<?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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c1177</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:20:16 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c1177</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Since you seem to believe what the government tells you, Dork Helmetrax, yes, this discussion should indeed be over.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1236</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:20:05 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1236</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>DMCA/1201 doesn't protect copyright. It protects DRM.</i><br />
<br />
It protects DRM which protects copyright.<br />
<br />
<i>So you are talking about some non tangible potential of affecting copyrights, while you ignore that DMCA/1201 very concretely violates users ability to exercise fair use.  Therefore dropping DMCA/1201 will restore concrete users' rights and will not really affect any copyrights.</i><br />
<br />
It does indeed make it more difficult to engage certain types of fair use. But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege. So it doesn't violate your rights. It just makes it more difficult to exercise a privilege in certain ways (but not others).]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c349</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[blarf]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:19:57 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c349</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I am confused -- the online docket indicates the court took the motion under advisement, which means she has not ruled on the motion for default.  Is the docket wrong, or are people misreporting what happened?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c65</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[sophisticatedjanedoe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:18:02 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c65</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Today is a bumpy day. This order can easily make one's day if not for the mixed feelings regarding the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml" rel="nofollow">Cooper v. Prenda</a> default hearing, and another event: today Judge Chen, who could <a href="http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/23/prenda-law-trip-to-san-francisco-turns-out-badly/" rel="nofollow">become a second Wright</a>, issued a <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/142848111/Chen-Order-and-Judgment-in-Prenda-CAND-case" rel="nofollow">strange order</a>, which indicated that he bought Lutz's bullshit. I don't know what to think about it.. trying to be optimistic, I hope that his reasoning was something like "I have other stuff to do, and since there is a criminal investigation going on, let's not duplicate the efforts."]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/19190923142/if-youre-going-to-illegally-seize-citizens-cell-phones-least-make-sure-youre-grabbing-right-ones.shtml#c898</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:56 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/19190923142/if-youre-going-to-illegally-seize-citizens-cell-phones-least-make-sure-youre-grabbing-right-ones.shtml#c898</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Four of the witnesses have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/18051923103/footage-lethal-beating-deleted-seized-phone-sheriff-asks-fbi-to-take-over-investigation.shtml#c1116" rel="nofollow">criminal histories</a>. Melissa and Sulina Quair's convictions for welfare fraud are especially damning because they involve dishonesty.<br />
<br />
Otoh, if forensic analysis of the cellphone can establish that a video did probably exist on Maria Melendez's cellphone, then we can look at when exactly it might have been deleted.  And who might have deleted it.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c45</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon E. Mous]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:38 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c45</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Oh btw Steele, I know your a little hard up for cash since your not practising law, and had to trade in you matte grey BMW for that 77 LeCar, but I was thinking you could always apply at Wal-Mart.<br />
<br />
If you think that's a little beneath you, consider ordering Kevin Trudeau's book called free money. Just need your credit card. You'll like Kevin, you and he have a LOT in common.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1229</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:26 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1229</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>That AJ is pretending I said something I didn't, and then going on one of his trademarked temper tantrums, is priceless.</i><br />
<br />
Where'd you run off to, Mike? Pretending like I'm having a "temper tantrum" so you can get out actually discussing your argument on the merits is your trademarked move. I know some of the dumber ones buy it, but wouldn't you rather just thrash me about on the merits? I'd love to chat with you about these things, but I suspect that, as you've done so many hundreds of times before, you're too chicken. I don't get it. I'm not that intimidating, am I?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c1157</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c1157</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Which of these has the US not violated at some time or other?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/18345423136/doj-dept-education-to-colleges-start-restricting-free-speech-campus-kiss-your-federal-funding-goodbye.shtml#c1222</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:53 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/18345423136/doj-dept-education-to-colleges-start-restricting-free-speech-campus-kiss-your-federal-funding-goodbye.shtml#c1222</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[working sweatshops for the Chinese]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/18345423136/doj-dept-education-to-colleges-start-restricting-free-speech-campus-kiss-your-federal-funding-goodbye.shtml#c1214</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:14:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/18345423136/doj-dept-education-to-colleges-start-restricting-free-speech-campus-kiss-your-federal-funding-goodbye.shtml#c1214</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I'm going to start off by saying that sexual harassment is wrong, and if someone is doing something or saying something that makes you uncomfortable, that's a horrible thing.<br />
<br />
