<?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>Comments by nasch</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<description>Easily digestible tech news....</description>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/18102623141/so-its-come-to-this-seven-high-school-students-arrested-throwing-water-balloons.shtml#c2084</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 12:01:08 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/18102623141/so-its-come-to-this-seven-high-school-students-arrested-throwing-water-balloons.shtml#c2084</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> Any sensible officer </i><br />
<br />
If this were sensible I don't think any officers would have even been dispatched.<br />
<br />
"I'm sorry, you said water balloons?"<br />
"Right."<br />
"Sir, this line is for emergencies only.  Goodbye."]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>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#c1143</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:59 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1143</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> How is this tool a way to infringe their copyrights at all? It's not like everyone is going to use it to create the exact same story over and over again.</i><br />
<br />
I think the idea is that ScrollKit is encouraging people to take regular NYT news stories and use this tool on them to turn them into whatever cool web news thing that it does.  I think that's stupid, but it sounds like that's the concern.  If that's what they're worried about, they should buy the tool and do it themselves before someone else does.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>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#c1135</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:48:59 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1135</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>If that's the case, why can't I go to Flickr, download images, and use them in a TV advertisement? </i><br />
<br />
You might be able to, if your ad has something to do with how the photos are used on Flickr.  Maybe for a competing service or a Flickr-related browser plugin.  It depends on how the fair use factors weigh out in that particular case.  If you just need a photo of a dog for your dog food commercial, that is not going to fly.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>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#c1122</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:43:47 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1122</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> Intent is irrelevant. Unauthorized copying and distribution of the content is infringing, and a violation of copyright even as first written about in the Constitution.</i><br />
<br />
You should probably read up on the fair use doctrine.]]></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#c1098</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:43:04 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/01382223168/new-york-times-tells-startup-it-cant-even-mention-ny-times.shtml#c1098</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> I am still waiting for someone to clearly state why using NYT's content and name is fair use here.</i><br />
<br />
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;... The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit.<br />
<br />
   Seems pretty clear, allowing this use would obviously further creativity and not supersede the original for profit.<br />
<br />
        the nature of the copyrighted work;<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what NYT is claiming exactly.  If it's over the news story, that would not have very strong copyright protection.  If it's over other elements of how it was presented, that could weigh more against fair use.<br />
<br />
        the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; <br />
<br />
  I have no idea how much they used.<br />
<br />
        the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.<br />
<br />
  Zero effect at all.  This is not in any way competing with the original news story.<br />
<br />
<br />
So as always it's a judgment call, but I tend to put a lot of weight on the last factor since that's where any harm would come from, so in this case I would say the use is fair.  If you believe otherwise, perhaps you would like to explain.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>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#c769</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:25:50 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/18265123163/reporters-find-exposed-personal-data-via-google-threatened-with-cfaa-charges.shtml#c769</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Which is complete bullshit. because while they're not actually indexing the CONTENT of the page, they're indexing the URL.<br />
<br />
So in the case of a URL that includes variable parameters labeled with "order" or "customerID" or some-such, that opens up the can of WTF for anyone savvy enough to go snooping.</i><br />
<br />
You're not suggesting this is a security issue, are you?  Because if you're relying on robots.txt to secure sensitive information, you're doing it very, very wrong.  So what is the problem with this behavior by Google?  I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just not sure I'm even clear on why you would use robots.txt to keep search engines away.  If it's to save bandwidth, then this doesn't cause a problem since Google isn't downloading the page.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Passerby - NOT a silly fight.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c419</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 13:28:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00554723091/more-details-emerge-key-legal-fight-over-dmca-abuse.shtml#c419</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>This is much more than a catfight, and if you had a wife/daughter led astray by the influential Ginas of this world, as many of the skeptical ob's followers were at one time, you would understand why it's so important that Dr. Amy not be silenced because Gina can't refute Dr. Amy's rock-solid analysis of the evidence.</i><br />
<br />
One need not have any stake in the underlying argument to understand it's important not to allow copyright to be abused to silence speech.  Even if Gina is right and Dr. Amy is wrong, the DMCA abuse still needs to be stopped - the argument has nothing to do with that issue.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c1111</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 19:14:33 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c1111</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Left alone and permitted without restriction, this sort of thing expresses that society thinks this is okay, acceptable in it's own way, and that the acts portrayed in it are equally acceptable.</i><br />
<br />
Permitting speech does not mean condoning the actions the speech describes.  It is perfectly acceptable to write about rape, murder, and genocide, but we don't condone any of those activities.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c874</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 08:47:29 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130505/14372422951/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene.shtml#c874</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> There is the dictionary definition, "those who LOVE children"</i><br />
<br />
