sumquy’s Techdirt Profile


About sumquy

i am the sysadmin for a medium size company. working where i do has made me a bit paranoid.
i rarely register for websites and all email goes to unregistered trash accounts. i instance firefox in "in private" mode with noscript and adblock running and i have been known to route a torrent download through elite proxy servers in china. just in case.
mostly though im just sum guy on the web. judge me by my words, not by what you think you know of me.

sumquy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 27th, 2015 @ 6:38am

    (untitled comment)

    am i the only one who doesn't have a problem with this?

    the complaint itself is just riddled with factual errors. like he keeps insisting that the router connected to "his" network. my understanding is that this is a separate network that shares an access node. not the same thing. as for the electricity costs, what is that? a dollar a month?

    i feel that people often complain about anything, and if you add a dose of ignorance, they start claiming moral authority too!
  • Dec 3rd, 2014 @ 1:44pm

    (untitled comment)

    what if they gave the software away to anyone who wanted it? seems to me, it then becomes difficult to say that it is related to the insurance agreement.
  • Oct 31st, 2013 @ 1:50pm

    (untitled comment)

    "Establishes criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison for intentional unauthorized access to data acquired under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the United States;"

    who is this directed at? employees of nsa? journalists?
  • Jan 25th, 2012 @ 6:10am

    (untitled comment)

    am i the only one who thinks $9.99 for a month of people magazine or $19.99 for ny times is insane?
  • Jan 24th, 2012 @ 3:11pm

    (untitled comment)

    i think u misinterpreted the situation completely on this one. this isn't leahy talking to the people or in response to anything other than hollywoods threat to cut off money to the dem party. leahy is trying to lay blame on the repubs hoping that they take it up. then he can go back to hollywood and say look at what these nasty repubs are trying to do your business, be a shame if we weren't in power to stop it. hollywoods biggest mistake was trying to shake down a shake down artist.
  • Jan 20th, 2012 @ 2:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    so if i rip my movie off of a dvd and upload it for myself and then someone else uploads their rip but spreads the link for it far and wide, my copy should get deleted too?
  • Jan 20th, 2012 @ 2:51pm


    "You draw conclusions and raise suspicions without access to a single piece of evidence. Again why?"

    because of dajaz1 and rojadirecta and richard o'dwyer and sopa and coica and all the other times my government lied to me under hollywood's direction.
  • Dec 27th, 2011 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ANY track or music video done while 50 cent has been with UMG was funded at least in part by UMG. His contract stipulates that all of his *music* videos are released via the official label YT site. Basically all artists have this in their contract.

    why? because you own him? asshats like you are the reason it took 80 years and a bloody war to end slavery in this country.
  • Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "GoDaddy's right to free speech has NOT been removed or taken away. There is no "intact in theory". It's intact and has remained so."

    Sorry, but their free speech is being limited by the actions of those who are organizing a boycott. It isn't just a question of individuals choosing not to do business with Go Daddy, but people who are actively organizing to put pressure on others to do the same, and by such to force Go Daddy to change their position - aka, limiting their free speech.

    Would you post the same post you just did if I told you that I would take away half your pay? Would you do it if I told you that your business would be shut down?

    Chilling effects come in many forms. Disagreeing with Go Daddy's opinion is one thing, punishing them for having the balls to speak out is another thing altogether.

    yes! yes! yes! you do understand. this is exactly what we have been saying all along is one of the major problems with sopa/pipa. when you cut off the payments it starts to feel a lot like censorship doesn't it?
  • Dec 8th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.

