Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: Why Everyone Should Care About DRM's Punishment Of The Visually Impaired

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2012 @ 09:54am

    Re:

    Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. So what if you're being taxed without representation? Respect the law, and do the right thing by paying the taxes. If you're being taxed, you're being taxed for a reason.

    Taxpayers breaking the law are wrong. This guy, who publicly states that he wants representation, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars.

    ----

    Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. So what if you're being enslaved? Respect the law, and do the right thing by serving your master. If you're enslaved, you're being enslaved for a reason.

    Slaves breaking the law are wrong. This guy, who publicly states that he wants to be a free man, should go to jail or be fined millions of dollars.

    /Hoping I'm continuing the intended absurdity
    //If not, hoping the OP is just a troll
    ///Oh please don't let the OP be serious

  • On the post: Rep. Lofgren Gives USTR A Simple 3-Point Plan For Real TPP Transparency

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2012 @ 04:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Because the law changes when you remain quiet?

  • On the post: Rep. Lofgren Gives USTR A Simple 3-Point Plan For Real TPP Transparency

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2012 @ 03:57pm

    Re:

    I'm not going to speak for Mike or the other writers here, but here's something I don't think you understand about me, or even the public at large. When someone says the USTR ought to be more transparent, they don't care about what the law states they ought. They just want the USTR to do what they ought.

    You seem to be looking at things through this legalistic view. It's almost like you think societal morals/ethics/norms are shaped by what's codified in law. That is completely wrong.

    I don't know if Rep Lofgren is telling the jerkwad known as Ron Kirk that he ought to be more transparent from a legalistic point of view or from a common point of view. I do know that when I say the USTR ought to be more transparent I mean that I don't care what the law allows him to get away with. If he's hiding behind the law like a cowardly dog, then the law ought to change and he should be forcefully, publicly, and shamefully removed from office.

  • On the post: A Parade Of Horror Stories From Copyright Collection Organizations

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Inefficiencies

    How is it a stretch? Abolish copyright and you no longer have a need for CROs and their inefficiencies, or any other inefficiencies created by copyright. You may have other problems, but I can't think of what they may be. The burden of proof for removing the rights of all for the benefit of one lies on those who support such a stance.

  • On the post: A Parade Of Horror Stories From Copyright Collection Organizations

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2012 @ 10:04am

    Inefficiencies

    It's amazing to me the lengths we'll go to in order to fix inefficiencies we created by granting monopolies in the first place. Get rid of the monopolies and you won't have these inefficiencies. Now prove to me that copyright is necessary to create new art. While you compile your list, I'll just throw out Shakespeare, Homer, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, the Brothers Grimm, Plato, Euclid, and the anonymous author of Historia von D. Johann Fausten. I could go on, but I don't want to make the copyright supporter's life too difficult.

  • On the post: EU Officials Propose Internet Cops On Patrol, No Anonymity & No Obscure Languages (Because Terrorism!)

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re:

    The same way, apparently, the LEAs aren't governments.

    All kinds of Internet companies, LEAs and NGOs, but not governments...
    I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? How many governments have turned the enforcement of their laws over to private entities?

  • On the post: Law Enforcement Officials Freak Out About Possibility Of Having To Get Warrants To Read Your Email

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2012 @ 09:49am

    Re:

    The cynic in me suggests Leahy did this knowing full well he would withdraw it after complaints like these. He wanted to put up something nice so the Internet wouldn't think he's a complete waste, but he knew that law enforcement would complain, allowing him a way out from actually passing the legislation. Now he can say, he tried to look out for the public's interests, when really he's just yet another corporate stooge.

    Perhaps I'm too cynical.

  • On the post: LAPD Joins Feds In Skirting Fourth Amendment With Cell Phone Tracking Devices

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 03:55pm

    Re:

    D'oh! I mean "Until". Man I screwed that one up.

  • On the post: LAPD Joins Feds In Skirting Fourth Amendment With Cell Phone Tracking Devices

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 03:54pm

    Until a decision is handed down on the warrant question, it's safe to assume that law enforcement will be deploying these cell phone trackers as often as possible
    "Unless"? Don't you mean "Even if"?

  • On the post: MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm fine with your scenario. If the company leaves the US market, so what. Somebody else will fill their shoes. In fact, in your scenario, somebody already did, and did so in such a phenomenally better way that the original company couldn't compete. What's the problem here? Are you saying the original company would leave the blood pressure medication market altogether? I'm fine with that also. If there is a profit to be made and they don't want any because they can't have it all, somebody will fill their shoes with a generic. Win for the customers who get it cheaper, win for the company that sells it cheaper who now have one less competitor.

