 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c119</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A 5 year old was expelled from school or that one already.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c807</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:29 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c807</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> What I'm saying is sites need to get their security methods right. At the same time, Google claims to be a security backstop, yet they allow those URLs into their system.</i><br />
<br />
Google is saying robots.txt is a security measure?  If that's what you're saying, do you have a reference?  If not, what do you mean by security backstop?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Not just more...</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/18225323199/president-obama-is-troubled-about-chilling-effects-his-own-administration-is-causing-to-journalism.shtml#c553</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DCX2]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:59:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/18225323199/president-obama-is-troubled-about-chilling-effects-his-own-administration-is-causing-to-journalism.shtml#c553</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Let the record show that Obama's administration has prosecuted <b>twice</b> the number of people for espionage - 6 - as all other presidents combined - 3.<br />
<br />
In one term.  We still have another term to go!  Can he go for twelve?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c718</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[crade]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:58:22 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c718</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You forgot, imho the biggest reason:<br />
<br />
Because the actual musicians mostly all hate them for how badly they have always treated musicians in the past and have actual choices now.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c704</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:57:45 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c704</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[This isn't about morality, jackass. It's about accountability. <br />
<br />
Take something down (via DMCA) you don't own and you get your ass handed to you. Why can't the RIAA accept accountability for their actions, since it's the moral thing to do?<br />
<br />
We're wating, jackass.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c695</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[silverscarcat]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:56:43 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c695</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[So says the person attacking others.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>impeech him</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/18225323199/president-obama-is-troubled-about-chilling-effects-his-own-administration-is-causing-to-journalism.shtml#c547</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:56:21 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/18225323199/president-obama-is-troubled-about-chilling-effects-his-own-administration-is-causing-to-journalism.shtml#c547</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[did anyone hear and read what the president said and I qoute<br />
 <br />
"I'm troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable." <br />
He's only troubled that it bothers the journalists? he doesn't say that he is troubled it happened just that hes trouble by how they feel about what has happened.  This guy needs to be impeeched. There is no way he is protecting our constitution!]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Turnabout is fair play</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c694</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[dennis deems]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 08:56:18 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c694</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If this is the case, then issuing a fraudulent DMCA takedown ought to be punishable by a HEFTY fine.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>