Chris-Mouse 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (538)

• On the post: Court Dismisses Puerto 80 Rojadirecta Case (For Now)… But Doesn't Give Back The Domain

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2011 @ 11:51am

  Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.

  By continuing to conflate "censorship" with the actual fact that Puerto80 was involved at least on the surface in infringement
  
  Except that not one, but two courts have decided that Puerto80 was not involved in copyright infringement.

• On the post: MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2011 @ 10:16am

  Re: Re:

  I don't have a problem with that.
  The 'war on drugs' is far worse than the problem it's supposed to solve.

• On the post: Self-Regulation: Should Online Companies Police The Internet?

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2011 @ 10:18am

  Re: Re:

  Don't take this the wrong way, but you really don't understand the underlying infrastructure of the internet. DNS only affects web traffic, a subset of the internet, all other traffic is governed by their respective protocols.
  
  This is simply incorrect. DNS affects any and all protocols that involve translating a hostname to an IP number. This includes web traffic, but also includes email, FTP, SSH, and any other communications protocol that does not involve someone typing in an IP address directly.
  I certainly can't remember the last time I sent an email to an address like nobody@63.251.171.80

• On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Hollywood's Own Bad Decisions Are Increasing The Amount Of Infringement

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2011 @ 12:18pm

  Re: Re: "you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched"

  "Copyright exists because content can't be locked up any other way."
  
  Please cite anywhere in any copyright law where this is the stated purpose of copyright.

  
  
  Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
  "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
  
  Other than copyright, the only way to have the exclusive use of an idea is to come up with an idea nobody else can ever think of, then not share the idea with anyone. The former is very, very difficult, and the latter makes the idea useless.

• On the post: How Do You Promote A Bad DRM Scheme? With A Bad Movie Of Course

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2011 @ 08:59am

  This fits right in with Warner's business model

  After all, their business model seems to be "extract the maximum number of dollars in exchange for the minimum amount of value"
  
  They're giving away stuff that they otherwise can't sell. They wouldn't want to give away good movies, those can be sold, oops, licensed for money.

• On the post: Universities Buying Up .xxx Domains To Stop Porn Sites Showing, Once Again, That .xxx Is A Pure Money Grab

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2011 @ 05:47am

  Re: .xxx

  That just seemed stupid and backward to me, I think that creating a .xxx domain would be much more effective to that end because it would automatically provide a filter for adult content--schools could just block sites with .xxx and it'd be more effective
  
  We used to have the perfect filter for .xxx, no DNS would ever resolve it. How much porn did that block? Unless you mandate that porn must be on .xxx domains, and manage to make that stick worldwide, blocking .xxx simply becomes one more thing to add to internet censor/black/block lists.
  
  Good luck with any such mandate. It might have been possible 30 years ago, but not today

• On the post: We, The People, Are Sarcastic And Not Easily Mollified By Bland Political Non-Answers

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 10:53am

  Re: Re: Re:

  I'd add in that any politician found to be accepting such bribes should be removed from office immediately, and banned from holding any elected office for life.

• On the post: Academic Publishing Profits Enough To Fund Open Access To Every Research Article In Every Field

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2011 @ 05:29am

  Re: Seems to make no sense

  Someone needs to show the for profit journals that there is an open access model they can still pay shareholders with, and this post seems to show the opposite.
  You're missing an important point here.
  The research is paid for by others, largely public tax money.
  The writing is done for free by the researchers.
  Peer review is also done for free by other researchers.
  
  The publishers merely take the work done by others and lock it behind a paywall to cover 'distribution costs' and profits for shareholders. Why should the publishers be allowed to claim exclusive rights to work paid for by others when there are proven methods of distribution that cover all the costs involved without putting artificial limits of the distribution?

• On the post: PROTECT IP Renamed E-PARASITES Act; Would Create The Great Firewall Of America

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2011 @ 01:35pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  As for the "my guilt hasn't been proven", are you suggesting we should allow all criminals to remain at large to continue their activities until they are proven guilty?
  
  Are you seriously suggesting that innocent people should be forced to stop their activities until such time as it can be proven that the activities don't violate the law?

• On the post: Court Tells Users They Can't Use RECAP

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2011 @ 05:22am

  Re: Re:

  That already exists...
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/23352512068/as-feds-seize-domains-more-attention-paid-to-how-law-enforcement-regularly-abuses-asset-seizures.shtml

• On the post: CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2011 @ 01:59pm

  Re:

  no, the MAFIAA mantra is always MONEYYYYYY!!!

