Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: University Of Calgary Refusing To Pay Access Copyright Any More

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2011 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Universities are to greedy

    I'm sure Seattle wouldn't mind a bunch of free money, but I'm not sure why Canadian universities would pay them anything.

  • On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 02:37pm

    Re:

    Are you really that stupid, or you do you just pretend here?

  • On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Re: me next

    I think you ought to sue him on grounds of unfair competition, since I'm positive the only reason you haven't become a famous actor is out of fear that he'd sue you for doing so. Unfair competition and mental anguish. He's been such a bully to you all this time.

  • On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 02:49pm

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

    Which part of the DMCA are you referring to specifically?

  • On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 02:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If it's not worth anything, we ought to repeal it.

    If it's not worth anything, are you finally agreeing that new and stricter laws are useless? The DMCA was a new and stricter law that was hailed by the copyright maximalists as their savior.

    Was it just not strong enough? A new and stricter law wasn't enough to stop infringement? You say infringement was worse after the new and stricter laws? "Impossible!" is what I thought I heard you say. "Inconceivable" is probably what you did say, but then, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

  • On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Awesome, so you think an example of enforcing laws that existed for 100 years is an example of why we need more and stricter laws? I mean, the RIAA could have gone after Limewire with the same laws that were around after the Copyright act of 1909, so why do we need new and stricter laws?

    Also, your example is merely speculation. I'll quote from NPD's press release:

    "In the past, we've noted that hard-core peer-to-peer users would quickly move to other Web sites that offered illegal music file sharing. It will be interesting to see if services like Frostwire and Bittorrent take up the slack left by Limewire, or if peer-to-peer music downloaders instead move on to other modes of acquiring or listening to music."
    Meaning, even NPD recognizes that this very well might be a temporary thing.

    You've managed to come up with an example of enforcement (not new and stricter laws as orginally stated) might possibly maybe making a temporary difference. Bravo good sir.

  • On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 10:44am

    Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?

    I agree that Mike's analogy was not quite correct. In his analogy copyright infringement would have occurred, but Swartz didn't commit copyright infringement (otherwise he would have been charged with it, no?).

    Where's the incentive for JSTOR to even collect and collate this info if anyone can just come in and reproduce it all?
    I counter with this question: Where's the need for JSTOR if anyone can come in and reproduce it all?

  • On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 10:39am

    Re:

    Mike believes that copyright infringement is a business model issue, not a legal one. He didn't write this article, but he did post it, which goes to show that he has been correct on that front.

    Copyright maximalists push for more and stricter laws and infringement doesn't stop. But a new business model comes along and infringement plummets. Going off that record, I'd say it's more logical to see that pushers of more and stricter laws are the ones who are for copyright infringement.

    I mean, if I do X, and see that Y happens over and over again, then I'd be an idiot to assume that if I do X again, Y won't happen. They push for more laws, they see more infringement, and this happens over and over again. Only idiots or people who support more infringement would then push for more laws. So which is it? Are you an idiot, or do you support infringement?

  • On the post: Once Again, Law Enforcement Protects Us From The America-Destroying Scourge Of Children With Lemonade Stands

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 03:19pm

    Why would its yearly occurrence make it any less crazy? I think it should be the opposite. Why haven't the laws changed? Why are police still enforcing these laws? That's where it gets crazy.

    There was a story a few years back about shave ice stands being illegal prior to June 1 in Provo, UT. The law changed to May 1st, eventually. I have no idea why they couldn't just make it legal all the time, but they at least changed the law.

  • On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 02:42pm

    Re: Re: If I was paranoid ...

    The investigation might have occurred previous to the introduction of the PROTECT-IP Act. However, the charges weren't brought until after mounting opposition to it. Also, the investigation occurred after COICA failed. Certainly Patrick Leahy (who introduced both bills) knew he was going to introduce a follow up to COICA.

  • On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 01:55pm

    Re: If I was paranoid ...

    That's what I was thinking. He stopped downloading back in January. JSTOR has said publicly that they don't mind what he's done and they aren't going to press charges. I doubt MIT cares since JSTOR doesn't care, though I haven't heard them say anything publicly about the matter. But as PROTECT IP starts getting some serious opposition, suddenly one of the founders of a large opposing groups gets charged.

    This looks like a really large scale ad hominem attack.

  • On the post: Arresting People Associated With Anonymous Unlikely To Have The Impact The Feds Expect

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: I feel so much safer...

    A few weeks ago, there were some geese on the 405 in Bellevue, WA. There were at least 3 cop cars at one point to protect them from morning traffic.

  • On the post: TSA Agents Continue To Lie And Say You Can't Photograph Or Videotape Checkpoints

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: Think of the children!

