JMT’s Techdirt Profile


About JMT

JMT’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 11:37pm

    Re: But you're okay with Facebook's arbitrary insane pages of unfounded legalese that says it can grab any and all content it hosts?

    "But you're okay with Facebook's arbitrary insane pages of unfounded legalese that says it can grab any and all content it hosts?"

    Funny, I don't remember reading that anywhere in the article. That suggests it might be something you just imagined.

    "Yet again, you simply advocate for a mega-corporation rather than users."

    Not a thing that happened.

    "And show that you're rabidly anti-copyright."

    Pointing out that something is not copyright law is anti-copyright?!

    "Facebook is a permitted entitry that must serve the public or be taken apart..."

    Interesting how you like to accuse damn near everyone of having an entitled gimme-gimme attitude, and yet you are demanding this private company serve the public to your satisfaction or be shut down. Hypocrite much?

    "...and does not get to dictate all terms."

    Actually that's exactly what it gets to do if you use Facebook. What it can't do is force you to actually use Facebook.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 11:15pm

    Re: really..

    "who cares?"

    When large, influential companies lie to the public about the reasons for their commercial decisions, people should care. Amazon can stock and sell whatever they choose as you say, but they can't falsly claim it's for their customers' benefit and expect not to be called on it.

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 4:27pm

    Haven't they all got better things to do?

    What an extraordinary waste of everyone's time and money over somethings that's actually legal in other parts of the country.

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 6:07pm

    Re: Excelllent piece

    "The confidence in police dropping is in no small part in a shift of much of the US towards a "me" mentality, where people break the law all the time and don't expect to be held accountable."

    That's a pretty big claim to make with absolutely nothing to back it up, not even some examples that might give us half a clue about this supposed rampant criminality you're referring to.

    "Law enforcement are left in the unhappy situation of enforcing laws that people refuse to respect - because their personal needs are way more important than societal peace and harmony."

    If there are laws that a significant proportion of the populace don't respect, then the problem is with the law (and the lawmakers), not the people. Bad laws are the antithesis of "peace and harmony". But again you provide no examples of these personal needs clashing with the law.

    "That last came to a head in New York in the early 70s, and Los Angeles in the 80s with street gangs who felt they had impunity to operate."

    Street gangs only represent a small fragment of society, and it's ridiculous to claim their attitudes have spread to society in general.

    "The population at a whole seems to have caught this point of view, and the result is a society where the rules just don't seem to apply."

    About the only thing I can think of where you might be right is widespread copyright infringement, but you couldn't possibly think that topic has a place in a discussion about the dangers supposedly faced by frontline police officers...

    "Dissatisfaction with the police comes in no small part from the lengths police have to go to try to enforce the rules, and the nasty things that happen when they get carried away or frustrated while doing it."

    First, police should not have to "go to lengths" to try to enforce rules, they should operate under reasonable constraints that try hard to minimise that amount of force used and harm caused. And second, cops that "get carried away or frustrated while doing it" should not be cops! There should be no place in civil society for law enforcement officers that have low levels of self-control or tolerance. These are things that they should be better at than the average person.

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 5:15pm

    Re: This is what I have been saying for several years now

    "It is only a matter of time where the party in charge of the government will have enough info on the other party to keep them from making a serious run for their office."

    This is the vital fact that needs to be hammered home to those people who don't think government surveillance is such a big deal, because they've done nothing wrong, and terrorists! Even if you're never directly affected by government surveillance, if it keeps going unchecked eventually it will be used in ways that completely undermine the idea of a democratic government. It's just human nature, and there are plenty of historical examples. This is actually something worth hundreds of people of people dying at the hands of terrorists, because the end result could be hundreds of millions living under a far worse form of government than we have now.

  • Sep 22nd, 2015 @ 6:52pm


    "The vast majority of it comes in as links from more specialized sites."

    But those aren't searches, which is what the RTBF nonsense is about. For the average interwebs user, if they can't Google it, it might as well not exist.

  • Sep 22nd, 2015 @ 6:49pm


    "What happens if French law makes you take it down, and U.S. law decides taking it down is a violation of freedom of speech and tells them to put it back up?"

    Luckily US law can't do that. Google can't be forced to show anything they don't want to. That would be a violation of freedom of speech.

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 8:33pm


    "The part you are forgetting is that the victims are also the perpetrators."

    Forgetting? That fact has been mentioned many times, because it's the fact that makes this all so stupid. How exactly can you be both victim and perpetrator?

    "Why is it OK for a teen to do it to themselves but put an adult in jail when they are a part of the crime?"

    Are you serious?! The whole point of these laws is to prevent adults from abusing and/or exploiting minors. Two consenting teens of the same age swapping pics between themselves is not abuse or exploitation.

    What is it exactly that you think deserves punishment here? Are you trying to disguise a moral judgement as a legal one?

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 7:54pm


    "I doubth anyone on scene was qualified to say for certain that its a bomb or not."

    You've looked at the photo right? You don't have to be "qualified" to know that's not a bomb, but the science teacher who saw it first was probably one of the best people on the scene to make a judgement call, and he's the only adult coming out of this mess looking alright.

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 7:06pm


    "Also, all of this outrage is ridiculous."

