Rikuo's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the holiday-season-edition dept
Hey, fellow Techdirtians or whatever adjective you want to call yourselves. Longtime reader Rikuo here. I’ve been following Techdirt for the better part of two years now, and was sure surprised to have been asked to write the Favorites list for Xmas week. Once I stopped jumping and shrieking in pure fanboy excitement (and after the court injunction ordering me to never do that sort of stuff again), I sat myself down and decided to get serious.
Monday was a serious day for some, and a jawdropper for others. Daniel Castro from the ITIF (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) just three weeks ago responded to SOPA/Protect IP critics by saying that DNS filtering works because some other countries do it. Well, thanks to the good folks at Public Knowledge, you learn that it’s alright for the United States of America to adopt practices from some of the worst authoritarian regimes on the planet. And here I thought "land of the free" actually meant something.
Two other Monday articles caught my eye: the first was about how ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) was adopted by the EU Council, however, it was really by a collection of ministers in a meeting discussing agriculture and fisheries? Wait, what? What do fish have to do with a treaty about copyright?
The last Monday article was by our own Julian Sanchez, about how SOPA will be abused. This prediction was arrived at by looking at what the entertainment industry has done in the past and what they continue to do today. A very good read, as it really drives home the point that these companies are already abusing the DMCA. And having tried to block technological innovation in the past, they will certainly continue to do so in the future.
Tuesday had three articles that interested me. The first is about UK singer, Dan Bull, releasing his latest music video on YouTube. Even though he's in the UK, he'd still be affected by SOPA. Dan Bull relies on user-content-generated-sites to release his media but the entertainment industry would like to shut them all down (or at least limit them), given half a chance. Once that’s done, this artist, unless he got picked up by a label, would have no easy way of distributing his music.
The second article for Tuesday was about successful photographer Trey Ratcliff. He’s another member of the growing example of artists who succeed in the digital age despite the copyrights on his work regularly being infringed. In fact, he's worked it into his business model. What I found most amusing about the article were the responses from some people, who continue to state that these examples don't matter. We here at Techdirt are offering proof but these people willfully stay blind.
The last Tuesday article was about the death of Veoh, a video sharing website that, despite being perfectly legal, was killed financially in a bogus copyright lawsuit from Universal Music Group. Under the original version of SOPA, you wouldn't need a lawsuit. Just a stern letter to the payment processors and you get the same result. If you can already kill a legal website dead by overburdening it with lawsuits, why bother pushing for all this extra legislation?
Come, Wednesday and I hear about Gilberto Sanchez who has been sentenced to a year in prison for uploading the unfinished workprint of X-men Origins: Wolverine. Despite the fact no harm has been proven and despite the fact that uploading a workprint does NOT equal uploading a full finished movie, Fox still pushed for his imprisonment. All this will do is drive further resentment against copyright law, as people ask themselves why such a harsh punishment?
Again with the superhero movies, as the Dark Knight Rises movie trailer has gone viral. Now, people in the marketing division of Warner Bros want this video to be seen by as many people as possible, so as to entice more people to see the actual movie. However, the lawyers are a different breed and have sent Rob Sheridan a notice for daring to embed the video. So what... are we NOT allowed talk about the movie?
My last favorite Wednesday article would have made me chuckle if it didn't piss me off so much. The YouHaveDownloaded tool has been used to find out that IP addresses belonging to the RIAA have been used to infringe copyright. The RIAA has been too quick to say that it could have been a third party at fault, a defense that it never allowed anyone else to use during its infamous P2P lawsuits.
I came home from work Thursday and saw that Julian Sanchez had been hard at work, showing us how SOPA will enable censorship beyond that of copyright infringement. What truly amused and dumbfounded me were the commentators who still insisted that dajaz1.com was rogue and illegal, when clearly the government couldn't make such a case. Talk about a complete disconnect from reality.
Reddit General Manager released a statement showing how SOPA still impacts domestic sites. Even if it were true that SOPA would only ever be used against foreign sites, the logistical nightmares of censoring them (and the penalties for failing to do so) would fall on US companies.
I came home from work on Friday, booted up my browser and first place I went was Techdirt, where I learned that pretty much everybody who was listed as supporting SOPA have demanded to be taken off the list. Turns out, they were never asked whether or not they supported SOPA, or in GoDaddy's case, were facing a massive boycott from their customers. So SOPA supporters...where is this massive support you've been crowing about? Are SOPA critics still limited to pirates and thieves?
I'd like to thank Mike for giving me the opportunity to write this article and the Techdirt community for just being that awesome. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Gays use emotional ploys to violate children's 1st Amendment right (i.e. freedom of religion),"
You obviously have no understanding what that means do you? A child in a public school in the US, in a school that receives funding from the state or federal government, CANNOT promote a religion. It's called the separation of church and state. The founders of the US were quite rightly scared of what would happen if one religion were to indoctrinate children on what is evil and what is not.
