Devils_Advocate's Techdirt Profile


About Devils_Advocate

Devils_Advocate's Comments comment rss

  • Apr 04, 2013 @ 10:14am

    Warner says...

    "Warner says that it'll be constantly adding and rotating new content in and out..."

    Warner says a lot of things. I've heard that, sometimes, they even do what they say.

  • Mar 15, 2013 @ 05:53am

    Yeah, but, whose propaganda?

    Sometimes, it seems propaganda is the only thing coming at you, from all sides.

    You get it from your classic fear-mongering politicians, your sensationalistic gossip press, and of course, your corporate-owned mainstream media.

    In this case, it would be important to know exactly WHAT the proposed EU site intends to "educate your children" about, and how. Otherwise, it's anyone's guess as to what propaganda (if any) is being published, and by whom.

  • Mar 06, 2013 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Bridge

    That one's definitely the winner! (And certainly not as cruel as my frog experiment.)

  • Mar 06, 2013 @ 10:20am

    Unlimited Logic

    Scientist logging a lab experiment...

    Summary: Frog placed at starting line, and prompted to jump by sounding an airhorn. A condition is changed and test repeated. Resulting distances are recorded.

    Jump 1: Frog with 4 legs jumps 20 feet.
    (1 Leg is removed.)
    Jump 2: Frog with 3 legs jumps 2 feet.
    (1 Leg is removed.)
    Jump 3: Frog with 2 legs jumps 3 inches.
    (1 Leg is removed.)
    Jump 4: Frog with 1 leg jumps 1/8 of an inch.
    (1 Leg is removed.)
    (Airhorn sounds repeatedly, with no response.)
    Jump 5: Frog with no legs is DEAF!

  • Feb 19, 2013 @ 12:51pm

    Re: This is already done...

    Ultimately, the action you're referring to was not carried out by private enterprise. It was likely a request by researchers, authorized by a court order on a one-time basis (new orders need to be filed for any future such projects), and carried out by law enforcement, with the cooperation of selective banks, who definitely would asked to see a court order before doing anything.

    "the copyright holders need to do it. And they can."

    No, they can't. "Copyright holders" don't have that kind of authority to screw with anyone's finances without a court order, and the involvement of law enforcement.

    That's the argument.

    What fuckin' right does a copyright holder (or Google) have to act arbitrarily as judge, jury and executioner?? They're private entities, whose interests are directly tied into such actions, and not entitled to practice law enforcement in the first place.

  • Feb 19, 2013 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: "Horse", then "Cart"...

    "Has any payment processor or ad network been charged or sued over this?"

    Since the financial services discussed (PayPal, etc.) have really only done this once in the public's view, that case (WikiLeaks) is the only reference point so far. And that's part of the argument.

    "Not if a good faith belief exists"

    This is a condition that needs to be determined in court, before permitting action on the part of a private company. Also part of the argument.

    "Maybe you should read a TOS and learn something about the law..."

    A TOS has nothing to do with law.
    And laws cannot be enforced by private enterprise through the use of the TOS. Enforcement is still in the hands of authority, when withdrawing a service on those grounds. Again, part of the argument.

    If you're going to argue about law, you need to refer to law.

    "Different set of facts entirely."

    The only thing different about the WikiLeaks case is that the supposed "crimes" being cited were considered far worse than something like "piracy". Yet, the Judge ruled in favour of WikiLeaks, despite the continued interference of the U.S. Government. If anything that strengthens the argument, and illustrates the need for accountability all the way to the top of the food chain.

    "If the pirate sites wish, they can go to court..."

    I find it interesting that you'd consider it alright to "prosecute" such pirates OUTSIDE of actual LAWS, by cutting off services, finances, and/or accounts... YET have the "accused" actually have to go through the legal system to defend themselves (and in a disadvantaged state before the whole thing started, to boot!).

  • Feb 19, 2013 @ 10:03am

    "Horse", then "Cart"...

    @AC (#24):

    "Cart before the horse" #1...
    "It's not laws, but business practices."

    These "business practices" are breaking existing laws, and buying new laws to suit that purpose.

    "Cart before the horse" #2...
    "Dealing in unlawful activity is prohibited."

    Unlawful activity is supposed to be defined by existing laws, and the courts, and enforced by police agencies - not by private enterprise.

    While you may have the right, as the owner/operator of a site, to accept or deny whatever traffic you wish, the same doesn't apply to those who offer services for compensation - particularly services that are now considered essential. Services like PayPal or VISA can't just arbitrarily pull their services, simply because of baseless propaganda

    When this same stunt was pulled on WikiLeaks, the legal systems involved did determine that cutting off these services was illegal, and ordered the accounts reinstated. It is only through the willful involvement of the U.S. Government that PayPal, VISA, et al are able to continue to interfere with WikiLeaks' revenue stream.

  • Feb 19, 2013 @ 08:10am

    Google is still just a company...

    The questions that really needs to be asked here are:

    1) Why is Google being treated like it has some kind of "authority" to "police" the Internet??

    2) Why should any private enterprise be able to interfere with the business of any other (including the payment companies involved)??

