Not an Electronic Rodent’s Techdirt Profile

hammy

About Not an Electronic Rodent




Not an Electronic Rodent’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 6th, 2017 @ 12:54am

    Well, not quite...

    Whatever problems we might have with the practical application of trademark law in modern times, the phrase is creative, unique, and with the ad campaign it has become an identifier for the Bud Light brand.

    Hmmm "identifier for the Bud Light brand" I can't comment on since I've never seen that ad ever (which, I guess would make "identifier for the Bud Light brand in the US" more accurate), but I'd dispute "unique" given the phrase appears in a C17 nursery rhyme. "Creative" looks a bit shaky too given its appearance in, for example, the 1985 Marillion song... I guess that just leaves the first bit, then.

  • Nov 1st, 2017 @ 2:27am

    Re: "only exists because of them"

    Websites with user-generated content existed before the DMCA, and still exist in countries that don't have an equivalent law.

    Isn't that kinda the point? Before the DMCA, no one would have even thought of user-generated content being a liability for the site it's on. After the DMCA, basically everything seems to be potentially infringing unless specifically "allowed".

  • Oct 3rd, 2017 @ 9:00am

    Re: Re:

    Truly, you are a never-ending font of entertainment.

    Possibly the most entertaining bit is trying to work out if replying to himself is to make it look like support, or if he's just that nuts.

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 9:36am

    Opinion is divided

    Mr Hill conceded that experts were divided as to whether such checks were feasible but that it was a debate “worth having”.

    Mr. Hill has clearly been "up the old sea dog" and talking to Captain Redbeard Rum.

  • Aug 5th, 2017 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Fulsome support

    I don't think that YouTube would be affected, and I don't see how that could be used for human trafficking.

    You think that a tenuous connection wouldn't be sufficient for someone to try it? Besides, "advertising videos" would seem to be a pretty obvious, if icky, possibility. In fact, one could argue any extremist video encouraging young women to become so-called "ISIS Brides" would qualify as trafficking related, no?

  • Aug 2nd, 2017 @ 12:11pm

    Wordy

    The purveyors of far-Right extremism pump out their brand of hate across the globe, without ever leaving home.

    Um.. here in the UK, we usually just call them "The Government"...

  • Jul 31st, 2017 @ 11:14am

    Re: Response to: Not an Electronic Rodent on Jul 31st, 2017 @ 6:39am

    This is true. An "adversarial relationship with the truth" seems to be increasingly de rigueur for most governments, whether nominally democratic or not. Certainly, "because terrorism" and "for the children" are familiar enough excuses, with the US largely being master of the former with the UK slightly edging them out on the latter without having to cope with that pesky First Amendment thing. Putin? Pah! Mere amateur!

  • Jul 31st, 2017 @ 6:39am

    (untitled comment)

    As with most countries that have an adversarial relationship with the truth, the entire effort has been couched as necessary to protect national security and cultural morality, though the real agenda is to help prop up the country's domestic surveillance efforts and Putin's ham-fisted internet filters

    For Putin, also substitute US or UK as applicable... especially the UK

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 1:12pm

    Simple

    "Many of the companies that I work with ask the producers and the artists to declare all of the tracks that may have been used as inspiration for their new tracks,"

    Well, that's easy; In that box under the question you write, "Every single piece of music I've ever heard may have inspired this track"... Because that's how creation works!

  • Jul 11th, 2017 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So again, am I missing something?

    Humanity?

    Do you see another option to actually solve this problem?

    Well, I dunno. Maybe starting from the premise of your country that all people are created equal and accepting that you're talking about people and not abstract and awkward results of an unbalanced equation of law? "Rule of law" does not have to mean "inhuman"

    but if sufficient support does not exist to legalize more immigrants (and I see little evidence that there is), why is supporting the existence of a disenfranchised underclass and its endless drip of misery so OBVIOUSLY superior to the (admittedly more dramatic, more sudden, and more visible) misery of deportation?

    This seems like pretty spurious argument to me. For a start it's not like the US has a huge welfare state, so I'm not clear how much "supporting" would need to happen beyond what already happens simply with them being there, which they already are. Secondly, from what I've read a fairly large amount of these immigrants work so they're actually contributing to the economy rather than sponging off it.

    Also not sure how you get to the binary choice of "supporting the existence of a disenfranchised underclass" vs. "misery of deportation", but the fairly obvious answer to your rather contrived question would seem to be; "It's 'obviously' superior because the people to whom it is happening repeatedly choose the one over the other"

  • Jul 10th, 2017 @ 9:57am

    Sure?

    As Cato's David Bier points out, the ICE memo has "rogue agency" written all over it.

    Or (hastily dons tin-foil hat), an agency operating exactly as desired? The "president's" words on the subject lean more to what's actually happening than the EO, which is written that way because; "This wording is in the excutive [sic] order for two reasons: to avoid legal challenges and to prevent manpower waste."

  • Jul 7th, 2017 @ 7:28am

    Re:

    and then coming out saying that people are leaving because its down to piracy

    Well of course! Piracy is the root-cause of terrorism too, isn't it?

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Extremist views

    Given insightful vote for this, even though technically it comes under the category of "well, duh!"

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Hah!

    Because evidence matters, dumbass.

    Think you should have started that one with "Once upon a time..."

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If that were true we'd have to ban shopping malls.

    Not to mention professional sport.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

    Prostitution is not and never has been a glamorous trade, it's dirty, nasty, and dangerous for most women.

    Is this from personal experience or an assumption from media? I'll grant that it's not exactly savoury and I can't imagine many girls thinking, "I want to grow up to be a prostitute", but how much of the "dirt" and "danger" is due to it being mostly illegal?

    Dangerous as in catch STDs? Health screening and standards could reduce that. Dangerous as in chance of violence? How much less likely does that become if you can report the crime without getting arrested yourself or being told you were asking for it? Dirty as in morally? Says who? Often the same people who get caught partaking. Dirty as in grime? Again, standards.

    Done for lack of economic opportunity? Well, there's a huge generalisation for a start, but apart from that, who are you to say a woman (or, in fact a man) shouldn't have the choice to do it over, say, a minimum wage job? I imagine that if you took away a lot of the danger and stigmata and health risks, there would be more job satisfaction for some people than stacking shelves for a living or possibly even higher paid work - I imagine that were it safe and mainstream it might be considered more fun for some people than, say, accounting.

    Oh, and sexist much? Why consider just women as prostitutes? Plenty of male prostitutes and, looking from the outside, I'd guess a larger proportion of them would fall up the "dirty and dangerous" end of the profession.

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Hmmmmm ........

    If a domestic citizen does something bad, then it's not terrorism! They're just some poor person in need of mental healthcare.

    "Was with you there right up to the "mental healthcare" bit. Mental health is all an imaginary ailment that wastes billions of my... uh... taxpayers money and people should jolly well get over it!" - Theresa May (probably)

  • Jun 3rd, 2017 @ 2:47am

    Re: Obama

    So...what's Obama's motivation on that one?

    Perhaps it's that bad and he's an "Abe" fan;

    "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 5:03am

    Re:

    I hear Net Neutrality causes crops to die too! And it causes cancer, erectile dysfunction, and sever explosive diarrhea. I think you'll find that's Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin, but it's easy to mistake the two...

  • May 28th, 2017 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Big helping of "Nope!"

    Right, and that's the fact that you can change your password but can't change your fingerprint or Iris.

    Thanks for the TL;DR version :-)

More comments from Not an Electronic Rodent >>