DannyB's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the favorites dept
This week's "favorites" post comes from DannyB.
Having never done the favorite posts before, I wasn't sure if I should. Since I didn't have to
pee, I hope I made the right decision.
The best laugh all week was
Man Tries To Patent Godly Powers; Justifies It By Pointing To Software & Business Method Patents. That makes sense in an insane sort of way. Multiple forms of insanity combined. He forgot to mention aliens. 'Nuff said.
Speaking of patents: Congress Happy To Knock Out Patents That Impact Financial Institutions... But Everyone Else?. Don't worry. This is good news in disguise.
Precedent: You protected Johnny from bad patents, why not me too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Microsoft To US Gov't: Hey, Only We Should Be Able To Use Patents To Shakedown Other Companies!. Nice hypocrisy there Microsoft. Live by the patent, die by the patent. (Apple, are you listening?)
56 pages of iTunes terms? Really? Can't we get a short version in one sentence? Try this: You agree to return to the Apple store each month and do whatever they tell you. I AGREE
Which brings me to
Music Service Simfy Files Complaint Over Apple Blocking Its iPad App. When you build a business on something controlled by a party with conflicting interests, be prepared to have the rug yanked out from under you. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. (Disclaimer: Android fanboy talking.) Android lacks a single point of control. There are currently multiple Android app stores (e.g., Google, Amazon), with more on the way. (Will I get in trouble for saying "app store"?) If you don't like Google's store or its policies, approval process, etc, there is Amazon's store. More choice
(not less)
is a good thing.
I had to chuckle at
Former Obama Advisor Says Wikileaks Is Wonderful For The US Government. It's a shame the US government doesn't
understand the importance of anonymous public whistle blowing. Of course, maybe they do, but I'd rather not go there.
The next article was informative.
How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars. I admit I had been one of those confused about the "science" and "arts" part of "useful arts and science". I didn't know copyrights were for science and patents were for useful arts. That profoundly affects what I think copyrights were intended to protect.
Next was Once Again, The Freedom Of Information Act Is Proving To Be Just That: An Act. If the Osama Bin Laden pictures are released, we learn nothing new. (Unless it would reveal something we didn't know! My mind races with possibilities if I go there.)
Otherwise, propaganda usage of the pictures is irrelevant.
Honest people could comply with FOIA.
If the government would act honestly most of the time, they would have credibility when they need to protect a secret.
Which leads to several ICE domain seizure favorites.
- The List Of Sites Challenging Domain Seizures
- Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure
- ICE Stalling On More FOIA Requests Concerning Domain Name Seizures
- Government working for private industry.
- Lack of due process, legal service, representation and response.
- Making a(nother) mockery of FOIA.
- Its ineffectiveness.
- Hurting unrelated subdomains; demonstrating a lack of understanding of how things actually work.
- Impacting sites outside the US.
Talk about the right hand of government not knowing what the left hand is doing. C'mon guys. Which do you want? The free flow of information or censorship and government control. It's a delusion to think you can have both.
I was happy to see continuing pushback on mass copyright infringement lawsuits and copyright trolling.
- From Two Nude Nuns Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits Down To None
- Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions
- Denver Post Sued Over Righthaven Connection
- Those Who Settled With Righthaven Consider Taking Action; Righthaven Threatens Them With More Suits
Oh goodie. FBI Agents Getting More Power To Spy On People With Less Oversight. Why is this not surprising. CDA. DMCA. PATRIOT Act. ACTA. PROTECT-IP. Naked scanners. Patdowns. Controlling "rogue" websites. Government as a private police force, no due process. GPS tracking without due process. Making a joke of FOIA. Where does it end?
Maybe it just gets worse. US Trying To Extradite UK TVShack Admin Over Questionable Copyright Charges?. It turns out the US is not just trying, they're actually going to do it. Wow. The discussion on this topic says it all.
Summit Entertainment May Learn That You Can't File A Copyright Takedown Over A Trademark Issue. What to say? The title itself is the punch line. I hope that abuses of the DMCA starts resulting in some serious costs to the abuser.
Senators Unconcerned About Massive Unintended Consequences Of Criminalizing People For Embedding YouTube Videos. I should be shocked. But I'm too numb from other government actions. Clearly the senators don't give the south end of a northbound rat.
What did we learn? People in government should be required to have a full bladder. Which brings me back to where I started. (Oh, gotta run now. . .)
Re: Re:
Only one side of the argument is attempting to buy the government and rewrite the laws.
