Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the what-say-you dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous response to some bargain-basement transphobic bigotry:

I could point you at a trans discussing what its like to be a trans, but you are so aggressive towards trans people that i will not set an rabid dog on their case. Suffice to say that they have has enough problems in their life that gives lie to the idea that being a woman is a simple choice. Rather remaining in the closet would have been an even worse choice.

Your absolutism about trans people is a far worse ideology then the live and let live ideology that you label as woke.

In second place, it’s That One Guy with a comment about the Indian government’s claim that facial recognition tech only affects criminals:

‘Of course they’re guilty, we said they were!’

‘The only people caught by the system are criminals.’

‘How do you know they’re a criminal?’

‘They got caught by the system.’

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Toom1275 that applies to most complaints about Section 230:

Notice how in every instance, you can swap “Section 230” with “The First Amendment and the foundation of freedom of speech” without changing the meaning.

Next, it’s an anonymous reply to a defense of copyright in the face of its abuse by the powerful:

If you don’t want the good name of your tool to be so easily besmirched, maybe you should find better representatives that don’t make the news for all the wrong reasons.

The fact remains that many of the issues with copyright enforcement were baked into copyright law, such as the maximum penalty of $150,000 per infringement used to scare grandmothers and children into compliance. The same goes for the lack of requirement for plaintiffs to allow for fair use. Copyright law is intentionally stacked in favor of plaintiffs, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims.

Again, if you’re angry that people think poorly of your reputation, it’s on you to get better representatives.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Flakbait with a response to the Federalist article about antitrust bills and the admission that, if they are changed to protect content moderation, Republicans like Hawley, Cruz, and Gaetz will “flee”:

If only they would, but in a more literal sense.

In second place, it’s an anonymous rejoinder in a long debate that broke out on last week’s comments post:

Pretty bold to declare a victory when the only thing you’ve cited in favor is nothing more than your fervent belief. Have you considered declaring yourself to be the inventor of EMAIL?

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Thad about the broken release of KOTOR 2 for the Nintendo Switch:

You have to admit that 17 years of releasing the same game in an unfinished state is pretty impressive.

Finally, it’s jojo_36 with a comment about the White House’s latest task force aiming to curb online abuse:

Whenever someone from the government says that they’re going to tackle online bullying and harassment, the first thing that comes to mind is the main theme song from “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”

That’s all for this week, folks!


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
186 Comments
ECA (profile) says:

The strangest thing

I find it humorist, that most of my life it has been said that the differences between Mankind and animals was our brain.
Then we can compare them by Grading them from school age.
Then we look at the humans and most seem to be as bad as the creatures we THINK we are smarter than.

Their brains are designed for What they ARE. What they have to live threw. And there are those in society That treat everyone as Lesser, for WHAT reason? That THEY were told so.

Its a hidden fact in the past. That there were studies of animals, but they Left something out. “as against the bible and What we THOUGHT was right”.

Nature dont really care who you love.
https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+homosexual+behavior&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS823US823&tbm=vid&sxsrf=ALiCzsaejjAfR1Ra7NYSdqV3bkT3Ufz87g:1656274003722&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5yJG99cv4AhVhKH0KHbnMAIYQpwV6BAgBEB8&biw=872&bih=997&dpr=0.9

They have found every type of sex in nature. And its just as bad with humans.
Its stranfe that the bible mentions that there were no rules in Eden. THey only happened AFTER eating from the tree of knowledge, and learning of their nakedness?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

To be fair, we know today that animals can be idiots when horny.

A male penguin, when aroused, doesn’t care that the female penguin is, in fact, dead when performing coitus. Male turkeys will hump the stick where a female turkey’s head is mounted on.

And the countless anedoctal examples of people (mostly men, but women have been known to engage in this behavior, I can’t speak for transgender folk or other non-binary folk) spending a shitton of money on escorts, prostitutes and streamers for parasocial reasons (read: they be HORNY).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Weird. In the same week it’s revealed that Hyman Rosen’s comments are now being held in moderation for his bullying of trans people, someone else gets rewarded for their part in bullying another commenter. So bullying is simultaneously allowed and disallowed on Techdirt. Or is it just because the first individual was being bullied for a minority viewpoint (blame the user, not the tool) rather than being bullied as a member of a minority group? Either way, it seems to be a rather hypocritical position to take.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re:

Telling a bigot that they are a bigot isn’t bullying or do you think it’s unfair to call bigots and assholes for what they are? Should we just roll over and let them spew their shit without saying anything because it would hurt their feelings?

Btw, I do love how you try to frame a bigots views as “minority views” – regardless of your desire to polish a turd, it is still just shit.

Oh, everyone gets their comments held in moderation from time to time – that you don’t think people have more important things to do than waiting for some bigot to post just to make sure the post is held in moderation is a you-problem and have nothing todo with factual reality.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Back here in the real world, AC’s lies about what rocky wrote – his evidentially baseless demented hallucination that Rocky ever even remotely claimed anything even close to “holding a minority opinion on copyright” is bigotry – has only two possible origins:

Either AC is illiterate and couldn’t comprehend Rocky’s comment they replied to, or they’re deliberately lying about what Rocky said and hoping everyone else is as stupid as you to believe his always-false accusations.

