Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: Can The NYPD Back Up Its Claim Of A Confrontation That Required Pepper Spray, Despite More Video Evidence?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2011 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Another NYPD scandal is nothing new

    Maybe they'll spin it such that if New York's finest are this bad, just imagine how awful the people are they are pepper spraying are, so obviously they deserved to get sprayed.

  • On the post: The Giving Tree… In The Age Of DRM

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2011 @ 08:58am

    Re: Re:

    Actually, I have an idea for balance: You can either choose DRM or copyright. That is, you can have the government grant you a monopoly, or you can try to grant it to yourself. I wonder which one you'd choose.

  • On the post: The Giving Tree… In The Age Of DRM

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2011 @ 08:57am

    Re:

    You're hilarious. Balance? Haha. I'm sure if we started respecting DRM then we'd find a nice balance. Then over the course of 200 years, that balance would shift to be no where near recognizable to what it started out as, and our great great grandchildren would wish we had nipped it in the bud in our generation.

    Let's talk balance. Copyright started out as opt-in for 14 years with a possible extension of another 14. A relative few works were copyrighted to begin with, and of those only a small portion extended. Copyright is now opt-out if you can and lasts 70 years plus the life of the author, or 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation in some cases.

    There has been only one direction for copyright. Our great great grandparents tried to oblige your ilk with a balance, and since then you and your ilk have done nothing but rob, steal, plunder, and pillage your way to an imbalance in your favor. And then you have the audacity to suggest we're not being reasonable?

  • On the post: How Not To Make Music Social: The Way Spotify And Facebook Did It

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2011 @ 08:40am

    Re: u get what u pay for

    Here's a novel idea....stop shelling out any money and just download the music that you listen to. Then the only information about you anyone could possibly have is that someone using your ip address might possibly be interested in xyz music.

    Or you can do what was described in the article: You can pay to license music from Spotify and still have some arrogant punk in California holding your private data in a vice like grip.

  • On the post: How Not To Make Music Social: The Way Spotify And Facebook Did It

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2011 @ 08:33am

    Re: Re:

    And yet people still use Facebook in droves. Maybe it's because they're the only game in town, but you'd think if that many people were that angry that many times, they'd stop using the service, yet they don't. So there must be something more to it. Either they're a monopoly (why aren't they being grilled by the senate?), or people really aren't as upset as they say they are. I don't know what it is.

    *Disclaimer: I don't have a facebook account, and every time I even start to consider making one, something like this happens, so I probably never will have an account.

  • On the post: House Version Of PROTECT IP To Cover Cyberlockers Too

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2011 @ 04:13pm

    Definitions are easy.

    How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from one of the cyberlockers that the MPAA loves to hate, such as Hotfile?
    In the interest of being a freetard and helping you out, I will offer some assistance on making this definition for you.

    Cyberlockers are herein defined as online storage that does not allow any of its ones or zeros to be used for infringing purposes.

  • On the post: Craigslist Trying To Destroy The Life Of Someone Who Made Posting To Craigslist Easier

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2011 @ 03:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

    As far as I can tell that is the case. If the first time you hear about it is when someone comes looking for you to pay the default judgement amount, then you can speak up and have your real full trial then. I agree with you in principal: no one should get a judgement against them without the opportunity for a fair trial. But what do you do in a case where someone just decides not to show up? They know about it, but don't want to go to trial (for whatever reason)? Think of this as a threat that if you don't defend yourself or deliberately postpone a trial through some other shenanigans then that doesn't mean you won't eventually get ruled against. However, that means that you can be ruled against even when you really didn't ever know you were listed as a defendant, so that's why there are ways to get the ruling vacated.

  • On the post: Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2011 @ 03:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    they want to grandstand about "defending their rights" when in fact they're far more defenseless than they fantasize being.
    I think you're confusing two issues here. There's defending your rights and there's defending your life. Martial arts can be used to great effect to defend your life, but is less useful when it comes to defending your rights. By all means, George Washington could only be made that much cooler if he round-house kicked King George after a long, epic, martial arts filled battle to the death atop some dangerous precipice, but alas, we are left with a far more mundane history.

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Food By The Numbers…

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2011 @ 01:34pm

    Re:

    Vegetables = anything of vegetable origin that isn't counted in another group. Cereals are not vegetables, culinary fruits* are not vegetables, nuts are not vegetables, nor is corn syrup, sugar, chocolate, vegetable oil/spread, and a great other number of things.

    *I'm so sick of the tomatoes-are-a-fruit-not-a-vegetable argument. "But it has seeds" they say. Fine, then cucumbers, squash, pumpkin, string beans, peas, etc are also fruits. In fact, by that definition, corn, wheat and barley are fruits also. Let's just all realize that culinary fruits are a subset of botanical fruits.

  • On the post: Craigslist Trying To Destroy The Life Of Someone Who Made Posting To Craigslist Easier

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2011 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Huh?

    I'm trying to understand you here, so help me out.

    they have to prove that you knew about the default judgement
    Who is 'they' here?

  • On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re:

    Another wonderful "question mark" comment.

    CNE. Man up. Take a position. Is the AC a weasel or not in your opinion?

