This Week In Techdirt History: July 10th – 16th
from the the-annals dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2017, as a new study shed more light on America’s terrible broadband access situation, many people were gearing up for a day of protest in support of net neutrality. After long being holdouts, Facebook and Google finally joined, followed by the laughable move of AT&T getting on board, though most of the telecom industry was feebly trying to deflate the protest with its own think tank campaign. But the FCC was saying it couldn’t do anything about the many fake comments being submitted on the subject.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2012, The Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde was detailing why his conviction was a farce, while the Megaupload extradition hearing was postponed (though Kim Dotcom offered to come to the US voluntarily if the DOJ released his funds for a legal defense). Lamar Smith was trying to sneak through SOPA in bits and pieces, over 90,000 people signed a petition expressing their concerns about the TPP, and Mexico became the latest country to show signs that ACTA was dead in the water. Meanwhile, a judge rejected a key argument from Universal Misc in its legal fight with Grooveshark, and Aereo won an early victory against broadcasters (though neither of those stories would ultimately have happy endings).
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2007, the world of blogging provided a test ground for alternatives to closed academic journals, Microsoft appeared to be gaining ground in the search wars, and things were off to a rocky start for AMD following its acquisition of ATI. Sony BMG was suing a provider of some of the tech for its disastrous rootkit DRM, while we took a look at how AACS was just as bad and useless as any other DRM. And another pointless Perfect 10 copyright trolling lawsuit got shot down.
Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: July 10th – 16th”
To be honest, the “This week in Techdirt history” articles are the most dangerous article in any given week.
I followed the link re: Peter Sunde, and saw evidence for the existence of some of the most benightedly unintelligent things I’ve ever had the miss fortune of being unignorant of.
Re:
Copyright fans generally don’t have a brain cell to share among themselves. Then again, they’re generally not fans of sharing at all.
Re: Re:
The same could be said of copyright minimalists, just in the other direction as regards sharing, and everyone else gets caught in the middle.
Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA was suing innocent children and grandmothers long before copyright minimalism even entered the picture.
Re: Re: Re:2
The RIAA didn’t even exist when American publishers were pirating Charles Dickens’ works, but nice try.
Re: Re: Re:3
The Stationer’s Company, though, sure as fuck did.
And I sure as fuck do not want a return to those shit old days.
Re: Re: Re:4
What you said:
The RIAA was suing innocent children and grandmothers long before copyright minimalism even entered the picture.
Don’t even try and imply I’m a maximalist just because I rebutted your fallacious attempt to excuse copyright minimalism. Both forms of extremism are equally wrong.
Re: Re: Re:5
I am not implying anything.
You claimed the RIAA did not exist when American pirates decided to reprint Dickens’ works, exploting a loophole in European Copyright law then.
I countered by saying that the Stationers’ Company existed, way before 1766.
And those fucks managed to CENSOR books they didn’t like and treated writers like shit.
Both copyright maximalist and minimalists do not realize that we already DID have a state where copyrights did not officially exist and that resulted in a fucking monopoly that used it’s monopoly to censor speech and shit on content creators then.
Both of you fucks want a return to THOSE AGES where monopolies and cartels act like quasi-government entities, nuking speech they do not like, either for commercial gain or to curry favor with politicians.
And as much as a return to trial by combat would be ideal, the more probable scenario is fucking kill squads for illegal copying. Or publishers, record labels and News Corp and its ilk trotting out unsubstantiated lawyers’ letters to fleece the public, sue dead grannies and children, and force US into arbitration courts.
All while the Democrats and Republicans sit back and watch the Constitution get ripped apart for P R O F I T.
Welcome to the fucking future. You probably had a hand in creating it.
Also, not that AC.
Re: Re: Re:6
You claimed the RIAA did not exist when American pirates decided to reprint Dickens’ works, exploiting a loophole in European Copyright law then.
No, I stated the Recording Industry Association of America didn’t exist back then. Dickens died in 1870, the RIAA was formed in 1952. You do the math.
Re: Re: Re:6
Both of you fucks want a return to THOSE AGES where monopolies and cartels act like quasi-government entities, nuking speech they do not like, either for commercial gain or to curry favor with politicians.
Read again:
Both forms of extremism are equally wrong.
It seems to me that AC is on neither one extreme or the other, but you accused them of it all the same. Why?
Welcome to the fucking future. You probably had a hand in creating it.
Every accusation a confession.
Also, not that AC.
I’m having a hard time believing that, with your equal lack of reading comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:7
Because bad-faithers will pretend to be neutral, and it’s better to assume the worst.
And the maximalists are always watching.
In some ways, yes. Singapore is a copyright maximalist country and we fucking love what the RIAA did. There’s no atonement for what we did, despite our judges finally catching onto the grift.
You’re free to believe whatever. All I will say is that anonymous commenting has its issues.
Re: Re: Re:8
So given that you claim to be against both maximalists and minimalists, that makes you neutral. And it’s better to assume the worst, and maximalists are always watching, so… it’s better to assume you’re a maximalist, or a supporter of maximalists?
For someone who claims that anonymous commenting has its issues you certainly insist on continuing to use it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Who excused copyright minimalism? The point I’m trying to make has been consistent: copyright enforcement has been overstepping and harassing the innocent long before they started bringing up the bogeyman of copyright minimalism.
You, on the other hand, have constantly tried to fan the flames of FUD by claiming that everyone who spoke up against the RIAA were personally responsible for Prenda Law and Malibu Media.
Get over yourself, and off your sad little high horse.
