G Thompson 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3140) comment rss

  • On the post: How I Taught A Jury About Trolls, Memes And 4Chan — And Helped Get A Troll Out Of Jail

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2016 @ 02:43am

    Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

    Dude....

    You have real issues.. go get help

  • On the post: Newegg Sues Over Copied Legal Filing; Judge Rules That It's Not Fair Use

    G Thompson ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2016 @ 11:41pm

    This is more akin to the common law tort of 'passing off', or in this instance 'Reverse passing off' as in John Roberts Powers School v Tessensohn [1995] FSR 947.

    Though admittedly this is a specifically not a normally used American tort AFAIK. (Edited after a bit of research during writing: It seems you do have something similar within the Lanham Act in the USA as per the Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003)

    Oh and before anyone says it, "passing off' is NOT specifically about trademarks etc. It's about services and/or goods that are (in this instance) being falsely misrepresented as one's own. The attorney who allegedly copied the brief near verbatim without citation would of been billing there client for this and is therefore committing something both unethical and potentially unlawful under 'passing off'.

    Not sure why NewEgg are going this specific copyright route though. (If Mr Cheng reads this and uses Dastar I promise I wont scream infringement ;) )

  • On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2016 @ 02:33am

    Re:

    sadly there are no Kangaoroos in NZ.. Only Kiwi's









    and sheep




    runs

  • On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2016 @ 02:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Awesome how you refer to Article 19 and don't then also acknowledge that Article IV needs to be shown as well. ie: Were the monies etc actually illegally obtained under New Zealand law.

    Candour isn't part of your thing is it?

    Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place or to prove that he is the person convicted by the courts of the requesting Party.

  • On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2016 @ 02:25am

    Re:

    Being a court approved, sanctioned and controlled live stream (well 20min delay but that's appropriate) means that no DMCA notice could EVER be applied due to the courts absolute immunity. They could play every Disney movie ever made as evidence, as long as it was relevant, and Disney et.al could do Sweet FA.

  • On the post: Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis

    G Thompson ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2016 @ 01:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > On the other hand if you're going to move and leave your Muslim country for another different type of country, maybe you should try adapting to that culture some. I said SOME!!!

    Just something you need to be aware of..

    The burkini was INVENTED AND DESIGNED IN AUSTRALIA!!!

    It was developed by our Surf Life Saving foundation so that women who identified as Muslim could become fully qualified lifesavers and actually perform a volunteer function that saves lives.

    The burkini is what is called compromise and is a form of integration of ALL cultures which is what the whole planet should be about anyway

  • On the post: Australian Law Enforcement Hacked US Users' Computers During Child Porn Investigation

    G Thompson ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2016 @ 12:14am

    Re: Re: No hacking, just good police work

    No, hacking implies that the system was not in your control, and was taken over nefariously or by other non legal means, when in fact it was in the full legal control of the QLD police (with oversight from the Australian Federal Police in fact too).

    IF they obtained access to a server without the owners knowledge then that is 'hacking' whereas here the owner was fully aware since he gave up the server as part of the arrest with all access codes and other necessary knowledge to control and run the server. This was a honeypot structure pure and simple and under Australian law quite legal, no matter what American law might scream about in regards to problems with the 5th, 4th or even 1st amendment.

  • On the post: Australia's Census Fail Goes Into Overdrive — A Complete And Utter Debacle

    G Thompson ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2016 @ 03:43pm

    No matter the spin our Government and ABS idiots are trying to state. There is currently NO evidence whatsoever of any DDoS attacks occurring into Australia in regards to the census site on the day in question.

    The only DDoS that is likely to have occurred is that more than 1million people tried to access the server that was only rated for a load of 750,000 per hr (there are over 5million households in Aust) and even then it was continuosly failing under stress testing previously.

    IBM is somewhat to blame here, but mostly the blame goes immediately and squarely at the feet of the idiots in the ABS and the current Federal Govt who thatoght this was a good idea.

