G Thompson 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3140) comment rss

  • On the post: Canadian Copyright Law Caps Statutory Damages At $5,000 Just As File Sharing Lawsuits Make Their Unwelcome Return

    G Thompson ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2012 @ 09:13pm

    Re: Proportional is fine with me!

    The only thing you got right n that comment is that the fines are NOT obscene anymore..

    What you got wrong, other than the whole 2nd paragraph is that non-commercial infringement in Canada and EVERYWHERE else is NOT illegal.. It is unlawful ie: a civil offence that is ONLY unlawful once proven on balance.

  • On the post: New Zealand Government Admits That Order To Suppress Illegal Spying On Kim Dotcom Only Such Order Issued In 10 Years

    G Thompson ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2012 @ 06:35am

    Re: Re: Idealist Mike seems to be discovering how world works.

    Why bother asking, he wont reply, and we all know he's just talking out of his Uranus..

    *ducks*

  • On the post: The Pirate Bay's Perfectly Legal 'The Promo Bay' Blocked By UK ISPs

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 11:00pm

    Re: How is this handled for everyone else?

    Let's imagine that you set up a legit business in the front hall of a brothel, a crackhouse or an illegal casino.

    Oh that's right.. Brothels are illegal in the USA.. silly me I thought we were talking about world wide organisations and not specifically USA based enterprises.. or are you suggesting that the USA should tell the rest of the world that brothels need to be legal now?

    Should we have a "War on Brothels"?

    As for the promo bay.. It's controlled by an Australian who is now getting lots of legal advice for what to do to the UK ISP's if they are intentionally blocking a legitimate and LEGAL Business.

    Also I see you, like the rest of your ilk in the *AA's, really hate the idea of due process since you seem to think that a legitimate business should be locked up with the likes of the crack heads etc..

    I hope you know EVERYTHING your own associates are involved in, who knows one day you might be charged for having a vapourous association with them too.. We can only hope hey

  • On the post: Judges Realize Aereo's Setup Is Insane Technologically… But May Get The Wrong Message Out Of It

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 10:48pm

    Kerry packer one of the original media moguls in Australia (and one that was a major thorn in Mordoch's side - when he was an Aussie - in stopping papers owning TV rights) had an Investigation done into his business by the Australian Tax Office.

    During the public hearings for this inquiry he was asked point blank about his Tax minimisation schemes his reply echoed through the corporate world, pissed off the Tax Department and Govt, but is quintessentially Aussie and should be tattooed onto EVERY TAX PAYER's HEAD WORLD WIDE

    "Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!"

  • On the post: Judges Realize Aereo's Setup Is Insane Technologically… But May Get The Wrong Message Out Of It

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 10:36pm

    Re: Since when is copyright supposed to be sane?

    I hope you are not stating that the rest of the many 'laws' other than copyright are sane?

    Because if that's the case.. there is a nice padded room with soft music (and lots and lots of trippy drugs) waiting for you. For your own protection of course

  • On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 06:54am

    Re: Re:

    Also it's not illegal, nor unlawful to be a jerk.

    Otherwise people like ootb would be wearing orange jumpsuits and sitting funny.

    Oh in a perfect world hey! ;)

  • On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 06:47am

    Re: Re:

    Actually the return of the laptop and hard-drive were the original conditions, they just stated that it was because of the data upon the hard drive that they wanted it so badly. This in no way means that the data was part of it..

    For example if I offer a reward for a loss of my wallet, then state I am upping that because of the information stored in that wallet (or even money in it) and the wallet is returned without the money, or other things like credit cards, photos, invoice stubs, etc then I still have to give out the reward money because the specific item, the wallet, was returned. If I wanted also the contents in the wallet as part of the reward conditions then they have to be specifically listed out explicitly to be a part of it all.

    And yep the jury made correct decision, why it went to jury in first place is the weirdness for myself. I hope Leslie's solicitors/attorneys have their mal insurance paid up.

  • On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 06:40am

    Re: Re:

    go look up estoppel and then tell me a promise cannot bind you into an agreement if the other party has met the conditions.

  • On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 06:15am

    Re: He must have Pee Wee logic

    The problem with that logic is that even then the reward must be given, though it can then be taken (dependant on jurisdiction) by the state as proceeds of crime. IF the returner is proven in a court to have stolen it though.

    But the reward must still be provided, if known about.

  • On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 06:13am

    Re: Re:

    Exactly

    first rule of contracts. Do NOT promise what you cannot or wont deliver, otherwise the 'reward' offer could turn into fraud!

    The only way Leslie could of gotten out of this was to somehow prove that Augstein never knew about the reward in the first place. In that scenario, contract case law states that no reward need be given since there was no initial acceptance until after the fact. Strange but true

  • On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay

    G Thompson ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 06:09am

    This is contract law 101 directly out of the textbooks in regards to rewards.

    * A reward is offered, it doesn't matter whether it was in jest or otherwise.
    * Somebody who has foreknowledge (and foreknowledge is the key here) of that reward comes forward and fulfills the reward conditions, in this case, return of the laptop. No mention that it had to be in pristine condition therefore not a condition of the reward contract. And what is "reasonable" has no bearing on the contract at this stage. Multiple precedents with these sorts of similar situations in case law
    * the offer and acceptance is fulfilled, the consideration on one side has been met (return of laptop) and therefore the consideration on the other side, the reward money, MUST be done (Paid)

    If this is appealed I'd be extremely surprised since there seems to be no error at law anywhere. In fact the original Judge has gone above and beyond in considering the actual 'data' in the first place when that was NEVER a part of the conditions of the reward being met and therefore irrelevant in the scheme of things.

