average_joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1892) comment rss

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 03:10pm

    Re: Re:

    There is simply no reason for Mike to be such a complete fucking asshole to Prof. Mossoff. None. It's unprofessional and childish.

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

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 01:37pm

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

    Did you act ethically when you downloaded a movie in the public domain and where your downloading did not violate anyone's rights? Yes, that was ethical in my opinion.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 01:33pm

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

    A First Amendment violation requires state action: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/State_action_doctrine

    It's not the government taking down the YouTube videos.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 01:16pm

    Re:

    You got it right. There is zero investigation. Everyone who wrote a bad check and didn't pay it right away receives a letter that seems to come from the DA, saying essentially, pay $200+ for a diversion class, or risk getting prosecuted. The letter is a lie b/c it's not from the DA, there's no evidence of a crime other than the unpaid check, and almost no one is ever going to be prosecuted.

    How did you determine that there is "zero investigation" in this particular case? The letter is from the DA in that the DA authorized it via its agent, so I disagree with you there.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 01:14pm

    Re:

    There is no FDCPA exemption unless the DA actually reviews the file and decides probable cause. This generally doesn't happen, since the checks go straight from the merchant to the collector.

    The level of review necessary has been the subject of court battles, so I would assume the DAs are doing at least the minimum. Do you have any evidence that the DA in this particular case didn't examine the file sufficiently?

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 12:37pm

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

    Cohen got arrested for disturbing the peace for wearing a "Fuck the Draft" jacket to court. That violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 12:16pm

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

    An actual violation of someone's actual First Amendment rights.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 12:03pm

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

    Which one of those examples is a violation of someone's First Amendment rights? I don't see any that are.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 11:52am

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

    Salinger v. Colting is not an example of where someone's First Amendment rights were VIOLATED. No one denies that copyright limits free speech. The claim is that it doesn't legally violate it. Do you have an example of where copyright actually violates someone's First Amendment rights?

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated

    What I'm saying is simple: Before you get all excited and edit an article to add some half-baked theory about how hundreds of DAs are violating federal law, maybe put in a bit of research and thought. Trying to spin this like you can publish anything you like, no matter how poorly researched or thought out, because the comments are a vehicle of pointing out your errors is ridiculous. You would tear apart others if they tried to spin their nonsense that way. I'm calling you out on it. Instead of jumping to conclusions and letting your bias blind you, slow down, do some research, and give these things the thought that they deserve. Take some responsibility for what you publish. I know you think you're not a journalist, you're just a person who does journalism (LOL!), but that's just a bullshit spin you put on your laziness. If you want to be taken seriously, put some serious effort into your articles. This is just basic stuff. If you weren't so unable to look at yourself the way you hyper-focus on others, you would see that what I'm saying makes sense. There's no need to be such a reactionary extremist. You have good ideas. Hiding behind an arrogant facade (for example, being incredible mean towards Prof. Mossoff because of his article) doesn't get you as far as just being polite (yet forceful) would. There's no need for the extremism.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Can you point out one particular, concrete way that copyright violates someone's First Amendment rights? Not an example of where speech was limited--copyright can obviously limit speech--but an example of where First Amendment rights are in fact violated.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Thinking about copyrighted works

    That's actually an interesting consideration. Thinking back on a few free speech cases; it's always been the speaker's rights at issue, not the recipient. I wonder if there's any case law out there by a plaintiff claiming his rights were violated by an inability to receive speech. And if the speech was copyright infringing, does that disqualify it from being protected?

    The Supreme Court has identified the First Amendment right to receive speech several times, e.g.

    Of course, courts should not ?intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems? unless ?basic constitutional values? **2808 are ?directly and sharply implicate[d]? in those conflicts. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S., at 104, 89 S.Ct., at 270. But we think that the First Amendment rights of students may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelves of a school library. Our precedents have focused ?not only on the role of the First Amendment in fostering individual self-expression but also on its role in affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas.? First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1419, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). And we have recognized that ?the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge.? Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). In keeping with this principle, *867 we have held that in a variety of contexts ?the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.? Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1247, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-763, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 2581, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972) (citing cases). This right is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, in two senses. First, the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them: ?The right of freedom of speech and press ... embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it.? Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143, 63 S.Ct. 862, 863, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943) (citation omitted). ?The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.? Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 308, 85 S.Ct. 1493, 1497, 14 L.Ed.2d 398 (1965) (BRENNAN, J., concurring).
    Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982).

    I don't think anyone would have a right to receive copyright infringing speech though since ideas can't be blocked but particular expressions can.

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re:

    AJ, you might want to note that his statement is, you know, still WRONG.

    How so? Can you elaborate?

  • On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 09:06am

    However, his latest piece, for the Austin American-Statesman takes the cake, entitled simply: Copyright doesn't limit online speech. Of course, this is empirically false. Anyone who is even remotely intellectually honest admits that copyright can (and has) been used to limit speech.

