Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the boy-are-my-arms-tired dept

As we learned (though were hardly surprised by) this week, the MPAA doesn't take kindly to the suggestion that it should have to consider fair use when sending DMCA notices. The irony of this was not lost on anyone, and indeed both of our most insightful comments of the week came from that post, both of them making the same point. First up, Tim K's opening salvo:

Difficult for MPAA to differentiate between infringing and non-infringing material, but everyone else should still easily be able to know immediately what's infringing.

And not far behind, reinforcements from Jesse:

Interesting. If it's ISPs magically waving away infringement, it's really easy to figure out infringement from non-infringement. If they have to do it, it's too hard.

It's certainly a point that bears repetition. But there's another important point to be made on that same story, in response to the MPAA's claims that they need to send millions of DMCA notices. So our first editor's choice goes to Rikuo for covering that base:

No they don't. There's a myriad of other tactics they can use. There is no requirement that they absolutely, positively have to send DMCA notices.

For our second editor's choice, we head to our post about Eric Holder, who is also making bold statements about intellectual property. This time, it's the idea that piracy funds terrorism, which made a different Eric (I assume) wonder what exactly he's saying:

So if I understand this correctly:

1) Infringement is all over the place, thus making it difficult to monetize content, which leads to the need for these laws
2) Terrorist are able to fund themselves via monetizing this infringing
3) Which leads to the final logic that terrorist are able to monetize content that is available everywhere better than the producers of the content???

On the funny side, we've got a pair of winners from two different posts about major players in the Prenda saga. First up, when we asked whether Paul Duffy's wife admitted that he was engaged in interstate extortion, Arsik Vek anticipated Duffy's response:

Duffy's next comment: "I'm not sure who that woman is. She may or may not be my wife, but I have no direct knowledge of any relationship."

That would be true to form. Up next, in response to Mark Lutz's ongoing evasion in the face of scrutiny, an anonymous commenter was inspired to put Prenda's tenacity to good use:

You know, I've always wanted to dig to China. I think I'll hire these guys.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with our post about the new and disappointing live streaming service from Disney's ABC. An anonymous commenter summed up the likely customer response to this lacklustre offering:

"Where can I sign back up for my monthly $50-80 cable bill so I have access to these wonderful services"

-No one. Ever.

And finally, since we've been oh so serious and scathing today, we'll finish things off with something a bit sillier. In response to our post about people not turning off their devices when they fly, one anonymous commenter dissented, but for pragmatic reasons:

I generally do. I just don't have the coordination to flap my arms and mess with my smartphone at the same time.

This is the way the post ends: not with a bang but a groan. See you tomorrow, folks!



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2013 @ 1:12pm

    "You know, I've always wanted to dig to China. I think I'll hire these guys."

    I finally made it on the list! XD

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2013 @ 2:40pm

    Eric Holder should sue for use of his Christian name. After all, what sort of terrorist doesn't agree with the USA?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    horse with no name, May 19th, 2013 @ 6:41pm

    Eric's comment

    Eric's comment is perhaps the best way to describe not getting it. It comes to that simple thing, if I steal a bunch of stuff, I can sell it for a lot less than retail and still make a profit, because I didn't have to pay to make it.

    Not having to pay for things, but still charging something for them is the basics of profit. It's how criminals have done it since the start of time, and the virtual criminals are doing to today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2013 @ 6:54pm

      Re: Eric's comment

      Yes, because when I downloaded a song, I magically gave the source of the song money like I would for an actual CD. That makes perfect analogical sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2013 @ 7:53pm

      Re: Eric's comment

      That's just another reason infringement should be legalized.

      A: Infringement is not theft. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with infringement.

      B: IP law, like prohibition, is what enables terrorists to use infringing content to fund themselves. IP law is the basis of how these terrorists are being funded and so IP law is responsible.

