antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747) comment rss

  • On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today

    antidirt ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2014 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong deduction

    Yeah, asking Mike to explain why he keeps pretending like replying to an email with quotes is infringing is just terrible. We should just ignore his lies! Copyright is scary!!

  • On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today

    antidirt ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2014 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re:

    Ask Mike "fair use" Masnick. He doesn't really believe it's infringing.

  • On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today

    antidirt ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2014 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Wrong deduction

    Mike,

    For the record, do you really think it's infringement to quote an email when replying? Don't run away! Tell us what you really believe. And if you don't really think it's infringing, please explain why you said otherwise. Thanks. (I know you won't really answer. Bawk!)

  • On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today

    antidirt ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2014 @ 08:13am

    Wow, Mike. Your tinfoil hat is on extra-tight today. Sony might have failed to properly license a clip, and that means "the entire copyright system is broken"? LMAO. And it "shows that everyone infringes all the time"? ROFLMAO. I can't believe you still link back to that post on Tehranian's ridiculous claims. In that post, you said: "Replying to an email with quoted text? Infringement!" Do you really believe that, Mike? Of course you don't. But you repeat it over and over again. Why? Because you're not an honest person. Seriously, Mike. If you don't believe that's true, why do you keep saying it?

  • On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says Raid On Dotcom's Home Legal Enough To Get A Pass

    antidirt ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 06:00pm

    Re: Re:

    The confusion of ideas here feels like watching a Uwe Boll film.

    The point is that Mike pretends like little infractions on YouTube are going to put regular people behind bars, but then he pretends like the major allegations against Dotcom & Co. for scraping YouTube don't even exist. There's no consistency because Mike is not an honest person.

  • On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says Raid On Dotcom's Home Legal Enough To Get A Pass

    antidirt ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 05:54pm

    Re: Re:

    When was ripping YouTube videos a part of the claims made?

    It's all in the superseding indictment: http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/victimwitness/mega_files/Certified%20Mega%20Superseding%20Indictment%20(2-16-2012).pdf or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload-indictment.pdf

    63. It was further part of the Conspiracy that members of the Conspiracy reproduced copyrighted works directly from third-party websites, including from YouTube.com, to make them available for reproduction and distribution on Megavideo.com., and to create the false impression that Megavideo.com hosted primarily user generated content instead of copyright- infringing content.

    ***

    e. For the 180 days up to and including October 31, 2007, members of the Conspiracy infringed copyrights, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, by reproducing and distributing by electronic means at least ten copies and phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works from the Youtube.com platform which had a total retail value of more than $2,500 for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain,

    ***

    k. In approximately April 2006, members of the Mega Conspiracy copied
    videos directly from Youtube.com to make them available on Megavideo.com.

    l. On or about April 10, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to
    ORTMANN asking “Do we have a server available to continue downloading of the Youtube’s vids? ... Kim just mentioned again that this has really priority.”

    m. On or about April 10, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN indicating “Hope [Youtube.com is] not implementing a fraud detection system now... * praying *”.

    n. On or about April 10, 2006, ORTMANN sent an e-mail to VAN DER KOLK in reply to the “fraud detection” message indicating “Even if they did, the usefulness of their non-popular videos as a jumpstart for Megavideo is limited, in my opinion.”

    o. On or about April 10, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN in reply to the “jumpstart for Megavideo” message indicating that “Well we only have 30% of their videos yet.. In my opinion it's nice to have everything so we can descide and brainstorm later how we're going to benefit from it.”

    ***

    w. On or about February 11, 2007, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN indicating that “Kim really wants to copy Youtube one to one.”

    qqqq. On or about January 27, 2011, ECHTERNACH forwarded an e-mail to VAN DER KOLK and BENCKO that an employee from the Megateam in the Philippines wrote that asked about access to Youtube. In that e-mail, the employee admits, “Even video resource sites such as Youtube which is our source for videos which we upload to Megavideo.”

    ***

    97. For the 180 days up to and including October 31, 2007, in the Eastern District of
    Virginia and elsewhere, the defendants,

    KIM DOTCOM, MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, VESTOR LIMITED,
    FINN BATATO, JULIUS BENCKO, SVEN ECHTERNACH, MATHIAS ORTMANN, ANDRUS NOMM, and
    BRAM VAN DER KOLK

    did willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, infringe copyrights from the Youtube.com platform, by reproducing and distributing by electronic means, during a 180-day period, at least ten copies and phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which had a total retail value of more than $2,500.
    There are several other claims of direct criminal infringement by Dotcom & Co, but Mike will NEVER admit that these claims even exist. He'll defend his pirate heroes to the bitter end. Honesty be damned.

  • On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says Raid On Dotcom's Home Legal Enough To Get A Pass

    antidirt ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 05:23pm

    Of course, at a bigger level, we're now nearly three years since the US government completely shut down this company, and it's still not clear that it had any legal basis to do so.