So once again as always, it’s you who is gaslighting making false claims based solely on your being completely clueless.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You forget that I can read all the comments, although I have to click a link for some, and all I see is one typo (“first” instead of “second”) and a whole heap of bullying that resulted from it. So if anyone’s gaslighting, it’s you and Rocky trying to gaslight those who haven’t the time or patience to read the hidden comments.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:9

it’s you and Rocky trying to gaslight those who haven’t the time or patience to read the hidden comments.

If people are too fucking lazy to actually read a thread before posting their inane drivel they deserve all the scorn they get for being lazy and stupid.

And you know what’s even more stupid, defending that behavior.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

If you think that both ACs are one and the same individual, it’s on you to prove it. Do you know how many different people comment here under that badge? Unless Techdirt creates a policy where everyone has to have an account post under a unique user name, you’re never going to be able to say with any certainty that one person is another.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

If an AC shows up defending a post with “it was a typo” the most likely scenario it’s the same AC – because why the fuck would some rando defend another AC with that stupid excuse. The only alternative to that could be that the stupid rando defending is be some low level troll with zero reading comprehension – just like the first AC.

I couldn’t care less if it’s one or two AC, both posts indicates a distinct lack of reading comprehension and an abundance of stupidity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

And since when does “I read it as a typo” become “it was definitely a typo”? You need to stop gaslighting people who won’t click on the hidden comments to read what was really said. Either don’t reply to people whose comments you’ve tagged as “disruptive” or stop tagging them so that both sides can be heard.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

And you’re welcome to stop bullying people and take away the fear of being doxed

What fear of being doxxed? If it means that much to you, making up a unique pseudonym to use on one website isn’t difficult. You’ve already been using “Raziel” as one pseudonym as well as linked to one random fanfiction writer account. A fear of being “doxed” is evidently not an issue if you’re already dropping those hints.

The taste of power has always been the most appealing to those lowest in the pecking order.

If everyone else who disagrees with you are so low in the pecking order, what do you have to fear?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

What’s the alternative? Multiple anonymous people coming to defend the honor of copyright maximalists while responding to the same commenters? Or perhaps, the likelier conclusion is that you’re trying to masquerade as multiple people because you can’t handle that one person suggested that copyright trolls are the best that copyright law has to offer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Wasn’t it a large part of your legal strategy, John Smith, to sign off as “John Smith” or “Jhon Smith” on every other incendiary post you made, so when your name was finally included in the lawsuit against Masnick that you swear is actually coming, any insults against John Smith or Jhon Smith could magically be liable for defamation claims? What happened to that strategy? Weren’t you going to dox each and every one of us so you could stomp on our little boy dicks?

For someone who claims that people low on the chain of command crave the taste of power the most you sure love to come back to this site of nobodies to strut around on a high horse. A lot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

John Smith’s predominant strategy has always been desperately praying nobody can connect the dots. He’s somehow an author of a very niche genre who is so powerful he has bevies of Hollywood staff and women at his beck and call, yet also incapable of going after the pirates who stole his mailing lists of people he was sending expensive trinkets to… while also capable of commanding police investigations, fraud lawsuits, and other shadow cabal-level antics just to go after one website he personally believes is staffed by nobodies and led by a man he intensely disrespects and loathes, but promises that it’s because Masnick is a very small fry in a web of financial fraud masterminds… somehow.

And to the uninitiated, he could probably pull the wool over people’s eyes, if not for the fact that he simply can’t resist leaving little tells everywhere. Like his absolute disgust for the women he woos, something about Rose McGowan, his constant use of the “distribution liability” or “Section 230 encourages defamation” bogeymen, and the good old fashion snipe at Masnick and his family. It’s to the point where John can be identified even without a pseudonym.

The “I know you are but what am I” strategy he seems to be deploying now is cute, but mostly in that obnoxious “teenager discovers how to use swear words in every other sentence” kind of way.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

I mean, it kinda is. A typo is a difference between what was meant and what was typed, which is usually in the form of a spelling or punctuation mistake or the result of autocorrect. I have no idea what could possibly have been meant instead of “copyright” where it both could have reasonably been what Rocky was talking about and could have reasonably been a typo.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Oh goody! Another AC who can’t fucking read.

How fucking stupid are you? Let me enlighten you: The minority views being discussed are those of bigots and transphobes. How about you actually go and read the first post in the thread, or is that too fucking hard for you?

It’s like an idiot army of AC’s fell of a truck or something.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It was bullying someone by calling them a bigot for having a view about copyright that’s different from your own extreme minimalist view, […]

Which wasn’t at all what was being discussed. The issue was about bigotry and transgender people, and in the original discussion, it was about content moderation by social media platforms as it relates to perceived bias against conservatives by those platforms. Nothing at all to do with copyright. In short, the minority view here was transphobia, not differing from copyright minimalism.