    Don't get me started on the identification privacy issues. I am refusing to give name, address and birth date for anyone in my household at the time the snapshot is required. They can, like a few thousand (actually more ..much more than that) of us who have refused come play the game with us in court if they so wish to prosecute. The Act(s) in question are very specific on what is and what isn't needed in a census. Identifying information are Not part of it.

  • On the post: Primatologist Tells Court That Macaque Monkeys Are, Like, Super Smart, So They Should Totally Get Copyrights

    G Thompson ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2016 @ 12:50am

    Re: I want some money too

    My pet boulder has been given this task of proving your thesis wrong, it will get back to you in an age or two

  • On the post: Primatologist Tells Court That Macaque Monkeys Are, Like, Super Smart, So They Should Totally Get Copyrights

    G Thompson ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2016 @ 12:48am

    So basically this Primatologist (does this mean he also studies humans taht are also primates???) is just confirming that age old saying of

    Monkey see, monkey do.

    LOL

  • On the post: The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2016 @ 10:58pm

    Re: Indonesian Copyright Law

    (PETA) to argue on behalf of an Indonesian non-human in a US court makes even less sense

    You have just included PETA and the phrase "makes even less sense" in a sentence.. This is a standard and highly approved way of thinking whenever PETA does anything :)

    As for the rest, Yes it's dumb, but PETA are a US Centric organisation, and they know under Indonesian law that interestingly the animal in question is still classified as a chattel and therefore it could be argued, and most likely would be, that the actual picture, though still having no copyright, is actually OWNED and could therefore be licensed, by the Indonesian Government.

  • On the post: The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2016 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns the pictures when a camera trap is used?

    No its NOT the owner of the camera who owns the copyright, its the HUMAN taker of the photograph who owns the copyright, whether that human was the owner or not of the camera, the actual pushing of the button (whether accidental or not) by a human is enough. The difference here is that an animal took a photograph and therefore CANNOT own copyright so therefore NO ONE has an ownership in the copyright of the work produced since there is NO copyright.

    The fact that there is sometimes NO copyright in a work, is the concept that a lot of people have a very hard time in grasping due to the cultural push of ownership must always occur somehow. It doesn't.

  • On the post: The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2016 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns the pictures when a camera trap is used?

    Lets take this statement of yours and using photographic subjects, who could or could not be humans, in place of animals see why I still stand by why your strange reasoning would also work in that regard and how you then are being dishonest by not owning your theory.

    Original: The animals are in control of their placement, their angle to the camera, what they expose to the camera, the time of day they trigger it, etcetera. So is seems to me that the animals have more control than the human. Especially if the camera itself has auto-exposure, auto-focus and auto-triggering. All the human does is leave it hanging somewhere.

    re-done for equity:
    The photographic subject(s) are in control of their placement, their angle to the camera, what they expose to the camera, the time of day they trigger it, etcetera. So is seems to me that the photographic subject(s) have more control than the Camera operator/owner. Especially if the camera itself has auto-exposure, auto-focus and auto-triggering. All the Camera operator/owner does is leave it hanging somewhere.


    See.. in the second wording your original statement is still dumb as rocks under Copyright law and shows that PETA and there ilk are only trying to somehow backhandedly create animal rights that are non existent and never should be ever.

  • On the post: Irony: Sony Pictures Sued For Failing To Stop Piracy

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2016 @ 10:37pm

    > Arbitration provides a fair, unbiased way to resolve disputes without bankrupting the corporation with legal fees.

    Yes it does, though it's also totally dependent on the perceived and actual non bias of the arbitrator chosen. Yes you can show that arbitrators should be unbiased due not wanting reputational problems, them wanting to be paid again and also not wanting to be taken to court themselves (though a company without funds is still in a precarious position - catch 22).

    Also are legal representatives allowed to represent because in this situation I can guarantee that Sony would have a representative appearing that though maybe not a practising lawyer, would at the least have a law degree (most probably a JD) and a LOT of experience dealing with arbitration, placing them at an advantage over a smaller company that probably wouldn't have this expertise in house..

