Interestingly, the support and push for encryption in all things would pretty much put an end to the revolution. When every document is stored with a long key the idea of hacking in to download files is somewhat meaningless.
Apparently this revolution is being squashed by the other revolution you are supporting!
"You mean like you? Any and every time calls are made for copyright law to be revamped and looked at, you start foaming at the mouth and scream that people are demanding for copyright to be abolished."
Aside from the amusing visual, I have to tell you that I don't foam at the mouth or even have my pulse raise a bit (according to my fitbit...). I only ask the logical question, which is if you want to get rid of copyright, what do you replace it with? If you want to cut back or limit the term, how do you handle those works created under the current setup, without creating confusion about what is and what is not copyright? For that matter, if you are (say) 40 years old, does it really, really matter that much if copyright drops from 75 years to 60 years? You will still be dead as a dodo before the copyright expires. If you are younger, you might to get to copy that movie just before you are too senile to understand it.
I think the current system work well, in no small part because it allows for so many outcomes and scenarios. We have everything from open source and CC licensing to the strictest of nastygram toting lawyer loving Metallica listening public hating copyright robber barons. If falls to the creator to have the choice which way they want to play the game, and that all starts out by having a system that first allows them right to "own" what they create, at least for as long as they will live (and beyond). They can turn around and issue a CC-by or whatever they like license to give their work away, they can license it commercially, they can add it to an open source project, they can give it away, or they can even assign the right to make such choices to someone else.
We have an insanely vibrant world full of creative people, and we guild and create more and more new works every day. We produce more now than ever. It's hard to say that copyright is somehow massively holding us back, reality seems to say otherwise.
(and if you think this post is foaming at the mouth, you really need to get your foam detector fixed, it's not working).
"I dont think I have heard ANYONE here advocate "an extremely short period of time.""
The typical position on copyright term if the concept remains is something like 10-15 years. Many point to the original US copyright act of 1790 with it's 14 year term.
It sounds nice, until you realize that in modern terms, 14 years is a very short period of time. It would mean, as an example that some episodes of say The Simspons would already be in public domain, while new ones are created, which might lead to marketplace confusion and encroachment into the "still copyright" material.
Would it be fair to Matt Broenig to have to fight against people making knock off Simpsons episodes and distributing them on network TV? Would that sort of thing actually count as an advancement for the population, or would we become even more focused on a few winners to the detriment of other development?
"we DO KNOW the current length of time provides no value to society as copyright was intended."
How do you know? Can you show us actual proof or studies that show actual test cases, or is it all just faith based?
"For many years, we've pointed out that so much policymaking around copyright law is what we'd argue to be purely "faith-based." The fact that there is little to no actual evidence that stronger copyright protections lead to better outcomes for the public, the economy or for society is ignored by people who just know it must be true. "
Replace "stronger copyright protections" with "concealed carry handguns" and you pretty much have the gun lobby at it's best.
The problem is in many ways WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Moving from what we have to something else that may or may not pan out (because nobody knows) is faith based at best. Saying to abolish copyright or to limit it to an extremely short period of time is faith based, pure and simple.
When you look from the other side you realize your own words can be used to argue almost any point.
The thing is, boaty is a perfect example. Someone suggested it in jest, and the "internet" jumped all over it and made it number 1. It isn't a good choice or a logical choice, it's just an internet for the lulz kinda thing.
A petition like this leads to people signing it for the same reason. It's the lulz to run the number up more than anything. Since we all know that these sorts of things rank right up there with tea leaf reading with the current administration (Nancy Reagan is gone, thanks), it's not going to do anything at all. Running the number of "signatures" up really won't do much either, because nobody except guys like Mike will even pay attention (which makes one wonder if he gets paid or had a hand in it... but that would be another discussion).
"Agreed - what a waste of time these online campaigns can be; silly to think such a thing could encourage discussion, debate, or media coverage? Just nonsense. "
It would be good, except they do none of that, except with the people who were already discussing it - and perhaps 4chan.
My take on all of this is pretty simple: If too many people (including myself) use adblockers, then the very basis by which much of the web pays for itself will disappear. So the question becomes, what replaces it?
The worst potential solution and the one we are seeing the most of now is the idea of "pay to make the ads go away". It's a version of the walled garden, call it the quiet garden. Pay us a nominal fee that makes us whole on the money we would have made from you watching ads, and we will give you the content without any issue.
The other choice is integrated adverting (aka, Golden Frog spam on Techdirt) which is harder to filter out. Thankfully, that tends to be self filtering, because smart operators realize how much publishing spamvertising posts can hurt your brand in the long term.
Note: For what it's worth, if you mobile visit Techdirt on a Sunday, generally you get ZERO actual stories. The first loading page is top list, history, spam post, etc. More and more Techdirt supports itself with these posts, but more and more the risk is in overdoing it and detracting from the real content (here's looking at you, Gizmodo!)
"So they've decided that that no longer want 20 percent of their audience? That's kind-of a slap in the face."
