ChurchHatesTucker 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3503)

• On the post: France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2010 @ 04:32pm

  Re:

  "Can't we just forget about France and move on already?"
  
  Oh, shut up Adolf...

• On the post: Chicago Prosecutor's Office Leaks Old, Unsubstantiated, Discredited Internal Memo To Smear Innocence Project Founder

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2010 @ 02:34pm

  Jeebus

  Well obviously they're trying to uphold the good name of Chicago...*snort*
  
  Sorry, where was I?

• On the post: Rednex Release New Single On Pirate Bay, Explain Why Record Labels Will Die

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2010 @ 10:14am

  Re:

  "I agree. The labels will disappear in 2013. Unless some very underhanded legislation is passed between now and then."
  
  Damn, the Mayans were fairly accurate after all.

• On the post: Copyright Monopolies In The Middle Of Health Care Reform Debate As Well

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 06:35pm

  Re: Re: NFPA Placard codes?

  Yeah, worth noting. (He's a lazy bastard.)
  
  Still would like to know if anyone has a copyright on the NFPA codes, though.
  
  Anyone?

• On the post: Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 06:27pm

  Re:

  "Unlike a patent or copyright, trademarks are often fairly generic in nature, but do readily identify a company, brand, or similar."
  
  :)

• On the post: Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 06:15pm

  Re:

  "IANAL, and the article is thin on details, but since this is a brand logo/identity issue, the company does need to protect its trademark, doesn't it?
  
  Yes. Nobody would know they were a bunch of asshats unless they constantly got out there and publicized the fact via legal actions.
  
  Brand protected!

• On the post: Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 06:10pm

  Re:

  "It's understandable to see Eat'n'Park defending it's trademark, after all they don't wanna lose it."
  
  FOR FUCK'S SAKE, IT'S A SMILEY!
  
  Sorry. Sorry everyone. I'll turn this frown... well, I consult a lawyer about that...

• On the post: Embedded Wireless: A Step Towards Dumb Pipes?

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 06:03pm

  Captive Market

  "For example, how long will the market support Verizon's 5GB/mo subscription at $60 and their 250MB plan at $40? The lower plan is 5% of the throughput at 66% of the price! Clearly, there is room for these prices to move a little more."
  
  Yeah. In either direction.

• On the post: Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 04:59pm

  Re: Re:

  "Thus, it is better to have a system that allows rewarding of presumed damages, rather than having to prove them to the penny. The costs of proving damages on the internet would be high, not to the parties, but to everyone else."
  
  The cost of proving damages should be bourne by the plantiff.
  
  Also, does everyone else think Lord Lucas is some kind of smear against George when they come across it? Just us Yanks? OK, then.

• On the post: eMusic: Prices Went Up, But Artists Aren't Seeing Any Of That Cash

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 04:55pm

  Re:

  Try Jamendo.

• On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 04:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "good god, you are on a roll. another logical and frank discussion. "
  
  
  Dunno 'bout you, but I preferredhim as a troll...

• On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 04:17pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the company's based

  "You seem to be making the mistake that many non-technical people make of thinking that IP addresses correspond to unique users. Addresses are not users."
  
  If he's talking about proxies, assume he gets that.

• On the post: eMusic: Prices Went Up, But Artists Aren't Seeing Any Of That Cash

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 03:56pm

  As did iTunes

  I'd link, but you covered it recently and prolly have it at hand.

• On the post: France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 12:09pm

  Re: Where the company's based

  "Just wait for sites to start setting up IP filtering that blocks all French users."
  
  Hey, they got Minitel, they'll be fine.

• On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 11:50am

  Re:

  "This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising)."
  
  They're dependent upon serving ads, so obviously they'd prefer them to be less annoying. And, I would contend, they've largely succeeded.
  
  Your IE example is odd, considering how annoyed most people are by OEM distributions of Windows.

• On the post: Copyright Monopolies In The Middle Of Health Care Reform Debate As Well

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 11:46am

  NFPA Placard codes?

  Tangental, but does anyone know if the NFPA codes (those four-diamond-shaped signs on trucks and railcars) are under some kind of copyright? I can't figure it out.
  
  E.g., If I started making identical signs, am I liable?

• On the post: Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 11:26am

  Re: Same as I've always said

  "I don't hate ads - I only hate annoying ads."
  
  Yeah, me too. Trick is, the annoying ones are often the most effective ones.
  
  "Apply directly to the forehead!"
  
  In advertising there's a distinction in the awards. The Clios are the best known, because they're the most entertaining (by definition.) However, sharper clients look at the Effies, because they're the most effective (again by definition.)

• On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 11:18am

  Re: Re: Re: PKD

  "They may have even done it as a respectful nod to PKD. If so, they should have just said so and PKD's daughter should thank them for the attention."
  
  They'd probably be happy to do the former if she'd do the latter. However, it's obviously another case of "court as cudgel" at this point, and there's no point in ceding ground.
  
  And, really, I can totally see them coming up with that name without realizing the implication viz DADOES, so they might just be feeling put upon.

• On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 11:01am

  Re:

  "Most of the techie retards on this board have never created anything"
  
  I have, and I bet most of the 'techie retards' here have as well. We may actually have a deeper understanding of the dangers of free-association as the basis for lawsuits.

• On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name

  

  ChurchHatesTucker ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2010 @ 09:00am

  Re: to coward

  "ITs wrong to take someone's idea and "sell something with it" regardless of the market."
  
  Steal what? As far as I recall, there wasn't even a mention of "Nexus One" in DADOES.

Next >>