[…] and since the AC’s comment has been hidden by you and your gang, your fighting words remain plain for everyone to see.

I don’t see how the latter follows from the former, or how either help your case at all.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Notice that AC’s gaslighting about conspicuously omits the part about the troll’s flag-worthy deranged “copyright minimalist” hallucinations they lashed out woth to attack anyone and everyone who was being reasonable.

Nobody at all was ever bullied for having a minority viewpoint, only for dementedly lying.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Or is it just because the first individual was being bullied for a minority viewpoint (blame the user, not the tool) rather than being bullied as a member of a minority group

Blaming the user or abuser does not obligate everyone to ignore the problematic aspects of a tool. I can simultaneously blame a school shooter’s damaged background and criticize how easy it was for him to have access to dangerous firearms.

But, relevant to the topic of copyright, there are indeed issues with the tool. Namely: the huge maximum fines that plaintiffs and enforcers use as a threat to harass defendants into compliance (even though maximum penalties are rarely actively sought by plaintiffs and enforced by judges in the courtroom); the absurdly low standard of proof that plaintiffs bring to the table to demand identifying information with, despite questionable accuracy of their IP address evidence; the many options given to a plaintiff to pull out of a lawsuit the moment things don’t go their way or a judge requests for more evidence; and the ridiculous claims that a “life + 70 years” is necessary to motivate creators to make anything at all and we’d be irreparably damaged if that length was ever shortened, while the public domain continues to be encroached upon.

The way copyright is structured now staggeringly favors a plaintiff who wants to demand a settlement fee from a random person, then absolve themselves of all responsibility and costs as soon as it looks like the courts might get involved by yeeting themselves out of the case. Prenda Law, Evan Stone, Malibu Media, Andrew Crossley, SMAIS and all sorts of copyright enforcers and plaintiffs got as far as they did precisely because they’d followed the RIAA playbook and nobody thought there was anything amiss, until defense lawyers and judges started doing their homework and realizing that something was wrong.

Now, having a different view regarding copyright doesn’t make you a bigot. But a claim that criticizing copyright trolls convinces them to campaign for more favorable laws is a weak one. It’s the equivalent of saying “Rapists don’t like it when people criticize rapists and it’ll just make them rape people even more so we shouldn’t do anything about them”.

And for context, all this discussion was on an article pointing out how a company came close to unmasking an anonymous critic through a copyright claim, after using copyright law to demand that Twitter take down a tweet containing photos. Photos that did not have any registered copyright until after the tweet was made, meaning that it was clearly applied by a shell company solely for the purpose of harassing and unmasking an anonymous individual, not because copyright law had been violated. The fact that a shell company can hold onto copyright while refusing to reveal any information – contacts, employment, or otherwise – is entirely because copyright law allows them to. Criticism of the tool here is wholly, completely deserved.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Copyright terms are way too long

the ridiculous claims that a “life + 70 years” is necessary to motivate creators to make anything at all and we’d be irreparably damaged if that length was ever shortened, while the public domain continues to be encroached upon.

This. So much this. My problem with © nowadays is that it used to require formalities such that it was “opt-in” so “public domain” would be the standard, not “copyright”. Also, there would be an option to renew a copyright if a copyrighted work was successful, meaning that a lot of work that didn’t make it for whatever reason would enter the public domain after one term. Now, however, we have one ultra-long term. Also, there’s the case of the retroactive copyright term extension by twenty years. Though Disney is often blamed for this, and while I don’t discount their contributions to it, I would say it’s basically the EU’s fault for extending copyright terms from life+50 to life+70 and then watching the world harmonize it.

While it’s great that © is expiring in the US again, terms are still a ratchet (as correctly pointed out by Glyn Moody) and that’s why I’ve decided to dedicate all my work to the public domain upon my death.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I don’t know what you’re talking about really, I mean I can’t imagine that I’m alone in having been utterly bereft of any interest in creating anything until I learned that my great grandchildren would be able to act as gatekeepers for it.

Indeed it was only after I learned that anything I created, built upon what had come before, would be locked up and kept out of reach of others that might want to continue the cycle of creativity that I had any interest in creating works at all, so I can safely say that setting copyright to last decades after I was turned into a pile of ashes was the real spark that fueled my creativity in the first place.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

you would know if you bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution properly

The Legal Information Institute quotes Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 as:

“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Contrary to what you’d like to think, it grants a “right”. Nothing specific to “creation” or “publication”. In fact copyright holders have argued between both depending on when it suits them. They’ve both argued that copyright allows them to publish – or not publish – works for purchase, but also insisted that a shortening of copyright lengths from “life + 70” to “life + 50” would lead to less works being produced or created.

It’s not a strawman either: long-time Techdirt critic antidirt/average_joe has made very little secret of his belief that copyright should last “forever minus a day”, quoting the RIAA’s own belief, or life + 99 years and additional extensions as seen fit as an alternative.