Therefore the original quote would apply to the copyright maximalists. If you are complaining about pirary, it only exists because the public has lost any respect for copyright and government -- and this is also the fault of the copyright maximalists.
You cannot now suddenly complain that members of the public casually engage in the kind of behavior that the copyright maximalists have set such a fine reprehensible example of.
I hope that cleared things up for you.
I laugh at Prenda's 'reputational harm'
The 'reputational harm' is quite a laugh given that Prenda threatens people with associating them with gay pr0n before their friends, family, neighbors and coworkers.
Re: Re:
Prenda got all kinds of due process. They passed on their opportunities to show:
1. that they are not engaged in fraud
2. that the attorneys are not the plaintiffs
3. that the copyright transfer was legitimate and real
4. that their investigation of copyright defendants was more substantial than the defense was claiming
5. that they were putting real attorneys in front of the judge and not just stand up guys with no power to represent or bind the plaintiffs
. . . and other things
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> If the judge felt there was fraud here, should he have not
> referred it to the police or other authorities to look into?
Isn't that what he did? Isn't that what you are complaining about?
And lawyers engaging in fraud before the court should have to pay the defense's attorney's fees.
And Prenda did get due process. All kinds of due process. They had plenty of opportunity to show that they were not engaging in fraud and to rebut the defense accusations of fraud. But instead of embarrass the defense by showing their actions were legitimate, they engaged in hand waving and silence. The judge and defense rightfully concluded, based on the available evidence, that Prenda and gang are engaged in fraud.
So what's the problem exactly?
A big internet off switch
Could this be the way that Hollywood could shut down the annoying intarwebs?
Just go after every registrar for having registered at least one domain name that was used for piracy.
Might be cheaper than lobbyists.
At least CNN won't be a victim of this war on journalism
They got rid of all of their investigative journalists. And not too soon either. Thank goodness. At least they have beautiful graphics and lots of teleginic talking heads.
Re: Re:
Kill that internet thing by suing all of the domain registrars for having registered domains that were used for something illegal.
National Security
You know, I could believe that the first few thousand times they say 'National Security'. But no more.
Re: Re: So, anyone who still believes that "1984" is fiction?
And the snark about Google isn't even true. Google isn't 'monitoring' my communications, in any sense like the government is.
Re: Re:
And get paid by lobbyists to kill those darned Intarwebs.
Re:
Should a registrar be able to tell if a site commits criminal acts if it registers a domain name like:
PrendaLaw.com
Ingenuity123.com
AFholdings.com
RIAA.com
MPAA.com
etc, and other criminal organization domain names?
Should the registrar be able to deny registration if the name looks suspicious? Or if it doesn't look like a clear lawful purpose can be determined? A name like RIAA.com might seem suspicious. After all, it could be an acronym or initialism for a lot of things:
Racketeering Industry Asshats of America
( . . . other expansions of RIAA left to imagination . . . )
Can the registrar be expected to know?
If you can't get a gigant OFF switch for the Internet . . .
It's not just the top level .com domain. It every single top level domain.
Therefore, the registrars of all top level domains should be sued and put out of business.
Piracy problem permanently solved.
Everybody wins.
What's not to like?
The article headline?
Was the article headline intended to imply that the FIB actually has credibility?
Re: Pharmacies outside US have no inherent right to US trade!
Hey let's try this experiment.
Take your post, and replace references to pharmacy with RIAA or MPAA and let's see how it sounds.
Re: Re: AARP > NABP
Pot meet kettle.
Re: Re: Re: Get AARP involved?
Then register the domain .drugs instead.
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Actually he is the victim of such a theft. Or is it copyright infringement. I always get the two mixed up because they are so similar.
Re: Re:
Frankenstein should sue for defamation, libel, slander or publicity rights when people misuse his good name to refer to the product of his creative genius.
Why not sue each individual infringer?
Why is that such a problem to sue each individual infringer?
You file a complaint. Begin discovery to discover the identity of the plaintiff. You then prove your case of infringement. They did this against Jammie Thomas-Rasset and won.
If they then try to threaten the defendant into a settlement, it is obvious that their true intent is that of copyright trolling. Using the court as a tool in a blackmail extortion shakedown racket.
Oh, and the person who uploaded a video doesn't have any money. Google does have money. And money, not justice, not artists rights, not compensation for actual (probably nonexistant) damages, not education of the public about copyright infringement, is what this is all about. Money. Nothing else.
Blood on their hands?
If it isn't already true, at some point one of these governments will have blood on their hands when these shorter yellow lights cause a fatal accident.