James Burkhardt’s Techdirt Profile


About James Burkhardt

James Burkhardt’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 5th, 2018 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: How is that regualtion working for ya?

    Its a great Strawman, whose logic chain reminds me of a meme:

    Step One: TD Supports ISP Regulation
    Step Two: TD supports any and all regulation, past and future
    Step Three: ???????
    Step Four: TD Supports DRM

    It might be throwing the "Platforms can choose their users and content = Companies can do whatever" Strawman into the mix.

    Double Troll!

  • Jan 24th, 2018 @ 8:44am

    Must make Manhunts hard...

    The idea that the truth is defamatory must make manhunts hard.

    Newscaster: Local Police are looking for Mr. JapaneseName, who is wanted after video evidence shows him raping and murdering and underage girl.

    <Lawyer walks in on shot>

    Newscaster: Whats this?

    <Lawyer hands a manila envelope>

    Lawyer: You are being sued for defaming Mr. JapaneseName. We demand you cease and desist assisting the police in Defaming my client by asserting thew facts of the videotaped crime and the fact that police are seeking him.

    <Second Lawyer walks in>

    Second Lawyer: Yeah, you are getting sued also. The very act of talking about the lawsuit defames my client.

    First Lawyer: This is going to be a problem

  • Dec 26th, 2017 @ 11:35am

    Re: Techdirt advocates idiots yelling at random people in bars.

    If an asshole is yelling vile ad homs at you in a bar, you expect the bartender (AKA admins or mods) might kick them out of the bar. The asshole should only have the police called on him if he attacks or moves to attack you (or is horribly drunk and violates public drunkenness laws). The ad homs themselves are not an arrest-able offense. And yet what you are calling for is the sober asshole being arrested for speech, for thought, just because someone else decides it isn't acceptable. It's thought crime, and free speech is built to discourage thought crime.

    And, in fact, many bars will not kick out the sober asshole. Because that bar is an asshole bar, and the patrons accept and even encourage assholes.

    Bad analogy is bad.

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 10:31am

    Re: It's rare for "laws" to express the will of The People.

    230 does not exempt publishers from common law. It only states that a website owner is not the publisher of user generated content - that is it identifies the 'publisher' as the person making the speech, not the person hosting the platform. If the website operator actually breaks the law themselves, they are not exempt from legal liability.

  • Oct 12th, 2017 @ 8:25am

    (untitled comment)

    It’s really weird how Pai is defending this move. He will talk about how price controls would prevent competition from entering a market because the competitors can’t charge higher prices. So he admits that competition wouldn’t lower prices. and then he claims that by deregulating, competition would enter the market and lower prices, after having just admitted that competition won’t enter the market if they had to lower prices. Which is it?

  • Oct 2nd, 2017 @ 11:08am

    Re: Apparently not illegal (as )

    Because Illegal is not the only standard by which we measure wrongdoing. Hypocrisy is also a measure. I defended Hillary's use of a private email server as not criminal and not worthy of prosecution due to the sepecific circumstances, but also noted that it was a bad solution to her concerns.

    The issues with the Trump administration are that A) Trump and his campaign made a major issue of the problems with Hillary's email use, so they explicitly think its a problem. B) The biggest problem with Hillary's server in the eyes of her supporters was information classified 'after-the-fact', something that the Trump Administration also cant control, so official use has the same issues as it did with Hillary.

  • Sep 25th, 2017 @ 3:57pm

    The Patent Irony (as )

    The patent likely worked against them. By the time competitor's entered the market, the term for the product was "Velcro". Because its easier said then "hook and loop". And without any innovation to stand out, I can't really tell the difference. In contrast, Kleenex is clearly dominant in its industry still, and I pay for the name brand because it always is superior in some way to the cheap generic. (Pocket packs for instance never dispense right with a cheap brand).

    Also, interestingly, I don't find Kleenex brand Kleenex in the store, nor do I find <local Brand> brand kleenex. I find kleenex brand facial tissue and <local brand> brand facial tissue. So Kleenex might no longer be generic?

  • Sep 14th, 2017 @ 4:09pm

    Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm

    Well, in this case, congress approved a shared forfiture program. Obama directed agents of the executive branch, namely law enforcement agencies, to not utilize the program. It's entirely how it's supposed to work. Congress crafts the laws, the executive branch chooses how to enforce the law. Dreamers, Forfiture, Wall street, et. al, it's all the same prosecutorial desgression.

  • Aug 24th, 2017 @ 8:22pm

    PSN Crash

    Let us all remember the infamous PSN outage that lasted months. What happens when you get that outage with an always on console?

  • Aug 24th, 2017 @ 5:27pm

    Re: (as )

    You realize that these types of lawsuits involve Torrents right? that there are no "URLs" to cite? These cases usually submit a hash representing a file being downloaded, and state that the hash is produced by a video file containing the copyrighted content, might produce the file in question, and the basic network monitoring that can be done by any file sharing software shows the IP and MAC address as part of the 'swarm' downloading (and uploading) the file in question. The problem is that an IP address does not necessarily identify a specific location. Ongoing efforts to extend the life of IPv4 mean several residences can have the same outgoing IP. Neither the IP or the MAC address are, in fact, definitive source identifiers. So, yes, the IP address is the problem.

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 8:15am

    (untitled comment)

    I think it is important in this discussion to note the actual standard for gendercide: That the name is SO generic, you have to use it to be competitive. Its the flip side of the customer protection goal of trademark, That we will revoke a trademark if its presence is so dominant the trademark itself is harming the consumer market. I was unaware until recently that aspirin was a trademark at one time, you don't call that drug anything else. Trying to sell aspirin without calling it aspirin is a fools game. You need the name aspirin to sell your product.

