Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: Sarkozy Routes Around Parliament, Ditches Net Neutrality, Forces Copyright Clauses Into All ISP Terms Of Service

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2011 @ 09:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Legislative Capture

    So a member of congress putting a hold on a bill that has only been passed by a committee in congress is the same to you as a non-legislative person creating a law without either the consent of the legislature or the people?

    Are you stating that maintaining the status quo by temporarily blocking the legislature from debating a bill (and subsequently not passing it) is the same as making changes without the consent of either those who make laws or those who elected you to represent them?

    I think you're being willfully ignorant.

  • On the post: Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2011 @ 03:05pm

    Re: Re:

    And by that I mean, it's not an issue of Google and Youtube being too big too fail, it's an issue of no politician (elected representative or unelected bureaucrat) would dare pull the plug on Google or YouTube.

  • On the post: Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2011 @ 02:39pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's fine. But I was unaware that the definition of tact included "a semblance of logical thought".

  • On the post: Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2011 @ 02:34pm

    Re:

    I think in the case of Google and Youtube even more so, if any government were to shut them down, the immediate backlash would be swift and fatal to their political careers.

  • On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2011 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Opinion pdf

    So if an act involves a computer, and authorization wasn't allowed, you're saying that act is in violation of the CFAA? So, stealing a laptop from Best Buy is a violation of the CFAA rather than a violation of stealing laws? How about rather than stealing the laptop, just smashing it. Is that a violation of the CFAA or a violation of destruction of property laws?

    I'm perfectly fine with allowing that the guy may have done something illegal, but let's charge him with whatever law he supposedly broke rather than stretching the CFAA absurdly.

  • On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2011 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not very good at his job

    Fine, he may have done something illegal. Charge him with breaking whatever law you think he might have broken. Just because what he did might have been illegal, does not mean you can charge him with whatever you want.

    Homicide and speeding are not interchangeable laws. Neither should any possibly illegal act that involves a computer involve the CFAA.

  • On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 04:16pm

    Re: I'm not sure you understand...

    without any other aspect being different
    Wait, what? Has Dell started selling PCs with OS X on it, or does Apple sell devices with Windows 7 now?

    I'm not saying OS X is worth that premium (I'm rather OS agnostic). Just pointing out that a computer's specs (especially to nontechnical people) is not the difference. To them it's all how the device looks on the outside (including the brand) and the user interface (which in this case is the OS).

  • On the post: Canadian Pharmacies React To US Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google Over Their Ads

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    But this settlement doesn't stop people from being able to get to these places, only that Google can't display ads for them. The people who are already using the Canadian pharmacies aren't affected. It's the people who haven't found a Canadian pharmacy yet that will be, but they can't speak out because they haven't been affected yet, or don't yet realize that they've been affected.

  • On the post: All Of Justin Bieber's Music Removed From YouTube Via 'Prank' DMCA Claims

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2011 @ 04:05pm

    Re:

    Since when has being a foreigner had anything to do with whether or not the US will go after you?

  • On the post: 60 Year Old Swedish Man Gets Sentenced To 'Conditional' Two Years In Jail For File Sharing

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2011 @ 02:36pm

    Re:

    It's true that it can be difficult to decide a sentence. However, I'm having a hard time figuring out a scenario where any amount of copyright infringement could possible get a sentence more than twice as long as sexual abuse of a child or four times as long as homicide by strangling.

  • On the post: What Can Bring Together Opposites On The Traditional Political Spectrum? A Fear Of Censorship Due To PROTECT IP

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2011 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    Not if the comments on the original article are anything to go by. It could just be troll/shill comments, but most seemed to say that since this bill targets websites doing illegal things (copyright infringement in this case) that it's ok. They totally ignore the fact that the trial comes after the shutdown, they completely miss the fact the "private right of action" that allows anyone to shut down anyone else (including business competitors, ex-spouses, etc), and they don't even think about the legality of sites in other countries (e.g., TVShack, Rojadirecta). It appears that they don't even consider the scale of the infringement. The comments indicate that they must be thinking that a site targeted by PROTECT IP will be some massive infringing site making, rather than just some guy's blog that has a lot of his own content but also includes one small infringing file (perhaps a picture he liked).