    Similarly, some of you fanboys seem to think that my disagreeing with Mike about his notions means that I'm for censorship. Can't unscramble your will mis-take, nor your black-and-white, you rabid ankle-biter attack-on-sight yapping, but you're not actually adding to your numbers with these tactics.

    no more so than you. anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a pirate who wants nothing but to rape and pillage rightsholders, irregardless of any valid concerns we may be expressing. call the kettle black much?
  • Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 10:33am

    (untitled comment)

    i actually feel really bad for this woman. undoubtedly she took some really questionable actions, but she is a dentist not a lawyer. when medical justice pitched her with this scam, it probably sounded like a really good idea. protect your reputation from those few nutjobs out there who are never satisfied no matter what you do. in hindsight it is easy to see how dumb this was, but you know the sales pitch for this service was intense. witness all the doctors who signed up with it. when you compound that, with the fact that her lawyer is an incompetent idiot who gave her the worst advice possible and this is what you get. But i ask you, honestly, is mob justice destroying her professional career really deserved?

    posted on yelp.
  • Dec 1st, 2011 @ 11:56am

    (untitled comment)

    infringement is not theft. i think that this is the core principle that she and other music exec's just can't seem to get their heads around (or maybe they do understand and just don't care). when someone downloads a song illegally it is a selfish act, but when that same person uploads that song to the web, they are giving that artist exposure that they would not have otherwise gotten. are sales of that song impacted? maybe, and maybe not. most (honest) studies show that it is good for the artist to get as wide an exposure as possible. and here we come to the crux of the disagreement. this is where we see the disconnect between the interests of the artist and the interest of the studio. one benefits from as wide an exposure as possible while the other benefits from restricting every avenue of distribution to try and create an artificial exclusivity.

    now i am going to give you an example of the non-zero sum power of sharing. i agree so completely with stephen t. stone's post from the previous article, that i am going to "steal" it and repost it here. an obvious case of me infringing on his work, and yet we are both better off for it.

    "Ooooh, an actual RIAA-type person willing to put a name to their post! This is exciting; I've never gotten the chance to openly debate one of you before. Let's begin!

    [M]y response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day.

    In the real world, the RIAA has screwed over numerous artists with its favor-the-label accounting practices and copyright trickery (especially in regards to sampling), sued its own customers for daring to not go through a paywall to experience new music, and attempted to prevent MP3 players from becoming popular before they were popular. How's that for some real world ethics, hmm?

    I have pirated music. I'm not afraid to admit it right to your face. But regardless of what you and the RIAA cronies might say about pirates to Congress or the Supreme Court or any other political forum, I don't do it to slight artists or "stick it to the man" -- I do it because I want to experience new music, and up until the proliferation of iTunes and Creative Commons-licensed music, I wasn't able to do so in a easy and timely manner. Napster -- the first P2P network I ever used -- made it easy for me to find new music (and old music), including obscure works by artists that the RIAA either passed over or forgot existed. I still pirate music from Japan on an irregular basis because, excluding buying said music from super-expensive CD importers, there is no legal method of obtaining this music in the United States.

    If you want to talk about ethics, let me know what kind of ethics make the RIAA want to continually push copyright forward into infinity and make it harder for people to legally purchase/support musicians from around the world.

    I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer.

    Simple question: when I pirate a song from SoulSeek, what have I taken? Has the original master recording of a song disappeared from its storage place? Has the artist behind the song lost the ability to perform it? What is being stolen when I pirate a song?

    Oh. Right. "Theft" is a metaphor that you and the RIAA use to conflate stealing a physical product with illegally copying a copyrighted digital file that doesn't disappear when I download it off a server or someone else's computer via P2P. That's just the ethical thing to do, though, right?

    (Note that I am not condoning or supporting piracy. I know it's illegal. I just choose not to give a flying goddamn about copyright law because I believe that copyright law only serves the interests of the corporations who rely on copyright law as a way of avoiding adapting to new business models.)

    Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you, they are often really hard.

    Gee, I can't imagine how it got that way. It couldn't have anything to do with the RIAA bogging the waters with copyright law, bad accounting, and not giving a damn about artists' rights -- right?

    [T]here is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing.

    Yeah, I bet that the RIAA can't stand it when technology steals the opportunity to set up a new walled garden for music.

    To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.)

    "I was telling kids, 'Download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live.'" ~ Kid Rock (an artist contracted by an RIAA label, last I checked)

    I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.

    Technology companies like Google should just be good little bitches and get back in the RIAA's kitchen, right? They should just lie back and take having their technology and their innovations stifled and legislated out of existence by politicians who are bought and paid for by the RIAA and the MPAA and other big media companies, right?

    This sounds like more of those RIAA "ethics".

