<?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: No interviews</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c137</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jesse]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:54:26 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c137</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Don't talk to police without a [good] lawyer.<br />
<br />
Legal scholars continued to be baffled by the sheer number of people who willingly implicate themselves.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c578</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:48:48 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c578</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Point out by quoting where the letter identifies a single specific problem with the proposals. It does not mention any proposal in the treaty, but just attacks it, rather like you attack Mike.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Miranda??</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c136</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[RyanNerd]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:48:41 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c136</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do or say may falsified, editorialized, or misinterpreted.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Simple Answer</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c134</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:44:53 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c134</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[This is one of the best videos I've ever seen.<br />
<br />
Never say a word to any law enforcement official. Ever. It can come back to bite you in ways you could never imagine. You have a right to remain silent. Exercise it.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c129</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:44:51 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c129</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Illinois state had an unusually high number (compared to other states) of people convicted murder later being freed by DNA proving their innocence when the technology was invented and put into common use.<br />
<br />
Know what their state legislature did to rectify the problem? They required ALL police interrogations be recorded, because of how useful of such videos have proven to be at both getting incriminating evidence against the real criminal, and at proving innocence of the falsely accused (including those bullied into false confessions by police).<br />
<br />
The Illinois police even supported the changes, the FBI could learn something from them.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: The problem with moral absolutism</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/10233423003/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-patch-to-fix-it.shtml#c3777</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Uriel-238]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:44:39 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/10233423003/bug-allows-same-sex-marriage-nintendo-game-nintendo-releases-patch-to-fix-it.shtml#c3777</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>There has to be a general moral standard, otherwise there would be no reason to place limitations on things and prohibitive actions, e.g. walking around in public naked. Moral relativism is akin to saying that people's sense of right vs wrong is merely an abstraction, a self-delusion, if you will, and that standards in public decency and laws can be decided upon arbitrarily (without the consent of the governed, I might add).</i><br />
<br />
But in some cultures, public nudity is the norm, so the general moral standard regarding decency isn't universal. Furthermore, even in our culture, those that oppose indecency laws (on the basis that it's more natural to not wear clothing than to adorn one's self with artificial skins. Decency is one of the few laws in Western culture that is <i>exclusively</i> based on common practice (tradition). There is no pragmatic purpose for it.<br />
<br />
Is right vs. wrong an abstraction? About as much as the value of the US Dollar. And like the US Dollar, some of our basic mores are essential to our societies (e.g. life, property, respect for the law, etc.) But that doesn't make them absolute; Only the individual's right to life is respected by all human societies; some don't recognize personal property (further than one's ability to retain it). There's neither an absolute source for these mores (other than our personal instincts, some of which don't agree with large societies), nor are any of them truly absolute, as becomes evident when they interact with each other, or with the rights of others. <br />
<br />
So yeah, the purpose for morality ultimately boils down to survival. If your morality supports a larger, technologically advanced civilization then you will dominate over smaller, less advanced civilizations. (And tech and population tend to correlate.) And your culture (and often your genes) will outlast theirs. But our instincts push us towards small tribes, so in order to build nations (that are not identified with family clans) we need to invent better forms of government, and better forms of morality, than what is provided instinctively, or through ancient feudalistic documents.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: No interviews</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c105</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ChurchHatesTucker]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:40:56 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c105</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[My link seems to be borked. Should be: <br />
<br />
<a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDsbjAYXcQ' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDsbjAYXcQ</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c561</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:39:55 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c561</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You know this site has dozen(s?) of articles over this very topic right?  Maybe read the others too?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c547</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:39:45 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c547</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I am desensitized to it, having been attacked viciously over and over again by the folks on TD who can't stand it when their leader is challenged.<br />
<br />
