That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 4th, 2015 @ 10:07am

    Because copyright

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as you claim to be doing it in the name of copyright. Extortion, censorship, gutting the public domain and sabotaging cultural growth, destroying the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'... it's all good as long as it's in the name of protecting the holy 'copyright'.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:48pm

    An honest man doesn't feel the need to remind you of that fact

    I briefly had to remind myself that this was not North Korea or Nazi Germany. This is the land of the Free."

    If someone feels the need to remind you that they're honest, what they're really telling you is that they cannot be trusted.

    If someone feels that they need to constantly remind you how awesome their customer service and/or product is, then it's because their customer service and/or product is terrible.

    And if you feel the need to remind yourself that you're living in the 'land of the free', then odds are it's because you aren't living in the 'land of the free'.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Less irresponsible or insane, just apathetic. They don't care, so long as they get people to watch. If that means handing some assholes all the fame they could ever want, then that's an acceptable price to them.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:36pm

    Once is a mistake, twice is suspicious, three times or more is on purpose

    Lipscomb & Co, as they did many times before, poorly redacted the document and exposed the defendant's name in violation of the protective order.

    Yeah, if they've 'accidentally' exposed the names of defendants before, in direct conflict with orders from the court, I'd say it's time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're either incredibly incompetent, or doing it on purpose as part of their scam to add pressure to pay up.

    'Accidentally' revealing the defendant's name like that should be grounds for immediate dismissal of the case, with prejudice. Maybe having a few cases gutted would teach them to actually pay attention when the court tells them to not do something.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:18pm

    Not a good sign

    When they start treating even city mayors like this, you know they've reached the point where they don't believe they answer to anyone, and can do whatever they want.

    That said, I hope this happens more often, not less. Let those in positions of power get a taste of what it's like for those without the shield of position or money to protect them, maybe then they'll consider doing something about the problem(though most likely that would just entail adding laws that make them exempt from searches).

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 7:54pm

    Twisting the knife

    At this point this has nothing to do with 'protecting' their stuff, they're just making an example out of someone who can't fight back, simply because they can.

    I can't help but suspect that if he was able to fight back, by retaining a lawyer, they would be a lot less bloodthirsty, and a lot more willing to just drop the matter now that the party has been killed off. But with no lawyer, they know they can make whatever claims they want, and he has no way of knowing whether or not they're valid.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 7:05pm

    Re: citations

    Oh but I'm sure they'd be glad to set up an extor- I mean collections agency to handle that sort of thing. And if they can't or aren't interested in finding the actual photographers to give them their money, why I suppose they'd just have to keep that tiny amount of money all for themselves, what else could they do with it?

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re:

    (Hit enter too soon)

    The point being, just because it's not technically allowed under the law or constitution, don't expect them to care if they're determined enough to force the law into the books.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:25am


    Pretty sure US law doesn't allow retroactive law changes either, but as everyone can see, that didn't present more than a minor speedbump in them doing it anyway.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:51am


    They don't need to go that far, they'd probably be okay just blocking any and all pictures from showing up for anyone connecting from Argentina.

    And it's not like pictures are important or effective ways to convey information, so hardly anything of import would be lost. /s

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You'd be wasting your time if you were crunching the numbers for any reason other than curiosity. The ones pushing for ContentID and similar things care less about money than they do control(if for no other reason than they believe, not without reason, that control results in profits).

    Even if they were shown, flat out and with no room for mis-interpretation, that their actions were costing them more than they were gaining, so long as the 'better' solution gave them less control(and it would) they would still oppose it.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:09am

    That sounds familiar

    Life plus 70 years, where have I seen that before? Ah yes, that would be the copyright duration in several other countries, leaving me wondering if this is yet another example of a country trying to slip in changes to the law prior to a 'trade' agreement being passed, so they can lie and claim that the agreement had nothing to do with the law changing.

    Well, either that or a few palms were greased, some not insignificant amounts of 'donations' changed hands, and a few politicians are pushing the law for the ones who bought them.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:03am

    Well there's your problem...

    What tripped him up, and he really should have seen it coming, is that he foolishly thought that they wouldn't lie to him if they thought it would help them and/or they could get away with it.

    He foolishly thought that what they told him was the truth, acted accordingly, and was screwed as a result, and is now faced with the prospect of paying an insane amount if he wants his property to have an internet connection.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 4:06am


    Their actions are sleazy, and their excuse is laughably bogus, but I don't see them breaking any real laws here by not selling their competitors' products. The idea that a company without a monopoly position could be forced to sell certain products is not a precedent I think I'd care to see set.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 4:00am

    What you have vs What you know

    It's been a good while so I can't remember who said it, but someone basically noted a while back that biometrics are great as the equivalent of a user name, but they should never be used as passwords.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 8:57am


    The Secret Service agents did what they did to protect a person/agency in a position of power.

    Snowden did what he did in order to protect the public from those in positions of power.

    Huge difference for those in said positions of power.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Understanding the real law at work

    But you recognize that that does not occur here. You recognize that Facebook dictates—and the user accepts.

    Yes, and once again for emphasis:

    Because it's Facebook's site/service.

    If a potential user doesn't agree to the terms set forth by Facebook, or any other site/service, then the response is simple, don't use the site/service. They do not get to use the service, accepting the TOS of the site/service in order to do so, and then try and dictate terms to the site/service after the acceptance of the TOS. The user has no bargaining power here because it's not their site/service, they are just using it, and they either accept the terms as offered, or don't use the site/service.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 8:34am

    Yeah, sure...

    "I am confident that U.S. Secret Service Director Joe Clancy will take appropriate action to hold accountable those who violated any laws or the policies of this department," Johnson said.

    Docked pay, maybe a little 'vacation' until the attention dies down... I've no doubt the harshest 'punishment' handed out will be telling those responsible not to get caught next time.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 8:16am

    Re: Understanding the real law at work

    I can't help but think that you're reaching here. Facebook is allowed to dictate terms to those that use their service because it's Facebook's site/service. Users are not allowed to dictate terms to Facebook because it's Facebook's site/service, they are only using it.

    By using Facebook's, or any other site, you agree to any TOS they may have(how enforcable the TOS is is a discussion for another time), and while I'm sure Facebook or any other site would just be thrilled to hunt through every single attempt by a user of their site/service to offer their own terms, accepting or rejecting each individual 'offer', that's not how it works. If a user doesn't like the terms the site/service offers, then they can go elsewhere, they don't get to change the terms just because they want to.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 7:48am

    When you have no other choice

    Apparently Comcast believes its users are collectively too stupid to realize this, and that by simply fiddling with basic definitions (it's not a usage cap, it's a wholesome family consumption calculator!) the public will nod dumbly and graciously accept one of the biggest rate hikes in Comcast history.

    I'm not so sure that it's due to thinking that their customers are idiots, so much as knowing that most of their customers flat out have no other option. You can do whatever you want, treat your customers as abysmally as you feel like if you know that there's no competing company/service that they can go to.

    I imagine they use the word-games primarily for PR purposes, so that they can at least pretend not to be screwing their customers as much as possible if a government agency/representative comes looking. If they didn't have to worry about that they'd probably call them 'what are you going to do about it?' charges and laugh all the way to the bank.

More comments from That One Guy >>