Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the grapevine dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Rico R., responding to an ultimately-unconvincing defense of the CASE act from a popular source:

As a regular Lawful Masses viewer (I even support Leonard on Patreon), I still strongly disagree with the CASE Act, regardless of whether or not there were changes made since then. (Based on the article, I'm inclined to say a little or nothing has changed, but that's not my point.) Here are some of my problems with the law as written:

  • In California (where a majority of Hollywood studios are), the maximum amount you can sue in regular small claims court is $10,000 for individuals and $5000 for businesses, with even lower limits if you file more than one case in a given calendar year. That's a far cry from the CASE Act's limit of $30,000, with no lowering of the limit if you file more than one case.
  • As affirmed by the Supreme Court and even copyright maximalist RBG (and I'm saying that as someone politically liberal), if you file in "big boy court", you are required to have registered the copyright on the work and wait for the certificate to come in the mail BEFORE you can sue. Yet, in the CASE Act, there is a mechanism that allows you to sue WITHOUT the work being properly registered. Meaning, cases can be brought under the CASE Act that would be dismissed in regular court for failure to state a claim (due to the work not being registered). If Congress wants to reverse course and allow you to bring claims without registration (which it shouldn't), it should modify the rules for regular court and not set up a new tribunal for those who don't meet the requirements to file a lawsuit.
  • Many people who support the CASE Act as an "Access to Justice issue" with regards to fair use and false DMCA takedowns are missing the point: The CASE Act sets up the tribunal at the US Copyright Office. If recent history indicates anything, the Copyright Office sees copyright owners as customers and cater to their needs. Every time Public Knowledge tries to push for a DMCA exception to allow format and space shift video content on DVDs and Blu-rays, it's denied for various reasons, despite the DRM-free equivalent in music CDs being considered fair use. When they asked for public comments and held hearings over the effectiveness of DMCA Safe Harbor laws, those hearings showed they were leaning towards the industry's demands and even considered notice-and-staydown procedures as opposed to the current notice-and-takedown procedure. And also, they have come against the right of digital first sale, despite the fact that consumers are only increasing the consumption of digital-only goods. Why would we trust the Copyright Office to handle fair use online well
  • Copyright law does need to be reformed, but THIS isn't how it should be reformed. Copyright trolling is going to increase if the CASE Act becomes law, and it's also going to result in worse consequences. Copyright law should be updated to curb the trend of copyright trolling. Other problems in copyright law need to be addressed as well.

The positive elements outlined by Lawful Masses are outweighed by the negatives. So, no, I'm not on board with the CASE Act.

In second place, we've got an anonymous commenter summing up the insanity of the war on Section 230:

No innovation will come from making platforms legally liable for all third-party content. Nothing good will come from making sure platforms for third-party speech either become cesspools of spam and bigotry and bullshit or cease to exist. CDA 230 is what allows Twitter, Facebook, Techdirt, YouTube, DeviantArt, and a whole bunch of other sites to keep on keepin' on. Get rid of 230, and you get rid of all those sites. How eager are you to return to an Internet before such platforms existed?

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with Tanner Andrews discussing the point of trademark in response to McDonald's bullying a Canadian restaurant:

moron in a hurry

Trademark is, first and foremost, a consumer protection mechanism. If there is a real risk that the consumer will be confused as to the origin of the goods or services, then there is likely a problem with infringement.

On the facts presented, I doubt there was real risk of confusion. A customer at the restaurant already knows he came to a food establishment rather than Mickey's. He is likely to observe the Canadian flavor in the product name. And, assuming he is familiar with Mickey's at all, he knows that a name like Effing Fillet would never be found there.

So, assuming our moron is familiar enough with Mickey's for the trademark to register in his consciousness, he knows this is not it.

The problem, if anything, would have been the reverse. A Canadian wanting the Effing Fillet and asking for it by that name at Mickey's might be disappointed by what he got. Of course, he is free to walk outside and observe that he is not at Woodshed Burgers.

Next, we've got James Burkhardt with a real response to an apparently facetious question about the limits of FCC authority:

The FCC only has authority to regulate under the laws which govern the FCC. So the answer to your question is that the limits are defined by the myriad Telecommunications Acts passed over the years. Under 10th amendment jurisprudence, if the FCC doesn't have congressionally-granted authority to regulate a market, it also doesn't have the authority to preempt state authority.

The Title II debate was about the classification of broadband, and existed because a court decision ruled the FCC could not implement the first set of Net Neutrality rules under Title I.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is That Anonymous Coward with a response to Ajit Pai's complaints about state-level net neutrality laws:

HOW DARE YOU MAKE ME LIE IN THE BED I MADE!!!!!

In second place, it's an anonymous take on the customer-surveillance efforts of Outback restaurants:

Don't give Outback such a hard time

Look, nothing about Outback is in any way Australian, so give them a break - at least they are trying in their own, small way to match the surveillance state the Aussie government is implementing.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got two more anonymous comments. First up, it's a response to our post suggesting it was "incredible" that a tabloid journalist would be hypocritical about free speech:

I think you mixed up "incredible" and "entirely predictable" in your analysis.

And finally, we've got a theory about the House's approval of the CASE Act:

Well, that's what happened to the Paul Hansmeier defense fund.

That's all for this week, folks!


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2019 @ 12:43pm

    Ping Uriel-238

    Re: your convo w/ PaulT up thru last Thu.

