That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 11:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

    This is the problem with authoritarian retards - just because it is legal does not make it moral.

    Name calling, classy...

    Anyway, with that attitude, I trust that you also hold deep contempt for the major labels, who, using their position force artists to sign incredibly one sided deals which allow the label to scoop up all the money, leaving the artist nothing until they 'recoup'(paying back what was 'loaned' to them several times over in the process, if they ever manage it at all)?

    The labels who screw the artists in streaming deals by grabbing the majority of the proceeds, leaving the artists a cut in the single digits(before they grab that too), and then try and blame the streaming service, as though they were the greedy ones for daring to want to make enough money to stay afloat?

    The labels who love to play words games regarding whether or not a digital purchase is a 'sale' or a 'license', depending on what allows them to pay the least to the artist?

    I take it then you hold the labels in contempt for all of the above, and the myriad other tricks they use to hose over the poor saps signed with them? After all, 'just because it's legal does not make it moral'.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 11:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

    Nonsense, it's iTunes or nothing! If they weren't able to offer their music on iTunes, then there is absolutely no other possible way for them to sell their music, since iTunes is the sole way to listen to and/or buy music. /s

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 11:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

    I'm not, however unless you're claiming that Apple was able to force them to keep their music on the service, it doesn't matter how much cloud Apple had in the fight, the artists could still pull their music if they didn't like the terms and go elsewhere.

    If Apple did have that ability, perhaps thanks to a one-sided contract they signed to be able to offer their music on the service, well maybe don't sign such one-sided contracts, given there are other options nowadays. They may not be as 'good', but as long as artists are willing to sign away everything, then they're going to continue to get the short end of the stick, because the ones writing the contracts know that they'll always have suckers lining up to sign.

    'If you don't like the terms, do without' as the saying goes, it's just this time it was being used against the artists, rather than the customers.

    "You don't actually own what you just 'bought', you've only 'purchased' a small set of limited rights that we reserve the right to change at our whim. Don't like it, do without."

    "You don't have the right to format shift or break the cumbersome malware/DRM in order to back up your 'purchase'. You don't like it, do without."

    "You're only allowed to listen to your 'purchase' on select devices, and unlike physical CD's, you're prohibited from selling your music should you wish to. You don't like it, do without."

    "We're going to be running a promotional event in order to draw in new listeners and hopefully increase the number of paid listeners. During this event neither you nor us will be getting any money from music played during the duration, but we believe the short term loss will be offset by long term gains. You don't like it, do without."

    How ever so terrible that they got to see what it's like on the other end of the 'You don't like it...' deal for once. /s

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 6:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    Nice cherry-picking there, can't possibly imagine why you only posted part of it(and of course your doing so is made even funnier by the '...rather than quote the original' line later in your comment).

    Now, let's see what the whole thing says...

    'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8'.

    As should be fairly clear by how it's written, in particular the 'To' and 'by' parts, the benefits to 'authors and inventors' are the means, not the goal. The goal is 'to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts', the exclusive rights is just the method to achieve that.

    If it was found that no copyright whatsoever, or copyright that lasted all of one week accomplished the goal better, then it would be fully consistent with the copyright clause to make those changes, no matter what that meant for copyright owners.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 5:51pm

    Careful what you demand...

    If it wouldn't do so much damage, I would almost hope that it did pass, because the perfect form of protest against it is so obvious, and would be hilarious.

    If they're not going to define 'terrorist activity', then companies/sites would just need to report everything. Every post, every comment, every reply, every single thing. New ad showing up? Report it. Someone makes a comment? Report it. Someone replies to that comment? Report it. Cat picture? Report it? Funny video? Report it.

    Forget 'needle in a haystack', watching them be forced to sift through basically every website in or available in the US would be all sorts of funny.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 5:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    Why? Why? Why pay a legal team to spend a ton of time and money fighting for a mark that doesn't threaten you, that has become generic, and that has been employed the entire time your own mega-popular convention has become insanely successful. Why are we doing any of this?

    Lawyers and idiot examiners.

