Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Techdirt Profile

anonymousanonymouscoward

About Anonymous Anonymous Coward Techdirt Insider




Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 24th, 2019 @ 6:52am

    Re:

    Wait! It is possible that the AC is right. There might be some way for Blondie and other over-the-hill artist's where they might be able to leverage their legacy gatekeepers into increasing the cash flow to the artist through Articles 11 and 13 or 17 (as some are now calling it for some reason I cannot fathom as the explanation came without proof). Like maybe agreeing to not sue the shit out of them for withholding royalties due.

    Without knowing the details of their contracts or of ongoing negotiations, we might not know about such 'opportunities'. There may be other opportunities as well, but none of them would benefit anyone other than the over-the-hill artist's and/or the legacy gatekeepers, in their struggle to claw back the money wasted when they were rich and foresaw unending income possibilities that...ended. That goes for both the gatekeepers and the over-the-hill artists who no longer do live shows.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 7:39pm

    Just wondering, what is the statute of limitations on perjury?

    Is there some point system in the FBI or DoJ that gets some perquisites for convictions? If not, the why do they do these things? If there is, why isn't it public?

    They work for us, via the Executive branch, but they still work for us. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they testify in court they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help their god (something I have a hard time with as my god is not necessarily their god, nor do I classify my god as a god, but that doesn't mean I wont swear to tell the truth).

    So anything that isn't the truth is actual perjury. That they perform hand-waving and obfuscation does not make it the truth. Why then, when these types of things come up are not the perpetrators of the inaccuracies (being kind here) brought to justice (again being kind as they are not only perjurers bur failed in their sworn duties as law enforcement officers who did not enforce the law by conjuring evidence) they have failed in their duty?

    If is a statue of limitations issue, then that limitation should be removed when it is related to any law enforcement officer and their sworn testimony. They should be liable for their statements, forever. In addition, the court should be required to find that perjury happened and the relevant parties charged, whether they are still engaged in the relevant occupation or not, and if deceased, charged and convicted in absentia. There is no good reason to let the perpetrators of evidence creation go without severe penalties.

    There is no such thing as qualified immunity. That is merely a court made up construct that should be shut down by the legislative branch. Not that I expect it, but then the legislative branch frequently disappoints their constituents.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 6:59pm

    Re: Confused about confusion when confusing confusing is pertine

    Confused about confusion when confusing confusion is pertinent

    Where is that damned edit button?

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 6:57pm

    Confused about confusion when confusing confusing is pertinent

    Confusion is inherent in a corporate entity that is looking for confusion, when there is no possibility for confusion in the public. That the corporate entity is confused about confusion isn't the issue. The issue is that the corporate entity is claiming confusion, but is seriously confused about what confusion is, when it comes to a court of law.

  • Mar 21st, 2019 @ 8:36am

    Re:

    But, but, but, what does that do to their (ISP's talking out of their assholes) claims of needed network management? Will this degrade the Netflix experience? Will it shut out other streaming services because the network cannot actually withstand the volumes? Or will everything work out hunky dory and put lie to the claims for network management needs?

  • Mar 20th, 2019 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Hmm...

    Even better is the colleges' consideration that a law enforcement officer (at whatever level) might be a better judge of an artistic expression, and as to whether it might or might not be obscene, was actually a rational decision. I would be very concerned about having my kids exposed to such an environment.

  • Mar 20th, 2019 @ 7:26am

    Re: Re: Terrified of dissent, MM provides code here to "hid

    We don't expect coherence from this one, but he does like to hear him/herself bloviate, and the more nonsensical the better, from his/her point of view.

  • Mar 20th, 2019 @ 7:17am

    Re: shocked?

    Well, not communist, but certainly authoritarian. While they practice some broken form of what they call democracy, they appear to be moving to some dictatorial model. When Putin ran out his allowed tenure as President, then seemingly 'appointed' (via various forms of election rigging) a puppet replacement, and then ran again for President, he got around the law but set up a President for life scenario. Making it illegal to criticize the government means that no one will be allowed to do anything to disrupt the continuation of this process, which is certain to be bad for the populace, in the long run if not also currently.

  • Mar 19th, 2019 @ 6:08pm

    Good luck with the protests, all of them

    However, I am concerned that some MEP's are not just as focused on the upcoming election as they are their ideological or monetary connections. From the ideological standpoint, killing user generated content will support their goals for a long time to come, and reelection is just not important. From the monetary standpoint, either the contributions received or the quid pro quo coming may be enough to overcome voter wrath.

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 1:54pm

    Re: Re:

    Which original sin, Apple's or the Bible's?

  • Mar 18th, 2019 @ 11:37am

    Blame society for society, not the messengers

    I am still tying to get my head around the fact that there were 1.5+ million people in the world that thought it was a good idea to upload these videos.

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 7:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    " Hosting platforms shall be responsible for collecting all applicable TOTs and remitting the same to the City. The hosting platform shall be considered an agent of the host for purposes of TOT collections and remittance responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 6.68 of this Code."

    This seems like an attack on the Internet, rather than a method to make the responsible parties liable for what they are in fact liable for. Why doesn't the law make the property owners liable (as they probably are but given the fast moving consequences of short term rentals difficult to collect)?

    The seemingly static aspect of an Internet platform appears to be an easy target as apposed to some property owner who does a few quick and dirty vacation rentals in between their longer term rentals, or something.

    Why isn't the law wrong, rather than the platform?

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 7:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    When one thinks of AirBNB as a platform things might look a bit different. When one thinks of AirBNB as the rental agent in each and every case things become a bit different.

    What I mean is, why is the city holding the platform liable, rather than the property owner? It sure seems the City of Santa Monica is trying to regulate the Web, rather than the rental business within their city.

