average_joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1892) comment rss

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    AJ, your "merits" have been torn to shreds already.

    Hardly. I'm asking Mike to admit that this would weaken some of the rights that copyright holders have as far as anticircumvention is concerned. He can't even admit that much. Just like he can't admit that there is an allegation of specific criminal infringement against the Dotcom Crew or that Swartz may have violated the CFAA. For some reason (ahem... fundamental, cellular-level dishonesty) he can't ever concede simple points that cut against his rhetoric.

    As far as the 106 rights go, all I've heard are conclusory statements that DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. If Mike is basing his assessment that this proposal doesn't weaken 106 rights because DRM is ineffective, he should admit that. But he won't discuss it because he knows he can't prove that DRM has no effect. It's just part of the TD mantra that disincentives are completely ineffective when it's copyright. It's total bullshit, as per usual, and Mike has run away rather than discuss anything on the merits. What a fake.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then you agree with H that the hearing was criminal in nature and thus he should have been afforded more protection under the Due Process Clause? I haven't actually researched the issue enough to know for sure, but my initial thought was that it was criminal and H's petition made some plausible points to that effect. I don't care if he spends 40 years in jail for whatever crimes he may have committed. But I do care if his due process rights were violated. Just imaging how much Mike's head would explode if one of his piratical buddies was railroaded like his. I seriously think Mike would have to be hospitalized he'd be so upset.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Where' the due process violation with Six Strikes? There's no government action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor I'm talking about people's actual due process rights, not some TD version of reality.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, if that hearing was criminal in nature, which it seems to me it was despite the underlying infringement action being a civil action, then drawing any inferences from the silence is impermissible. If you read H's brief, he points out other ways in which his due process rights may have been violated. My point is that I care about that because I care about everyone's due process rights. Mike glosses over those arguments because the thought of H's due process rights being violated doesn't bother him. The fact is that judges don't typically investigate, charge, and punish criminals. Even if H is guilty, he deserves the same due process as everyone else. But, of course, Mike enjoys the thought of this guy getting railroaded, no matter whether his constitutional rights are violated or not. I don't operate that way.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:16am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, I think it's pretty funny when an obvious pirate gets his comeuppance and Mike scrambles, desperately, to throw out any argument he can think of or "borrow" (usually the latter) to defend them. And it's funny too how Mike cares nothing about whether these idiots are getting railroaded and denied their due process rights.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:12am

    Re: Re:

    Of what? I just think it's funny how completely obsessed you guys are about these idiots because, gasp, they're anti-piracy. Copyright enforcement threaten you much?

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:12am

    Re: Re:

    Sign my paychecks? LOL!

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:11am

    Re: Re:

    Don't I know it. If anything remotely bad happens to anyone pro-copyright, that's front page news on TD, aka, Pirate Central. But if anything remotely bad happens to someone pro-piracy, that's the end of the world and a complete miscarriage of justice that does nothing but discredit the entire copyright system. But yeah, Mike's not pro-piracy and he's just on the fence about whether there's any propriety to copyright in general.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:09am

    Re: Re:

    average_joe really hates it when due process is enforced by the courts.

    I love due process. I think that H. has a point that the sanctions are probably criminal, not civil, and that he was not afforded due process. If this were Dotcom or similar, Mike would be going apeshit about the apparent lack of due process. There would be article after article after article about how the person was getting railroaded. But since it's H., we get nothing. It's a total double standard. I care about everyone's due process rights equally.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 09:06am

    Re: Re:

    When have I defended them? I recall pointing out that the court in California would not have general jurisdiction, but I did say it would have specific jurisdiction which is all it needs. That's not defending them. That's pointing out that the claim about general jurisdiction was incorrect. Got anything else, or is this just a faith-based assertion?

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 07:58am

    Re: Re:

    And, yet again, AJ shows why responding to him is a waste of time. He made a statement that was clearly false, and I pointed it out. Rather than admit his error, he continued the attack and moved the goalposts. Then he thinks it makes sense to yell at me because I won't respond to his ridiculous assertions?

    This is why there is no discussing anything with you on the merits. You employ logical fallacies like you invented them, and you constantly move the goalposts.

    I didn't move the goalposts. You said "copyrights," and I assumed you meant the rights granted to copyright holders under the Copyright Act--which is a reasonable interpretation of the word. You appear to be limiting your claim to some subset of those rights. That's fine. The word "copyrights" can be construed differently, and my construction differed from yours. No big deal. But you still have not answered my question: What do you mean by "copyrights." You're pretending like it's my fault I don't know what you mean when you haven't bothered to explain what you mean by your use of the word.