    The title he came up with for the article was "Copyright Does Not Violate the Right to Free Speech." The publisher changed it. Mossoff explains it here: http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/09/17/copyright-does-not-violate-the-right-to-free-speech/

    Mossoff states:

    The newspaper editor turned this into, ?Copyright Doesn?t Limit Online Speech.? Sigh. Actually, copyright does limit online speech ? the copyright laws prohibit digital speech that accesses or copies copyrighted speech without authorization ? and the point of my op-ed is that this is not a violation of the right to free speech.
    So before you go off all half-cocked, maybe take such considerations into account.

    And honestly, Mike, attacking his credibility and being so incredibly hostile and degrading because you disagree just makes you look bad. Ever wonder why you're seen as an extremist? It's because of stuff like this.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 08:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Updated

    I didn't "jump to conclusions." I saw an interesting article from someone with about the same experience as you, and added it to the post for people to look at. You've now added some more details, from which we can all learn, which is helpful and why we leave comments open.

    Once again: we post what we find interesting and we leave comments wide open for discussion, knowing that people will add to it. Some people do so nicely. Some people... not so much.

    Wow. Not very honest, are you? You didn't just link to what he wrote. You said it was "likely" that hundreds of DAs were violating federal law "in a very, very big way." You jumped to the conclusion that this guy's 10 minutes of research was plausible and likely.

    It's a total cop-out to pretend like it's OK for you to make unsubstantiated accusations that hundreds of DAs are violating federal law because readers can correct your ridiculous mistakes in the comments. You should do a little bit of research in the first place so your arguments have an informed basis.

    Are you really admitting that you don't know what you're talking about in your articles and it's all OK because the comments are available? I doubt it. But that's exactly what you're saying. What a ridiculous excuse.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 08:01am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Never mind legal, how about moral? Joe's been up on his moral high horse a lot lately, so perhaps he can explain how it's moral or ethical for DA's to allow private parties to obviously impersonate them for the sole purpose of intimidation?

    There is no impersonation. These collectors are the agents of the district attorneys, operating under authority granted to them for the purpose. Federal law allows this (I quoted the law above), and California law allows it too (I quoted the law above). Collection of a sum certain is pretty mundane. The fact that someone wrote a bad check is prima facie evidence of fraud. If they have some defense, e.g., the check was postdated or there was an error at the bank, the system in place allows them to make those arguments and pursue those defenses. I think this system is great. People who write bad checks get a chance to avoid criminal charges and get to attend classes where they learn responsible money management techniques, and district attorneys' offices don't get bogged down on enforcement since their agents handle it. And best of all, the actual victims, i.e., the people who received the bad checks, get their money.

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

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 07:10am

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

    Karl,

    I'm asking Mike about the situation where the downloading is in fact infringement and where the downloader knows that it's infringement. I'm not asking about other scenarios where there's fair use, or innocent infringement, or anything like that. I'm asking him about plain vanilla infringement.

    If you have a serious question for me, just state it plainly and I will give you a plain answer.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 06:23am

    Re: Re:

    The collector is an agent of the district attorney, so there's no impropriety in the agent using the principal's letterhead.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 05:07am

    Re: Re:

    It took you almost 5 hours to copy/paste that?

    Biting repartee! Wow!

    Um, I read a whole bunch of IP law and learned a bunch of new stuff in the meantime (currently trying to master publicity rights). Then I thought, "I wonder if there's something in CA state law about these diversion programs?" 30 seconds later, I found that statute.

    Imagine what Mike would know if he spent even 30 seconds researching a point of law before accusing hundreds of DAs of being lawbreakers. I know, I know. Never gonna happen. He's too busy lashing out in hatred at the world.

  • On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

    average_joe ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2012 @ 07:17pm

    OMG! 30 more seconds of research turned up this silly statute:

    ? 1001.60. Resolution for and adoption of program; writing bad check defined

    Upon the adoption of a resolution by the board of supervisors declaring that there are sufficient funds available to fund the program, the district attorney may create within his or her office a diversion program pursuant to this chapter for persons who write bad checks. For purposes of this chapter, ?writing a bad check? means making, drawing, uttering, or delivering any check or draft upon any bank or depository for the payment of money where there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of Section 476a. The program may be conducted by the district attorney or by a private entity under contract with the district attorney.
    Cal. Penal Code ? 1001.60 (West) (emphasis added).

    Crazy. The California legislature gives district attorneys the authority to enter into contracts with private companies to form bad check diversion programs. Wow. Who would have thunk that maybe the district attorneys are acting under some weird direct authority when contracting with collectors for debt collection?

    Not Mike. He just assumes the DAs are all lawbreaking idiots.

    Can you not even admit that maybe, just maybe, you jumped to a conclusion prematurely, Mike? You might be surprised how an inch of honesty can lead to a mile of respect. You don't have to be an extremist to get your point across. In fact, I bet you'd be a much more effective advocate if you weren't so extreme. Too scared to try? Or is just a fundamental aversion to telling the truth?

Next >>