My dictionary defines pedophile as "An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children."  I love children, but I'm not a pedophile.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11200723149/war-journalists-doj-claimed-fox-news-reporter-was-aider-abettor-co-conspirator-with-leaker.shtml#c625</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:59:43 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/11200723149/war-journalists-doj-claimed-fox-news-reporter-was-aider-abettor-co-conspirator-with-leaker.shtml#c625</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>And kill that Internet Thing.</i><br />
<br />
I don't think the government wants to kill the internet, it's a rich source of surveillance data.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/03220823047/mpaa-freaks-out-insists-that-having-to-consider-fair-use-before-filing-dmca-takedown-would-be-crazy.shtml#c1227</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 17:34:54 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/03220823047/mpaa-freaks-out-insists-that-having-to-consider-fair-use-before-filing-dmca-takedown-would-be-crazy.shtml#c1227</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>The MPAA is jealous of Cheney?</i><br />
<br />
They're not quite that overreaching.  After all, Cheney shot a guy in the face, and that guy later apologized to Cheney for it.  Seriously.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02114423045/some-data-big-kickstarter-projects-famous-people-actually-helps-other-projects.shtml#c418</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 15:39:34 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02114423045/some-data-big-kickstarter-projects-famous-people-actually-helps-other-projects.shtml#c418</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> The project itself could still be mostly just part of the old Hollywood system.</i><br />
<br />
Given away for free and part of the old Hollywood system are not the only two possibilities.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Order 66</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/10535223120/indian-publishing-firm-cant-take-little-criticism-threatens-blogger-with-1-billion-lawsuit-criminal-charges.shtml#c220</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 13:53:23 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/10535223120/indian-publishing-firm-cant-take-little-criticism-threatens-blogger-with-1-billion-lawsuit-criminal-charges.shtml#c220</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information.</i><br />
<br />
"Execute Order 66."]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Bandwidth does not equal data amount used</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130516/10513523106/att-continues-to-mock-concept-net-neutrality-this-time-with-google-hangouts-block.shtml#c310</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 08:05:33 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130516/10513523106/att-continues-to-mock-concept-net-neutrality-this-time-with-google-hangouts-block.shtml#c310</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Ergo, Data Cap(amount you can use) is pointless when trying to control Bandwidth issues(size of pipe).</i><br />
<br />
Except that it will tend to cause customers to limit their use of high-bandwidth applications over mobile data.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/16505323067/us-uses-special-301-to-bully-ukraine-likely-violating-wto.shtml#c227</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 07:57:05 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/16505323067/us-uses-special-301-to-bully-ukraine-likely-violating-wto.shtml#c227</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>I don't see the US giving a damn shit about adverse decisions of the WTO.</i><br />
<br />
Exactly.  The US will ignore any decision, leaving Ukraine with punitive sanctions as its recourse.  If the US doesn't have enough trade with Ukraine to make that hurt, then the US will ignore that too.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-google-play-store.shtml#c3413</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 06:30:47 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-google-play-store.shtml#c3413</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i> everyone reading this using adblock should fucking be ashamed of themselves</i><br />
<br />
Yes, it's shameful to find ads annoying isn't it?  I'm ashamed of myself every time I skip ads with my DVR too but I manage to live with the shame somehow.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Not that easy even for celebs.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130509/18162523030/there-is-no-logic-to-argument-that-zach-braff-shouldnt-use-kickstarter.shtml#c1790</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 18:52:59 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130509/18162523030/there-is-no-logic-to-argument-that-zach-braff-shouldnt-use-kickstarter.shtml#c1790</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Oh, Playboy and reality TV are going strong, but the celebs who appear on them are often perceived as lacking any other opportunities. </i><br />
<br />
My point is that Kickstarter is Playboy and reality TV in your analogy, so while it may turn out that it attracts has-beens, your example doesn't say anything about how successful it will be, only about the sort of celebrity it may attract.  I'm sure Kickstarter would be thrilled to be as well-known, financially successful, and long-lived as Playboy (though without other aspects of their reputation of course).]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Freedom and choice?</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130513/21331623075/cable-a-la-carte.shtml#c224</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 16:55:34 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130513/21331623075/cable-a-la-carte.shtml#c224</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>consumers already have lots of freedom, they just don't have many choices in how they exercise it.</i><br />
<br />
WTH does that mean?  How can we have lots of freedom with few choices?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Not that easy even for celebs.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130509/18162523030/there-is-no-logic-to-argument-that-zach-braff-shouldnt-use-kickstarter.shtml#c1768</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:45:43 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130509/18162523030/there-is-no-logic-to-argument-that-zach-braff-shouldnt-use-kickstarter.shtml#c1768</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>If celebrity Kickstarter projects end up for most of them as the equivalent of reality TV and Playboy covers (what you do when your career is flagging), then it may put a damper on the concept.</i><br />
<br />
I don't know, as far as I know Playboy and reality TV are both still going strong.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: I am fairly certain the real reason was...</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/11070923022/psa-to-parents-step-1-after-your-child-is-shot-is-not-checking-webmd.shtml#c1133</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasch]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 06:30:01 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130509/11070923022/psa-to-parents-step-1-after-your-child-is-shot-is-not-checking-webmd.shtml#c1133</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>Congratulations for being the only one here (including Mr. Geigner) to surmise the real reason for this tragedy.  Doctors and hospitals are required by law to report all gun-related (or suspected gun-related) injuries to the police.</i><br />
<br />
There are at three other comments mentioning this issue.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>