    Regardless, I've asked you to address my point this proposal would indeed weaken the copyright rights, defined broadly as including the anticircumvention rights under 1201, of copyright holders. You have not addressed this question. Nor have you addressed the point I've made repeatedly in the comments that if you meant by "copyrights" only the exclusive rights under Section 106, then this proposal would weaken those rights as well because making it legal to traffic in technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would make it easier to infringe. Those controls exist for the purpose of protecting the rights under Section 106. If those controls are weakened, then that in turn weakens the protection of the Section 106 rights. The fact that it would still be illegal to violate the 106 rights ignores the fact that it would be easier to do so.

    Now, instead of pulling out your usual trope about "temper tantrums" and "moving the goalposts," why don't you actually discuss these actual issues on the merits? Seriously, Mike. Grow a fucking pair and discuss something like a man. Stop running away all the time. It's fucking ridiculous.

  • On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota

    average_joe ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 08:14am

    Wow, you guys really obsess over these guys. You do realize that there's all kinds of dirtbags out there who do way worse things, right?

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 05:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you think that making it illegal has no effect whether anyone uses it? That makes little sense to me. The more difficult to use and underground something is, the less people will use it. I know the TD meme is that nothing stops pirates ever so there's no use in ever doing anything to try and stop them, but I don't think that's true. Only on TD do disincentives not actually disincentivize anyone.

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 05:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you agree that DMCA 1201 is not directly related to copyright, it's directly related to DRM. Relation to copyright is indirect.

    That seems a bit of a stretch. That's like saying my window and door locks only protect my windows and doors from opening, not the contents of my house. It's like saying my alarm system only indirectly protects my stuff.

    Firstly, the presence of DMCA doesn't really reduce the breaking of DRM. If DRM is breakable - it will be broken, DMCA or not.

    Sure. DRM gets broken. But if it's illegal to traffic in it, then that makes it harder to obtain and utilize. I understand that hardcore pirates (Mike's bread and butter) won't be affected, but it stands to reason that the more difficult and underground something is, the less people will use it.

    Secondly DRM itself doesn't really affect copyright - as practice shows DRM doesn't prevent infringement, all it does it is annoying legitimate users by crippling the usability.

    You're assuming that the same amount of infringement would occur in the absence of DRM. I don't think you can show that. And given the fact that copyright holders are so protective of DRM, it seems to me that they think it has an effect on infringement. Again, hardcore pirates will pirate their little hearts out. But the harder it is to infringe, the less people will do it.

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 05:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only one behaving like a "dumbass troll" is you.

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 04:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    DMCA/1201 doesn't protect copyright. It protects DRM.

    It protects DRM which protects copyright.

    So you are talking about some non tangible potential of affecting copyrights, while you ignore that DMCA/1201 very concretely violates users ability to exercise fair use. Therefore dropping DMCA/1201 will restore concrete users' rights and will not really affect any copyrights.

    It does indeed make it more difficult to engage certain types of fair use. But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege. So it doesn't violate your rights. It just makes it more difficult to exercise a privilege in certain ways (but not others).

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 04:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That AJ is pretending I said something I didn't, and then going on one of his trademarked temper tantrums, is priceless.

    Where'd you run off to, Mike? Pretending like I'm having a "temper tantrum" so you can get out actually discussing your argument on the merits is your trademarked move. I know some of the dumber ones buy it, but wouldn't you rather just thrash me about on the merits? I'd love to chat with you about these things, but I suspect that, as you've done so many hundreds of times before, you're too chicken. I don't get it. I'm not that intimidating, am I?

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 04:12pm

    Re:

    Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.

    That's not what I said. The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls. Those access controls make it more difficult to infringe. By making it legal to traffic in these circumvention technologies, that in turn makes it easier to infringe.

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 04:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You don't own a single piece of property that you can do whatever you want to with. If I guy a brick at the hardware store, I can't litter the streets with it or break your windows with it. My rights are limited despite owning it. But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted to begin with, I'd suggest that there's lots of ink spilled on the subject and you should do some research of your own.

  • On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

    average_joe ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 01:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I thought he was talking about copyright holders' rights under the DMCA, but even if he means the rights under Section 106, those would clearly be weakened as well. Permitting the trafficking of technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would weaken copyright rights since people would obviously use them for infringement despite infringement being illegal. He's trying to say that by taking away these copyright holders' protections, their rights will somehow not be weakened. It's silly. I don't care if you or he or anyone is for this proposal, but at least admit that it weakens copyright holders' rights.

Next >>