Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the speech-on-speech dept

This week, up here in Canada we were pleased to see our government take a stand against the USTR’s Special 301 hearing, although it’s a shame they didn’t do that before passing new draconian copyright laws. Still, it’s a step in the right direction, and That One Guy racked up the most votes on the insightful side with some kudos and hope for the future:

Nice for the Canadian government to show a little spine and stand up to the USTR and the joke that is the 301 Report, and in particular bluntly pointing out that it’s not based upon anything more complex than some people whining to the USTR about how mean other countries are to them in not giving them everything they do or could ask for.

Now if only every other government on the planet could issue similar ‘Nah, you enjoy that party on your own, we’re good’ statements perhaps the joke of a ‘report’ could finally be killed for good.

For second place, we head to our post about the first amendment lawyer who was apparently surprised that freedom of speech applies to movie makers as much as anyone else. We also pointed out the irony of Hollywood constantly whittling away free speech with stronger copyright, leading one commenter to make the old argument that copying has nothing to do with free speech, and specifically that free speech is only completely original speech that you created. Stephen T. Stone won second place by shutting that silly notion down:

No one’s “free speech” is reduced simply by not being able to use content someone else has made.

A reviewer of media being unable to quote part of a book or use clips from a movie as part of their review strikes me as a “stifling of speech”.

“free speech” pretty much by definition must be your OWN, not simply copying

I cannot think of a single legal precedent that has ever said such a thing, so I would love to see you produce a reference to such a precedent.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a conversation about asset forfeiture where one commenter noted that they can’t understand why anyone needs to travel with huge amounts of cash, and Thad offered up the important reminder that that doesn’t matter:

But that’s not really the point. Traveling with a large amount of cash (or other valuable assets) is not, in and of itself, a crime, and should not be treated, in and of itself, as evidence of a crime.

People do lots of things that I don’t understand a need for. That doesn’t mean the police should be allowed to confiscate their stuff.

Next, we head to the legal dispute over Purple’s “white powder” and their refusal to offer more details about its composition, supposedly due to their pending patent application. One anonymous commenter pointed out that this doesn’t seem to make any sense:

This is blatantly false. By seeking a patent, Purple is agreeing that all such information about the composition of the white powder will become public knowledge. Since the patent application has already been submitted, it is guaranteed that if this powder is patentable, they will be the ones to receive said patent. If it is not patentable, then the application (which will include the composition), will become public after 18 months from the date of application. Either way, there is absolutely no reason at this point to not release details on the composition of their powder.

Except, of course, if releasing that information would support the implications that the powder is dangerous.

Over on the funny side, we start out by returning to our post about movies and the first amendment, and indeed to the same assertion about free speech needing to be original. TechDescartes won first place for funny with quite an excellent response:

Under that standard, you aren’t allowed to make this comment. It’s been made before.

And TechDescartes is a double winner this week, also taking second place for funny by responding to someone who commented about not having read our post about people who comment without reading posts:

I agree. China should not be selling Netflix flags to protesters in Europe who want two-factor authentication for their cloud-connected toothpaste dispensers, especially without FCC approval of the trademark.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we head to the long-awaited story of copyright troll Perfect 10’s demise as its assets go into receivership. One anonymous commenter elegantly summed up this ignoble conclusion:

And so it ends with the hilarious result of a court literally confiscating a porn stash.

An amusing observation in itself, but made even more hilarious by Roger Strong‘s addition of a truly inspired punchline:

And that’s how justice went blind.

That’s all for this week, folks!