    It's like the whole "First they came for..." quote. Nobody cares about the rise in power by the federal government because their toes aren't being stepped on right now. They ignore that that same rise in power allows them to step on their toes later. They ignore that people like them are having their toes stepped on right now.

  • On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re:

    Might does make right in this society. Either you agree with the concept of property without needing laws, or the only reason you don't violate someone else's property is because the people with guns tell you not to. If the former, then I see no reason why removing property laws necessarily means that we would devolve to "might makes right". If the latter, we are already there.

  • On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2011 @ 11:01am

    Re:

    While I agree with you, the problem is the idiots that get ousted during the fall of an empire, or not always that idiots that created it. So while it may be nice to console yourself that an empire will eventually fall, many of those responsible for creating and perpetuating that empire will have long since passed away peacefully, and many people who are crushed by that empire will pass away in suffering. So you get a relative few empire builders/perpetuators that are crushed, and a relative few empire crushers who find relief. That's why it takes eternal vigilance to keep yourself from being crushed by an empire. But too many people willingly suffer it because they have their bread and circuses.

  • On the post: NYC Arrests Stop Dead Chinese From Infringing

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2011 @ 10:07am

    Re: every sale

    You're crazy. That's not fair at all. I propose a simple extra tax on funeral ceremonies and related goods; coffins, burial plots, cremation services, etc. The funds from this will be handled by a new collection society.

  • On the post: Debate On Software Patents Fails To Convince Silicon Valley That Patents Increase Innovation

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2011 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They don't like them because they want in fast and out fast and make a ton of money. True long term investors like patents, they help to secure their investments.
    And yet we just had an article not long ago that patents harm the long term success of a company. It's the fast in, fast out guys that want patents so they have something to sell off if the company doesn't become an overnight sensation. Work hard for a long time? Heck no. Amazon wasn't profitable until 2001, but had the one-click patent in 1999. True long term investors were happy with Amazon and couldn't care less about patents. Patent supports would have dismantled the company and sold off the one click patent for the quick bucks.

  • On the post: Debate On Software Patents Fails To Convince Silicon Valley That Patents Increase Innovation

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2011 @ 10:01am

    Re: Patents served a purpose.... once (Re: ))

    Patents may no longer work, but I think once upon a time they did.

    Technology progresses _much_ faster than it used to.
    Have you ever considered that technology can progress so much faster once patents expire. I wonder where we might be had there never been patents in the first place.

    It's like a roller coaster going down hill. Sure it's fast now, so they tell us not to complain that they have the brake on. But how much faster could we have been going if the brake hadn't been applied from the beginning?

  • On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 04:00pm

    Re: Clearly distinguishable

    Yeah, I didn't read the article either.

  • On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 03:55pm

    Re: Re:

    True, but in our environment our government grants retroactive immunity for violating the constitution. There's nothing sane about it.

  • On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 03:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,

    You can't have it both ways, the law is the law. And the law says you have to enforce your own copyright.

    Copyright was set up as a tradeoff. The public grants to you a temporary limited right to control the copying and distributing of your creative works in exchange for you actually publishing your creative works. However, the public keeps getting screwed because the government keeps retroactively changing that deal making it less and less temporary, less and less limited, and doesn't enforce the whole publishing bit either.

    When you signed up for copyright, the law was (and still is) that you have to enforce your copyright, no one was going to do it for you. If you have a problem with that, you shouldn't have made the agreement, and you could have just kept all your creative works to yourself. Stop trying to alter the deal. Live with the choice you made and enforce your own copyright at your own expense. That's the deal you signed up for. Now live with it.

    Far too long the public has given in to copyright holders whines and complaints. Copyright holders are spoiled brats and continuously ask for us to change the already agreed upon deal. It's time it stopped. Books, music, poetry, and art were all being created long before copyright ever came about. And they along with music recordings, movies and software will continue to be made long after copyright is gone. It needs to be abolished now.

  • On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 03:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wow!

    Then pay for the first copy. Oh wait, that means its just a business model issue. No copyright needed.

Next >>