    You around today?

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Uriel-238, 27 Oct 2019 @ 9:26pm

      Re: Ping Uriel-238

      Ping

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        PaulT, 27 Oct 2019 @ 9:31pm

        Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

        You mean the conversation about overthrowing a duly elected president? (Treason!)

        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, 27 Oct 2019 @ 9:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

          it's actually insurrection. totally different

          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, 27 Oct 2019 @ 9:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

            How so? Your opinion?

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

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Stephen T. Stone, 27 Oct 2019 @ 9:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

              When your are SURE you’re right, no treasonable acts are actually treason, they’re cool and hip. Just ask Nancy.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2019 @ 10:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                You know, we can see your gravatar, Blue Balls.

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

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Wendy Cockroft, 27 Oct 2019 @ 10:07pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                  What’s a gravatar? Is it a lesbian thing?

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2019 @ 11:40pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                    It's the icon next to your name that gives away how you're spamming the comments with replies to yourself, Blue.

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

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 7:50am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                    First off, really clever with the name. /s

                    Second, while I understand not knowing what a gravatar is, why would you think it’s a lesbian thing? I mean, you’re obviously trolling here, but I honestly don’t get this part.

                    Third, you do realize that a) we can see that the little icon by the name is clearly the same in these posts, and b) we can tell the difference between an actual user and an AC using their name, right?

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

              • identicon
                ryuugami, 27 Oct 2019 @ 10:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                IIRC, this type of masturbatory posting requires the following reply:

                "samefag".

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

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Mike Masnick, 27 Oct 2019 @ 10:11pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                  Is that a gay thing? I’m not gay, and anyway, Chelsea is a lady now.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2019 @ 11:41pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                    We get it, you hate and possibly want to kill trans people. Damn, Blue, go shit up a TERF forum.

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

                    • icon
                      bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 8:02am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                      You think he’d be popular with radical feminists?

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2019 @ 8:43am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                        TERFs are neither radical nor feminist. If anything, they're exactly what the alternate acronym for them says they are: Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes.

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

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 10:08am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                          Well, I mean, isn’t being a reactionary transphobe a radical position? Plus, my point is that they aren’t going to be accepting of a man.

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

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 8:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

            FTR, according to the OED, insurrection means “a violent uprising against an authority or government.”

            As for treason, according to the Constitution, it is "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," while the OED defines it as “the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.”

            I am curious as to what exactly is this thing that is an insurrection but not treason.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2019 @ 8:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

              You can overthrow a government without war. The minimum amount of violence needed would probably be locking members of the old government up in a room so they can't do their jobs.

              When it comes to civil conflict who is and is not the "enemy" is also largely based on the viewpoint and the interpretation of the winner also. In an international conflict the expected sides are more obvious.

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

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 10:10am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                You can overthrow a government without war. The minimum amount of violence needed would probably be locking members of the old government up in a room so they can't do their jobs.

                Well, sure. However, that’s not exactly an insurrection either, as there’s no real violence involved.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2019 @ 5:28pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                  I disagree.

                  I think it takes a minimal amount of violence to throw someone in a room and hold them there without their consent.

                  Anyway, I'm not up for a long argument for exactly how much non-consensual force it takes to amount to violence. I'll let the english grad students and other more interested parties argue about that one.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2019 @ 6:10pm

                    Vi et armis [was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238]

                    I'll let the english grad students and other more interested parties argue about that one.

                    That question might wind up being a highly interesting one of interpretation and construction.

                    The old technical phrase “vi et armis” (and I know not whether that phrase be quite proper Latin or merely bastard Law-French) has a very antient and contended history. Extremely controversial.

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

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:01pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                    FTR, I think I recall a case in Britain where the king fled before any violence occurred.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2019 @ 10:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

          You mean like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton?

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Stephen T. Stone, 27 Oct 2019 @ 10:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

            No I mean like my geat great grandpappy Benedict Arnold.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2019 @ 11:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

              Citation needed

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

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 7:44am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

                For which part? The part where an impeachment inquiry has any similarity whatsoever to what Benedict Arnold did at all? Or the part where “Stephen T. Stone” claims to be descended from Benedict Arnold?

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2019 @ 11:52am

              Re: Shiva StilLostToAFakeIndian

              Or was it Samual Adams? Or are you from Texas today? Or are you still a Masshole. What’s that bro can’t keep your lies straight anymore?

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

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 7:52am

      Re: Ping Uriel-238

      Which convo are you talking about? The one about guns and mental health?

      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, 28 Oct 2019 @ 7:57am

        Re: Re: Ping Uriel-238

        Yes. Probably.

        But I was asking yesterday. And the answer obviously was not round. Today, maybe I could ask whether bull242 is square, or triangular? But I won't. I'll desist.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2019 @ 12:23am

    Hamilton's attempt to shit up a thread turns out to be completely shit, news at fucking eleven.

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

    • identicon
      Den Corub, 28 Oct 2019 @ 5:38am

      Re: This comment has been flagged by the community

      Out_of_lube got triggered by mention of the destruction of Section 230, because that's the section of the supermarket that sells Bengay.

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

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 28 Oct 2019 @ 8:37am

    Do you really think I am fake? Do I sound fake? Do I use a fake name? Do I have a fake profile? Do I sound insincere?

    🙄

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.