Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: MPAA Pretends To Be A Regular Defender Of Fair Use; The Evidence Suggests Otherwise

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2013 @ 09:34am

    Re:

    You're adding judges from different levels? Really? The MPAA lobbied heavily to have congress change the law. Congress never did. So I guess that makes hundreds on the side of fair use and only 7 against. Also, given the fact that members of the MPAA, congress, and many judges have used the VCR to home tape, I'd add an even larger number of people to that fair use side. Or maybe they're all just pirates as you propose?

  • On the post: Med Express Apologies For Suing Customer, Says It Was A Mistake, But Doesn't Mention The Long List Of Similar Lawsuits

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2013 @ 02:08pm

    Re:

    Maybe Med Express's lawyers are already from Prenda Law. That would explain how Radey could be ignorant of what's going on and yet still be signing affidavits about it.

  • On the post: Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing…

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2013 @ 09:12am

    Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

    I consider Benito Mussolini to be the ultimate fascist, but only because he was one of the first, and one of the founders of the fascist movement. Hitler (or maybe someone else) may have been more fascist, but I haven't bothered myself to come up with a Who's Who of fascists.

    Yeah, Hitler did get the German economy going, but so what? If I had a choice of living under Hitler or the Germany before Hitler, I'd choose the latter. Freedom means a lot more to me than the economy. Blue's praise of Hitler just shows to me he isn't a populist that cares for the people. That's all a charade he puts on. He claims he's for the little guy, against big corporations, etc, but he's for government granted monopolies and knocks Mike any time Mike talks about government corruption or the like.

    Like "The Prince", or Hitler, Blue like his subtle form of evil. Pretend to be for the people, when you really just want to rule over them completely.

    Note: I'm not accusing Blue of supporting Holocaust Hitler or warmongering Hitler. I'm pointing out that blue praises fascist Hitler.

  • On the post: Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing…

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2013 @ 08:44am

    Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

    You know all about fascists, seeing as you've praised the penultimate fascist for his fascism before.

  • On the post: Flight Search Engines And The Multi-City Ripoff

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2013 @ 04:19pm

    Re: Two other disadvantages of separate leg bookings

    Don't take offense, but I'm going to poke some fun at you now.

    Hey Mike, Danny here makes some good points. You should add something to the story indicating those problems. Perhaps make up a fictitious converstaion you had with a man named Goldstein (that's a more mature sounding name than Danny), and have him bring up those points. Like this:

    That said, Goldstein also argues that there are downsides to buying individual flights. He brings up, as we discussed above, the issue of connecting flights (and also having bags checked all the way through to destination) -- but as noted, that doesn't apply in this situation. He also points out that if you have to "change or cancel your whole trip, you have to pay separate change/cancel fees for each booking, instead of one for the whole thing."
    But then (because you are Mike and have to be contrarian) rebut it with something like this:
    That's absolutely true, but is that "insurance" worth paying twice as much? I could rebook my entire trip with different times and dates... and basically pay the same total amount. So... that argument doesn't make much sense.

  • On the post: Anti-Piracy Enforcer Degban Publishes Some Info-less Graphics Stating Atlanta Is File Sharingest Place On Earth

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2013 @ 11:58am

    I'm rather enjoying the map.

    Why do so many cities lie on the same latitude?

    Why are there so many places in the ocean (real pirating pirates?)?

    Why is Spokane in Idaho?

    Why is it that pirates only pirate in small cities?

  • On the post: Andy Baio On The New Prohibition Created By Copyright

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2013 @ 10:54am

    Copyright law should honestly just be abolished. There is no purpose to it beyond creating a business model, and one that is particularly dangerous to creativity. When I want to express myself, even if it's a simple reply to someone, I do it by using the expressions I have learned from others, whether those others are my parents, siblings, friends, or people in my neighborhood, or movies, tv shows, songs, books, poems, etc. It's all the better when it's a shared experience.

    I could dismiss someone who has clearly lost an argument with a "you lose", or I could do it by showing a video.
    If I own a gym, I could get my customers pumped up by giving my own speech, or I could play a song.

