sumquy’s Techdirt Profile
|
|
About sumquy
i am the sysadmin for a medium size company. working where i do has made me a bit paranoid.
i rarely register for websites and all email goes to unregistered trash accounts. i instance firefox in "in private" mode with noscript and adblock running and i have been known to route a torrent download through elite proxy servers in china. just in case.
mostly though im just sum guy on the web. judge me by my words, not by what you think you know of me.
|
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sumquy.
Submit a story now.
(untitled comment)
am i the only one who thinks $9.99 for a month of people magazine or $19.99 for ny times is insane?
(untitled comment)
i think u misinterpreted the situation completely on this one. this isn't leahy talking to the people or in response to anything other than hollywoods threat to cut off money to the dem party. leahy is trying to lay blame on the repubs hoping that they take it up. then he can go back to hollywood and say look at what these nasty repubs are trying to do your business, be a shame if we weren't in power to stop it. hollywoods biggest mistake was trying to shake down a shake down artist.
(untitled comment)
so if i rip my movie off of a dvd and upload it for myself and then someone else uploads their rip but spreads the link for it far and wide, my copy should get deleted too?
Re:
"You draw conclusions and raise suspicions without access to a single piece of evidence. Again why?"
because of dajaz1 and rojadirecta and richard o'dwyer and sopa and coica and all the other times my government lied to me under hollywood's direction.
Re: Re: Re:
why? because you own him? asshats like you are the reason it took 80 years and a bloody war to end slavery in this country.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes! yes! yes! you do understand. this is exactly what we have been saying all along is one of the major problems with sopa/pipa. when you cut off the payments it starts to feel a lot like censorship doesn't it?
Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.
no more so than you. anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a pirate who wants nothing but to rape and pillage rightsholders, irregardless of any valid concerns we may be expressing. call the kettle black much?
(untitled comment)
i actually feel really bad for this woman. undoubtedly she took some really questionable actions, but she is a dentist not a lawyer. when medical justice pitched her with this scam, it probably sounded like a really good idea. protect your reputation from those few nutjobs out there who are never satisfied no matter what you do. in hindsight it is easy to see how dumb this was, but you know the sales pitch for this service was intense. witness all the doctors who signed up with it. when you compound that, with the fact that her lawyer is an incompetent idiot who gave her the worst advice possible and this is what you get. But i ask you, honestly, is mob justice destroying her professional career really deserved?
posted on yelp.
(untitled comment)
infringement is not theft. i think that this is the core principle that she and other music exec's just can't seem to get their heads around (or maybe they do understand and just don't care). when someone downloads a song illegally it is a selfish act, but when that same person uploads that song to the web, they are giving that artist exposure that they would not have otherwise gotten. are sales of that song impacted? maybe, and maybe not. most (honest) studies show that it is good for the artist to get as wide an exposure as possible. and here we come to the crux of the disagreement. this is where we see the disconnect between the interests of the artist and the interest of the studio. one benefits from as wide an exposure as possible while the other benefits from restricting every avenue of distribution to try and create an artificial exclusivity.
now i am going to give you an example of the non-zero sum power of sharing. i agree so completely with stephen t. stone's post from the previous article, that i am going to "steal" it and repost it here. an obvious case of me infringing on his work, and yet we are both better off for it.
Re: Re: Re: I used to work for a Monsanto agency
"No, being anonymous (and lacking references) just means that the credibility score for his comment is very low.
no, what i am saying is that that is not a comment. it is an allegation of felony fraud.
Or are you seriously saying that you think readers may think the comment section on this (or any) site represents the undiluted truth, and would take some rash and unadviced action because of it? "
while i sympathize with ac fear of retaliation, what he is describing is accessory to criminal activity. i frequently post here and other places as anonymous, and believe the freedom to be ac is a vital part of any discussion, but imho, this "commenter" needs to put up or shut up.
what kind of society do we live in if everybody sees who stole my car, but nobody will stand up and give evidence against the thieves, for fear they will "get him"? and that is a very different thing than using ac to put forward an unpopular opinion.
Re: I used to work for a Monsanto agency
i call bullshit on this one. whether true or not, that is not a comment, it is an allegation. as mike pointed out in the previous post, anonymous absolutely has a place in almost any discussion, but you, ac, are abusing it, and are exactly the reason, so many otherwise intelligent people, have such a hard time accepting it as legitimate.
(untitled comment)
I carry a 1967 Buick Skylark in my pants at all times. just in case.
(untitled comment)
i disagree with the tone of this story.
all the 100+ page documents apple makes everyone agree to before you can use an apple product really say is: apple can do what apple wants. but that is not a bad thing. apple built the whole iphone platform as a closed ecosystem. one with the apple rule(see above). the developers freely chose to build apps for it on those terms. the market will determine if that strategy is effective or not, but guys like this, that try to claim some kind of right to apple hosting their app get on my nerves.
(untitled comment)
does this mean e360 can take action against their lawyers for incompetence? seems to me if the judge hands down a ruling like this one, explicitly stating that i would have won if my lawyers weren't such douchebags, i would definitely be looking at whatever action i could take. unfortunately, that means hiring another lawyer, with no guarantee, the new is any better than the old. couldn't have happened to a better bunch of folks.
(untitled comment)
i'm missing sumthing here. how can a book sale like this one not qualify for first sale rights because it was not "lawfully made under this Title", but at the same time qualify as infringement under "this Title"?
that doesn't make any sense to me. can anyone clarify?
(untitled comment)
well, yes your honor, i did rob that bank. but i was only going to use the money for a research paper on, um...oh yeah, the distribution of dollars with specific serial numbers and their disbursement in the banking system.
Re: Re: Re: Plea bargains
that's a horrible story. by the way, what was she doing drinking with a bunch of teenagers. not saying she deserved what she got, but at the same time, if you play with fire, chances are high that at some point you are going to get burned.
(untitled comment)
"I assume that users will still be able to upload Numero songs, as they would with other songs not in the iTunes database"
can they? apple apparently believes that it needs licenses from the labels in order to run the icloud service (in contrast to google and amazon service). so if you upload a song to apple that isn't covered by their agreements will apple let you stream that song to a device? the statement from numero seems to imply that it won't. if it will...then why did they need to pay any money to the major labels?
(untitled comment)
i can't find it now, but i know i have read here on techdirt another situation very similar to this. if i remember right, a company sued a bunch of other companies for patent violations; most settled, but one didn't, and won against the troll. the ones who had settled tried to sue and get their money back, but a judge essentially told them they were sol.
anyone know the link?
(untitled comment)
"I will admit, however, that I'm surprised at how effective they've been in drawing additional media attention to certain stories, and how they really have helped drive two particular stories forward (the ACS:Law situation in the UK, and the HBGary Federal story in the US)"
that's because you don't understand anonymous.
brief tutorial feel free to skip to next paragraph. on the one hand you have the populists, the ones who like to have everybody come together in a group ddos attack. then you have the elitists, the true hackers who break into the computers of business and government and expose all their dirty little secrets. finally, you have the chat rooms. it might help to think of it as a convention with thousands of people all running around and talking about what interests them and what they want to do. sumtimes sumbody says sumthing that captures the hives attention and a bunch of them will break off to go commit acts of mayhem. other times individuals will meet together in private rooms to compare notes on their own exploits, but their isn't any leadership or even group consensus, statements from "anonymous" notwithstanding.
what's interesting is how effective or not the two strategies are. the ddos attacks, designed to shut down websites and stop speech are ineffective and transitory. publicly humiliating the companies and individuals with their own words, however, is incredibly satisfying and compelling.