    Lawyers for conning their clients into thinking that if they don't file for a trademark someone else will, and they'll be forced to stop using the ludicrously generic 'Comic-con' name, leading to tons of billable hours no matter what happens, and idiot examiners for not doing 30 freakin' seconds of research and noticing that the two words are used everywhere, meaning it is well past the point where anyone should get a trademark on it.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Lets examine this

    Yeah, I do not, and never plan on, signing up for a streaming service. Why would I want to pay money for the opportunity to maybe listen to music that I might like, but will never own?

    I'll stick with listening, for free, to music and then buying it if I think it's worth my money, all legally. The 'You're free to pay money to listen, but you'll never actually own anything' people/services can get bent.

    However, that's going off on an unrelated tangent, as neither the original poster, nor my reply, had anything to do with that. What they, and I, were talking about was the people who rail against actual free listening, whether that's a free trial in this case, or any other form of listening without paying.

    They noted, and I agreed, that such stances are decidedly counter-productive, as very few people are going to be willing to buy any music that they haven't heard before, which means cutting down on the people listening just because they're not paying right that second also means you're cutting into the people who might have bought the music later on.

    Someone listening for free now may not be paying now, but someone who never listens at all is never going to pay at all.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Lets examine this

    It's easy really, since listening to music without paying for it is piracy, you're supposed to buy, unheard, anything you might listen to. Sure this will lead you to wasting a ton of money on crap music or music you don't want, but you don't want to be a filthy pirate do you?


  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

    Apple was the one giving away the artists' music, the artists didn't have a choice.

    Yeah, no. Unless they were locked in via contract, they absolutely had a choice, they could have simply pulled their music from iTunes. If those free listens were so very harmful, then pull the music, problem solved. Also, as I'm constantly hearing, 'If you don't like the terms being offered you, do without.'

    Apple was willing to take a short-term hit, much like the artists would experience, because they expected the new subscribers to the service to allow them to come out ahead in the end. Swift apparently couldn't see long-term, and only thought of the short term, 'I must get paid now, even if it means less pay over time', and unfortunately others bought into it.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 12:51pm

    "Would you look at the time..."

    Malibu Media will suddenly remember that they left the oven on, forgot to turn off the lights, left the spinklers on... basically whatever it takes to get out of the case as fast as possible.

    If they are guilty of what they're being accused of, they absolutely cannot have that come out in court where it can and will be brought up in future cases, so odds are good they are going to run as fast as they can write the letter dropping the case.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 12:34pm

    One of these things is not like the others...

    The second to last one might have really screwed up. Sending fraudulent, even blatantly fraudulent DMCA claims is one thing, the courts basically ignore those completely, but pretending to be a federal agent while doing it? That is much more likely to get some attention.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 11:45am

    That's a feature, not a bug

    If the [French regulator's] proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world’s least free place.

    While an excellent point, it's also wasted effort. I have no doubt that, even if they never admitted it, the kind of people pushing for such draconian restrictions on the internet, forcing local laws or rulings to be applied globally see absolutely nothing wrong with other countries doing the same, even if it would mean all but destroying the internet as it currently exists.

    As long as they get to force their idea of 'what should be' onto everyone else, they don't care one bit about what happens when other countries or governments do the same.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 11:25am

    Empty words and money filters

    Back in the US, even a bunch of Congresscritters who voted in favor of giving the USTR fast track authority appear to be having a bit of buyer's remorse

    Utterly meaningless posturing. If they cared what was in the thing, they shouldn't have voted for the bill that forces them to accept or decline it in it's entirety, no matter how bad certain sections are.

    It's safe enough for them to raise 'objections' now, pretending to care about the public and how it could be affected now that it's a moot point, but if they actually cared they wouldn't have signed over their control in the first place.

    How can the USTR and the Obama administration continue to insist that the TPP is in the public interest when it's abundantly clear that it's in the pharmaceutical companies' interests instead?