    I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate.

    We have no patience for people who support legislation that will fundamentally alter the foundation of a global communications network to protect a few legacy business models that said businesses can't (and won't) fix without being forced into it.

    We have no patience for people who support the most heinous attack on the First Amendment in years just because they want us to "think of the artists" (the same artists that the RIAA has metaphorically bent over a chair).

    We have no patience for people who don't want to see the future. We have no patience for people who want to revert technology back to the past. We have no patience for people who have no idea what the hell they're doing.

    We have no patience for the RIAA. We have no patience for the MPAA. We have no patience for their lobbyists and their paid-for political representatives.

    We have no patience for you and your kind.

    The world has changed. The Internet has changed it. If the RIAA and the MPAA and the other big media corporations refuse to change with the rest of the world, then I believe that they should start digging corporate graves for each other.

    We have the power to communicate, to share, to enable new experiences and come together as a society thanks to the Internet -- and the RIAA wants to destroy how the Internet works just to make sure Lady Gaga's next single doesn't get downloaded by even a single person?

    You might want to rethink your "ethics", Miss Rosen."
  • Sep 27th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: I used to work for a Monsanto agency

    "No, being anonymous (and lacking references) just means that the credibility score for his comment is very low.

    no, what i am saying is that that is not a comment. it is an allegation of felony fraud.

    Or are you seriously saying that you think readers may think the comment section on this (or any) site represents the undiluted truth, and would take some rash and unadviced action because of it? "

    while i sympathize with ac fear of retaliation, what he is describing is accessory to criminal activity. i frequently post here and other places as anonymous, and believe the freedom to be ac is a vital part of any discussion, but imho, this "commenter" needs to put up or shut up.

    what kind of society do we live in if everybody sees who stole my car, but nobody will stand up and give evidence against the thieves, for fear they will "get him"? and that is a very different thing than using ac to put forward an unpopular opinion.
  • Sep 27th, 2011 @ 11:43am

    Re: I used to work for a Monsanto agency

    i call bullshit on this one. whether true or not, that is not a comment, it is an allegation. as mike pointed out in the previous post, anonymous absolutely has a place in almost any discussion, but you, ac, are abusing it, and are exactly the reason, so many otherwise intelligent people, have such a hard time accepting it as legitimate.
  • Sep 21st, 2011 @ 8:19am

    (untitled comment)

    I carry a 1967 Buick Skylark in my pants at all times. just in case.
  • Sep 16th, 2011 @ 5:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    i disagree with the tone of this story.

    all the 100+ page documents apple makes everyone agree to before you can use an apple product really say is: apple can do what apple wants. but that is not a bad thing. apple built the whole iphone platform as a closed ecosystem. one with the apple rule(see above). the developers freely chose to build apps for it on those terms. the market will determine if that strategy is effective or not, but guys like this, that try to claim some kind of right to apple hosting their app get on my nerves.
  • Sep 6th, 2011 @ 10:51am

    (untitled comment)

    does this mean e360 can take action against their lawyers for incompetence? seems to me if the judge hands down a ruling like this one, explicitly stating that i would have won if my lawyers weren't such douchebags, i would definitely be looking at whatever action i could take. unfortunately, that means hiring another lawyer, with no guarantee, the new is any better than the old. couldn't have happened to a better bunch of folks.
  • Aug 18th, 2011 @ 9:25am

    (untitled comment)

    i'm missing sumthing here. how can a book sale like this one not qualify for first sale rights because it was not "lawfully made under this Title", but at the same time qualify as infringement under "this Title"?

    that doesn't make any sense to me. can anyone clarify?
  • Jul 21st, 2011 @ 8:10am

    (untitled comment)

    well, yes your honor, i did rob that bank. but i was only going to use the money for a research paper on, um...oh yeah, the distribution of dollars with specific serial numbers and their disbursement in the banking system.
  • Jul 18th, 2011 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Plea bargains

    that's a horrible story. by the way, what was she doing drinking with a bunch of teenagers. not saying she deserved what she got, but at the same time, if you play with fire, chances are high that at some point you are going to get burned.

More comments from sumquy >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it