    Any of those options are valid, and ought to be valid choices, but copyright says that you should only be allowed to express yourself in ways that are really old (70 years + life of author), paying for it, or creating a new way of expression. There's a lot of validity to new creation, and that creation will happen, but no one creates new things in a vacuum. We are all products of our culture, our shared experiences, etc. Being allowed to express ourselves using the expressions of those around us is a necessity. It's how we are.

    Copyright goes against all that. At one point I thought it could be reformed. I'm leaning towards that being an impossibility. I'm not sure copyright could ever be squared with how humans express themselves. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong, but the more I think about it, I don't think it's possible. Sure copyright gives us certain business models, but then you'd have to prove that those business models are worth it, and I don't think they are.

  • On the post: How Big Agribusiness Is Heading Off The Threat From Seed Generics — And Failing To Keep The Patent Bargain

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2013 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's true. And yet if you bring up the idea of fewer regulations and smaller government then someone will come out and say "But SOMALIA!!!".

  • On the post: IRS Investigators See No Need For A Warrant To Snoop On Emails

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2013 @ 12:09pm

    the IRS owes the American public a clear explanation of its view on warrants
    No, the IRS owes the American public an apology, several firings, and a promise (with serious consequences for breaking that promise) that it will follow the law in the future.

    Also, Congress needs to fix the ECPA.

  • On the post: Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2013 @ 10:15am

    Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo

    They did change it. I can't say whether they changed it because of this lawsuit, but their current logo is nothing like the one created by Frederick Bouchat. Teams change their logos regularly. I'm sure had they been given the choice to pay even one million dollars or change their logo, they would have just changed their logo. It'd give them an opportunity to refresh the team, make it look new and exciting, etc.

    Here's a brief history of NFL team logos. The Detroit Lions have change their logo twice in the last 10 years, Broncos have changed their logo twice in 20 years, and there's more. Some teams change more often than others, and some only make minor changes, but they all make changes (except the Jaguars, but they're young).

  • On the post: In Which NY Times Reporter Jenna Wortham Accidentally Reveals How She Violated Both The CFAA & The DMCA

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2013 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    I agree on the question, but disagree with your reason. The question "Why should she NOT be in trouble over this?" is a valid question. She has clearly broken the law. If it's stupid to enforce the law over this, then the law is stupid and should be removed, not just unenforced. Selectively enforced laws are what despots, dictators, kings and tyrants do. Your essentially free at the whim of the government. That is wrong.

    As for what she's doing being wrong, I'm not seeing it. If the guy gave her his credentials freely, then what's wrong with her using it? If he doesn't want her to access it, he could change the password and be done.

  • On the post: In Which NY Times Reporter Jenna Wortham Accidentally Reveals How She Violated Both The CFAA & The DMCA

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2013 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re:

    That's not a problem for HBO. They just pop up a helpful message stating that you need to create a new account because your IP address has been pirated. Something along the lines of, "Someone has pirated your IP address. You need to create a new account. See how it feels to have your property pirated from you?"

  • On the post: Microsoft Creative Director Defends Always-Online, Insults Customers, Murders Logic…All In One Day!

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 02:16pm

    Re:

    Today's Dilbert seems relevant.

  • On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 01:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.

    A spy is an information gatherer that does their gathering in secret. Google and the friend (disclaimer: not a real person) aren't spies. If I know, they gather information, then they aren't spies (unless I know without them knowing that I know, but that's not the case here). There's no question that Google gathers information about its users. I'm not trying to defend their data gathering. Calling them a spy is simply using an emotionally-laden term that doesn't apply simply for the emotions it evokes. It's incorrect.

    I also wouldn't use the term intelligence gatherer. Information or user data? Sure. But intelligence is linked to political or military information. Google might collect information about it's users that is useful for those purposes, but that's not why Google is collecting it.

    It's the way the debate is framed that I'm having a problem with. Here we have a case where Google is pushing back on giving up customer info to the government, and yet they are being called a spay and being accused of not caring for customer privacy because of that. Those accusations aren't backed up by the article at hand. If the AC that made the accusation has some data to back it up, he is welcome to include it here, but he didn't include any evidence. This article is a refutation of his accusations, therefore I'm calling him out on it.

  • On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.