You have, in the US, a freedom of religion, to join whatever religion you want. Based on your comments, you're in one branch of Christianity (and for the record, I grew up in Catholic Ireland, went to three Catholic schools. In fact, I learned recently that my secondary (high) school, which is run by the Marianists, actually had an openly gay headmaster). The founders feared what would happen if a religion were to insert itself one way or another into a government body and use its influence to discriminate against a certain group of people.
That is precisely what you are doing. Care to tell me exactly how homosexuality is evil? Where's the harm it is causing? I myself am hetero, and I don't give a damn if the guy sitting next to me on the bus takes it up the ass from his partner when they're alone.
Define evil for me. What is it?
Here's why I don't obey the Bible. Because it is an out-date piece of shit. It is contradictory and in several places, glorifies acts that everyone on the planet rejects. Lot's daughters committed incest and the equivalent of date rape when they got their father drunk. Cities are wiped out in the Old Testament, whole populations massacred and we're told this is good.
Not only that, but in obeying it, I would willingly become a slave. A slave to a tyrannical Sky Daddy, who seems to have serious mental issues. Sky Daddy hates homosexuality...then why the fuck create it in the first place? God cannot judge us for going off and doing our own thing when he is supposedly the one who gave us free will in the first place. I would rather burn in hell for eternity than submit to your "loving" dictator, because that's what he is. Your god is a tyrant, one who creates arbitrary rules that make no sense and you are a slave who gladly puts on chains, simply because it's what you were told to do.
Re: Ain't a gonna folla ya down the "rabbit hole", Mike!
"Try writing a piece that applies to non-lawyers, everyday, and in some way rewards the time spent."
You mean...what he does do every single day?
Re:
Okay, I'm a perfect example of that data set. What would happen if I was tried for copyright infringement and among the most likely punishments I either lose internet access, I get imprisoned, or I get handed a fine so large that it cripples me for life?
The out come would be I would STOP buying content altogether. Indeed, I would mostly be unable to do so, not having Internet access, thus losing Steam. I wouldn't have the money to buy anymore, because of the statutory damages. I would be paying it off for the rest of my life, even if I was found guilty of sharing 1 song with just 1 person.
Imagine if you will, Walmart finding out that it's suffering thefts (and no, not for one second do I agree that infringement = theft) but notices that those who steal also tend to spend more than non-thieves. At that point, a smart executive would immediately begin planning how to get those thieves to spend more. Not kick them out of the store and lose their revenue entirely. Sure, you're preventing theft, but it doesn't bring in more revenue and profits.
Re:
Your artist friends? Care to name them? Are their names so sacred that they cannot be uttered or written with flawed, human letters?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a massively hateful person. I'm going to say why.
At first, you constantly complained of gay people constantly shoving their sexuality in your face. Okay...I can somewhat understand that, but beneath it all, was an undercurrent of hatred towards homosexuals themselves. You said that there was some sort of festival where men openly sodomized each other. Can you link to that? Where the men arrested for indecent exposure, which doesn't take into account sexuality?
You've now conflated homosexuality with pedophilia, as if one who supports homosexual rights must also automatically support pedophilia/bestiality/whatever. THAT IS WRONG, especially when you brought up NAMBLA. There is a huge difference between them. Homosexuality involves willing, consensual sex between two ADULTS of the same gender. Pedophilia involves the willing/unwilling act of sex with a MINOR, i.e. a child, someone whom EVERYONE agrees should not be having sex. Such an act harms them, whereas adult homosexuality doesn't.
Yes homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. That's because it was proven not to be. It wasn't propaganda. Can you point to any evidence that it is? Sexuality in humans is more than just reproduction, otherwise you would have to be against sex between barren hetero couples. And yes, you did imply that homosexuals cannot love, when you said "It's homoSEXUALITY, nothing more", as if to a homosexual, there can be no feeling of love when engaged in the act.
Yes, if wider society deems a group of people as "not normal", it's called bullying. Even if there is no violence. The smaller group feels unwelcome, has rights stripped away, all for engaging in an act that harms no-one.
You hate gays. As simple as that. You want no mention of them at all in schools, as if their existence is a shame. You are far too obsessed with other men putting their penises in other men: I don't care, why do you? It's not your penis. If the parades in San Fran bother you, DON'T GO!
Re: Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs
"Before the Megaupload take down, not many people would have known who he was;"
Only too true. I had been using Megaupload for a couple of years before the fiasco of his arrest, with paid accounts. However, I hadn't heard of Kim Dotcom. I didn't know or care who ran the company. Now I do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Here's another comment from her, talking about the Boston Bombings.
