buck lateral 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (95) comment rss

  • On the post: US ITC Uses Ridiculous Methodology To Claim 'Piracy' In China Costs US Firms $48 Billion In 2009

    buck lateral ( profile ), 19 May, 2011 @ 11:10am

    Funny, I haven't seen the apologists study.

    I find it comical that in the course of a discussion the Techdirtbags repeatedly challenge with [citation needed] then dismiss whatever citation or study is offered but seldom offer any study of their own. This type of shrill, Glen Beck-type of advocacy is why even mainstream apologists are uncomfortable with you and why many others deservedly dismiss you as a laughingstock.

  • On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech

    buck lateral ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 05:37pm

    Re: Re: Here's A Different Perspective

    I love watching zealots self-immolate.

  • On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech

    buck lateral ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 04:58pm

    Re: Re: NO, IP PROTECT would be distasterous for Google's profits

    Who cares? It's not like you're paying now.

  • On the post: Google Points Out That PROTECT IP Would Be A 'Disastrous Precedent' For Free Speech

    buck lateral ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 02:49pm

    Here's A Different Perspective

    Google shows its true colors?
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 by Sandra Aistars

    Google?s chief executive Eric Schmidt today said his company would challenge legislative efforts to shut off access to websites like Pirate Bay that traffic in pirated and counterfeit goods, even if they were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States.

    In a rhetorical retread of the sky-is-falling cries from Google-supported, so-called ?consumer interest groups? who line up to oppose copyright enforcement efforts, Schmidt reportedly raised the specter of free speech limitations as the basis for his position.

    But the self-interested hand-wringing is a bit much given Google?s history of reaping the benefits of doing business in China for years while censoring content at the Chinese government?s behest.

    Where rogue websites are concerned, Google profits from ad placement no matter whether the content is licensed or not. Given a recent study showing nearly one-fourth of the internet bandwidth globally is consumed by exchange of infringing content, it is only reasonable to assume someone at the Google campus is counting the potential lost eyes on ads and calculating the financial impact on the company.

    Indeed there is even publicly documented history of Google knowingly and purposefully working with pirate websites to increase traffic to such websites and profits to Google from the Sponsored Links/Adwords programs. In conjunction with the settlement of a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the major Hollywood studios against Luke Sample, Brandon Drury and their companies for operation of subscription based websites devoted to helping consumers find and download pirated copyrighted works, Sample?s Affidavit was filed by one of the defendants testifying to the fact that Google worked directly with the illegal website to drive traffic to it and increase Google?s revenues from its participation in the sponsored links program. In fact, Google?s ad teams even made suggestions designed to optimize conversion rates by using keywords targeted to pirated content ? such as suggesting downloading films still in theatrical release, that obviously were not available yet in any authorized format for home viewing.

    Passing laws these days is an arduous process and the fact that a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not to mention 42 U.S. state attorneys general, have looked at the approach and endorsed it, should be indication that numerous behind-the-scenes legal minds have looked at the language and determined it passes muster.

    As Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) pointed out at a news conference last month, the Judiciary Committees considering this issue are experts in first amendment and due process issues. ?It doesn?t do any good to pass legislation that doesn?t stand up. We?re not doing this to feel good,? he said.

    Perhaps the Google view is that a mere threat of non-compliance will somehow scare off officials eager to defend American creativity and American jobs. But the strident statements smack of corporate imperialism, and ? delivered across the Atlantic in London ? are a far cry from the tone Google?s General Counsel took while testifying back home in America before the House Judiciary Committee a mere six weeks ago.

    No matter how Mr. Schmidt tries to dress up opposition to copyright enforcement efforts as altruistically motivated, one can?t help but look to Google?s checkered history on aiding pirate websites in marketing their content, and wonder where the truth lies.

  • On the post: Another 'Exception'? Jonathan Coulton Making Half A Million A Year With No Record Label

    buck lateral ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 07:49pm

    Re: Re:

    Anyone is free to give their creative output away, so why bring it up?

  • On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures

    buck lateral ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 07:45pm

    @anymouse: There are medications that can help you.

