antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747)

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 01:00pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  First and foremost they are not doing their job. And what they are doing instead is in direct conflict with their job description and ethics.
  
  Can you explain how anyone in the U.S. government is not doing their job in prosecuting Dotcom?

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 12:52pm

  Re: Re:

  You also abandoned any pretense of wanting a thoughtful conversation when you accused Mike of simply regurgitating Dotcom's arguments, so I'm afraid you're getting reported. Again.
  
  In that post, Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism as to their validity. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Rather than "reporting" me, why not engage me on the merits?

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 12:50pm

  Re: Re:

  But only one side has been consistently caught outright lying about things regarding the case. And that is the side that is supposed to uphold the rule of law.
  
  And when those who are supposed to uphold the rule of law ignore it, then they're criminals.
  
  I asked this before, and no one could give an answer. Can you point to any way in which Dotcom's due process rights have purportedly been violated in the U.S.? I don't think anyone can, because it hasn't happened. And this is why it's bogus to say that Mike is being pro-due process when he regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism. Given that some of Dotcom's arguments don't pass the laugh test, it shows a pro-piracy bias. Mike isn't defending due process, he's defending Dotcom--no matter how specious Dotcom's claims are.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 10:48am

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

  Yet again, you're not adding anything of value to the discussion. You should try it sometime. This place would be better off if you did so.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 09:21am

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

  That particular commenter makes similar "mistakes" nearly every day on this site. This was not a mistake or a one off.
  
  This particular poster is calm and reasoned and attempts to add insight to the discussion. You respond with incredible hostility. That sucks. And you yourself make "mistakes" everyday--lots of them. I point these out regularly, yet you don't respond or acknowledge them (unless they're super-obvious, like when you accidentally said "would not" instead of "would" the other day). Why don't you ever back up what you say, Mike? Is it because you're not honest?

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 09:16am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I don't ask for morality in my lawyers. I ask that they know the law.
  
  I only like lawyers who do both.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 09:15am

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

  Just like how you assume anyone disagreeing with you is a pirate.
  
  Wow. That's quite the broad generalization. Can you actually back it up with some examples? I don't think so, because it's not true.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 09:14am

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

  Says the asshat with the Antidirt nick and Avatar! You cannot make this up. Congrats.
  
  report
  
  I chose my name to protest the fact that Mike tried to ban me, desperately so, yet he can't admit what went down. I chose my name because Mike is still preventing me from posting freely from my home IP address--and this is true even though I am a financial contributor to the site. I chose the name because I think Mike publishes lots of ridiculous things that he won't stand behind or explain when challenged. So what? As far as hostility goes, you're one of the most hostile people here. I have yet to see you add anything of value to a discussion. Seriously. Congrats.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 09:10am

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

  So why should we take you seriously over Mike?
  
  By your own logic, absolutely nothing you say should be taken seriously. I don't agree with that. I judge comments on the merits, even if I don't know who wrote them. This applies even to your comments.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 09:08am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I think a big part of it is the double-standards. If something like this can be said, on live tv no less...
  
  "Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
  
  ... with no repercussions or charges, the idea of 'Hey, if you promise to vote for and/or sponsor a law that I agree with, I'll vote for you and help you get elected' being this massive breach of ethics, worthy of charges, is just a titch insane and hypocritical.
  
  I don't read that quote as indicating that there was a mutual agreement for a quid pro quo. There's no promise that certain action will be taken if they write a check.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2014 @ 10:52am

  For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start with the shortest and simplest of many responses to the ludicrous notion that questioning the government's claims about Kim Dotcom, while giving Dotcom the benefit of the doubt in his statements, shows a "pro-piracy bias". RD said what everyone with a basic sense of justice was thinking:
  
  Wrong.
  
  Taking everything Dotcom argues at face value, while being skeptical of everything the government argues, shows a *pro due process* bias.
  
  This seems pretty silly. One can be skeptical of Dotcom's self-serving arguments yet still be quite supportive of due process. Give me a break. That doesn't explain why Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any of the skepticism he shows at other times. It's not because Mike is pro-due process, and being pro-due process means that everything Dotcom argues should be repeated without question. That's not an insightful comment.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2014 @ 05:30pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Do you ever get sick of lying about us?
  
  You're so hostile. This poster seems to have made a mistake, as he readily admitted. There's no need to assume that anyone disagreeing with you is being dishonest. You certainly set a terrible example for others, IMO. No wonder reasoned debate is hard to come by here. They're just following your lead.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2014 @ 05:26pm

  Re: Re:

  Not my area of expertise, but I did find this:

  This same distinction between bribes, gratuities and lawful campaign contributions has recently been applied to some of the Federal prosecutive theories that are currently used to address bribery and corruption by state and local public officials. For example, in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991) the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) did not apply to a series of campaign contributions that were made with a general intent to curry favor with a state senator and to thank him for his support. Noting that campaign contributions are a necessary part of the American political process, the Court held that when an allegedly corrupt payment represents a bona fide campaign contribution, the prosecution must prove the existence of a quid pro quo. This principle was thereafter affirmed shortly thereafter in Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992).

  Source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02046.htm
  
  So it looks like the difference between a contribution and a bribe is that there has to be a quid pro quo. The quote from Randazza's blog makes it sound like there could have been one:

  I shook his hand and said “if you will sponsor an Anti-SLAPP bill, I’ll vote for you, and I’ll contribute to your campaign.” He promised me that he would do so. Within days of taking office, he made good on his promise.