• On the post: Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement… But Don't Seem To Care

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2011 @ 04:58am

  Re: Wait a minute

  Yes, the Canadian government understands the difference between copyright and property right. there's no grounds for celebration though, because while it knows the difference, it doesn't care.

• On the post: Another Day, Another Story Of Police Lying… Only To Be Found Out Due To Video Of The Incident

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2011 @ 09:28am

  Re: broad brush

  The issue is that it isn't "police" as a whole, but the acts of individual officers, who choose to think they are above the law.

  
  Don't forget the much larger number of police officers who will close ranks to protect the guilty from 'outsiders'. That 'thin blue line' mentality is a large part of the reason why people are starting to feel that the police are less trustworthy, and more a possible enemy.

• On the post: Forget Wiretapping Laws, Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2011 @ 09:34am

  Re:

  There is nothing here that would stop anyone from recording a call. Rather, it would stop them from integrally re distributing the content of the call without permission.

  
  So, if I make a recording of a phone call, and someone else makes a recording of the same call, we now have two essentially identical, independently created works, both covered by copyright. How is it that the other copyright automatically overrides my copyright on my recording, and limits what I can do with my recording?

• On the post: Surprise: Federal Court Says Warrant Needed For Mobile Phone Location Info

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 10:17am

  Re: Ignorance.

  I have to admit, I had *no* idea cell companies were collecting this data. Of course, I knew they could tell my location at any given time, but what is the reasoning behind storing were I've been in the past? I don't understand how this information is needed to make sure I can get a phone call.

  
  
  During the 1980's Cell phone companies were ordered to collect this information so it would be available for the mobile 911 service. they didn't want to do it at the time, claiming the cost was prohibitive.
  Now that they have all this information, they've discovered a commercial value in it, so they are storing it for use in things like targeted advertising.
  The government has now discovered that this huge store of tracking information exists, and now wants to be able to use it without oversight.

• On the post: MP3Tunes Ruling Protects DMCA Safe Harbors

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2011 @ 04:20am

  Re:

  Essentially, EMI would be required to monitor the site and report any new infringements on an ongoing basis, which would be cost prohibitive to do. If it is cost prohibitive for EMI to monitor the site for infringement, how is it not cost prohibitive for anyone else to monitor the site when EMI, and *only* EMI has acess to the licensing information needed to know whether or not a given file is infringing?

• On the post: Paul Ceglia To Facebook: I Didn't Forge A Contract, You Did!

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2011 @ 05:35am

  Both sides in this dispute have presented documents to the court claiming them to be binding legal contracts. Both sides have also claimed that the other side`s document is a forgery.
  
  I suspect that whichever side loses in this dispute will then face an investigation into possible fraud and forgery charges.
  This may explain some of the desperation and `win at all costs` attitudes among the parties.

• On the post: What's In A Name: The Importance Of Pseudonymity & The Dangers Of Requiring 'Real Names'

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2011 @ 10:10am

  I have a Google+ account, and it's in my real name. My name isn't all that common, but I do share the same first and last names with at least three moderately famous people. A search for my full name on Google brings the first entry for me at least ten pages down in the results.
  Now, how does Google arbitrate between the bunch of us to get tge use of the name? I appear to have gotten it first, but would I be allowed to keep it if someone with a commercial interest in the name accused me of 'namesquatting'?
  The fact is that legal names are not unique, but usernames on an online system must be unique. Either Google allows aliases, or a significant percentage of the world will be locked out of the system one way or another. This same choice will have to be faced by all online systems.

• On the post: Should Doctors Who Put Their Names On Ghostwritten 'Journal' Articles For Big Pharma Be Sued For Fraud?

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2011 @ 10:19am

  How about a simple requirement that everyone involved in writing and/or editing the paper must be listed on the front page, in order of the amount of writing they did. Also, individuals and corporations providing funding for the research described by the paper should be listed on the front page as well.
  It won't stop corporations from ghostwriting articles, but it will make it a lot more obvious when it happens. It will also make such ghostwriting less effective as people treat it like the advertising it really is.

• On the post: Confirmation That Record Labels Wanted ISPs To Spy On Users And Report Infringement To RIAA

  

  Chris-Mouse ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 03:45am

  Re: Re: Keep it up MAFIAA...

  If their grave gets any deeper they will hit oil.

  
  Ar which time tgey will face a massive lawsuit from the oil industry for 'felonius interference with a business model.'

Next >>