Arthur 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (94) comment rss

  • On the post: Microsoft Spying On Live Messenger Messages, Censoring Any Pirate Bay Links

    Arthur ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2012 @ 02:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Of course TPB wasn't found guilty in the US, so your argument is bogus. More to the point, how has MSFT determined that that specific link to one specific download is "illegal"? Hmmm? Do they have a vast array of researchers investigating every single link, interviewing the person who uploaded each one to verify the upload was legal, checking to guarantee they aren't blocking legitimate speech?

    No, they just block and they don't care if they block legal downloads and legal free speech. And you can't see a single thing wrong with that?

    Ever hear of the "presumption of innocence unless proven guilty"? You know, that pesky thing called "justice"?

  • On the post: Microsoft Spying On Live Messenger Messages, Censoring Any Pirate Bay Links

    Arthur ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2012 @ 12:09pm

    Re:

    "There is no reason Microsoft should allow links to sites that [they BELIEVE] are dangerous or [they BELIEVE are] illegal."

    FIFY.

    And there is no reason to use Microsoft Messenger now that we know they don't believe in Privacy, Free Speech or Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 01:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    To say "copying is stealing" is not just inaccurate, it is deliberately misleading. To say "some types of copying may be stealing" is accurate.

    But, no, you've made it plain that you think "copying is stealing" is "accurate" and not misleading when it obviously is neither.

    Apparently, you think inaccurate, deliberately misleading statements "can be accurate". I don't think I want to visit your planet.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    The fact that "some people" consider "it" to be stealing isn't made clearer by agreeing with them. If by "it" they mean "copying" (which is what you are saying) then they are wrong. Using their ideas is wrong and stops discussion.

    If, however, by "it" they mean "infringing" then they should say that to avoid confusion.

    To continue to use "stealing" when the accurate term for what is illegal is "infringing" promotes the lie that all copying is stealing. Don't you think accuracy is better than hyperbole?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:52am

    Re: It can be.

    Why do you object to using the term "infringing" which is a quite accurate word to describe the exact type of copying that is illegal. Why insist on using a vague and sloppy term "stealing" when the exact, specific illegal action is "infringing"? Why be inaccurate when an accurate term exists?

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: Re: It can be.

    Yet you make the absurd claim that "Copying" is "Stealing" when the words mean different things.

    No one here (that I can see) is claiming that copying is legal, it may or may not be. But claiming that all copying is stealing is disingenuous. If, by copying, someone "obtains something they are not entitled to", that is wrong and accurately called "infringement".

    You don't have to falsely conflate it with "stealing" to make it "more illegal". It's already illegal. Why argue about it? Infringement is illegal.

  • On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 09:59am

    Re: It can be.

    Using words correctly is important. With a contentious subject like this, it is very important.

    "Stealing" is illegal, by definition. "Copying" may be infringing and, therefore may be illegal. To say "copying is theft" is to falsely accuse many people who have only copied legally.

    These things are different.

  • On the post: Ireland Signs Controversial 'Irish SOPA' Into Law; Kicks Off New Censorship Regime

    Arthur ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 04:34pm

    Typical legislation sequence

    1. Pass draconian law to censor the Internet.
    2. Promise to study what to do about the Internet.
    3. If any studies happen to get done, ignore.
    4. Repeat.

  • On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?

    Arthur ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 09:54am

    Good business plan

    Wait. Wouldn't "Giving the consumer what they want in the form they want it at the moment they want it at the price they are willing to pay for it" be the description of a REALLY good business plan?

  • On the post: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?

    Arthur ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 09:37am

    Whooosh!

    It is amazing that Andy Ihnatko could so totally miss the entire point.

    Here is a sales opportunity. It represents thousands of such sales opportunities, and the "content owners" did everything they possibly could do to ENSURE the consumers could not buy it legally in any way.

    And then the content owners whine that they are losing money...

  • On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents

    Arthur ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2012 @ 03:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have given MS enough money

    Yeah, because it "looks to you AS IF they are" illegal ... that's it. End of discussion. You're done.

    Pardon me if I don't condemn people because it "looks to you as if they are illegal". Things are almost always more complicated then you might think.

    I don't condone bad behavior but I don't condemn until REAL lawyers and REAL experts have investigated, analyzed and reported on these things. But you go ahead and pontificate and condemn because things "look to you as if", that's fine with me.

  • On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents

    Arthur ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2012 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I have given MS enough money

    I don't think you read the article. While it would be a great idea if Moto/Google simply donated those patents license free, there are read problems with that or even lowering the price. Read the article.

  • On the post: Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents

    Arthur ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2012 @ 09:12am

    Re: Re: I have given MS enough money

    Walt, keep believing ONLY the MS side of the story and be sure to parrot it exactly. Never look at the full picture. Then you will be protected from all the Evil Freetards who want to destroy the Internet.

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suing Google For Third-Party Android Apps That 'Promote Piracy'

    Arthur ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2012 @ 11:27am

    RSS feed

    The RSS feed was truncated. It said "Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Sui".

    And I mentally filled it in: "Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suicide".

    Seemed accurate to me.

  • On the post: Dutch Economics Minister Says ACTA Is Designed To Shut Down Child Porn Sites… Even Though That's Not True

    Arthur ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2012 @ 07:53am

    Re: The problem is with the means, not the ends

    You don't realize how very, very clever the ACTA people are. They've got it all figured out.

    You see, the child porn purveyors will, of course, want to stop pirates from stealing their IP, so they will want to use ACTA to do it.

    That means they have to register copyright. That's when the Copyright Office (a subdivision of Disney), will catch them!!!1!!

    It will work!!!11

  • On the post: Dutch Economics Minister Says ACTA Is Designed To Shut Down Child Porn Sites… Even Though That's Not True

    Arthur ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 04:09pm

    Re: Re: The problem is with the means, not the ends

    You say: "thats right, so dont ever try to enfore ANY crime EVER because it might at some point actually hurt someone who is innocent."You probably mean "don't enforce any law" but even if you'd stated it correctly it's pure strawman. NO ONE you are "arguing" with took that position.Try to argue against the actual position that they've stated: That ACTA doesn't address child porn AT ALL. Go ahead, try to use logic not logical fallacies.

  • On the post: The Pirate Bay May Get Blocked In The UK; That'll Stop The Infringement

    Arthur ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2012 @ 03:16pm

    Wack-a-mole

    "It's not realistic that such a scenario will ... continue forever".

    Let's see: A few misguided and misinformed gatekeepers vs. the Internet. Now, who do YOU think will win that battle?

    Bzzzt! Nope. "Gatekeepers" is not the answer.

  • On the post: How The Megaupload Shutdown Has Put 'Cloud Computing' Business Plans At Risk

    Arthur ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 02:45pm

    Re: Oh, yes!

    Sure roads might have a legitimate use but no matter how hard you try, liability is attached. People were driving over the speed limit. People were using roads to drive to and from crime scenes. Sorry, it's just too bad. That's why we closed all the roads.

  • On the post: Indian Judge Tells Google And Facebook To 'Check And Remove Objectionable Material' Or Be Blocked

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2012 @ 01:07pm

    Since when

    Since when did China's draconian suppression of free speech become an example to be emulated by others? We certainly do live in interesting times.

  • On the post: US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK

    Arthur ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    WTF?

    And you come to that conclusion how? They have no bearing as long as you completely ignore the fact that SOPA/Protect IP will make this sort of abuse much, much easier and much more common. Well, you are ignoring that, so your comment kind of makes sense.

Next >>