    To all of the apologists, freeloaders and those calling for the overthrow of our government that has sold out the Constitution; I offer the following:

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

  • On the post: Techdirt Files FOIA Requests Concerning ICE 'Anti-Piracy' Videos

    buck lateral ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 02:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain

    go to Guidestar and look at their 990

  • On the post: Another 'Exception'? Jonathan Coulton Making Half A Million A Year With No Record Label

    buck lateral ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 02:24pm

    That's great for Coulton. He wants to do it that way and he's successful. Fine. But you can't force other creators to give their output away for free if they don't want to. Nor can you unlawfully download it just because you don't agree with copyright law.

  • On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]

    buck lateral ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 06:49am

    When the short bus drops you off after school today, please let us know how a filmmaker can make a living without selling multiple copies of his work.

  • On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 02:40pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm going to type this s-l-o-w-l-y in the hope you can follow along. The PROTECT IP Act DOES NOT take down foreign websites. It allows the government or rights holders to seek an order from the court directing US payment processors, US ad networks and US search engines (gov't only) from providing services. They are perfectly free to carry on with their infringing activities.

  • On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 11:30am

    So then if you are so unaffected by the specter of "censorship" posed by PROTECT IP why are you so impassioned to protect a foreign operator (using the US Constitution) who has obtained copyrighted content that is not his own and is converting for his own personal profit?

  • On the post: Senator Wyden & Zoe Lofgren Not Impressed By PROTECT IP Or Feds' Responses To Questions About Domain Seizures

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This won't damage free speech

    Wow, you have internet service in the woods? you eat by fishing with bare hands (is that like noodling for catfish?) and warm yourself by fire? You should loosen that tin foil hat, it seems to be cutting off your circulation.

  • On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 09:56am

    We wouldn't be having this discussion if you were content with the broadcast television you bring in through an antenna (ad supported) or radio (ad supported).

    If PROTECT IP wasn't viewed as a serious threat to continued freeloading, I doubt you and your apologists friends would have your knickers in such a twist.

    Oh, btw it's nice you pay for the content of artists and directors "you support". But it's hardly a justification to steal from the ones you don't.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 09:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How about, "the ability to be compensated for one's creative output"? I know that probably doesn't matter to someone not trying to make a living in this manner.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 09:31am

    Seriously Josh, just because I disagree doesn't mean senators and congressmen shouldn't hear what you have to say. I encourage you to make your feelings known to the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Please write and call (often) so that they come to understand the underpinnings of your beliefs on this matter. Yours is an important voice and representative of the majority of those who read and comment here on Techdirt. Do you know that you can walk in to any of the district congressional offices and speak to staffers about this? You could do the same in Washington DC. I urge you to take part in the democratic process. Don't just post here, go represent the Techdirt position in front of the lawmakers who will be voting on this bill. Make sure they know you speak for Techdirt and its readers.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 09:08am

    Re: Re:

    Maybe after you wrote your Unibomber-esque manifesto, they simply came to the conclusion that you were nuttier than squirrel shit.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 09:06am

    Re: Re:

    The CDT apologists wrote the language narrowing the scope of the definition of a rogue site.

  • On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 08:51am

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

    So let Yuri argue his case all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, you may have to pay for the content you enjoy.

    The absurd thing is that even the pirates know yours is a bullshit argument, that's why when they get shut down, they just reinvent themselves. That's why the professional apologists like EFF, Public Knowledge and CDT don't sponsor cases based on idiotic Constitutional contentions. Making specious Constitutional arguments to gin up support amongst freeloaders is very different than going to court and having the court uphold the constitutionality of your position.

    Are you really so cheap and self-entitled that you just simply won't pay to watch the content you enjoy?

  • On the post: Disney Trademarks Seal Team 6 Two Days After SEAL Team 6 Kills Bin Laden

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 08:27am

    I wonder how long it will take for you clowns to download it for free?

  • On the post: PROTECT IP Would Gut Parts Of The DMCA's Safe Harbors [Updated]

    buck lateral ( profile ), 16 May, 2011 @ 08:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    TAM? Tivoli Access Manager?

Next >>