The point remains: copyright advocates and supporters have yet to explain why an extended length of copyright beyond the average human lifespan is necessary to get creators to create anything, or why “life + 50” is not acceptable or less competitive compared to “life + 70”. Whether it’s for creation or publication is irrelevant.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

copyright advocates and supporters have yet to explain why an extended length of copyright beyond the average human lifespan is necessary to get creators to create anything

the length of the copyright needs to be so long that an author who spends his time creating useful stuff for society to consume, will recoup the investment spent on it. If disney invests millions of dollars and their animations are displayed all over the world including finland, but disney as a company is losing money on the long term for the activity, then copyright term is the only thing that needs to be changed.

Given that meshpage has so far got $48 for 10 years of work, it means that copyright term needs to be longer than 10 years. Author of meshpage has spent thousands of euros for purchasing computers and other equipment to keep development activities ongoing, and spent countless of hours time for the activity, but real compensation isn’t here yet. Fix the compensation and you’ll get shorter copyright term.

So if you want copyright term to be shorter, you should focus your efforts to fixing the business environment for copyrighted works. If authors (in average) do not get compensation for the effort they spend under copyright laws, the copyright term will become longer and longer.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

A sand castle can be a work of art, or an ugly pile of damp sand. Neither have much value because the next tide will erase them, but one gives a greater satisfaction to its creator.

Take your camera to the beach then? Once you click the record button, copyright is assigned to you and you can sell beautiful images of sand castles to the local travel agency and get your pictures on front of thousands of global tourists that would like to travel to your city. Some compensation is expected from such a service, so the images are pretty valuable.

The caveat is that next year your city will be full of idiotic tourists that get ran over by a tram. And then you need to handle their souvenirs and create products for the tourist industry, but that’s what you get for having cool beach somewhere near.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

And you have totally missed the point, that which has been created does not always have value in itself,nor does creating something guarantee that it has value for other people. Indeed kids will build a pile of damp sand just for the pleasure of doing so.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

that which has been created does not always have value in itself,nor does creating something guarantee that it has value for other people.

The scenes on lord of the rings/minas tirith castle is just next version of what the children can create with sand on the beach. the LOTR castles have a valuation going in millions, and thus we have found example where your analysis is failing. You shouldn’t focus on how horrible sand castles children can create, but instead you should encourage them to improve their castle creation skills and soon you’ll have beautiful castles worth millions of bucks being displayed in successful blockbuster movie generating money like no other castle on the planet.

This is how meshpage is doing. While the original 3d models were worse than children’s sand castles, incremental updates to the software keep improving the output until the beauty is worth millions of bucks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Why would anybody use the walled garden that is meshpages when free alternatives with much more power

meshpage isn’t really a walled garden. While it supports some of RIAA/MPAA requirements about trackability of copyright infringers and prevents use cases where one imported bitmap comes from new york times and next one from boston herald, you cannot really say it’s a walled garden.

Every piece of software has limitations inherent of the selected technologies and environments where it is available at. While meshpage chooses some specific environments to support, all software related technologies have these same limitations and if your hardware can only render 6 million triangles before falling back to 40 fps, meshpage or unity or unreal engine cannot really do anything to this limitation, and only solution is to wait for better hardware to appear.

The limitations you see are not really caused by the walled garden classification of meshpage, but are inherent of the hardware platform that meshpage is running on.

While you can always argue that other frameworks are getting better result from the same hardware, I don’t think it’s valid argument to claim that it’s caused by walled garden.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Wrong, the first option on the import and export menus is collada,

It doesn’t matter if one of the supported file formats supports shaders. It needs to be available in all the supported file formats, including .obj/.mtl files, gltf files, stl files, etc.

Noone cares if some collada has shader support included, when noone is using collada. Basically the shaders are relevant in all the supported export formats, and if you cannot get the shader out from the blender’s data structures, then it’s next to useless.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

It’s also meaningless in the context of Meshpage, because one of Tero Pulkinnen’s selling points for Meshpage is the fact that he intentionally prevents certain popular file formats like .mp4s because – according to him – it’s an anti-piracy/pro-copyright feature.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

selling points for Meshpage is the fact that he intentionally prevents certain popular file formats like .mp4s because – according to him – it’s an anti-piracy/pro-copyright feature.

mp4’s are like double-failure:
1) you need to implement it the exact same way as all other mp4 implementations to keep files compatible
2) once you get files compatible, pirated hollywood movies are also compatible, making it awesome for pirates
3) the mp4 decoders are existing software pieces that shouldn’t be modified — all you can do with them is copyright infringement
4) the decoders are also patented
5) it’s pretty much impossible to license the content that everyone wants to watch with mp4 decoders: hollywood movie licenses are simply not available.

So it’s like failure on top of a failure.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

1) comparability is desirable, otherwise videos could not be widely distributed.

2) So what, any computer and a bit of typing and you can copy any book; which can also be done by using pencil and paper.