  • On the post: MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2012 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's not misleading when you consider the case at hand. The case is that a copyrighted work made outside the US is not "lawfully made under this title", therefore the right of first-sale does not apply. The issue at hand has nothing to do with where the ethereal copyrighted work was written, recorded, conceived, etc, but where the physical container (CD, DVD, paper book, etc) of that copyrighted work was manufactured.

    In the case at hand, most likely the textbooks were written here in the US (I couldn't find a reference to a specific textbook in my cursory search, so I can't verify this, but it is very likely to be true), but then manufactured outside the US. So Ninja's point is very relevant. It's where the physical manifestation of the copyrighted work is made that is relevant to this case, not where the original copyrighted work was written, recorded, etc.

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

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 01:35pm

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

    Infringing a copyright is (usually) a civil violation of law, with a state action as punishment. What is the real difference between the state punishing you and someone asking the state to punish you? In either case you still get punished by the state.

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

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

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

    So an arrest is necessary? Or is the difference in your mind that Cohen was stopped directly by the government, whereas Colting was stopped by the government at the request of a non-government entity?

    I've read more on the case. I had not heard that Colting and Salinger's estate had settled. Colting is allowed to publish the book everywhere except the US. I can't help but think that Salinger's estate agreed to that arrangement because they don't believe that 60 Years Later actually violates their copyright, or that it only violates it in the US. In which case, you have US copyright law that violates the first amendment.

    All of that is actually getting away from the point. Your claim is that the article title changes the content of his article. His article is still wrong. He uses the example of being able to talk about Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. Copyright stops people from distributing that exact work, but not from people talking about it. That's true. But cases like that are easy. What about when someone changes the work. Fair use is supposed to be a release valve to prevent first amendment violations. Any court that rules on the fair use of a work, is also ruling on whether the first amendment is being violated. Unfortunately, there is no separation there. You don't have one court ruling on the first amendment issue with another ruling on the fair use issue, so of course, any ruling on whether a work is fair use is going to automatically have a ruling on the first amendment issue. However, even though a fair use ruling automatically makes a first amendment ruling, courts don't consider the first amendment implications. You can tell this because one of the factors for testing fair use has to do with a market. In first amendment cases, no one ever asks about the economic impact of anyone involved. Any case where a work is determined to not be fair due to using that factor (whether alone or in part) is a candidate for first amendment violations.

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

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 12:21pm

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

    Yes, that's what I'm asking you to define. What is it that you consider to be an actual violation of their first amendment rights? Can you give an example?

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

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 12:06pm

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

    Before we keep moving the goal posts, can you tell me what you consider a violation of free speech.

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

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I already did, and you seem to have ignored it. Have you read 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye? No, and you will not be able to in the US because copyright is limiting someone's free speech.

  • On the post: What Public Domain? Why A Letter Written In 1755 Is Still Covered By US Copyright Law

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

    Re: Re: The avreage joe (not our not so average joe)

    I thought about taxes as well. It holds true in some cases with taxes, but taxes are different.

    First, where it holds true (i.e., people find it convoluted so they ignore it). How many people do you see charging sales tax when they sell something on craigslist? I know roughly what sales tax is in my area and for what items, but for any given item and exactly what it is on my street I couldn't tell you. If I sell something on craigslist, sales tax isn't going to be collected. The person I sell it to isn't going to pay it either. It's convoluted, so it gets ignored.

    Where taxes are different in this case though are that finding an accountant to do your taxes is easy, and relatively cheap. Often, they take their money from the returns you get, and most people treat their returns more like bonuses rather than getting back the money they overspent.

    And even if you did your taxes yourself, making sure you don't underpay is relatively easy for the vast majority of people. Making sure you don't overpay is a lot more complicated. A lot of people overpay, because they ignore the complicated stuff.

    On the other hand, finding a copyright lawyer to determine if a work is in the public domain is not easy or cheap. And just because the lawyer might say nay, doesn't mean the person/group/entity that thinks they hold a valid copyright will let you get away without a lawsuit. Several people have determined that Steamboat Willy is in the public domain. Yet you don't see that on Netflix because they know Disney would sue them. Even if Netflix were to win, that lawsuit would cost a lot of money. The sad reality is, too often the only sure way to know something is in the public domain is a lawsuit.

  • On the post: Why Computer Companies Should Copy The Fashion Industry

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Re:

    "We need tailored laws"
    I saw what you did there.

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

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 09:31am

    Re:

    Except his original title would be wrong, too. Have you ever read "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye"? No? Oh, that was because copyright is being used to stifle someone else's speech.

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

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2012 @ 09:23am

    Re: Re:

    Congress infringed on everyone's rights in so that the copyright holder would be the only one able to copy and distribute. Copyright's mere existence is a limitation on everyone's rights for the benefit of one. We can argue whether that is worth it or not, but that is what it is.

    Yes, I saw the '/s', but I thought it needed to be said.

Next >>