Address the merits of my post if you would: Do you agree that Mike has not even begun to back up his assertion that this is a "ridiculous letter with little basis in fact"? Do you agree that Mike hasn't shown us the text of the proposal and explained why this response is bullshit? Do you agree that Mike's purpose in writing this article was not to actually advance the debate in a positive way but was instead solely for the purpose of discrediting these people with his usual "they hate the blind!" trope? I feel like I added to the discussion by pointing out how Mike added nothing. I'm not familiar enough with the proposals to add much of value on the merits, but apparently neither is Mike. That doesn't stop him from writing this crap though. Why aren't you grilling him if you agree with me in part?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c522</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:37:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c522</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[For someone that actually uses 'faith based' as an attack in other posts you have an odd way of championing decision making without evidence here and for advocating that Mike should do more of it by making his position 'more concrete.']]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c518</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:32:58 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c518</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I thought you'd be desensitized to personal attacks by now, Joe.<br />
<br />
If you're happy to discuss things on common ground, then make the effort because you're one of the few people with differing viewpoints. You also know how to make a dissenting opinion sound tactful and ripe for discussion, so what's the problem?<br />
<br />
There's plenty of sites that make FUD out of whatever they get their hands on, and personally, I think Masnick is a bit emotional when it comes to news like this. But then...I can also click the links and read the source and establish my own opinion instead of relying on his take of it. I can then post that opinion in a non-asshole-esque manner and start a healthy debate.<br />
<br />
Or I can attack the writer's personal beliefs on the subject.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c499</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:31:30 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c499</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If by 'argue at an intellectual level' you mean joe employs equal parts proof by verbosity and opacity.  And he does a fair bit of 'hit and run' postings too of the 'y u nvr dabate meeeee!ONe1one' variety.<br />
<br />
Still, all that considered I'd say I agree.  Joe is also better at staying on topic.  Little boy blue seems to make everything out to be some kind of classist conspiracy no matter how little that has to do with the subject at hand.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Quick steps</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c92</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mr. Smarta**]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:29:29 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c92</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[1) Recite to yourself aloud your Miranda Rights (if they haven't already read them to you).<br />
2) Request a lawyer during questioning.<br />
3) Do not say another word until the lawyer arrives; no matter how much they bully you, try to be your 'friend' and want to 'help' you, or beat you with a rubber hose and/or phone book.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c81</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:27:44 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c81</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Popehat has very good advice for these kinds of situations: Shut up. Just. Shut. Up.<br />
<br />
<a href='http://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/</a><br />
<br />
And I happen to agree. Unless you absolutely, positively have to, DO. NOT. SPEAK. TO. THE. COPS. And when you do, bring a lawyer.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c71</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lord BInky]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:27:43 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c71</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The FBI is less likely to have a hard time convincing a jury that it is ok for them to lie as part of a legitimate interrogation than if they try to convince a jury they are not lying outside of the interrogation.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Never talk to Police</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c69</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:26:43 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c69</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I think the fifth amendment is underused (Prenda not withstanding): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&amp;list=PLAiEDD1eDxC8gKQ2aZ84Czoqt8whxhW9N" rel="nofollow">Youtube presentation by a law professor</a><br />
Never talk to police, but if you have to, never do so without a lawyer (representing you!) present.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c477</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:23:12 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c477</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Oh look, personal attacks that add nothing to the conversation. I'm happy to discuss common ground. I'd love to know what the proposal here actually says and why some people are actually against parts of it. But all we get is this faith-based FUD attack and the return of the "they hate the blind!" argument that gets us nowhere.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Simple Answer</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c49</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:21:08 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c49</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Don't say anything.<br />
<br />
<a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc</a>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c454</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:13:41 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c454</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Who gives a shit? You? I doubt that you carry any kind of real concern for "FUD" articles on Techdirt, Joe. <br />
<br />
...and "hatred towards copyright holders"? They don't need Mike to do that for them.<br />
<br />
And yes, it is "ego" and it's easy to tell that's all it is because you never even attempt to find a common ground. Even people who stand diametrically opposed on two sides of a spectrum can find things in common (if you actually have agreed on something, I've never seen it), but you're only interest here is to point out the flaws in legal arguments that Mike makes. <br />
<br />
On top of that, you seem more keen on debating his personal beliefs with your whiny mantras than debating copyright law.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>excellent article</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1852</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[alex]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:13:25 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15445423110/framework-copyright-reform.shtml#c1852</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[all good points.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>