The issue I guess is one of value. If you have to pay for too many freeloaders, is it really worth it? The lowering of ad views and click thrus tends to lead to intensification of the ad products, making them pop out, auto play, fill the page, auto expand, and so on - all in the name of making up for the lost revenue from the freeloading crowd. There is a point where the entire product for everyone may be harmed trying to give the 20% (or more now) a free lunch.
It's a question of respect in both directions. It's been lost for a while, and adblockers have just upped the angry ante.
"Arrest for what? In the case being discussed here, nobody is talking about arresting anybody. Also, Techdirt isn't withholding information just because they feel like it."
Please learn to read. I said " information that may lead to my arrest". I didn't say it as an absolute, rather as a step in the process. Clearly, if Techdirt doesn't provide certain information, it's unlikely they would ever have a hope of tracking the guy down otherwise. Thus, Techdirt gets to decide who gets a free pass. Seems like "due process" got all blown out.
"We are? Where? Neither your hypothetical comment or the comment under discussion are a well-articulated threat (although yours comes closer than the original). "
The original is a clear enough threat to me. It reads like the words of someone who is comtemplating something more than just being a keyboard warrior. I could be wrong (and I hope I am) but honestly, would it hurt for the police to door knock him and see if he's living with an arsenal of weapons?
Alas, in the online world, the tone and attitude generally are not transmitted, so it's up to the individual reader to take it as they want. Perhaps for some, it's an off the cuff remarket, but to me it seems like a much more bitter and much more dark set of comments. Any one of them taken alone might not add up, but when you group his thoughts together, well, it appears that he might just have the intention.
Put another way, he sounds like he would blend nicely with the idiots that took over the national park building a couple of months ago.
My point isn't that they should or should not stand on them (it's the law, they should) rather that it's cases like this that show how the law ends up creating a legal blockage that should not be acceptable. The guy can spout off with impunity, threaten anyone, and suddenly it's up to Techdirt if he should or should not be investigated?
What issue do you think I am tap dancing around? The actions of the cops in the other story, perhaps? I am not going there because it is absolute, totally, and completely irrelevant to the discussion here. It doesn't matter if the cops are more crooked than a mountain road, threatening to put a bullet in their heads, even somewhat in jest, is truly not a good place to go.
So rather than tapdancing around the issue, perhaps you would want to add something to the discussion rather than just more ad hom attacks?
"However, I do completely understand why the cops would be concerned and want to take a closer look. And I don't have a problem with that, so long as they behave well while they're doing it."
The problem they face is that Techdirt will very likely stand on 230 rules and say that they will absolutely not help in any manner to identify the guy or otherwise provide any information regarding the user, IP, or any other information that might help to identify him.
While I can understand that Mike is probably foaming at the mouth for the chance to push said rights, it points out the complexity of the legal process for law enforcement. They can see something that probably should be at least lightly investigated, but they will run into a Masnick brick wall when it comes to helpful information.
Its a case like this that makes it clear that 230 protections and protections for anonymous posters may be every so slightly too great.
I think that Digger's comments make much more sense if you take his two comments (6 minuntes apart) together to get a complete thought. Then it looks a little more ominious:
"Everyone on the government side of this should have grand theft and / or larceny charges filed against them, and double the jail time as it is a slam dunk case.
They did not follow proper procedures, they no longer have the protection or immunity to prosecution normally afforded to government agents.
By failing to follow procedure, they've shown their true colors and should be treated as the criminals that they are."
"The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
The person wronged probably knows people who know people in low places who'd take on the challenge pro-bono, after a proper "cooling-off" period."
He calls everyone on the government side criminals, and then says that criminals should get a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.
When you put the two together, there is a clear threat, and one that suggests action against government agents. Phrased like that, you get a little domestic terrorist at work.
This is one of those cases where Techdirt could stand on their narrow first amendment rights and claim it's about protecting speech, but that would then be forgetting to protect the people who work at the government agencies. Do you know for a fact (absolute) that this guys comments are NOT the first step in doing something really bad?
Sometimes your first amendment rights are meaningless in the bigger picture.
I think they may have also figured out that he was asking for the same documents in different ways in an attempt to get different versions of any blacking out on the documents to try to find out something. The number of requests suggest not a quest for information, but more like a quest for an accidental oops on a redaction.
If spotted, you can very much expect that nobody wanted to deal with him.
I would be making a guess here, but let me show you how I add it up:
The FBI has "documents" they want to talk to her about.
The FBI wants an in person meeting, in the US.
My guess is that they have (what they feel is) just about enough to arrest her and charge her with something, and her answers to certain questions related perhaps to what work she specifically did or some action she may have taken would be the trigger.
My suggestion for her is to stay in Germany and don't come back under any circumstances. Perhaps at best meet with the FBI in a nice public place in Germany, perhaps with the media nearby.
TOR is a great idea and very useful, but it creates an incredibly complex web of legal ramifications. I think she is about to meet one of those "rams" head on.