aethercowboy’s Techdirt Profile


About aethercowboy

I am a strong supporter of free speech and reasonable copyright law. I also operate the website

aethercowboy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 22nd, 2018 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier

    I'm wondering if the legal strategy involves Howard Levitt's bank account.

    (Just kidding, Howard! That's a joke, and not meant as a defamatory statement!)

  • Jun 22nd, 2018 @ 1:01pm


    ^ forgot to log in.

  • Jun 13th, 2018 @ 12:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    If you could magically materialize butter by copying a snippet of text on the internet, my cat would totally know how to use a computer by now.

  • Mar 8th, 2018 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Out of sight out of mind

    I dunno. I live in Ohio.

  • Mar 7th, 2018 @ 11:12am

    Re: Out of sight out of mind

    It's sad that my kindergarten-aged daughter understands object permanence better than my senator.

  • Nov 3rd, 2017 @ 11:22am

    (untitled comment)

    This redefines covfefe!

  • Sep 29th, 2017 @ 11:40am

    (untitled comment)

    There's an interesting tax law at play regarding costumes ( Basically, for tax purposes, there is a distinction between clothing and costumes (also, a similar distinction for dolls vs. toys, and that may be at the heart of the battle. It could be argued that costumes are not clothing, and are thus not utilitarian goods.

    Granted, that's a stupid argument, but it'll probably be the one at the heart of the suit.

  • Sep 29th, 2017 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: The Hand Drawing the Hand Drawing the Hand...

    Well, yeah. I didn't mean adaptation in the sense of something that would require lawyers. Inspired is more appropriate. Nevertheless, the point is the same: if we're going to argue "theft of ideas", we need to follow this to its logical conclusion. I suppose instead of going to Más a Tierra, we could instead take it to the Colosseum, but that's an exercise left to the reader.

  • Sep 29th, 2017 @ 5:55am

    The Hand Drawing the Hand Drawing the Hand...

    Aren't these both basically adaptations of Suzanne Collins' *The Hunger Games*? Of course, that was basically an Americanized version of Koushun Takami's *Battle Royale*, which we all know is basically Stephen King's *The Running Man*, only set in Japan. Which, of course, is William Golding's *Lord of the Flies*, but as a reality TV show. Of course, *that* was a satirical response to R. M. Ballantyne's *The Coral Island*, which is itself based on the themes of Daniel Defoe's *Robinson Crusoe.*

  • Sep 11th, 2017 @ 10:55am

    (untitled comment)

    Someone should remind Mr. Vanaman about Section 512(f) before he takes legal action. I'd imageine Mr. Kjellberg has the resources to follow it through.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 5:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Hmm. Guess I didn't say "savages". "Terrible," rather. Still, the point is the same.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 5:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...

    My bad, it was the Daily Storm, not Stormcloud. All these stormy things get jumbled up in the head when you don't care enough to follow them.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 5:15am

    Re: Re:


    While I knew exactly (more or less) what I meant when I wrote it, it seems that you and at least one other user don't see what I'm trying to say. Whether that's because I didn't do a clear enough job of explaining my position, or because you (and at least one other person) aren't reading for context, I'm not sure. But allow me to clarify (if my follow up comment did not clarify enough).

    I never said people have the right to hurt anybody to shut them up. If you would read the entire comment, you'd (hopefully) see that's what I'm trying to say. In fact, I said that people who try to hurt people to shut them up are, and I quote myself above, "savages."

    Yes, I agree, the law is written in a way such that if you're the first one to throw a punch, you're assaulting. If you're the recipient of the assault, you have the right, under the law, to defend yourself. But if you use lethal force to respond to non-lethal force, you're going to have a hard time defending that in court, both the federal and moral.

    If I were in a situation that threatened my life, or the life of my family, I would do what I could to get out of the situation. Any reasonable person would. But I wouldn't go above and beyond that. If someone threw a rock at me, I would not drive my car over them. That's just absurd. I'd remove myself from the situation, because I'd rather live another day than leverage my right to use up to an including lethal action and further endanger my own life.