3) Part of being compatible with millions of videos.

4) Only possibly significant is you are distributing pre-built video editors and players, and doesn’t affect using them to make and distribute videos.

5) What about all the videos taken using phones and cameras. YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, etc. are enabled by mp4, and most of the content is non infringing and free to watch.

If you are as concerned about piracy as you claim, you would retire to a Trappist monastery so as to avoid accidentally giving a public performance of part of a copyrighted work; as speaking can lead to copyright infringement.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

5) What about all the videos taken using phones and cameras. YouTube, TikTok, Vimeo, etc. are enabled by mp4, and most of the content is non infringing and free to watch.

youtube-dl proved that it’s illegal to download the files from the youtube. You are only allowed to watch the video via youtube platform, but you’re not allowed to move the files to other platforms => making a mp4 decoder because of youtube’s files is not helping anything.

dunno how the other platforms work, but they’re not significant enough to matter.

Cameras are interesting non-infringing use, but its not significant enough that it would make it worthwhile to take a risk with pirates. Also I’ve already implemented over 100 million cameras, so already covered that use case pretty well, no need to be ashamed of what I’ve accomplished in that area.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18

youtube-dl proved that it’s illegal to download the files from the youtube.

I can’t speak about Finnish law, but did you know that there are cases in US © law that you could do that legally? I license my music with a Creative Commons license so if someone used youtube-dl to download my original music they aren’t doing anything illegal.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19

I license my music with a Creative Commons license so if someone used youtube-dl to download my original music they aren’t doing anything illegal.

If the comment field of your video doesn’t explicitly give a license to the material, it can be assumed that youtube’s license is the only thing available, and thus downloading the music files is outside of youtube’s system is forbidden. The authors who post youtube videos are giving google a license to publish the material, but the terms of that license only allow publish actions within the youtube system, i.e. any attempt to move it outside of youtube runs into legal problems.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your complaint was that copyright maximalists would use any call out of copyright lawyers and enforcers behaving badly as justification for even harsher penalties and even more abusive practices to follow, because “copyright minimalism”.

Yes, the point about rapists was intentionally farcical. Because the claim that we should not point out copyright abuse was, in itself, ridiculous to start with. It’s no more a stretch than your claim that copyright abuse should never be criticized, or your claim that detailing copyright abuse and trolling is an act of bullying.

Now you might not be Malibu Media, but it’s worth pointing out that Malibu Media themselves tried to claim that anyone who disagreed with them was part of a psychopathic hate group. That claim didn’t go over well in court, and Malibu Media very nearly got themselves arrested after refusing to foot the court-mandated bill from suing someone innocent and refusing to show proof.

You could argue that Malibu Media is not most “copyright holders” and therefore copyright law should not be criticized based on the bad behavior of a few bad actors. But considering that Malibu Media at their peak were filing most of the copyright cases in the US during the late 2010s, it’s very clear that the actions of copyright trolls are not insignificant.

Again, you can hate the current state of affairs. You can detest discussion about them. You can be angry that most people, by and large, don’t respect copyright at the level you want them to. But that doesn’t obligate us to stop pointing out the very real issues and abuses copyright law enables.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Is that the claim you want to make? Let’s pick out some choice quotes from the original thread:

Not trying to defend maximalists, actually. Just trying to prevent minimalists bolstering their arguments through the back door.

The speech and actions of individuals like you laid the foundations for firms like Prenda

Which could be construed as an argument against putting anything into the Public Domain, playing right into the maximalists hands.

People can read up on the original thread, mate. You’ve been desperately trying to tie in criticism of copyright trolls on one thread to a “copyright minimalist” stance in that thread, then extend it to the entire site to justify the acts of copyright trolls. Then when confronted about this, the best you have is repeating comments in disdainful fashion. It’s not hard to figure you out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Yes, people can read up on the original thread. And when they do, do you honestly think they’ll read “destroying copyright isn’t the answer” as “more copyright protection is needed” as you have? A lot of claims about lack of reading comprehension get flung about here, most of them at the wrong targets.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

do you honestly think they’ll read “destroying copyright isn’t the answer” as “more copyright protection is needed” as you have?

“Destroying copyright isn’t the answer” was not the point made in the original thread. What started it off was an expression of indignance that copyright trolls were called “copyright law’s best and brightest”.

Then when it was asked, “Where in this thread was the destruction of copyright requested?” The response was “Point out that a particular thing wasn’t done in this one thread as evidence it’s never been done on this site.”.

The commenter literally said “it’s your words and actions that cause maximalists to lobby for case law and legislation in their favor”. The commenter claimed that any untoward or unfavorable opinions towards copyright would cause maximalists to campaign for even worse copyright laws, and they personally held the other commenters responsible.

You keep making claims about bullies and bigotry when the downfalls of copyright trolls are being discussed. Like we’re heralding in some copyright maximalism apocalypse because we’re not being sufficiently reverent towards you. I give you maybe one or two more comments before you start defaulting back to the “Are you a Canon or a Samsung because I’m calling you a projector” remarks.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

AC just doesn’t seem to show any understanding of how words or context work.