  • On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2011 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re: Re:

    See now that was better. Garbage reasoning, selective quoting, and utterly useless, but much better than previous.

    The suggest is because you cannot prevent the death in Canada by US law, that you shouldn't do anything to address the same potential situation in the US
    This was selective quoting. If you had read the rest of the paragraph, here's a list of other relevant quotes you would have found from the same paragraph you obviously started reading:
    ** "And, a larger point is that there are tons of legitimate pharmacies, and it's pretty easy to tell what's legit and what's not"
    ** "Why this woman was ordering from a questionable pharmacy is never explained"
    ** "It doesn't do fake pharmacies much good either to kill customers."
    ** "Finally, the fake drugs issue could be dealt with by legislation that focuses on fake drugs. Not ridiculously broad legislation that encourages censorship and puts the compliance burden and liability on tons of US companies."
    Another one of those blatant pieces of Masnick speak....etc
    This paragraph isn't even responding to the the quote you had above it. Mike talks about a previous CoC propaganda piece that uses people whose arguments were bunk and how he found all that out, and you come back with "Yeah but why didn't he cite a third party that also did that research?" Really? The only objections I found on the linked to post were people (maybe yourself) claiming something about business models. No one objected to the actual research Mike did about any of the participants works and lives. If business model objections are what you want to talk about, that's fine, but it's not what this conversation has been about up to this point.
    In the end, what is disgusting to me is someone who so hates patents and copyright...et al
    I'm still waiting for the debunking to be proven bunk. Mike shows plenty of legitimate studies done by third-parties. The MPAA, RIAA, CoC, etc. all have studies done by people paid for by them, and they all turn out to be such bunk, that using their own methodologies shows that they are worse than the cure they proffer.

    I feel a little better that you tried, but you still have a lot of work to do.

  • On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2011 @ 10:02am

    Re:

    You didn't read the article did you? The question in the title really is genuine. Can they do it without lying? The answer is right here:

    ...the old dying legacy business, who pay the US Chamber of Commerce to lie in public for them...
    So apparently no, they cannot. That is Mike's point. He's taken a position, and that position runs thusly:
    the only reason [the USCoC] been so successful itself is the likelihood of confusion between it and the US Department of Commerce.... The CoC...is simply unable to make a credible argument in favor of the law.

    The group has put out two incredibly misleading videos.
    We all know you want to take apart Mike any chance you can get. I'd love to see a relevant, thorough and totally awesome dismantling, but the only dismantling I see is that of IP maximalists. Do try to put in more effort than this in the future.

  • On the post: Craigslist Trying To Destroy The Life Of Someone Who Made Posting To Craigslist Easier

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 04:15pm

    Re: Huh?

    Here is some more info an default judgements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment

    It's certainly not just a US thing. It's usually pretty easy to get them vacated and have a real trial. Without them, it'd be easy to never lose in court (just don't show up). So you have defaults that are fairly easily vacated if you decide you actually want a trial.

  • On the post: Craigslist Trying To Destroy The Life Of Someone Who Made Posting To Craigslist Easier

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 03:35pm

    Re: It's for local, face to face transactions

    While I agree with you on much of what you say, I'm having a hard time figuring out how that has anything to do with the points raised in the article. Sure, maybe the guy violated the ToS, but I don't see why that means he should be fined $1.2 million, or even a buck twenty for that matter.

    If you call breaking the ToS hacking under the CFAA, then let's just call walking into McDonalds without a shirt or shoes felonious breaking and entering.

  • On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 02:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

    Obviously you didn't read Title 66 section 5 paragraph 3 subsection A number 1, which reads "When the law is on the side of freetards, the law is automatically replaced with the legal fancies of the nearest copyright maximalist."

  • On the post: BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    Re:

    The damage isn't just in the doing, it's in others seeing them do it and thinking they can get away with it to.
    I know every place I walk in that has music playing proudly displays the "We paid BMI for this music" placard. It makes me know that I'm in a trusted music playing establishment. If they aren't displaying that placard, I make sure to leave posthaste, as I don't want to be frequenting any shady and disreputable venues.

  • On the post: Even If You Cancel Your OnStar Service, The Company Will Still Track (And Sell) Your Location

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    Re: One more reason to go strictly 'OPT-IN"

    Too true. You know who else surreptitiously keeps track of all your movements until you opt-out? Stalkers. Cancel your onstar service, and get a free onstalker service.

  • On the post: UK Law Enforcement Demanding Guardian's Sources On News Of The World Hacking Scandal [Updated]

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2011 @ 04:09pm

    Re: Re:

    So what if they dropped the case. That they brought the case at all is news.

  • On the post: How Quickly We Forget: Google's Competitors Falsely Claim Google Dominates Because It Was 'First'

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2011 @ 03:32pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Doh, The is what I meant. Not Teh.

    Also, he states that Google is quickly becoming a monopoly in mobile operating systems. Where the heck is the O Rly owl on this one? I like Android, and it's market share is certainly increasing, but to say it's quickly becoming a monopoly in mobile operating systems, along with his other doozy about Google being first, it's obvious this guy either doesn't have a clue, or is willing to lie through his teeth. Neither option looks good. Maybe he's there as the court jester.

Next >>