    LOL! Huh?!?! So you think that Justin Bieber is a criminal for uploading covers to YouTube, but you can't understand how Dotcom & Co. can be criminal infringers for scraping all of the videos off of YouTube? I know, I know. You have no interest whatsoever in discussing the actual claims made by the government. Best just to pretend that your hero has done no wrong. It's sad, but I get that it's your thing.

  • On the post: Sony Goes One Ridiculous Step Further: Threatens To Sue Twitter Over Leaked Email Screenshots

    antidirt ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2014 @ 05:17pm

    duh!

  • On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important

    antidirt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe in your world that is how you work. But then again , I wouldnt invest in a business that after how many years of existence is dependent on Flattr.

    Billionaire burn! Ouch.

    thats funny. The one certainty about me is that no one tells me what to think and I dont follow anyone's doctrine.

    This is why you're my favorite Shark.

  • On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

    antidirt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 07:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't get the impression that Mike either knows or cares about what the substantive law actually is.

  • On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

    antidirt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2014 @ 05:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Since your opinions are constantly mocked here by the site's principals and most of its readers, I would prefer to have the answer to my question provided by Mr. Masnick himself. Most of the readership defers to his opinions, so perhaps his response would be a teaching moment.

    Instead of insulting me, a simple thank you would've been nice since I took the time to answer your question. As far as getting Mike to address your question, good luck with that. I suggest that you don't hold your breath while waiting.

  • On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

    antidirt ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 12:02pm

    Re:

    Just a simple question. Can streaming currently be prosecuted as a crime under federal law? Your series of articles on this subject make it sound as if the answer is "No, streaming is not subject to criminal prosecution."

    Streaming can be a misdemeanor, but not a felony, under existing law. Violation of the reproduction or distribution right can be a felony or a misdemeanor. This proposed change would put performances on par with reproductions and distributions.

  • On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

    antidirt ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 05:11pm

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

    A video of his arrest, and the events leading up to it, would be nice.

  • On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

    antidirt ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 03:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When the order to disperse was an illegal order violating the right to assemble, there's nothing to be read into it.

    It was an illegal act following an illegal act, both illegal acts on the part of the FPD, meaning that the officer should be arrested and indicted on grand treason (violating the constitution during a purported time of war).

    Treason? We should just have all the TD tinfoil-hatters form a firing squad, right?

  • On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

    antidirt ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 03:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Frankly, I would think journalism here would be more demanding of facts before proffering opinions.

    Mike turns off his critical eye whenever it suits him.

  • On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

    antidirt ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 03:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    An accusation is made with equivocation that a court order has been violated, and yet there is no factual background provided upon which the accusation is based.

    Sadly, that summarizes many of Mike's posts.

  • On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

    antidirt ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 03:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Don't you think that the FPD should making those explanations? Do you think Mike has a crystal ball or somethin? Why don't they tell us what else they he was supposedly doing that caused the arrest.

    Five seconds of research turned up this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-reporter-arrest-20141123-story.html

    According to that source, Yingst was with a group that was ordered to disperse because they were blocking traffic. The others dispersed. Yingst and one other did not, and they were arrested. I'm not saying that's true, but at least it offers an explanation for why he was arrested.

    Oh, wait ... There must not be anything else or they would have charged him with it

    Was he not charged? I honestly don't know.

    We know that you just like to cower before your masters and make excuses for them, but can you not at least open your fucking eyes to the blatant and continued corruption that's going on?

    I don't cower before my masters. Give me a break. Your tinfoil hat is a bit tight, I suspect.

    Why do you have to come on here and make pathetically weak knee-jerk arguments about everything?

    How is my pointing out that maybe there's more to the story a knee-jerk argument?

  • On the post: Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

    antidirt ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 02:26pm

    Re: Re:

    That's from the police themselves.

    Look, I know it's your nature to automatically accept in a kneejerk fashion any authoritarian argument, but you can at least admit here that the police themselves made the claim.

    Yes, they said he failed to disperse. What you've failed to explain in your knee-jerk reaction is why they did so. What was he doing that prompted the order? Look, I know you hate authority more than most, but can you not at least admit that maybe they had a good reason?

  • On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]

    antidirt ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2014 @ 09:40am

    Re: Re:

    "Is the new image fair use?"

    Fair use is a defence when accused of copyright infringement. Irrelevant since the image is public domain.

    On a law school exam, you can't assume the facts! You're correct that its copyright status matters, and fair use would be irrelevant if the original is not copyrighted. But you should have also run through the analysis assuming it is copyrighted. Sorry... You only get partial credit for this! I would have given extra points if you mentioned the choice of law issue.

    I'm hazy on this, but my belief is that it is so long as it's sufficiently different from the original public domain image. Perhaps an actual lawyer (or American) can clarify?

    It's copyrightable to the extent it's original, I think. So here the protection would be "thin."

  • On the post: Harry Reid Wants To Attach Part Of SOPA To Surveillance Reform Bill

    antidirt ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2014 @ 07:46am

    Shorter Mike: "SOPA! Justin Bieber would be a FELON! OMG!"

    Good grief, you need some new material.

Next >>