That being said, the thing that always stands out to me in sexual harassment policies is the wording choice of "unwelcome". Now, it makes perfect sense, if you and your mate have an agreement between each other to send dirty pictures to each other, and nobody else is exposed to them, then there should be no problem there. The problem with the broadening of the definitions is that how do you find out if something is unwelcome to someone? If the definition becomes so broad, how to you even ask someone "hey, I've got this bit of porno I think you might like, do you want to see it?"  Even that statement, under sufficiently broad definitions could be determined to be sexual harassment? The other person can't even be pro-active to you, under the same fear "I wouldn't mind if you showed me some porno"... nup, harassment there too.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Egad</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#c583</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[btr1701]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:13:36 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/01450023148/makers-nutella-force-fan-who-created-world-nutella-day-to-shut-it-down-updated.shtml#c583</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[&gt; (disclaimer: I hate chocolate)<br />
<br />
Communist!]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1208</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:12:36 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1208</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.</i><br />
<br />
That's not what I said. The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls. Those access controls make it more difficult to infringe. By making it legal to traffic in these circumvention technologies, that in turn makes it easier to infringe.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c329</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:11:39 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c329</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Normally, for a lawyer, being reported to the bar association with the language used in this order would be an exceptional career threatening disaster.  That said though, it just doesn't look nearly as bad with everything else prenda is up against.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c41</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Average_bLUe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:10:27 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c41</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The downward spiral begins...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c16</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon E. Mous]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:10:06 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/15164823159/bad-day-prenda-continues-judge-rejects-stay-adds-1k-per-day-each-day-they-dont-pay-up.shtml#c16</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[LOL I didn't think that Judge Wright was going to issue a stay. The fact that they tried to get Judge Wright removed off this case, then they tried to dismiss the case before him, then fought to avoid having to appear before Judge Wright with a litany of excuses, then tried to end run an appeal in Judge Wrights's court room with a straight Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, and then calling Judge Wright out in their filings to the 9th Circuit Court....I cant imagine why it didn't go well.<br />
<br />
But I do love the fact that Judge Wright tacked on that 1k a day penalty per entity, wonderful sense of righteousness this no nonsense judge has.<br />
<br />
I wonder how long the Prenda gang will try to avoid paying this, I honestly don't see them escaping even if they plead poverty I still see them being liable for the sanction order and the fines and penalties within it.<br />
<br />
They better crank up the Professional class action objectors program and start the shakedowns - er - I mean objection notices, there going to need the cash!<br />
<br />
But those couldn't happen to a bunch of better people, congrats John et all !]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1185</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:09:18 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1185</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You don't own a single piece of property that you can do whatever you want to with. If I guy a brick at the hardware store, I can't litter the streets with it or break your windows with it. My rights are limited despite owning it. But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted to begin with, I'd suggest that there's lots of ink spilled on the subject and you should do some research of your own.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1176</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[crade]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:08:28 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1176</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The fact that this change specifically only deals with the case where there is no copyright infringment involved *does* tell you that it cannot possibly weaken copyrights.  It does weaken the ability to harrass people for other reasons that are not related to your copyrights, though...  That is the whole point.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1163</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Monkey]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:08:21 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c1163</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[and now... with the L0 keys in the public... the PS3 is now, and forever, hacked ... Wonder if Sony got what they wanted..]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c323</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[rasz]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c323</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[How is no penalty a bad day?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c301</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[sophisticatedjanedoe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:05:51 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/14172323158/judge-not-impressed-prenda-alan-cooper-lawsuit.shtml#c301</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Don't forget about two federal Prenda v. the Internets cases: there are counterclaims pending, and they can be a vehicle for Copper's vindication. Even more, Godfread's work was not disappeared in vain: GoDaddy's subpoena alone has a hell of a value (which contains the evidence of Steele's involvement he bragged no one has -- in the interview to Ars).]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>