<?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>it's called innovation</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c894</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[alanbleiweiss]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:32:55 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c894</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Just because something did not have an original intent to be used in a certain way does not mean it should not be used in a new way if that way is innovative and provides value to the world.<br />
<br />
Anything other than that understanding is called myopic thinking.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c682</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ophelia Millais]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:22:51 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c682</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[As you said, they are in a public place. It would be improper to broadcast any footage disclosing the identities of the civilians, but I'm not sure the act of filming them can be said to be an invasion of privacy, even if they don't want cameras on them. And we've already established that cops don't have the right to privacy in these situations.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c876</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[aldestrawk]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:22:34 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c876</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The use of robots.txt is in no way a security measure. It was never intended to be and definitely should not be used as such. It is simply intended to relieve servers of unnecessary traffic as a result of spiders actions. Any script kiddie can do the same thing as a spider and intentionally ignore the request that robots.txt files represent.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: @&quot;the public do not respect copyright.&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c162</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:19:31 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c162</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA['Common misconception' is more accurate than the term common law.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/12283223188/petition-asks-obama-to-support-treaty-blind-rather-than-siding-with-hollywood.shtml#c24</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Franklin G Ryzzo]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:18:58 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/12283223188/petition-asks-obama-to-support-treaty-blind-rather-than-siding-with-hollywood.shtml#c24</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It really is a sad state of affairs that this is even an issue requiring a petition.  Hopefully the goal will be reached, but I don't think this is mainstream enough to get promoted where people will see it like happened with SOPA and the Library of Congress.  Although, with 300 million blind people out there, only a very small percentage would need to be made aware to get the signatures... <br />
<br />
Signed]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>since most police cars have dash cameras....</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c677</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:17:47 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml#c677</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[why are they pointing what they consider a 'deadly' weapon at everyone, and why did they walk in front of it?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c1219</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ophelia Millais]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:15:41 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c1219</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You're good at detecting sarcasm. :)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>crticial thinking</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c874</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[alanbleiweiss]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12:34 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c874</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[it sure as hell can be both.  While robots.txt is not by original nature related to search engines, a means of security, Google has the power and resources to respect it for the sake of security.  If you don't grasp that, not my problem.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/19133923200/copyright-patent-its-all-same-to-worlds-third-largest-news-agency.shtml#c746</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[JMT]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12:31 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/19133923200/copyright-patent-its-all-same-to-worlds-third-largest-news-agency.shtml#c746</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[All these comments clearly show how desperate some people are to shut down any conversation that might educate people about IP issues. You don't want people to really understand this stuff because then people might also begin to understand the incredible damage being done in the name of "protecting artists". Pointing out a significant error like this is shouted down as being nitpicking. "Nothing to see here, move along!" It's hilariously inept but it highlights the creeping desperation on the part of copyright maximilists who see the public PR battle being steadily lost.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>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#c1204</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Techanon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:10:20 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c1204</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Doesn't DMCA work just like this (except for the requirement of irrefutable evidence of non-infringement to reinstate content)?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/19133923200/copyright-patent-its-all-same-to-worlds-third-largest-news-agency.shtml#c737</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:47 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/19133923200/copyright-patent-its-all-same-to-worlds-third-largest-news-agency.shtml#c737</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Everybody needs a hobby.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130524/10542823205/another-court-tells-prenda-to-pay-up-attorneys-fees.shtml#c130</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon E. Mous]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:56:39 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130524/10542823205/another-court-tells-prenda-to-pay-up-attorneys-fees.shtml#c130</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It's my opinion that Steele is the one pulling the strings for all these entities along with Hansmeier. Steele and Hansmeier went to Law School together in Minnesota and started Steele Hansmeier together.<br />
<br />
Lutz is a Paralegal who has worked for various Steele entities. Lutz in that brilliant Q&amp;A with the Judge in Nyugen Case in florida ( where coincidentally Steele was present for a Prenda case...what are the odds!)<br />
<br />
Lutz all of a sudden after Judge Wright put forth his Order To Show Cause, becomes CEO of AF Holdings and a bunch of it's entities and Brett Gibbs becomes Lawyer of Record for AF Holdings.<br />
<br />
So Lutz who couldn't even answer the remotest questions about Sunlust Pictures and AF Holdings, and basic questions about who works there and claimed in the Q&amp;A with the Judge to be just a "1099 contractor" is a mastermind able to organize Copyright Assignments and buying said copyrights and setting up LLC's and offshore trust's?<br />