    It's not an outrage borne of a single indecent. This weapons-grade stupidity is being demonstrated by school officials and LEO's on a painfully regular basis. It's like they've all decided mental scarring is a good education technique. See teen sexting and armed terrorism drills for other examples.

    "A briefcase that starts beeping out of nowhere could easily be misinterpreted as a bomb in a moment of panic."

    A moment of panic that should immediately be followed by logic and common sense overwhelming that panic, just before a wave of inner embarrassment for leaping to a stupid assumption based on watching too many movies, and promising not to tell anyone about your brief bout of stupidity.

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 6:22pm


    "Of course, it is a snippet that in full and accurate context might prove otherwise."

    But is obviously didn't, since they released him without charge and apologized.

    "For a site that regularly rails against perceived denials of due process, it seems out of place to present an article that lambastes in the crudest of ways the opinion of an individual who advocates investigating first."

    Nice try, but no. This site regularly rails against perceived denials of legal due process. It does not say the public shouldn't voice an opinion based on the available info.

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 5:58pm

    Re: Re: Who are the trolls here?

    "All the artists Dotcom stole from and got rich from."

    BS. How about a list of these artists? Why would they all post anonymously? And I presume these aren't who all sang a song supporting MegaUpload.

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 5:49pm

    Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 16th, 2015 @ 11:02am

    "What the hell is Kim Dotcom getting but LOTS of due process..."

    That's exactly the point being made. Due process is what's preventing the DOJ's ridiculous case from being successful.

    "You pirates..."

    Try not to hurt yourself leaping to uninformed conclusions.

    "...just don't believe that copyright infringement is a crime."

    The copyright infringement that took place on MegaUpload was a civil matter, not a crime.

  • Sep 14th, 2015 @ 7:50pm

    Re: But your position would just as automatically hang Universal Music when it IS their content!

    "This is not difficult."

    True, it shouldn't be difficult to see that the original video did caused zero harm (maybe even less than zero harm) to Universal or Prince, and yet here we are thanks to their actions.

    "... if the EFF (I just checked: yup, EFF) wasn't providing free lawyering, then Lenz wouldn't bother. She has no real stake in this."

    We all have a stake in this, because we're all affected by the DMCA and its abuses, so you the fact that Lenz probably would not have been able to fight this on her own is irrelevant.

    "The amount of time squandered on this is ridiculous..."

    Agreed, see my first point.

    "I keep telling you boy-clowns, lawsuits can make the wrongs you see permanent! Don't mess with courts when fundamentals aren't at stake!"

    Clearly some people believe the locking up of culture by corporates is a pretty important issue.

    "...but to me Universal Music has not in any way abused DMCA."

    The DMCA says fair use must be considered. Clearly Universal never consider fair use when doing mass, automated takedowns. Not sure how that's not abusing the DMCA.

    "I predict that automated take-downs will become yet more entrenched de facto law. Can't see any other way to support copyright..."

    The fact that you can't see any other way to support copyright is a reflection of your limited abilities, not a state of reality.

    "The use of content gives Universal Music authority to DMCA without having to hem and haw over whether might be fair use."

    The DMCA states the exact opposite, which is why this is such a bad ruling.

  • Sep 14th, 2015 @ 6:05pm


    "To tell the truth, this is actually a non article, or something made up to seem like it actually is news."

    Your opinion is not necessarily the truth.

    "Even if that were not the case, what is wrong with a news organization asking if they can use the image."

    The sheer ridiculous volume of tweets shown above show one thing wrong with it. As explained in the article, this would've been a major PITA for the recipients. The tweets mostly sound friendly and chummy, like they're doing you a solid by asking, but I'm sure these guys were pretty sick of the attention after a short while.

    "They probably do have the legal right to use it anyway, fair use or not."

    you sound a little confused here. If it's fair use then they have the legal right to use it. If it's not, then they don't.

    "Politicians have the right to use certain parts of songs, but it is still a good idea to get permission."

    Music licensing is a completely different (if equally frustrating) topic not at all related to fair use.

  • Sep 14th, 2015 @ 5:28pm

    Re: TL;DR! You quote that mass of drivel and expect anyone to read it all?

    "I skipped to last paragraph."

    That explains your very poor understanding of the topic, demonstrated by your unrelated Dan Bull reference.

  • Sep 10th, 2015 @ 3:31pm


    So by your reckoning, if an American citizen tweeted some pro-US rah rah, that makes him a legitimate target for an ISIS supporter to attack and kill. You cool with that?

  • Sep 9th, 2015 @ 10:35pm


    "This decision basically stripped the trademarks that companies and businesses have registered in their names and placed them under the protection of the first amendment so that anyone can use those brand names without having to compensate the company for the right to do so."

    It's a bit ironic that you would call the judge an idiot and then demonstrate your complete confusion of copyright and trademarks. These are two different sets of laws for two different purposes, and it's sad how often the two are incorrectly conflated under the guise of "intellectual property". You should learn the difference before making any more dire predictions about the fate of poor old Hollywood.

  • Sep 9th, 2015 @ 10:15pm


    Every single thing you wrote is wrong.

  • Sep 4th, 2015 @ 8:03pm

    Re: Microsoft?

    Nobody really trusted them anyway, so there's little shock or outrage to direct at them. Machinima always had a lot more to lose.

More comments from JMT >>