  I have no idea if there really was such an agreement, and I doubt there was, but it was a dumb thing to post, IMO.

• On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2014 @ 06:14am

  Re: Re:

  As for the ridiculous suggestion that we are "shilling" for Randazza, I have no problem calling Randazza out on issues when I think he's wrong.
  
  You're giving him the kid-glove treatment here, I think, but I appreciate the post. I've always thought he had a big mouth. I mean, who posts on their blog that they promised money to a senator if he would take certain action. That's just dumb.

• On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Important Fair Use Win Concerning University 'E-Reserves' — But Potentially For Good Reasons

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2014 @ 07:39am

  There is one other slightly troubling part in the ruling, which is that the court seems to suggest that fair use is "an implied license."

  In a sense, the grant to an author of copyright in a work is predicated upon a reciprocal grant to the public by the work’s author of an implied license for fair use of the work.

  But that's just wrong. The law itself says "the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright." That doesn't mean that it's an implied license. It means that no license is needed. The idea that it's an implied license, unfortunately, takes us back to this idea that every use "must be licensed" which is simply wrong. Still, that's not a huge part of the ruling, but a little pet peeve.
  
  I think you're right and you're wrong. The Eleventh Circuit does cite that passage from Harper & Row about fair use being an implied license:

  In a sense , the grant to an author of copyright in a work is predicated upon a reciprocal grant to the public by the work’s author of an implied license for fair use of the work. See Harper & Row , 471 U.S. at 549, 105 S. Ct. at 2225 (“[T]he author’s consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works ha[d] always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science . . . since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained.” (quoting H. Ball, Law of Copyright and Literary Property 260 (1944) )). Thus , in order to promote the creation of new works, our laws contemplate that some secondary users — those implied licensees making fair use of copyrighted works — will be allowed to make use of original authors ’ works. At the same time, a secondary user who takes overmuch in the name of fair use operates outside the bounds of his or her implied-by-law license.

  The Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court are saying an author implies a license for others to make fair use of a work. I agree that that's the wrong way to look at it. Licenses are based on consent, either implied or manifest. But even if an author expressly says there is no consent whatsoever to use the work--thus defeating any claim of implied consent--the fair use defense is still available. It's available because it's not based on consent. Moreover, Harper & Row was about fair use of a pre-publication work, back when federal statutory copyright did not kick in until publication. The Court was talking about consent once the work is published, and this was part of the quid pro quo view of copyright where certain customary uses were implied in exchange for the protection. That view makes less sense today with automatic copyright upon fixation.
  
  I think you miss with your point that the "law itself says 'the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright.'" That's not why fair use is not an implied license. Using a work consistent with an implied license is "not an infringement of copyright" either. The reason fair use and implied license are not infringements is because they excuse activity that would otherwise be infringing. They're affirmative defenses. You say: "The idea that it's an implied license, unfortunately, takes us back to this idea that every use 'must be licensed' which is simply wrong." I agree that it needn't be licensed, but assuming there's more than de mininis use, there needs to be some defense, such as fair use or implied license, or else it's infringing. So it's not that the uses need to be licensed, but they still do need to be excused--whether by license or something else, like fair use.

• On the post: Sirius XM Hit Again Over Pre-1972 Recordings

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2014 @ 07:44am

  Re: Re:

  Certain songs?!! We're talking about every song up to my 20th birthday. The very foundations that inspired millions of works since then. So, no Elvis, Buddy Holly, Beatles, Hendrix, Sinatra, early Stones, Doors, Beach Boys etc? Rock was born in the 50's, not 1972.
  
  They'll need licenses for those songs in California, assuming these rulings are upheld. But I still don't see how obtaining a license means they can't innovate. Can you explain it?

• On the post: Sirius XM Hit Again Over Pre-1972 Recordings

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2014 @ 06:25am

  But the truth is that the RIAA wants to keep these works out of federal copyright law to use them as a weapon against internet innovation. With rulings like these, it can hold companies like Pandora hostage, since those works wouldn't be subject to compulsory rates. As always, it's all about the RIAA seeking to hold back innovative services unless they'll go bankrupt in paying the RIAA.
  
  Wow. How does this hold back innovation? Sirius XM or Pandora can innovate as much as they want. They just can't play certain songs in California. Exaggerate much? (Again, rhetorical. We both know you don't explain your FUD.)

• On the post: Sirius XM Hit Again Over Pre-1972 Recordings

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2014 @ 06:19am

  As we noted, this ruling effectively upset decades of consensus about public performance rights for pre-1972 works.
  
  This claim is really strange. The issue here is whether there's a statutory right to publicly perform in California. There is no "consensus" either way. This isn't about the common law. This is about a particular statute in California passed in 1982, namely, Section 980(a)(2). Can you explain why you think there's a "consensus" as to whether this statute provides this right? (Rhetorical question. I know you can't and/or won't answer and/or back up what you post.)

• On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2014 @ 06:01pm

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

  Mike isn't a reporter. This isn't the NY Times (sorry, Mike.) This isn't journalism in the sense you are trying to make it.
  
  I think Mike wants to gain the benefits of an actual journalist, but without the trouble of earning them.

• On the post: Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2014 @ 06:00pm

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

  Wouldn't one legally have an "existing legitimate interest" in free over-the-air television broadcast signals from the moment they leave the broadcast tower?
  
  You have an interest in it once it's received, not when it's sent.
  
  That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
  
  Because the point of the definition in Section 101 is to make it so that third parties that act as intermediaries must obtain a license. Cable systems do this, and they have licenses.

Next >>