Ninja’s Techdirt Profile


About Ninja

Not as politically engaged as I would like. I'm quite glad the Internet provided me with forms of activism and political participation while allowing me to develop my daily activities. I do believe we are going through convoluted times but I see light in the end. Other than that I'm a technology enthusiast and I'd love to spend much more money trying new stuff!

Ninja’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 11:58am

    (untitled comment)

    but due process is what’s killing us right now.

    They are not even pretending anymore. It's the first time such tyrannical thing is said so clearly by a US representative.

    I personally prefer to sustain a few losses to pesky due process, including mine. How many are getting killed or having their lives destroyed by Govt overreach in the US nowadays? I will bet it's not nearly as many as the terrorists do.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 9:00am

    Re: And THIS is why we need robust anonymity tools like TOR


    Still, I don't see how this would have helped. See, you are living your life without feeling the need to hide and I'm simply expressing my views. Then some idiot like that comes and doxes you.

    The only solution would be to make everything effectively anonymous by design.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re: China DDoS

    Bingo. Actually, I see more criticism directed towards the US here than any other country.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 8:06am

    Re: Re: pink elephant

    I believe there are such cars. But for emissions sake it doesn't make much sense. You don't need the torque diesel offers to move an electric engine and gasoline/ethanol ones are better in higher speeds (where the electric engines become less competitive). An hybrid approach seems pretty reasonable. I still would like to see fuel-cell cars using standard hydrocarbons instead of hydrogen. You already have the infra-structure to support such cells, much easier to make it scale.

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 7:36am

    (untitled comment)

    It's amusing to see these people thinking they can make things happen anywhere through laws and tolls that are only valid in their own territory. I mean, obviously Americans should be fighting such idiocy tooth an nail but as an outsider, I'd love to see these things being passed then watch tech companies flee and avoid the US like the plague.

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 7:29am

    (untitled comment)

    If you publicly predict the outcome of an unpublished TV show could you sue them for copyright infringement?

    If the producer didn't actively copyright said outcome this could be the case for real since you get copyright on stuff automatically. Never assume something is funny with copyright, chances are it is as real as it sounds funny.

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 7:27am

    Re: Flying cars

    Or not if it's self-driving only when airborne.

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 12:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    Who would have thought that rounded corners could do so much damage...

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 12:14pm


    I'll leave this here

    the service provider’s employee cannot be expected to know how to distinguish, for example, between infringements and parodies that may qualify as fair use

    Fair use is a right, not a defense. And these videos are mostly fair use. If even you, a long time shill, can't tell what is infringing or not, the average worker can't be expected to tell the distinction. That's why there are courts if the copyright holder believes there's any harm.

    By this judgement, the employee is to assume that EVERYTHING is fair use

    Or rather assume they don't know the copyright status of anything and either take down when requested OR let it go to the courts to be decided. There's nothing in the article saying that Vimeo doesn't have its DMCA mechanisms and there's nothing in the DMCA saying that it cannot dispute the copyright status of something if they believe it's, say, fair use. The only way they can be liable is if they don't remove something after scoring a defeat through the courts. Have they done that? No.

    They also would likely NOT in any manner help in locating the user or provide any information that would help.

    Thankfully. They can request removal and Vimeo can deny if they believe it is some sort of fair use. Then The holder can go to courts and force the removal and it's all right. At best they can go after the individual for damages and in that case IF the judge allows for such discovery then Vimeo would have to comply. Other than that they are in the right.

    It creates the perfect position for the company to encourage such videos and to profit from them while providing 100% perfect legal protection.

    If it is fair use and I believe it is, then that's awesome!

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 12:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    So it means that when service providers get in to actually compete they tend to actually deliver quality. Go figure, this competition thing seems to be awesome.

  • Jun 16th, 2016 @ 6:55am

    (untitled comment)

    To be honest, we've been hearing the call for backup for decades but most of us still don't do it properly even if we are well aware. At least from my experience there are very few people that do backups flawlessly. Kind of a side note I wanted to point out.

    Not to ignore the fact that it's a major company that should know better, the Government should have double checked if there was redundancy too. If I were to hire a company to backup my stuff I would not only want to both see the separate server/farm that's doing the work but also elect random content in my server/data center to retrieve from the backups and compare hashes. Of course, I would probably be interested in preserving such files whereas we can't be so sure when concerning the Government.

    Also, conspiracy theories. Maybe this was intended? I wouldn't be surprised.

  • Jun 16th, 2016 @ 6:43am

    (untitled comment)

    Aggressively abysmal customer service (WE CAN'T HEAR YOU FROM THE TOP OF MY MONOPOLY GENERATED MONEY, SUCKERS!)

    Power whining (hyper combo: MISLEADING EDITORIAL FLURRY!)

    Unfathomable lobbying (summon assist: BEN FRANKLIN WE CHOOSE YOU! Go ravage the legislatives of the country!)

    A fearsome enemy indeed.

  • Jun 16th, 2016 @ 6:27am

    (untitled comment)

    So it just mean that "that joke" has to go up a notch:

    "I shall trademark the English language and sue you all."

    Considering the version with single common used words just met reality I propose we start speaking Latin again. At least it's already public domain.

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 11:36am

    (untitled comment)

    Does the revenue generated justify the annoyance? If not, I'd go without.

    In any case, I'm assuming that the department that reviews this is located in some sort of secluded monastery full of priests or something.

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 10:09am

    Re: Peter is doing us a favor...

    Maybe. You can destroy someone just by imposing court fees on them. That's why I think all costs should be put on the Government's tab and then issued to whoever loses. That would greatly help balancing the scales of justice.

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: What happened TD?

    Quoting Mike:


  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 10:03am

    Re: Just sayin'

    Indecent assault seems to fit better if they are going to sue themselves :/

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 9:56am

    (untitled comment)

    The difference between a world with Twitters, Facebooks and Googles and without them in terms of terrorism is that with those platforms it is visible. Without it is not. With the added benefit that with those platforms you can counter their insanity with more speech and people in general have great platforms to express themselves, activism or not.

    But no, let's freak out and try to shoot the messengers because of a tiny little bit of the population that are complete morons and happen to use religions to justify their idiocy. It is sad they use the same tools we do but for their twisted purposes. Thankfully we (still) don't blame kitchen knives manufactures for murderers using their products. I kind of like to cook and it would be kind of hard to cook without those.

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 5:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, wait. Let me try to place the bright side in text form:


    I mean, if you can see anything bright with companies that produce absolutely nothing, contribute nothing to the progress of science and actually kill newborn companies that are actually doing things that benefit humanity in any ways just because they own a couple of overly broad, badly written patents then please share with us. Kind of hard to see such side.

    Or maybe you refer to the brightness of all the money sent your way to shill for such absurdity? If that's the case please excuse me.

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 4:57am

    (untitled comment)

    These levies are fundamentally flawed. Suppose I make a copy of some content so I can keep the original in a good state for years or I want to backup my legally purchased digital files. If there is a levy placed on them I'm paying the creator (assuming the money does reach the creator) for content I already own. Or a company that buys media for their activity that has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely copyrightable that is also paying the levy, because reasons.

    And that without even exploring the fact that such money will hardly ever reach the artists and when it does it will only go for the few very successful ones effectively denying the very reason copyright (should) exist: to promote creation. Major artists do not need further incentive to create, they already have the incentive flowing in. Smaller artists on the other hand? And yet these smaller artists actually wouldn't benefit from copyright at all if they actively enforced it simply because they NEED eyeballs, ears, they NEED sharing, advertising from those who love them to spread their work.

    Copyright is a sham.

More comments from Ninja >>