    Is Google big?... Of course it is.
    Is Google important?... Naturally.
    But, that doesn't automatically appoint Google as some sort of "Sheriff"!

    Google is still a company. No company has any right to arbitrarily fuck with anyone else's rightful ability to do business and/or receive online revenue. There's a whole slew of laws, national and international, about that kind of behaviour.

    It's disturbing to see the World continue to even placate The Big Corporate Machine with this idea that laws can be written, rewritten, and enforced by private enterprise - without courts, judges, police, charges, trials, due process, or even any actual AUTHORITY - for reasons that only benefit themselves, the rest of the world, be damned!

  • Jan 07, 2013 @ 06:19am

    Stunt, for perhaps a certain kind of publicity

    Looks like they're aiming their sites art those members of the Elite that support anything and everything expensive, in the name of preserving that illusory culture of privilege.

    Whatever they're doing, they're obviously from a different planet than us.

  • Dec 10, 2012 @ 08:27am


    @G Thompson:

    Great word!!

    Just one fine detail...
    By your own definition, it's a noun (not an adjective, as indicated).

  • Nov 28, 2012 @ 09:45am


    Anyone replying to "out_of_the_blue" has to be out of his mind.

  • Nov 09, 2012 @ 08:54am

    Would a license have prevented the takedown?

    With all the automated takedown crap in play, I believe that even if the songs were licensed, the video still wouldn't have been left up.

  • Nov 08, 2012 @ 06:23am

    Another interesting point...

    The advertisers money only covers the *air time* on the *original broadcast*, anyway.

    It's not like there's any further obligation on anyone's part to continue to attach the ads to the programming afterward.

    That point, alone, should carry enough weight to finish the argument.

  • Nov 05, 2012 @ 08:46am

    Another way to get screwed...

    I can see it now.
    Start sending votes by e-mail, and afterwards you'll be hearing about how so many messages were trashed by the spam filter.

  • Sep 17, 2012 @ 06:02am

    Scratching my head, too

    You would think there would be more of this kind of trouble using the images of American money, as it is all, as I understand it, a product of The Federal Reserve (a 3rd party).

    What happened with Dave gunning had to be coming from some ignorant dickwad. All through my lifetime, I've seen thousands of usages of our money's images, none resulting in any such idiocy as this.

    Even if there were some active copyright to worry about, I can't see how it could be applied to the mere image of the currency, which would have to be considered a public symbol.

  • Sep 04, 2012 @ 10:08am

    No "might-have's" about it...

    "Hackers MIGHT HAVE gotten Personal Info On 12-Million Apple Users, you mean."

    From the article...
    The hackers have released 1,000,001 UDIDs and APNS tokens to prove they had the data, stripping out the personal info. The file they found was called: "NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv"

  • Aug 23, 2012 @ 10:13am

    "Conspiracy theories" come in all forms...

    "Raub's views definitely fall into what many consider to be conspiracy theory territory -- claiming 9/11 was an inside job..."

    I would challenge anyone to explain how the "official" 9/11 Report doesn't also qualify as a conspiracy theory.

  • Aug 17, 2012 @ 07:46am

    Couple of thoughts...

    Maybe it's me, but this matter doesn't appear totally black and white.

    First of all, the post and some of the commenters appear to be saying it's okay for others to reproduce the contents of someone else's FB PROFILE for police, based merely on an ASSUMPTION that a crime has been displayed.

    Q. Isn't there a "slippery slope" argument to that kind of reasoning?

    Q. Would it not make a difference if the FB user in question was only sharing with a limited circle of friends?

    Q. If you were in this person's limited circle of friends, would you not confront your friend about his actions, before possibly violating his privacy, along with the trust he had in you?

    Q. Are we talking about only those that openly share, with everyone, actual, BONA FIDE criminal activities, which are not "open to debate", and which they may be bragging about? Or, are we saying it's okay for people to pass judgement on anything they THINK might constitute a crime, and rat that friend out by exposing an otherwise private page (should the privacy settings be set to not expose it to "everyone")?

    Just a few thoughts that came to mind when I read this.

  • Aug 14, 2012 @ 11:45am

    @#1 (AC):

    As if the Constitution was written only to cover "political" matters. Then, I wonder what all that "For the People" stuff was all about!

    Anonymous speech is a major player in the 1st Amendment, and the right to it is most often upheld.

    If, during the exercise of ANY form of Free Speech (not just the "anonymous" kind), it evokes the question of defamation (libel/slander) or false information, that question has to be answered BEFORE stripping that speech of its 1st Amendment protection.

  • Aug 10, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: ...but streaming sales will do exactly that.

    @MrWilson (#9) and AC (#10)


    Personally, I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing that old "trickle-down economics" chestnut, when we all know the truth is...
    1) the rich have always extracted their wealth from the poorer; and
    2) if the rich are doing so much that would actually be "bettering everyone else", why is it the wealthy are now the only ones who can afford any real quality of life??!

    After so many years of wealth "trickling down" we should all be living fairly well at this point, don'tcha think?!

    And seriously, anyone referring to the rich as the "job creators" is either a complete moron, or just out to insult those of us who aren't morons.

More comments from Devils_Advocate >>