    Another concern is how binding any non court arbitration actually is and does it interfere or appear ultra vires with legislated triers of facts ie: does it overrule any black letter law or future court decisions ?

  • On the post: The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2016 @ 02:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Who owns the pictures when a camera trap is used?

    So you are stating that a person who has there photo taken by a camera (whether that camera is operated by a person or otherwise) must therefore, under your strange reasoning, also own the copyright.

    You better sit down because I have news for you about how copyright works (unless its a work for hire) and it will now make you cry.

  • On the post: Irony: Sony Pictures Sued For Failing To Stop Piracy

    G Thompson ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2016 @ 07:36pm

    You all realise that this is about Contract law and rests on an alleged breach of contract by Sony and is NOT about copyright or about specifically blocking all piracy.

    In this instance it is about a clause that is stating that Sony has exclusive rights to protect the work with all means necessary, and therefore under equity and consideration elements Sony therefore bears ALL reasonable responsibility on this as well.

    Possibility (love the name), is alleging that not only did Sony not adequately, reasonably and using "industry standards" protect the work from the hack but also then did not meet further implied conditions of the contract due to the hack. ie: Advertising, promotion, distribution in cinema's etc.

    As for the binding Arbitration clause (which is a USA only contract law bullshit thing - but i digress) this might be moot due to Sony allegedly having discussions in July 2016 with Possibility Pictures, where they [Sony] insisted that they had “no obligation….to take any anti-piracy measures whatsoever”. This shows that they were not going to abide by any agreement. This could all come down to estoppel also.

  • On the post: Anti-Vax Film Distributors Threaten Critic And Autistic Rights Advocate With Defamation

    G Thompson ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2016 @ 10:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!

    No, not black and white.. Just sometimes there is not two sides to a theory.. You have the correct answer or the actual null and DUMB answer. Or do you think David Wolf is correct too with his theory about how Gravity is not real?

    "Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be the sweet, blissful stupidity of animals, molluscs and the gods. Human stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones."
    - Henry de Montherlant (1896-1972)

    Personally I prescribe to the idea that anti-vaxxers are as dumb as molluscs.

  • On the post: Judge Calls Out Malibu Media For Its Attempt To Cut And Run When Faced With Challenge To Its Infringement Claims

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2016 @ 02:01am

    Surely and slowly the USA is coming around on tort reform where the equity should ALWAYS be on 'loser pays" in civil actions (unless both parties are at fault).

  • On the post: As CBS/Paramount Continue Lawsuit Over Fan Film, It Releases Ridiculous & Impossible 'Fan Film Guidelines'

    G Thompson ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2016 @ 02:02am

    Re: Re:

    I'm not talking about Axanar or whether they have a fair use argument or not in their current action, I'm instead talking about the future real and not hypothetical ramifications this will have on fans (or anyone really) to produce works that Paramount deign to state are NOT fair use do to their arbitrary ruleset.

    It's intimidatory and setting themselves up as the arbiter of what can and cannot be allowed for those without the wherewithal to understand how much bullshit (legally and otherwise) is inherent in the guidelines as presented.

    They are trying to preempt by intimidation, propoganda, and "social conscience of the fan base towards the work - 'can no-one think of the work'" or anyone doing anything they deign unlawful beforehand.

    What has or is about to happen to Axanar is irrelevant with these guidelines because these guidelines are for EVERYONE to either kowtow or be outcasts form the community of fans that supposedly paramount think they control. Oh and if paramount do this, they wont be the last Publisher/Owner.

  • On the post: As CBS/Paramount Continue Lawsuit Over Fan Film, It Releases Ridiculous & Impossible 'Fan Film Guidelines'

    G Thompson ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2016 @ 01:19am

    Re: Re:

    oops.. sorry comment here/below was my reply. Must be a Saturday ;(

Next >>