      Making infringement even harder for the average person will do little to make it harder for these terrorist organizations who can now make more money off of it by selling it at an even higher price. See, for example, the war on drugs. and running an infringement cartel and getting away with it is a thousand times easier than doing the same with a drug cartel. So I say we just abolish IP law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2013 @ 7:58pm

        Re: Re: Eric's comment

        So really, the takeaway I get from all this is that IP law sponsors terrorism. I hate IP law already and this just gives me one more reason to hate it even more. Good job, Congress, giving me even more reason to hate IP law.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        horse with no name, May 20th, 2013 @ 1:42am

        Re: Re: Eric's comment

        See, for example, the war on drugs. and running an infringement cartel and getting away with it is a thousand times easier than doing the same with a drug cartel. So I say we just abolish IP law.

        You are actually as bad as Eric. You understand that your example only works where there is no legal product, available, at all, ever and no legal alternatives? If there was a legal alternative for weed at $1 a pound, do you honestly think anyone would line up to be illegal $1000 an ounce stuff?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 2:27am

          Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment

          "You understand that your example only works where there is no legal product"

          If that were true then how the heck are terrorists already benefiting from infringement when there is already a legal product available. That's the whole point Congress is making. A legal product is available and here we have terrorists benefiting from the existence of IP law. Legalize infringement, abolish IP law, and terrorists can no longer benefit.

          You contradict yourself and have no idea what you are talking about.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 2:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment

            The jackass can't even keep track of what comments he's made. Small wonder why no one but the most hardcore of trolls buy into his bullshitting.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 2:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment

              and if there are no legal alternatives available then it is the fault of IP law and IP holders for making it such that way. They should be blamed and IP law should be changed to ensure that legal alternatives are always available. That's how you stop the terrorists.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            horse with no name, May 20th, 2013 @ 2:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment

            If that were true then how the heck are terrorists already benefiting from infringement when there is already a legal product available

            They benefit because they have no costs related to creating the product. They are the ones selling cheap as a result.

            Why terrorists all of a sudden? Are you calling Kim Dotcom a terrorist now? After all, he has profited grandly from selling access other people's work without paying for it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 6:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment

              You're still not following me here. I understand you are probably on crack like the rest of the shills (and the rest of Hollywood, ie: see all the actors in rehab) but try to follow.

              According to congress terrorist organizations are benefit from infringement. I already hate IP law and so the takeaway I get is that, like with prohibition, IP law is responsible for them benefiting because without IP law they would be unable to profit from infringement. This just gives me even more reason to hate infringement.

              You state that the difference here is that there are legal alternatives. That statement means absolutely nothing and is irrelevant if terrorists are still benefiting from infringing works because, like with prohibition, if you abolish the restrictions (IP law) terrorists can no longer benefit (because people will just seek legal free alternatives instead of funding terrorists to pay for infringing works).

              If anything, what congress needs to do to completely stop these terrorists from benefiting from infringement is, according to your logic, ensure that legal alternatives are available. It is the unavailability of legal alternatives, according to you, that enable terrorists to benefit from infringement. Otherwise, if they were available terrorists would be unable to benefit.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 6:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment

                If the fact that legal alternatives mattered then terrorists would already be unable to benefit from infringement, at least where legal alternatives are available. Since they do benefit from infringement (according to congress) that means one of two possibilities

                A: the existence of legal alternatives doesn't matter and so you bringing up the difference is irrelevant.

                IOW, the argument that abolishing IP law would stop terrorists from benefiting from infringement still holds. Adding stricter IP enforcement or stricter laws, like with prohibition, would simply reduce competition for the terrorists which make it even more profitable for terrorists to use infringement to support themselves (econ 101, less competition, more profits).

                B: There are situations where legal alternatives are unavailable (ie: Orphaned works) and that's where terrorists are benefiting.

                The solution here is for congress to pass laws ensuring that legal alternatives are always available.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2013 @ 3:42am

    Gay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    horse with no name, May 20th, 2013 @ 7:12am

    Actually...

    As we learned

    Now that's the funniest comment of the week by far. You are assuming learning where clearly none is evident.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This