antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747)

• On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2015 @ 11:56am

  The only thing funnier than Dotcom losing his stuff because he's too chicken to submit to the court's jurisdiction is Mike's predictable whining about it while still pretending like there's not tons of allegations of direct criminal infringement in the indictment. You can set your watch to it.

• On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2015 @ 10:24am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Bawk bawk: LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property ...

  All property is "property that someone made up."

• On the post: Blasting Off With The Copia Institute: Creative Solutions To Big Innovation Challenges

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2015 @ 12:40pm

  Congrats and good luck. I hope you're more successful with this venture than you have been with your earlier efforts. I look forward to your concrete ideas, whenever you decide to share them. I'm especially looking forward to what you guys come up with concerning copyright law. Hopefully you'll be willing to defend it.

• On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 23 Mar, 2015 @ 10:35am

  So he declares them to be in the public domain on Twitter, but then he labels them "some rights reserved" on Flickr? That's copyfraud, Mike!
  
  It's hilarious how quickly you declare these works to be in the public domain, despite the mixed messages from Musk. Of course, when it suits you, you complain about how difficult it is to put something in the public domain. Which is it?
  
  You and Musk sure do make it seem harder than it has to be. Just put "public domain, no rights reserved" on each of your posts and done. It's really that easy. Why don't you do that?

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2015 @ 12:49am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Tom tends to engage in hyperbole, which better suits the attention-grabbing headlines he crafts.
  
  Mike too, of course. At least Bell stands behind what he says. Mike just runs away. Every time.

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2015 @ 12:44am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  None of those quotes discusses a "vibrant, dynamic" public domain. Regardless, believing in such a public domain is a separate issue than when Disney thinks works/inventions should enter the public domain. One can believe the public domain is important, yet think that terms should be extended/maintained/shortened.

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2015 @ 12:39am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I'm happy to discuss each and every one of those arguments directly and on the merits with Mike. He will NEVER have that conversation. He can't back them up. He doesn't stand behind what he says. Never has, never will.

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2015 @ 12:36am

  Re: Re:

  I don't see it. They think when something's in the public domain, a license (contract?) should be unenforceable. That's orthogonal at best to the issue of when something should enter the public domain. Are they interested in what's best for them? Shocker. Who isn't? This post is just desperate, mindless bashing.

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2015 @ 12:29am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  LOL. So you've got nothing. I love this place.

• On the post: SpaceX Photos Now Using Creative Commons License… But With Restrictions

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2015 @ 12:25am

  LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property--property they spent much time, effort, and money to acquire. Keep digging that hole, Mikey. And, oh yeah, keep running away from any honest discussion on the merits about any of your ridiculous claims. I love this place. Bawk!

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2015 @ 09:42am

  Re: Re:

  Huh? Where in the article are you getting that? The quotes are about royalties. Can you quote me the text you're referring to?

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2015 @ 09:40am

  Re: Re:

  I'm happy to discuss with Mike his claim that SOPA will break the Internet. He won't have that discussion. He can't have that discussion. He's all form and no substance.
  
  What point being addressed did I miss? Quote the text you think I didn't grasp.

• On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2015 @ 07:47am

  You're conflating two separate things. Lobbying for a longer term has nothing to do with arguing that a licensee isn't required to pay royalties once that term ends. Those positions are entirely consistent. Why pretend otherwise, Mike? I know you hate Disney and want to bash them, but the post makes no sense.

• On the post: Australians Get Their Own SOPA; Attorney General Doesn't Even Bother To See If His Censorship Regime Is Technically Feasible

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2015 @ 09:48am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I'm not asking about other forums. I'm asking about Mike. Can anyone link to even one single article where Mike explains exactly how it would break the Internet? I doubt it.

• On the post: Australians Get Their Own SOPA; Attorney General Doesn't Even Bother To See If His Censorship Regime Is Technically Feasible

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2015 @ 09:35am

  Re: Re:

  I believe I have read everything that he said about it. I don't think he has ever explained how it would break the Internet. If you disagree and believe that he has explained it, then present your proof. I don't think you can.

• On the post: Australians Get Their Own SOPA; Attorney General Doesn't Even Bother To See If His Censorship Regime Is Technically Feasible

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2015 @ 09:11am

  Re: Re:

  Do you agree with my point that Mine has made this claim many times yet never explained exactly how the Internet would be broken? If not, why not?

• On the post: Australians Get Their Own SOPA; Attorney General Doesn't Even Bother To See If His Censorship Regime Is Technically Feasible

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2015 @ 08:19am

  OMG, SOPA WILL BREAK THE INTERNET!!!
  
  Seriously, though, have you ever considered explaining exactly how SOPA will "break the Internet"? Do you even understand what you mean when you say it? I sincerely doubt it. Substance is not your thing. Prove me wrong?

• On the post: Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff: Why 3D Printed Objects Challenge Our Copyright Beliefs

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2015 @ 03:25pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  I have no problem reading court documents. A reference to an actual court document that backs antidirt's rambling would be helpful for me, but he doesn't even provide those.
  
  Luckily, The US Copyright Office has a report that seems to debunk some of what he says. Specifically covered was the fact that the US Supreme Court in 1908 held in White-Smith vs. Apollo that "a piano roll was not a 'copy' of the musical composition embodied in it because the composition could not be 'read' from the roll by the naked eye." In 1976, the copyright law was enacted that "fixed" this issue.
  
  White-Smith was decided before the 1909 Act, but IIRC, the 1909 Act codified that holding. I don't deny that sound recordings were not protected by federal law before 1972. My point is that the underlying compositions were protected, and some courts considered sound recordings to be derivative works of those protected recordings. See, for example, the Ninth Circuit: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18354639784050759742

• On the post: Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff: Why 3D Printed Objects Challenge Our Copyright Beliefs

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2015 @ 03:11pm

  Interesting paper, Michael. Two thoughts: Your claim that "a set of instructions for making the object" is not copyrightable seems overly broad. Most computer code is functional, yet it's still protectable. I don't think your analogy to a recipe works as cleanly as you'd like. Second, I wonder if there's an argument for a noncopyrightable object being a derivative work of the underlying copyrighted file. Before sound recordings received federal protection, it was still infringement to use them as they were derivative works of the underlying compositions. I think that logic could be applied here. Fascinating stuff!

• On the post: Court Doesn't Buy Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's Argument: Puts His Google Demands On Hold

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2015 @ 02:38pm

  Re: Re:

  Yep. It's a disappointing ruling, but it's far from over. The thought that an AG can't investigate potential violations of state law is shocking. What's Google hiding?

Next >>