"DNSSEC that in fact no major companies have adopted now" [even though her article and comments were talking about CISPA in privacy concerns she switched to a rant about piracy]. Yeah, no major companies have DNSSEC. Except for, ya know, Comcast, one of the largest ISPs in the US.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/04/you-should-be-upset-that-cispa-didnt-pass-and- dont-gloat-it-will-be-back.html#comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Wow. Actually, not wow. What I saw there is pretty tame for the copyright trolls. Comparing links to a robber advertising empty homes (a robber who steals physical items while committing trespass, mind you) is par for the course for trolls. I love the amount of comments, all three of them. Somewhat surprising that one of them is a dissenter, rightly calling out the bullshit.
I also love the second comment there, saying "I'm not convinced there *isn't* a crime he's committed in the UK". Wrong. If memory serves, O'Dwyer was either found not guilty at trial or the UK police investigated but didn't take him to trial (I can't remember which). Meaning, that he has not been declared a criminal! But when has that stopped the copyright cartels, they're all about sidestepping the courts and going for Punishment Upon Accusation.
Re: So it's not yet bad enough to panic? WHEN will you?
Tell me Blue...is it possible right now to have a camera and point it at the next stall, a camera that ISN'T Google Glass?
Re:
"I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?"
Can you give me some reasons please as to why that would be bad? I don't see it as any different as them creating Google Streetview, the only difference is there they used cameras to capture images, here they were recording where the access points were.
"There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached."
Scared of face recognition? Then don't have any photos online that are tagged as such. I don't. I've been pretty careful to do just that. I have a Facebook account, but no photos that I am in, so it's not like Google could ask FB to share their recognition data.
Re: Re: Re: censorship
When the Techdirt community reports a comment, it is hidden from view but still accessible to anyone. Techdirt staff and management do not get into legal trouble if someone views these comments.
These sites though in the UK...the ISPs have to go to some effort to block them, or face sanctions. While pointless (since you only need a proxy or VPN to view them anyway), if the judge sees that Blocked Site A can be viewed on ISP B, he'll go ballistic that they're violating his order.
What the judge is doing in the UK is censorship. The sites may still be there with all of their content, but the onus is placed on third parties to try and ensure no-one accesses them. Techdirt doesn't censor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*after explaining
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At which point, after explaing, (and linking back to comments) how you were being absurd (to say the least) you will dismiss all claims, only to return later, demand an answer to a question and spew forth the exact same bullshit.
Re: Well, Rapidshare, Depostfiles, and Mega are ORGANIZED,
Blue, answer this for me?
What does it take to convince you? You've been corrected here thousands of times, by many different people, and yet you still puke the same bullshit, like common law. At what point will you read someone's comment, go "Hmm...ya know what, you're actually right, you've presented convincing evidence, I guess I was wrong"?
Re: censorship
"Wait, that's not the case. The sites aren't being censored. The sites still exist with all of their content."
Wait...so when you and your ilk scream at Techdirt for "censoring" your comments when they're reported...they're not in fact censored now? After all, the comments are still there, with all their content. They're not being deleted. Which is it?
(untitled comment)
Okay, so the legal writing says MP3. Quick solution...convert all audio tracks to OGG or some other format. If you want to have songs longer than 5 minutes, simply rerecord them at a faster speed, and then in your playback program, slow them down.
Re:
So you're complaining of how the Piratebay founders worked their way up the chain, going from court to court...just like any other person would have the right to? What is it about alleged copyright infringing sites and persons that means they don't get due process and should never see the inside of a court room?
Re: What the Bible says
I don't give a shit what the Bible says. It's contradictory to say the least, and yes, I have read it, cover to cover. I'm a real man, I'm able to make my own decisions, I don't blindly hate a group of people simply because a book near 2,000 years old says I'm supposed to.
Even if your book were right, read the fucking quote. "God gave them over to a reprobate mind" as in, it's God making gay men gay. If that's true, (and it must be according to you, it's in the BIBLE) then why should they be punished for merely doing God's will? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
No, you are a hateful person, one who has no real basis for his hatred, and merely points to a book because its convenient.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that would be if the topic of the applicant's homosexuality was discussed during the hiring interview. (Which quite frankly shouldn't be discussed at all).
It would be discrimination if you (unknowingly) had a homosexual employee, their partner were to hug them/kiss them chastely or otherwise make it known to you that said employee was gay, only for you to then fire the guy/girl. (Note, I'm not talking about making out, or having full blown sex in front of customers, I'm talking about a loving embrace that no-one would blink an eye at if it were a hetero couple).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"When I was very young, around 4-5, if I remember correctly."
So, at age 4/5, you were fully conscious of sexuality, of the act of sexual intercourse, and at that age, you decided, you said to yourself "I am going to have intercourse with women, and women only!".
You really knew at that age that your "peepee" was meant to go into the woman's "vajajay" and that was how you made babies?