    Let's say that the US Government comes directly to Google and pays a fee for people that fit a profile. How is Google a spy in that case? They provided a service in exchange for data from the users of that service, that exchange being publicly known. If Google's privacy policy states that they are willing to sell user data to a buyer, then what's the issue? If Google's privacy policy says they won't sell user data to a buyer, then sue them for breach of contract.

    Changing it from government to a company secretly hired by the government doesn't change the above paragraph at all. Google is still not the spy. If I tell a friend something about me and I know that my friend tells info about me to anyone who will pay him, then he's not exactly a spy. Why is Google being a spy here?

    It's all very clear and out in the open what data you are giving to Google and what service you get in exchange. If you don't like that, don't use Google. But that doesn't turn them into spies. If their data collection was surreptitious, then sure, but it's not. It's a pretty crappy spy who says "I collect your information to sell to anyone willing to buy it".

  • On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Accuse Pandora Of Deliberately Not Selling Ads To Plead Poverty To Congress

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm fairly sure "copyright maximalists" DO have all sources tapped.

    So Pandora has used no human labor? What exactly do you think the developers and marketers and ad space sellers at Pandora do? And how is what they do any different than what the musicians do? If "brains ain't enough", then why are you so pro-copyright and pro-patent?

  • On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.

    Google's not a spy. They're a company that offers services in exchange for your data. They aren't doing it surreptitiously. Everyone knows that Google gets your search history, youtube viewing history, has access to your emails, etc. There's no sneaking around going on. They provide a service, and your use of that service provides them information about you. Are airlines spying on me when they ask me for the name to put on my travel ticket? Are grocery stores spying on me when I willingly use the rewards card? Is my bank spying on me when they record all transactions that occur in my accounts?

    Here Google is trying to keep the government from getting the data that people gave to Google. That's not spying. That's being concerned with user privacy. People gave that data to Google for Google, not for the government.

    Do you even know what a spy is?

  • On the post: Movie Studios Filing DMCA Takedowns Over DMCA Takedowns

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 03:14pm

    Anything, anywhere in the chain that might possibly lead one to a possibly infringing work must be liable as well, and those responsible for those sites must then, obviously, act as Hollywood's personal police force.
    I'll be happy when they start going after that pirate haven known as PACER.

  • On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 07:47am

    Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.

    Don't try to act like you're some anti-corporate populist. There's a huge difference from someone willingly giving their information to a 3rd party and the government forcing information out of that 3rd party let alone topping it off with an unconstitutional gag order.

    You'd love nothing more than a government that had more power. That's why you think "Hitler did a lot of good". No, I'm not accusing you of supporting the holocaust. I'm sure you were referencing the time before World War II, when the only thing people could say about Hitler was that he was the penultimate fascist. So keep saying that you're a populist. We all know you aren't, because being a liar and a hypocrite is par for the course with you.

    You are not a populist, you are not looking out for the little guy. You look out for the government and corporations with government granted monopolies. You seek to uphold their power, probably because that's what you wish you had.

    Go ahead, continue to ignore me. We can see right through you blue.

  • On the post: Senator Hatch's Plan To Give Hollywood The Key Seat At The Table For All Future Trade Negotiations

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2013 @ 10:50am

    Copyright clause

    Mike, you (rightfully) mention the copyright clause and how it's supposed to benefit the public. But I think you forget to mention the mere fact of its existence makes it interesting. The founding fathers knew all about government granted monopolies (cf. Boston Tea Party and the East India Company). I don't think they liked the idea of government granted monopolies. The constitution, as far as I can tell, doesn't grant the federal government the ability to grant monopolies with the only exception being the copyright clause. It's very existence shows how reticent the founding fathers were to having government granted monopolies.

    That only emphasizes that much more how important the "promote the Progress" and "limited Times" parts of the clause are. If the founders were fine with government granted monopolies, they would never have put in a clause explicitly allowing them. That explicitness indicates that the government did NOT have the implicit allowance to do so. Thus heavy restrictions on patents and copyrights should be the norm. We should be very reticent to grant those monopolies, and only in the case where progress is being promoted, and only for a very limited time.

    I'm not disagreeing. Quite the opposite. I don't think you give that clause as much emphasis as it deserves.

Next >>