    Simple enough, and it's due to two reasons:

    1. None of the MSM have the guts or independence to actually call either group out by pointing out just how bad the 'trade' agreement will be for everyone but a select few. You can tell whatever lies you want, no matter how blatantly false they are, if you know the general public will never know you're lying, or will only learn about it when it's too late.

    2. Neither Obama nor the USTR care how bad the thing is for the general public. Why would they, neither have anything to lose no matter how nasty things get for the public thanks to it, and the ones that stand to gain will likely be very generous to those that helped them.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 10:45am

    'Murder charges, murder charges for everyone!'

    Sounds fair, so I take it the DA's office will also be filing murder charges against reporters on the scenes of disasters or crimes where people have died?

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 10:26am

    Re: Hypocrisy, thy name is TechDirt

    Was wondering what the response would be from those defending the parasites, looks like you're going for the classic 'Look a distraction!' ploy, mixed with enough strawmen to fill a dozen cornfield, always a nice choice.

    I notice you didn't actually offer any rebuttals to anything raised in the article, so I'm guessing you do not, or can not, argue against the point raised, that despite having 'Authors' in their names, the various organizations listed do not in fact have the well being of authors as their primary concern, and instead care more about 'protecting' publishers, often at the expense of authors.

    As for the rest of your strawmen and lies, by all means, feel free to present evidence backing your claims that TD supports piracy. Keep in mind that 'admitting that it exists, and isn't going to go away, ever' is not supporting or endorsing piracy, so if that's your argument, don't bother.

    As for 'copyright' being a right? It isn't. It's a government granted monopoly, a means to an end(theoretically), something quite distinct and different than actual rights.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 10:06am

    Re: Dear Authors...

    Yes and no. Similar to the recording industry, it's only recently that there was any way to publish without being forced to sign everything over to the gatekeepers. If you wanted your book published, or your music heard, you had to go through them, and they took advantage of this to demand insanely one-sided contracts.

    For people who were forced into the system that way, forced to hand over everything if they wanted to be heard/read, I do feel some pity, assuming they haven't turned around and started defending the same parasitic system like fools, whether from self-interest or just buying into the rot the parasites have told them.

    For those that do so these days though, when there's so many other options, many that don't require you to hand over your rights or a massive cut of the profits, for them I have no pity at all. They either didn't do their research, or bought into the sales pitch without looking at the details, but either way, they signed into a broken contract when they didn't have to, and deserve everything they get as a result.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 8:59am

    (untitled comment)

    In case you missed it, both parties are guilty here, bickering about which is 'more' guilty is just falling for the oldest trick in the political book, 'My tribe vs Your tribe'.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 7:44am


    I imagine it would be less a matter of 'You will hand over that diary', and more simply that if the contents of the diary has been made public, like to a museum or something like that, then it can't be 'claimed' by someone as still being covered by copyright, and therefor can be accessed by all without having to ask permission from whoever the 'owner' of the rights happens to be.

    Families can still keep the diaries of the parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents private, but if they decide to make them public, they become public to all, not just those willing to pay.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 7:38am

    Re: Re: failure to test

    Bah, jumped the gun a bit in my comment.

    The second half of your comment would certainly help, but even then, I think that a positive result should be drastically reduced in value as evidence, simply because while desired, 100% accuracy is not possible, so the possibility of a false positive should always be taken into consideration. Treat a positive or negative result as a piece of evidence, but not a core piece, such that it's not enough to win a case on it's own without significant supporting evidence.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 7:32am

    Call it 'incentive'

    It's pretty unreasonable to expect an analyst to never return a false positive. People are human, even when the stakes are incredibly high.

    When you consider a false positive has the chance to ruin someone for life, no, I don't really consider it unreasonable. The stakes are high, and they're only human as you say, but when screwing up can get someone tossed behind bars for years, decades or longer, 100% accuracy is not only desired, it should be required.

    Either that or a positive result should be drastically decreased in evidentury value, such that even a positive result doesn't ensure a conviction, but is only considered a minor bit of supporting evidence, rather than grounds for instant conviction.

More comments from That One Guy >>