<br />
Yeah and Elvis is alive and working at 7-11. Lutz has worked for Steele for years and was the voice on the other end of those phone calls looking for Settlements that were robo-dialed to subscribers.<br />
<br />
Now suddenly he is the corporate CEO master of business. Yes I doubt that. If you recall in the Deposition Of Hansmeier who appeared on the Behalf of AF Holdings (lordy, another coincidence!) couldn't name any officers of the company and that no one drew a salary every from there that he was aware.<br />
<br />
Who knew Mark Lutz was such a humanitarian in working for all these companies and entities for free as CEO (of course while managing to do robo-calls and demanding settlement payments)<br />
<br />
I wish I could make that historic rise form Debt collecting and Para-legal work to CEO. Lutz ought to give the good folks at MIT a call and relish them with his tale of how he rose from debt collector for Stelle to CEO of mnay companies, LLC's and offshore trusts.<br />
<br />
Truly the American dream!]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: It doesn't have to be DMCA</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c153</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chosen Reject]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:54:20 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c153</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Exactly.  There is no requirement that he file a DMCA-compliant take down notice to the actual infringers, nor is it even a requirement that a takedown notice be DMCA-compliant at all.  It has to be if the service provider wants to make sure all i's are dotted and t's crossed to limit their liability, sure.  But there is nowhere that states content can only be taken down with a DMCA-compliant notice.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Prosecute him for improper DMCA takedown notice!</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c147</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chosen Reject]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:49:21 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c147</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Yeah, he should be prosecuted for not having a video taken down.<br />
<br />
Did you seriously get that confused?  Mike writes an article about DMCA notices being used to takedown content they don't own, and you get it confused with a non-DMCA email asking for content to be removed (which didn't get removed by the way).  One abuses the force of law to get someone else's content taken down, the other asks for someone to consider their own hypocrisy.  No law states that DMCA compliant notices are required to take content down.<br />
<br />
Perhaps, blue, you should spend a few more seconds in figuring out what is even going on.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Oh no, don't throw me in the brier patch!</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c1168</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[That One Guy]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:43:24 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/17515223193/riaa-copyright-reform-we-need-is-to-make-everyone-else-copyright-cops.shtml#c1168</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[See my clarification above regarding what would and would not get taken out. <br />
<br />
In short, lawsuit happy groups like *AA's, gone from the net, everyone else, still gets the benefit of the doubt and so stays.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>time marches on</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c134</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[TheLastCzarnian]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:41:54 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c134</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hopefully Mark has been informed of his mistake and remedied the situation by sending a proper DMCA to YouTube. Then we can all sit back and watch OOTB's head explode again.<br />
<br />
Oooh! Pretty!]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: don't forget</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130524/01462423203/ex-prenda-lawyer-brett-gibbs-pleads-poverty-to-judge-wright.shtml#c515</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[That One Guy]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:38:43 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130524/01462423203/ex-prenda-lawyer-brett-gibbs-pleads-poverty-to-judge-wright.shtml#c515</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I agree on the 'stable' part, but for someone claiming to be utterly broke, the idea of being able to afford a <b>very</b> expensive trip like that does pretty handily disprove the 'I'm broke and have less than a grand in the bank' line he's trying to give the judge.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/18225323199/president-obama-is-troubled-about-chilling-effects-his-own-administration-is-causing-to-journalism.shtml#c771</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rekrul]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:38:34 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#c771</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The most troubling part for Obama was probably keeping a straight face during the speech.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: @&quot;the public do not respect copyright.&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c127</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chosen Reject]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:38:26 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c127</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Actually, most of the public doesn't have a clue about copyright law, regularly get it confused with patents and trademarks, and generally think that it deals with attribution.  That's why youtube lyrics videos start off with comments like "I don't own the copyright on this".<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Because people think copyright has something to do with attribution.  It doesn't.  Why do they think this?  Because people generally want credit for what they do.  They want validation.  That's innate in human beings.  Wanting money or control over some idea of theirs is not innate.  People simply respect copyright law today not because they get it and understand it and agree with it, but because they think it's something it's not and agree with that other something.  The more I've taught people that what they are doing is infringement, the more I've found people hate copryight law.<br />
<br />
What do you mean I can't copy this song and give it to my friend?  I didn't change the artist?<br />
<br />
What do you mean I can't copy this coloring book for my friends' kids?  They know I didn't make it.<br />
<br />
What do you mean I can't play the music/movie I bought at the block party for my neighborhood?  I just told you I bought it.<br />
<br />
No, the public at large generally hates copyright once they find out the basic things they think should be ok are punishable by up to $150,000.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: @&quot;the public do not respect copyright.&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c114</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zakida Paul]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:36:28 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/00412423167/fair-use-me-not-thee.shtml#c114</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[There you go again with mass assumptions that anyone who is anti copyright is a pirate.  I probably spend more on content than you, sonny.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>