    This has nothing to do with whether the data they really wanted was on the physical laptop or not, it has everything to do with some person thinking that they can just name any reward not understanding that contracts and a legally binding promise that is NOT one sided nor unilateral nor whatever they want it to be because they are 'celebrities'.

  • On the post: Psy Elects Not To Go Legal Over Gangnam Style Restaurant

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 08:43pm

    Re:

    You can actually trademark it. There is no "generally can't" about it.

    In fact the restaurant strangely enough could trademark the name specifically for usage in Restaurants since Psy does not use the words in that specific area and is NOT in the USA.

    This is the weirdness that is trademark law.

  • On the post: How The Video Game Industry Was Launched 40 Years Ago… Thanks To Infringement

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 08:30pm

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

    All I can think of after reading this thread with both you wally and you btrussell is that universal statement by parents everywhere

    CHILDREN.... BEHAVE! *the stare*

  • On the post: How The Video Game Industry Was Launched 40 Years Ago… Thanks To Infringement

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 08:26pm

    Re: Re: "based on infringement"? -- Okay...

    He loses any credibility as soon as you read the FROM name Wally.. the guy isn't just trolling anymore (a troll will tr to goad people by actually replying) he's just doing this becasue he can.

    He's trying to cause dissent, animosity and harm to the community and it is to me a major concern. I've been the admin of enough major online communities - bianca, Well, The Park, TheReef - to see what this personality type can do if left unchecked.

    I'm actually in favour of DH's idea to actually Ban in this instance, though a limited ban. Though we need to understand any limited bann can still be misused by Ip changing via proxy etc. Though if proven this could be used to perma bann and even take action against on unauthorised access laws even.. Though that is an extreme situation (been there and done it before though)

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Everyone Loves Bacon

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 08:09pm

    Re:

    Now if we can just have an edit button, a troll delete button, a sarcasm button for the dummies, oh the list is extensive..

    muwahahahahahahaha

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Everyone Loves Bacon

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 08:07pm

    The only thing better than bacon is More BACON!


    oh and since there is no other place to put this.. Do We have new CSS on Techdirt?

    I'm, noticing Thread Lines instead of List bullets.. hmmm.. can I just say it remind's me of my old Bianca days with real threaded forums and on looooong convoluted threads you don't have to place a finger on the monitor to line up the thread markers (bullets) to figure out where to reply therefre much appreciated and of course...

    ooooooo Shiny!

  • On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright

    G Thompson ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 06:40am

    Re: You're flat LYING here:

    Seeing that I definitely now think you are an ubiquitous ignoranus better add my name too (my real twitter and G+ info is on my profile)


    Oh and commercial scale infringing needs to be for COMMERCIAL purposes and also needs to be proven.. I'll state that again PROVEN in court otherwise people like yourself and Dodd are just spouting unproven allegations and false rhetoric that people like myself (Non-American citizens) find offensive and if you are making a list.. better make it private otherwise I will find you, I will sue you (and the US 1st Amendment holds no water for me...think "Gutnick" for case law), and I will make you suffer equitably and make a public mockery of you using every single one of your incoherent ramblings on TD and other places to further drag you down the rabbit hole you so badly want to go!

    Oh and that's not an idle threat either. Now fuck off and go play with the traffic

  • On the post: PeopleBrowsr Gets Temporary Restraining Order Against Twitter For 'Felony Interference With A Business Model'

    G Thompson ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 08:10pm

    The only point in that whole claim by PeopleBrowser (disclaimer: I have had business dealings with Mr Rich in the past) that has any merit in the slightest is point 4.

    4. PeopleBrowser built its business in reliance on Twitter's Promises of Open Data Access [emphasis added]

    The alleged promises if proven could fall under estoppel, though this would still not prevent Twitter from totally stopping the feed in its entirety as long as it was equitably done to all. Not just to some individuals, though there could be a reasonableness clause that twitter has done what they provided and due to market and other strategic concerns that at the time could not be reasonably foreseen they can now not honour the promise they originally provided.

    I can't see this ending well for PeopleBrowser in any instance.

    All the rest of the claims are basically trying to stop twitter doing what it is legally able to do and that PeopleBrowser might be seriously butthurt in the process.. Boo bloody hoo! (And that is the Ego of Rich to a tee!)

  • On the post: TorrentFreak Pulls The Switcheroo On Copyright Troll That Cited Them In Threat Letters

    G Thompson ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2012 @ 08:01pm

    Re:

    I'd of gone further.. Made a script that if someone came directly in on that url to torrentfreak they are redirected to a specific page with that specifically talks about the letter they have received

    ie: "Have you come here after reading a letter from Prenda Law? If so have we got some great information for you!"

    Fight the letter specifically thereby also annoying the hell out of Prenda Law - Prenda might then be stupid enough to start screaming and threatening actions (defamation or some other bullshit interference claim) which would then be even better!

  • On the post: TorrentFreak Pulls The Switcheroo On Copyright Troll That Cited Them In Threat Letters

    G Thompson ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2012 @ 07:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though

    Again you are wrong.. A conviction (which is criminal only) or actionable tort is ONLY for the instance in time that the action (or lack thereof) occured.

    If the charge is "knowingly linked to xxx that says blah to do whatever" and the link has changed, the onus is on the plaintiff/prosecutor to prove that the original intent was before the link was changed.. Which means you need to have absolute authenticated proof that the link was ever changed or was even what you said it was. And believe me that is the hardest if not near impossible thing to do especially f you have no jurisdictional or other legal ability to make the owner of the thing that the link links to preserve it. Big problems.. and Google cache is NOT evidentially admissible .

Next >>