    Google, while synonymous with search, and used as a generic term for searching the web, is not generic like Aspirin is. IF I talk about Bing, you know what that is. If I talk about a search engine, you know what that is. There are many places where using google to replace for search or search engine doesn't make any sense. "What site do you google with" is one of them. "I googled it on Yahoo" is another. Google is not so generic you have to use google to make yourself understood or compete in the search space. As such, there is no consumer benefit to Genericide of the google trademark.

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 8:05am

    Re: Alphabet is the "Mother" Brand (as )

    Yes, however, under the google brand, several products do exist - Google Drive, Google Docs/Sheets, Google Maps, ect.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 10:33am

    (untitled comment)

    I Agree we shouldn't attack the ACLU for supporting the right to assemble. However, a few notes i got from an interview i listened to with the governor of virginia-

    1) the state wasn't trying to restrict their speech, it was trying to establish ground rules that served specific, documented concerns.

    2) the first was location. The downtown location of the rally was considered dangerous. there were concerns about the ability to disperse unruly crowds and what would happen if unruly crowds were dispersed, which were, in hindsight completely justified. That said, ignoring that...

    3) The state looked to restrict the carrying of poles by protesters for fear they would be used as weapons....which were again totally justified when they were.

    I'm not exactly sure how a bunch of whites brandishing guns and torches directly calling for the deaths of blacks and jews was a peaceful protest and not an incitement to violence, but it might have been less of a powder keg in a more open space like the park the state wanted the rally moved to and the protestors lacked the weapons and symbols of violence they carried.

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 8:06pm

    Re: Re: West Virginia =/= New York (as )

    So diversity doesn't exist in Delaware. It still exists in West Virginia.

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 3:46pm

    West Virginia =/= New York (as )

    Am I missing something? How does a case filed in West Virgina, about a defendant in New York, not automatically have diversity?

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 2:18pm

    Response to: White man are protected by Anonymous Coward on Aug 9th,2017 @ 12:47pm (as )

    Interesting standpoint, that misses the context. Facebook prioritized (and may still do) protecting White males over any other gender of ethnic group. If there was a question who was wrong, the white guy was right. Always. That's the problem. They chose a discriminatory policy that prioritized a White males in an effort to speed up the process. Not that white ben where protected. That protecting white males was prioritized above protecting other groups.

  • Jul 6th, 2017 @ 6:37am

    Re: (as )

    Actually, Patent law is much more applicable than copyright to software. Math cannot be copywritten, and in fact aside from naming conventions there is not any 'creative' output within software. The problem is not that software patents exist. A novel algorithm which radically improves computation time over existing methods could, conceivably, be an excellent patentable subject.

    The problem is the way patents are now written. They are written in broad strokes, rather than focusing on the actual process by which the 'invention' preforms its function, allowing the patent recipient to lock down the entire market, and not allowing other methods to come to market. Polaroid got a patent on their method for creating instant photos, and successfully managed to shut down a competitor who used a completely different process due to broad patent language.

    Don't blame a symptom for the disease that caused it. Blame the disease.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 4:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    Actually, I cn understand this. Dr. Pepper is actually big into soda-flavored Branded candy. Dr Pepper and Crush licorice are great, and I know there are other types of candy branded with the Dr. Pepper marks.

    I could easily see a Crush branded candy being confused as to wether it was the soda Crush or the "candy" Crush.

    Not likely in the store, as visual branding could distinguish the two. No, I'm talking in audio and text descriptions, that do not necessarily include the visual branding.

    But then again, Timothy might not have the combination of sweet tooth and dollar store/amazon shopping habits I have.

  • May 19th, 2017 @ 10:17am

    Re: We have too much memory installed! (as )

    Well, to be clear, the entire reason the court was willing to agree this wasn't censorship is that the actual content, the actual articles or websites with the informtion are NOT removed. The plaintiffs argued that Google was acting similarly to a "data repository" (like the ones maintained by private companies that provide the background checks used by mots priate businesses). As such, Google was required to 'delist' information that was no longer 'relevant'. Looking at it from this perspective, if you rule that google is in fact a 'data repository', then the RTBF rule makes sense. You don't remove the factual data, you just stop including a reference to it in the file, so there is no censorship.

    That's the only reason this ruling got through - it didn't get rid of the underlying data.

    Its till a bad ruling, and one that, if this lawsuit goes through, will likely lead to the death of the internet in any recognizable modern form.

  • Apr 15th, 2017 @ 7:52pm

    Re: (as James P Burkhardt)

    Probably because primarily The lawsuit makes a legal claim, defemation, and then fails to state any facts which support that claim. Page 9 of the Techdirt response is dedicated to pointing out even if they do not apply the CA anti-SLAPP law, the suit is deficient of any basis for the legal claim, which is the standard necessary to dismiss the case. This is excatly what pre-trial motions are for. Techdirt is effectively saying "I agree with all the plaintiffs facts, but they do not provide basis for the legal claim." or to be more simple "Yeah. WHats your Point?" These motions might not work against cases with real legal questions, but Techdirt and popehat are filled with similar lawsuits to this one that were in fact dismissed because the lawsuit was deficient. To rule that the case should move forward the judge has to say that there is sufficent evidence in THe plantiffs filing to suggest the likelood of prevailing at trial. I dont see any evidence to that effect, nor does techdirt.

More comments from James Burkhardt >>