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 6:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    These are all good arguments until one realizes that the intent of Articles 11 and 13 are all about shutting those services down.

    It appears that, beyond the cash grab by big News and big Copyright institutions, they don't really want individuals to have the ability to say what they want. Otherwise those laws wouldn't be about user generated content, but would be about infringement when the owners couldn't argue fair dealing, as it is called over there.

    Link taxes, aka free advertising, aren't about some search engine making money on their content, simply because none of the search engines I use have advertising. So they aren't making money on my search. The question then becomes, did I click on their link or someone else's?

    That determination might be because I have some experience with one site or another and trust or don't trust because of that previous experience, or it might be because of what is related in that very short description of the link, which seems in my experience to be taken directly from the article in question. Which leave the onus on the content originator to come up with more believable headlines, along with their ability to use robots.txt to keep their shit to themselves.

    That being antithetical to their purpose means they have to do a better job, and that might not comport with their cashflow issues. That leaves them in the position of trying to coerce money from elsewhere, and when they find out that the 'elsewhere's' are not interested in giving them money, but shut them out entirely (as what happened in Spain and Germany) they will scramble and seek other mandates to make their failing business plans workable. Coming up with feasible effort/monitization plans is something that has not come easily in the changeover from dead tree to digital formats, for either news or other copyrighted content. Yet they continue to struggle with regulatory capture rather than right sizing and meeting the demands of the market.

    Maybe the newsies don't need to keep investigative journalists on salary, but need to buy stories as they are produced, and at a rate that keeps them producing stories. Maybe the copyright related industries need to find a way to engage independents that benefits the independents as well as themselves without co-opting the copyright of the independents. Neither will experience the revenue or profit they have experienced in the past, but so what? Their investors will cry out loud and dump their stocks wholesale, but again, so what? In the long run, they, after much scrutiny and attempts and more attempts, and maybe more attempts, will become viable again, for themselves, for their investors and for their markets. The dissonance in-between is just a matter of adjustment to a new reality. Something like horse breeders had to go through when Henry Ford developed, not the car, but the production line.

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 5:13pm

    Re: Re: Margarine melts at 110𝆩, and butter at 98.6𝆩, feel

    I think that platform liability does relate, and is comparable. They follow the laws put out for them, and those are Federal laws (assuming they are based in the US) because they are interstate rather than local laws.

    The difference between some platform checking the registration or title of a car for sale and verifying that the seller was actually the owner is a lot different than a platform reading a lease or sales agreement (assuming those are actually available) and determining legality is huge. The former is possibly possible with some limitations such as the seller telling the truth about their identity. The latter is a question that is not actually discernible by a platform, without a court.

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 4:41pm

    Margarine melts at 110𝆩, and butter at 98.6𝆩, feel that?

    I think the issue is how the 9th Circuit thinks that a local ordinance can overcome Federal law?

    Should the rental agreement fit the local laws? Most certainly. The question that the 9th Circuit ignores is how does a platform, chosen by a local business, determine what is or is not legal?

    Becoming not only conversant in the local laws of each and every municipality in the US (not to mention the rest of the world) is something not even lawyers expect to arise to. But to assume that a, well lets use a lease for example, lease is legal in all its terms would not only take a lawyer, but likely a court for final determination.

    Is the 9th Circuit giving up the court's responsibility in making that final determination, and giving it over to the platforms, or is it suggesting that the platforms second guess what a court might rule? Then, what if a court decides that what the platform determined was actually wrong. Having been forced into making a decision, in hundreds of municipalities, how could they not be wrong sometimes. Which leaves platforms liable for the wrong doings of those that wrote the lease trying to force some illegality upon the renters.

    Just because I own a car and pay taxes to maintain the roads does not mean that I am responsible for those bank robbers over there who use not only a car that might be the same make, model, and year as mine, but had the arrogance to use the roads I help to maintain via taxes to effect their getaway, make me liable for their actions.

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re:

    Where are Carol and Ted in all this?

  • Mar 14th, 2019 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re: federal loophole

    They might reconsider some of the things they left out of the Constitution, such as privacy, and they might have some different thoughts about other things that were not included in the original document, which leaves out all of the amendments, but includes the concept that some people are only three fifths of a person, even though they owned some of those 3/5's persons at that time.

    In fact, just reading those amendments might make them reconsider the original document, and after some discussion and deliberation they might agree that there were some things missed in their original efforts. Or not. Each side of the debate held very strong beliefs, and in a short time, without a complete history of their conclusions, they might or might not change their minds.

    Then again, one side might still think an imperial style of government would have been better. That is until they looked at what has happened in the UK.

    It is hard to get people off their ideology if beliefs are strongly held, whether those beliefs are rational or not.

  • Mar 14th, 2019 @ 6:46pm

    Re: federal loophole

    Given the arguments between those that wanted an imperial government and those that wanted a more democratic version, I would recommend that none of those brought back not be given a chance to talk to any politician before their testimony. In fact, they should be limited to review only the legislative history of the last, oh say 50 years or so, and not allowed to listen to any rhetoric prior to their speech. That would include not giving the reasons legislation's were proposed, only the results.

    Then, as a follow up, give them access to the politicians and the rhetoric and do a second segment where their impugned perspectives are then recorded.

    The differences could be significant. And eye opening...well not for some of us, but for many of us. The howling from those that seek power and control would exceed anything the loudest rock concert or jet airplanes could produce.

  • Mar 14th, 2019 @ 12:17pm

    Re:

    Wouldn't that distinction be based upon intent? I know the laws doesn't make that distinction, but that is what is wrong with the law, not what is wrong with a legitimate researcher looking for the kinds of problems found in this app.

More comments from Anonymous Anonymous Coward >>