    I don't speak for the site. I don't speak for anybody other than me (and while I don't appreciate people speaking for me, I understand that the nature of internet conversation leaves so much up to individual interpretation). Allow me to state in as clear of words as I may, so there remains absolutely no confusion of the matter:


    That being said:


    My end point in my original comment is one that I think we should all realize, and I hope you can agree it's far from evil (and it applies in protests, riots, and internet comments): we're all people, we're all individuals, and (unless there's more advanced AIs than I realize) we're all human beings with feeling and opinions and well, mostly good inclinations (albeit, some of us have bad motivators).

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: The key and only important take-away...

    Stormcloud, a presumably racist web publication, wrote an article about the victim of the car incident. In response, GoDaddy, their host and registrar cancelled their hosting account for violating their TOS wrt hate speech. Stormcloud then went to Google Domains to transfer, but were declined on similar grounds.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm sorry I was not more clear. I had thought the context would be enough to convey my opinion.

    The heck that I am saying is this: it's wrong to escalate the situation. It's wrong to use violence to respond to ideas. It's wrong to use deadly force to respond to non-life threatening violence.

    I'm pretty sure I didn't say what you're accusing me of having said (I'll re-read it to make sure I didn't accidentally leave out a word or something, but what you're accusing me of was very, very, very far from my intent). I definitely don't condone violence, and especially don't condone escalation of the situation.

    What I was trying to say is this: If A punches B because B believes C, that gives no right to B to kill A. I believe that B has a right to retaliate in kind (even if I think it's wrong), but think the better course of action is to be the bigger person and let them have their baby-tantrum (provided it does not endanger anybody). Basically, I think the best action is to take the least violent approach to mitigate the situation.

    Heck, I'm a proponent of turning the other cheek, but I know how hard it is when you've been punched in the face.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 10:46am

    (untitled comment)

    Tim, thank you so much for this post. Since Charlottesville, I've been having so much trouble trying to put words to the feelings I've had about how yes, we still need to protect free speech, even when shit like this happens.

    The people who respond to speech with violence are terrible. They're damaging their cause by implicitly stating that they have no counter argument to the idea they are in opposition too. If it just turned into a fist fight, I would have said, "that's what happens when you punch people, they hit back."

    However, hitting people with cars is not the same as hitting them with fists. Killing someone who just wants to hurt you into silence is not an appropriate response. This is far worse, as instead of meeting your opposition with equal inverse force (e.g., retaliatory punches) you have then upped the ante. This is the worst thing you can do to someone who has already shown that they're willing to escalate violence. At that point, the end result is who's willing to go too far first. Not somewhere I want to be.

    In an episode of Stuff you Should Know, "How Dictators Work" they discussed that historically, the entities that were resisted hardest ended up getting more credibility, and thus, more power. While I think that anybody who wants to tote White Nationalist or White Separatism or Nazism or racism or any of these other flawed ideologies, I would treat them like I would a toddler throwing a tantrum: don't reward the negative behavior with attention. Treat it like a threat, and it becomes a threat; treat it like a group of idiots with misguided ideas, then it'll just remain that.

    The best cure for stupid is education, not shame or violence. Combat ideas with ideas. If things get violent, GTFO. And always remember: no matter what side of the aisle you're on, your group is made up of a bunch of individual people. Some are basically good people (albeit, with bad ideas), so don't confuse the ideas with the human who claims to have them.

  • Apr 27th, 2017 @ 12:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    Worth noting is that (a) Fox 8's wonderful fact checker typoed his name. He's actually Eric. (b) GIPEC stands for "Global Intellectual Property Enforcement Center", and (c) this quote from the article is the most troubling to me: "Feinberg said he’d like to see the Internet regulated in a way similar to what you see for broadcast TV."

  • Jan 26th, 2017 @ 10:26am

    (untitled comment)

    Shouldn't the CC line say "via EMAIL"?

  • Jan 25th, 2017 @ 11:03am

    (untitled comment)

    Obviously, the RT arrest was a plant to distance Russia from the Elections. Right?

  • Dec 6th, 2016 @ 8:33am

    (untitled comment)

    We need to get rid of the whole notion of "copyright" for characters. It's so hand-wavy it's not even funny. In what universe does a character exist as a fixed and tangible work? (A: a fictional one)

More comments from aethercowboy >>