For example, they use the word “projection” to describe the situation of “A commenter just accurately called out AC’s behavior” and “bullying” to refer to “stating plain amd true facts” and “bigot” to refer to “anyone who relies on evidence” and “hypocrisy” to refer to “someone who treats similar situations alike and completely different situations differently.” (See the second post in this thread).

And several times now they have poorly mimiced others’ comments in ways that fall flat because they don’t align in any way with reality like the originals do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

On the contrary, it’s likely that said AC is very aware of how context and reading comprehension works – they simply think screaming the words “bigot” and “bully” somehow means that they have to be believed or taken seriously, like the Karen who screams “HIPAA violation” because she wasn’t granted the privilege she demanded. The back and forth of “NO, U” comments is entirely kindergarten-level argumentation purely meant to exhaust and claim the last word, which is funny when you consider their earlier point that those on the lowest level in the food chain are the ones who are this obsessed with the illusion of having power.

The focus on bullying claims is interesting, though, because it’s the exact same claim John Smith was making in his usual “I hate Section 230” screeds.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

The constant focus on allegations of bullying, projection, and bigotry don’t exactly make it difficult to tell one Rocky from another. But then John Smith/horse with no name/Whatever/MyNameHere is no stranger to making fantastic claims that people are using his name to make dumb comments.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

If you’re going to bother attempting to masquerade someone to make them look dumb, the least you could do is put some effort into actually making them sound like the person you’re trying to insult. But seeing that your best attempt is something like

How to get your comments collapsed as the trolling they are:
Be not at all witty, like Toom1275.

Doubling down on the “act like a kindergartener” strategy really is the best play you have. You know, maybe Bayside Advisory aren’t the best and brightest copyright law has to offer; you are.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:7

For example, Techdirt regulars use the word “projection” to describe the situation of “A commenter just accurately called out Stephen T. Stone’s behavior” and “bullying” to refer to “stating plain amd true facts” and “bigot” to refer to “anyone who relies on evidence” and “hypocrisy” to refer to “someone who treats similar situations alike and completely different situations differently.” All because we don’t like a minority view, no matter how correct and reasonably expressed it may be.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

any untoward or unfavorable opinions towards copyright would cause maximalists to campaign for even worse copyright laws, and they personally held the other commenters responsible.

This claim has been proven correct, given that known copyright troll called terop explicitly asked for better copyright laws in this thread: https://github.com/responsible-financial-innovation-act22/RFIA-bill/issues/146

The issue I had with their cryptocurrency law was obviously the fact that copyright law does not guarantee compensation for the authors of digital works, and thus changes are needed. A good change would be to forbid placing zero price for digital works and especially creating product price tiers based on how much effort was spent on creating the material. Given that pricing is now misused to take away compensation from authors, pricing structure in the laws need to be changed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

that copyright law does not guarantee compensation for the authors of digital works, and thus changes are needed

I mean… good to see that you’ve finally come around and admitted that copyright law does not guarantee compensation, instead of doubling down on that promise the government never gave you. Realistically, no government would ever pass a law that “guarantees compensation” for effort put into anything, because they’d bankrupt themselves as a result giving out money to anyone who asked for it.

A good change would be to forbid placing zero price for digital works and especially creating product price tiers based on how much effort was spent on creating the material

You realize Meshpage is your project which you willingly priced at $0 to download, right? If you wanted to forbid placing zero price on digital works why not charge money for Meshpage? You’d probably be able to sucker at least a couple hundred bucks from people who don’t know better.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You realize Meshpage is your project which you willingly priced at $0 to download, right? If you wanted to forbid placing zero price on digital works why not charge money for Meshpage?

well, it doesn’t work if rest of the market doesn’t do the same thing. If I increase the prices, the customers will just flee to some other 3d engine. The barrier for entry for moving money around is large enough that if anyone is allowed to sell product with zero price, everyone will need to do the same or not see their products in use at all. The customer’s first instinct when they see a paywall is to just move to different project.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Gimp costs nothing, has a windows version, and is comparable in features to Photoshop, yet people still pay for Photoshop. If your product is good enough, you can compete with free. If you software lacks features people want, you will not be able to give it away…..

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

it doesn’t work if rest of the market doesn’t do the same thing

You’re the one who wanted to forbid the practice of giving something away for free. That’s on you. If even you won’t take your own advice, why is the rest of the market morally obliged to follow?

The customer’s first instinct when they see a paywall is to just move to different project.

You’re the one who complained about nobody giving you money. Now you’re complaining about having to charge people money? If anything, charging people money would probably be helpful for you, seeing that you can hide everything behind a paywall without giving anyone opportunity for criticism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Yes, the point about rapists was intentionally farcical. Because the claim that we should not point out copyright abuse was, in itself, ridiculous to start with.