Re: Re: Re:6
You, on the other hand, have constantly tried to fan the flames of FUD by claiming that everyone who spoke up against the RIAA were personally responsible for Prenda Law and Malibu Media.
Links. The founders of Prenda “Law” and Malibu Media are the only ones personally responsible for those companies, and I’m not the one pretending otherwise.
Get over yourself, and off your sad little high horse.
Follow your own advice, hypocrite. You need it much more than I do.
Re: Re: Re:7
Except for the time when you did, in fact, pretend otherwise:
Nice try.
What was that phrase you were so fond of using? “Said the projector”?
Re: Re: Re:8
Right, because one AC is always another. I could call you racist if that’s what your assertion was based on. Fuck off with your false linkage.
Re: Re: Re:9
Anyone with a modicum of observation skills can see there’s one consistent voice in both threads whining about alleged copyright minimalism.
This is rich coming from an uppity snob who thinks anyone else who doesn’t agree with you is a copyright minimalist. I give you a few more comments before you start making “Said the troll” comments or the like. You left a choice selection of whiny threats in the previous threads.
Re: Re: Re:10
This is rich coming from an uppity snob…
A hypocritical accusation coming from you.
…who thinks anyone else who doesn’t agree with you is a copyright minimalist.
Maximalists also disagree with me, so you’re saying that both types of extremists are aligned on some level.
I give you a few more comments before you start making “Said the troll” comments or the like.
Only if you want me to. Do you want me to?
You left a choice selection of whiny threats in the previous threads.
Did you? At least, that’s what I get from the fact you know about these “whiny threats” I have yet to see.
Re: Re: Re:11
But you’ll worry about their feelings and reactions constantly, it seems.
You actually believe you’re significant. How droll.
What a sad, lackluster attempt to make your reactions someone else’s responsibility. If you’re going to make it easier to mock you, that’s your business.
Re: Re: Re:12
But you’ll worry about their feelings and reactions constantly, it seems.
Says you, Donald Trump.
You actually believe you’re significant. How droll.
Non sequitur.
What a sad, lackluster attempt to make your reactions someone else’s responsibility.
Not my reactions. If you want to prove otherwise, links.
If you’re going to make it easier to mock you, that’s your business.
The other way around since you’re the one slinging baseless accusations.
Re: Re: Re:13
This coming from a self-appointed apologist for maximalist feelings, and believes that a wayward retort of “Donald Trump” is a meaningful aspersion… Right.
Right… because there’s clearly more than one poster showing up in random threads, screaming about how the world is going to end if copyright maximalists read up on what people think of them, and use it as justification for harsher laws.
For what it’s worth, and just so we’re absolutely clear: the idea that copyright maximalists are reading the comments of nobodies on websites like Techdirt and using them to justify worse copyright laws and outcomes is a weak one. Because it’s already happened, not once, but twice. In both cases, copyright plaintiffs attempted to paint critics as copyright minimalists, scoundrels, anarchists – enemies of copyright to not be taken seriously, because victims of copyright trolling were using these websites as resources for defense strategies and moral support. In both cases, the plaintiffs Prenda Law and Malibu Media failed… and the law eventually caught up with them instead.
I don’t doubt maximalists are reading Techdirt despite traffic statistics. Techdirt is but one of many sites like Ars Technica, and the general opinion of copyright on those sites is equally low. The idea that disputing the harshness of copyright as it stands today will herald a new dark age of intellectual property is a fanciful exaggeration that barely holds water.
You’re the one who intentionally assumes that everyone is a bad-faither, champ.
Re: Re: Re:14
This coming from a self-appointed apologist for maximalist feelings…
When someone believes something for which there’s no evidence, it’s generally because it’s true of themselves.
…and believes that a wayward retort of “Donald Trump” is a meaningful aspersion…
You… haven’t been following politics since before 2016, have you?
And the rest of your “comment” can be ignored for the trollishfalse linkage that it is.
Re: Re: Re:15
Which is why you’ve managed to convince people here that you read the articles and comments here for imaginary copyright minimalist remarks to tattle off to copyright maximalists. It’s probably not true and the evidence for that is honestly pretty slim, but seeing that you keep bitching and moaning about copyright maximalists scouring this website, one can’t help but wonder if it’s because you’re doing the same.
Donald Trump being a massive douchecanoe is nothing new, but you’re going to have to try harder before you convince anyone else that they’re like him with no more than a general accusation.
Bury your head in the sand as long as you like. It’s not going to make history change or the facts go away.
If Techdirt’s coverage of copyright enforcers and heroes misbehaving renders you apoplectic with rage, finding other sources would be trivial.
Re: Re: Re:16
Let me know when you have something other than false linkage and lies. Until then, the door’s to your alt-right (I won’t say it’s on the left because I know you hate that position).
Re: Re: Re: Live boi, dead gurl
Hey Jhon boi, just what did you do you’re so concerned about keeping buried?
Re: Re: Re:2
When someone accuses someone else of being a different individual with zero evidence, it’s generally because they are that individual and are trying to divert attention away from themselves.
Re: Re: Re:3
Or because they like to piss off said individual every-time they rear their ugly head.
Re: Re: Re:4
And did you piss yourself off, then?
Re: Re: Re:5 your attacks are so impotent
Well jhon, you tried….sort of.
Re: Re: Re:6
Indeed you did. Have a Certificate of Participation.
Re: Re: Re:7
Wipe the piss off your face, nobody needs to see that.
Re: Re: Re:8
You’re the only one seeing it as you look in the mirror.