bordy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (56) comment rss

  • On the post: Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts

    bordy ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2011 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Dude can I check out that list? I wanna see how I stack up.
    And is there any chance you have a list of your ex-girlfriends I can study?

    Aside: this is nothing personal, just happens to be my last day in the office for 2011 - I got 3 & 1/2 more hours!

  • On the post: Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts

    bordy ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2011 @ 09:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Eh, I considered your list . . . and I'd still rather abuse my 1st Amendment right so to offset what I consider to be an incursion on the same.

  • On the post: Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts

    bordy ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2011 @ 09:25am

    Re: Re:

    This, of course, would have been her most prudent choice, but that would be putting our right to speak freely before the legally venerable doctrine that protects this broad's poor self-esteem.

  • On the post: Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts

    bordy ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2011 @ 08:41am

    Re:

    The issue that those of you defending this order are missing is that the "victim" here is claiming "harassment" by virtue of her hurt feelings.

    The speech may be petty and vindictive, but that in and of itself isn't - err, shouldn't be - legally sanctionable behavior. Both parties probably need to grow up, but I'll take his sort of douchebaggery over her censorious brand of entitlement anyday.

    I'll close here by exercising my 1st Amendment right to state unequivocally that this self-righteous harlot needs to develop a sense of humor and get over herself.

  • On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away

    bordy ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2011 @ 07:27am

    Re: It was another lobbying effort

    Color me unsurprised. Thanks.

    http://bejohngalt.com/2011/08/gibson-guitar-prosecution-selective-justice/

  • On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away

    bordy ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2011 @ 04:04am

    When ICE started seizing websites at the behest of certain players within the entertainment industry, I started playing a game when government agencies made headlines with actions such as these. I ask: "Is there a competing industry/lobby/company prodding the feds into action?"

    I have no idea if such an exercise could be useful here, but perhaps someone with the applicable background can help?

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge… But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit

    bordy ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As I see it, there IS NO "magic agreement."

    /fixed

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge… But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit

    bordy ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    . . . before they find the magic agreement . . . .

    As I see it, there "magic agreement." What's become apparent through all these briefs and orders is that the SAA has no substance. Some of the rulings have hit on this point. Drafting the "perfect contract" still won't do Righthaven any favors, as what matters is how their relationship operates in the practical world, not the world that exists on paper.

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Again; Has To Pay Legal Fees

    bordy ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2011 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The SAA was pretty damaging, but I doubt it creates liability for fraud in and of itself. Never say never, but I can't imagine there being any cold evidence that Righthaven or Stephens knew the scheme was fraudulent.

    That being the case, they were terribly misguided and this mess was reasonably forseeable. All their post hoc disingenuous excuses have not done them any favors.

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Again; Has To Pay Legal Fees

    bordy ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2011 @ 09:38am

    Re:

    The biggest question I had when this whole saga began to unfold was "Why set up the scheme this way?" That is, why this transfer-license back relationship? I initially and still do believe it was partially an attempt to reflect any negative PR away from Stephens Media (and may I add, dynamite work on that front, boys). And there's also the attempt to contract around Silvers.

    The worse this gets, the more I believe that this worst case scenario was probably contemplated by the principals and Righthaven was set up to absorb liability in Stephens' place. Stephens may have hoped that if its shell went bankrupt and became judgment proof, the story would simply end there.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Working Hard To Make Sure No One Wants To Use .com Or .net Domains

    bordy ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2011 @ 08:13pm

    Re: Re:

    No difference, I have full confidence my government would attempt to have you extradited from Candyland.

  • On the post: Want To Give Righthaven's Backers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine?

    bordy ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2011 @ 03:01pm

    I hope someone takes Anderson up on his offer to sell and then opens a professional dialogue with Frederick aimed at affecting a reasonable solution, only after which meaningful litigation may ensue.

    . . .

    On second thought, just extort the everliving shit out of him.

  • On the post: Six Years Later, JK Rowling Realizes Ebooks Are A Good Idea… And She Cuts Out The Middleman

    bordy ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2011 @ 05:41pm

    Re:

    ...while she retains the rights, apparently she is giving her publishes some cut....

    This little bit interested me too. Perhaps someone with more insight into this industry can indulge me: is this sort of concession typically made out of goodwill, bona fide contractual obligations, or is it just a bone tossed to avoid litigation?

    (the cynic in me already knows the answer)

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    bordy ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2011 @ 05:12pm

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

    If you understand that certain levels of authority carry more weight than others, you understand why it matters.

    I never asked for you respect and don't care whether or not you do. Focus now...

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    bordy ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2011 @ 02:25pm

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

    The Silvers passage would be even more relevant if it came from the Majority opinion.

    When supporting any position by citing to a portion of case law other than a majority opinion, e.g., concurrence, plurality, and especially a dissent, it's prudent to make that fact known. In fact, it's deceitful to hide it.

    Is anyone willing to give the AC the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest oversight?

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    bordy ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2011 @ 05:54pm

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

    ...once the proper 106 rights are acquired"

    ....AND acquired properly, not through some bush league, mickey mouse, do-as-it-says-not-as-it-does agreement.

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    bordy ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2011 @ 05:36pm

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

    No, that's not a dumb question, and you're on to something that I'm not sure is appreciated by some commenters...

    There is no 'right to sue' - it might help to think of it as the 'privilege to sue' once the proper 106 rights are acquired.

    Calling it a privilege wouldn't make it any less abused unfortunately.

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    bordy ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2011 @ 06:13am

    Re:

    I've said this before...

    I think you're focusing too much on form without giving any regard to substance of the agreement. Sure, the SAA states Righthaven took ownership and then licensed it back to Stephens. I don't see how this can be denied going by the bare language of the contract.

    But from a practical standpoint, that language is just fluff. It's an attempt to let Righthaven sue without really taking ownership. In reality, the agreement operated to do nothing more than give Righthaven the right to sue. It's disingenuous to pretend that those clauses in the SAA gave Righthaven anything else. The judge thankfully saw through it.

  • On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant

    bordy ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 04:07pm

    Toilets flushing, obviously

    What does the "destruction of evidence" sound like?

  • On the post: Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'

    bordy ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 08:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The problem with this ruling, as I see it, is that I no longer have a right to reasonably refuse an unlawful police entry to my home.

    What rights then am I left with to keep an officer who, without a warrant, just feels like snooping around? Should I just say, "Please don't come in"? Should I call the police?

    Seriously, it seems I have no other recourse except some post hoc legal action, by which time the rights I'm concerned with protecting have already been violated.

Next >>