I’d like to tell you that you make a good argument, but we’re not yet at the point where people are being prosecuted for rape simply because they used a chat-up line in a bar.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ve had a similar debate with a different word, claiming said word was transphobic, despite all the fucking evidence and context pointing out that the term used was not mocking trans people at all.

I am extremely wary of people who bring up the topic of certain words being discriminatory, because, like the NeoNazis that keep popping up, I am inclined to believe they are, at best, intentionally obtuse for reasons, or straight up bad faith actors.

The context the anonymous commentor had was obvious; they had to talk like a transphobic person to explain to the NeoNazi why his race traitor ass is so offensive, in the lange he fucking underatands. At least, that’s how I like to intepret it.

The term “trans” is potentially discriminatory. Yes, that is understandable and could have been worded better, or more harshly, without using potentially discrimatory language.

We get that. Thanks.

I do my best to not discriminate, because I fucking know firsthand what discrimination feels like. And I’m not even gay. In Singapore, simply saying you think the ruling party shouldn’t stay in power is ENOUGH to attract pro-incumbent trolls on your case.

And nothing will stop them except me offing myself, which I refuse to do so. Which is EXACTLY what they want.

None of us here intend to discriminate against transgender folk. And we’re more than happy to be corrected.

But you doubling down isn’t helping matters.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The term “trans” is potentially discriminatory.

No it’s not, and that’s not even what the OC was saying, so you clearly do want to engage in dicrimination and make the bullshit claim that you’re “unsure” about what is and isn’t held to be transphobic terminology by the group in question.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

All of what the AC above said, plus:

But you doubling down isn’t helping matters.

You’re the only one doubling down in this debate, which makes me believe you’re a transphobe that doesn’t believe in learning vicariously from the mistakes of others. If you want people to believe you understand how being discrimated against feels, then you’re the one that needs to stop doubling down.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Again, Pukeinen…

You couldn’t get anyone to willingly use your software, even if you paidbpeople actual cash to use them.

Yes, you’ve said companies use your software. Name them. We can do the legwork from there.

You’ve also been accused of actual copyright infringement regarding the FNAF franchise. Why the fuck aren’t you in jail then?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You couldn’t get anyone to willingly use your software, even if you paid people actual cash to use them.

I’m not going to give users any money. If our technology excellence isn’t enough to attract users, then users can find their software from somewhere else.

You’ve also been accused of actual copyright infringement regarding the FNAF franchise. Why the fuck aren’t you in jail then?

Guess their claims don’t hold water. There’s also the small issue of removing the content from the front page/damage minimisation mode. Also the license defenses/they should join sketchfab to the lawsuit, which kills your “blame tero” theory. And the character likeness crap might not be copyrightable subject matter. And if those don’t save my ass, I can always bring in fair use defense.

But there’s just plenty of defenses available. These all are unavailable for regular pirate sites.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You can’t bring in a defense that you don’t believe exists, Tero.

this isn’t true. while I think that fair use defense is idiotic defense, all the defenses need to be listed when being accused for law violations. Thus fair use will be included in the list.

but its going to be just a stopgap which will be invoked only if all else fails.

i don’t think fair use is established enough that you could rely your defense solely on it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Which is part of the fair use defense you clearly believe to be “idiotic”.

The part which tips wannabe youtube creators that they are allowed to take snippets from blockbuster movies and create short/fast movies from it. This is always associated with fair use defense, even though it’s clearly just blatant copyright infringement.

Our position is that all parts of the end product needs to be licensed from the original content owners, and thus fair use does not give any implicit permission to create youtube videos with ripped off content.

Fair use is “idiotic” when it gives false promises about some previously forbidden techniques.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The part which tips wannabe youtube creators that they are allowed to take snippets from blockbuster movies and create short/fast movies from it. This is always associated with fair use defense, even though it’s clearly just blatant copyright infringement.

The four factors judges consider are:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

In the first factor, the use is to create an in-depth review of a movie, which is a transformative use.
In the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work is a publicly-released work of entertainment rather than an unpublished work.
In the third factor, ten minutes have been excerpted from a movie that is ninety or more minutes in total. That’s less than fifteen percent.
In the fourth factor, there will be no impact on the copyrighted work at worst, and fast movies may actually help to increase paying audiences through this modern form of word-of-mouth.

Seriously, dude. If I can do a four factors analysis despite not being a copyright lawyer, then why can’t you when you claim to be such an expert?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

take snippets from blockbuster movies and create short/fast movies from it.

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, > and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Purpose and character is “moving the content from authorised distribution channel to pirate channel”
Nature of copyrighted work is “blatant ripoff from blockbuster movie with little original content”
The amount and substantiality of the portition taken is “fast movie ripped off all the important events in the movie without contributing anything original”
Effect on the potential market: “moving the content to a competitor obviously hurts original creators”

How exactly you can claim these facts give rise to proper fair use defense?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

You can complain about it all you want, but review videos on YouTube are not made for the purpose of “moving the content from authorised distribution channel to pirate channel”, “ripped off all the important events in the movie without contributing anything original”, or “moving the content to a competitor”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

It’s not. Arguing that YouTube competes with Hollywood movies is like claiming that donations from food banks compete with high-end restaurant dishes. They provide something similar but with clearly different audiences and demographics in mind.