    And for what? Because the guy said "penis"? If a child doesn't know what a penis is then the guy asking this question might as well be asking if they'll be able to see his duodenum for all the child is concerned. And if they do know what it is, then they'll understand a question and a concern that an adult has. GASP! HORROR!

    Let me get this straight, somebody that gets to legally molest people hears the word penis and the first thing he thinks of is children? WTF?! I can't make those letters bold enough!

  • On the post: Zero-Sum Economics

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with

    Wait, what respect is being lacked? Nobody is removing the credits from movies and music and books when they pirate. On the contrary, if it wasn't for the unions, there would be no credits in movies. I mean, how many times have you seen credits scroll by for software? Where are the credits on the design of a car? Where is the respect for the real creators. Sure, I see "? Microsoft" or "Honda" plastered on things, but I don't see any actual creators names being put on this stuff. You tell me, where is the respect?

    As for your morals argument, copyright is immoral. Or are you of the opinion that it's moral to outlaw sharing works with others? Do you think it's immoral for people to take a work and alter it or spread it? If we're talking about taking credit where it's not due, that's not the purpose of copyright. That's where plagiarism comes into play. And as I've shown above, the only people who are successful at passing off the work of others as their own are the ones who are the biggest proponents of copyright.

    The other day I read a book aloud to a group of kids at my daughters birthday party. Call me immoral if you want, but there's no way I'm going to pay for a public performance license for that. And screw the people who think they have a copyright on the song Happy Birthday. We sang it in front of dozens of people, but I'll never pay them for their performance royalty. Do you think I'm being immoral now?

    Your misunderstanding of copyright's purpose astounds me. Copyright wasn't made for moral reasons. It wasn't made for reasons of respect. It was simply a tool to promote the progress. Yet every where we turn it has failed on that account. I want my 200+ years of progress back. Can you give it to us? Who's being the immoral one now?

  • On the post: Zero-Sum Economics

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 09:06am

    Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with

    You know, Nina is the one who campaigns for free culture (which I wholeheartedly agree with). But you seem to be so far down the rabbit hole of copyrights that you think it's wrong to copy and/or alter others' works. But here you have a chance. Rather than just complaining about it, you could alter to make it funny, or alter it in whatever way you see fit so that it can be more to your liking.

    Instead, you have such a strict idea of copyright in your mind that this thought probably never occurred to you. You'd rather complain about what someone else did than to alter the one or two small parts that you are complaining about so that it can be more to your liking.

    In light of that, I propose that merely the idea of copyright has caused people to create less. Here we have an artist who wants you to alter her stuff, and yet you'd rather complain that she didn't do it perfectly. She isn't going to come after you for copyright infringement. Quite the opposite. And yet, since you've gotten the idea of copyright so ingrained into your psyche, you aren't going to create anything new and better.

    Thanks for once again showing that copyright is a failed concept.

  • On the post: EU Considers Banning Ratings Agencies From Warning That Countries May Be In Financial Trouble

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 12:38pm

    Re:

    It might be somewhat similar to saying you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Except they're saying you can't yell "Sell!" or "Buy!" in a finicky market.

  • On the post: Killing The Golden Goose: Is Hollywood To Blame For Netflix's Poorly Thought Out Massive Price Hike?

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2011 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, what? The government granted monopolies aren't already an unnatural market? Artificial scarcity isn't already an unnatural market?

    And to get real nit picky, file sharing isn't criminal. In some countries it's perfectly legal (see Spain). In the USA (and all other countries I can think of) it's a civil offence.

  • On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 04:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Why isn't there universal adoption of culture?

    Shared culture being more valuable doesn't mean that a monoculture is the most valuable.

  • On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 03:52pm

    Re: Why isn't there universal adoption of culture?

    It doesn't appear that there is universal agreement that as more people share a culture, there is more value in that culture.Actually, there is unanimous agreement that shared culture is more valuable. The difficulty lies in deciding which aspects or which cultures should become the dominant or only shared culture. The French want French culture and language, whereas English speakers disagree. Catholics want their beliefs, Mormons want theirs, atheists want none of the above. Sci-fi geeks want everyone to appreciate a good sci-fi novel, readers of harlequin romance novels disagree. Their is universal agreement that more people sharing a culture the more value that culture has. It's just that we can't all agree which culture should be the most shared.

  • On the post: Google Wants Another Court To Determine If Accessing Open WiFi Is Wiretapping

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 09:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is 3G

    When you have to use technology to determine what is in it, you have cross the line to decoding.


    You mean like this? Or can your ears hear AM/FM signals without any kind of technology? If so, that must be the source of the voices in your head.

Next >>