But the idea that you would outlaw every food option except for the most overpriced is not actually out of the ordinary for a copyright cocksucker like you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

…all the defenses need to be listed when being accused for law violations.

Who by? I think you’ll find that isn’t a rule anywhere. You need to know of an exception before you’re accused to be able to raise it as a defense, it’s not on the prosecution to tell you about it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You need to know of an exception before you’re accused to be able to raise it as a defense,

Yes, the defenses need to be raised before you get a good look of the accusations. This is because you alone are an expert of your own site setup and you alone can know what level of legal problems there exists in the system at current time. Basically the status of each service changes over time, depending on what kind of market forces are at play and what the site owners do when faced with unwanted market forces.

The defenses should be based on real facts — some defenses are simply unavailable because the facts do not point to that direction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

And how did “You need to know of an exception before you’re accused to be able to raise it as a defense,” become “The defenses need to be raised before you get a good look of the accusations”? Knowing of an exception and raising it are two different things, and if you don’t know that, then it’s no wonder you were caught infringing on the copyrights of two different individuals.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Son that’s not how any of that works.

Supposedly they can’t get a truthful answers if the defendant is like a windvane — changing his position from one day to another in random manner. Thus their solution is to ask for defenses beforehand, before the plaintiff have specified the exact accusations. Then defendants are only allowed to rely on defenses that were known before the lawsuit started.

Basically dealing with lying bastards just takes too long time and that time is away from honest defendants.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

People can look up your comment history. It’s all there.

This isn’t true. You’ve voted to remove the history by flagging the content I’ve posted. You cannot claim to preserve the history while at the same time hiding it from all the threads. You either flag it and consider it disappear, or you don’t flag it and you have history intact.

There simply isn’t alternative available where flagging and preserving history fits inside the same system.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

You’ve voted to remove the history by flagging the content I’ve posted

Your commentary gets routinely flagged because you’re a psychopath who believes in raping people in the name of copyright. But your commentary is still entirely readable with the click of a mouse.

There simply isn’t alternative available where flagging and preserving history fits inside the same system.

This is literally the system that your RIAA overlords want. But what a surprise, as soon as it becomes inconvenient for you, you get angry at it. Because you copyright fans are nothing more than scumsucking, bottom-feeding hypocrites when it all boils down.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

This is literally the system that your RIAA overlords want.

If you’re so against RIAA’s system, how did you end up using that same system? If I was so against the system, I would make sure that I didn’t end up as a pawn to the enemy. But guess that isn’t a consideration which you need to worry about, since you didn’t actually think that RIAA’s system is evil, but instead you are admiring the strictness of their copyright position.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

If you’re so against RIAA’s system, how did you end up using that same system?

Because it’s not the same system. A fully integrated RIAA system would have deleted your comments completely, and probably also banned you from this website. That’s not the case here – people are still capable of reading your comments when you supported the murder, rape, and destruction of innocent people in the name of copyright. Therefore the system used here is not based on the RIAA’s requests.

instead you are admiring the strictness of their copyright position

Unlike you, I don’t believe in the rape and murder of people in the name of copyright.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

First, they’ll look up the lunatic from Finland demanding millions of dollars from the government because he feels they haven’t paid him enough for developing software that nobody uses, and has insisted that Putin invaded Ukraine in the name of copyright.

Rape and murder is the bread and butter of copyright maniacs like you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If Disney’s being suppressed by illegal downloads of their content, then what is Disney+?

Content of any single one company is no match to the technology that pirate sites have: criminals do not need to limit their output to the output of single company — they can pirate content from all hollywood studios on the planet.

This is why piracy is illegal. It’s too lucrative market to take other people’s work and not properly license it while still selling the content to pirating customers.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The real criminals like the jokers in the RIAA and MPA got nice mansions and drunken parties and 2 billion customers even after seeding torrents with fake downloads designed to capture IP addresses so they could sue alleged infringers for not infringing on their copyrights.

FTFY. YW. 😝

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

the jokers in the RIAA and MPA got nice mansions and drunken parties

The difference between RIAA/MPAA’s drunken parties compared to the megaupload’s similar parties is that RIAA/MPAA actually created the content they publish.

Being a copyright owner gives them some priviledges that other people simply does not have. drunken parties is one of the perks involved.

It’s the creation process of copyrighted works that gets copyright protection. You should tell the jokers at megaupload that they should setup proper content creation pipeline and create the content they publish from scratch.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

..is that RIAA/MPAA actually created the content they publish.

Wrong, they are trade organization that engage in political manipulations, they create nothing, but represent the interests of those who create nothing, but do purchase the creations of some creative people. The organizations they represent use ‘Hollywood’ accounting to keep most of the profits for themselves, rather than pass it on to the actual creators.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »