That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • May 27th, 2015 @ 4:14am


    Streisand Effect yes, but I'm pretty sure Hollywood Accounting(both the term and the base idea) has been around much longer than TD has been.

  • May 27th, 2015 @ 3:37am

    Re: What IS "corporate sovereignty"?

    Kinda, but you're missing a few bits.

    Probably first and foremost, is the how the government gets sued thanks to corporate sovereignty clauses. It does not go through the normal court system within a country, and instead takes place before a 'tribunal' composed of highly biased parties(one of the people acting as a judge today might be presenting a case before them tomorrow), which tends to skew things a bit towards the corporations.

    If you're familiar with the term 'conflict of interest', you can see why this particular setup is not a good one for anyone but the corporations.

    Another big aspect of why it's such a bad idea, is that it basically gives corporations more power over writing and enforcing laws than the governments of countries.

    When a corporation can dangle a multi-billion dollar threat over a government's head if they pass or modify a law that might cut into the company's profits(like say expanding safety regulations), and both sides know that the 'court' that's going to be handing out that ruling is incredibly biased in favor of corporations, that gives them an insane amount of power over the government, basically allowing them to dictate what laws can and cannot be passed, regardless of what's best for the public and the country.

  • May 27th, 2015 @ 2:28am


    If they're not any different than the current rules, then they're redundant and useless, and there's no reason to include them in any of the 'trade' agreements. Toss them out and move on.

    The only reason to keep them in is if they do in fact cause a significant change to things, unless he's arguing that those pushing for such clauses just feel like wasting space and threatening the negotiations by insisting on keeping something that is attracting a great amount of negative attention.

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 11:25pm

    Nothing foolish about it

    Let's hope the US and EU aren't foolish enough to follow suit by allowing corporate sovereignty to reign over them even after TAFTA/TTIP is terminated.

    It has nothing to do with being 'foolish', and everything to do with huge paydays, both upfront and in the form of lucrative 'retirement/job offers'. Make no mistake, those pushing for corporate sovereignty clauses know exactly what they're doing, and who stands most to benefit from such clauses, and to believe otherwise is to grossly underestimate them.

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 10:07pm


    How about 'No'?

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 5:39pm


    Because this time, this time they'll get it right!

    (More seriously, it's because they simply don't care what happens to the public, as long as they can continue to do whatever they want to.)

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 4:33pm

    A matter of incentives

    The estate has absolutely no reason not to grab at any possible source of control/licensing, and every reason to do so. Think about it, if Sherlock Holmes enters the public domain, such that anyone can use him or incorporate him into new works or build off of the stories, without having to pay or ask permission from the estate, the estate is screwed.

    That's the only source of money for those parasites, so of course they're going to do everything in their power to maintain what control over it they can manage, the only other alternative is to be forced to find real work, instead of leeching off of the works of a corpse.

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 3:10pm

    "You did WHAT?!"

    “Rightscorp had a history of interactions with Cox in which Rightscorp offered Cox a share of the settlement revenue stream in return for Cox’s cooperation in transmitting extortionate letters to Cox’s customers. Cox rebuffed Rightscorp’s approach,” Cox informs the court.

    That, right there, should have been a huge red flag for the judge, and made it abundantly clear that Rightscorp isn't in it for the 'protection of copyrights', but only for the money. "We'll give you a cut of the profits if you cooperate" makes it abundantly clear that their goal is to get paid, not stop infringement(if anything they would want more infringement to occur, not less, as it means more chances to shake people down).

    Not to mention, buying customer information like that? Yeah, that too should have set off warning signals left and right, which makes it all the more disappointing that the judge seems to have at least partially bought their crap argument in the hilariously mistaken belief that Rightscorp has any interest whatsoever in bringing anyone to court with the information they receive.

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 2:24pm

    That's a feature, not a bug

    This is an improvement, but Infringex really should stop insinuating its services are on par with actual legal services provided by actual law officers, or that its documents have any legal basis whatsoever.

    If they did that, made it clear, both to prospective clients and the recipients of the 'requests' they send out, that their service holds absolutely zero legal weight, then their entire business would collapse.

    They are banking, hard, on the fact that most people will assume that their letters do have legal weight, due to their appearance and the language they toss in them. Take that away and all they're sending are threatening but not legally binding letters, and their prospective clients can send those on their own if they really wanted to.

    As such I wouldn't expect them to clear up the 'confusion' any time soon, it's quite intentional, and a core part of their 'business model'.

  • May 26th, 2015 @ 2:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    You don't have to be able to see the future to see how this will go.

    Patent trolls already do everything they can to drop a case the second it looks like it might actually go to court(any court other than East Texas ones anyway), in large part to avoid having their junk patents ruled invalid, this will just give them one more reason to do so.

  • May 23rd, 2015 @ 9:25pm

    'Evergreening' was never a more apt name

    Until they make some insignificant little 'tweak' to it and renew it for another 20 years. Again, and again, and again...

  • May 23rd, 2015 @ 6:54pm

    Re: On top of that...

    I'd love to see them try and spin that one.

    "We urge all voting senators and congressmen to reject the amendment added by Mr. Menendez. Human trafficking is bad, there is no doubt, but far worse would be not passing TPP, which stands to benefit the citizens in all the signatory counties. You know, everyone except for the slaves."

    'White House comes out in favor of modern day slavery', the headlines would practically write themselves, if the press had the guts to write it.

  • May 23rd, 2015 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Home Video Vs Cinemas

    I'm not too sure how much of that you can actually blame the theaters for. They charge obscene amounts for 'snacks' for example not because they're greedy, but because they get pretty much nothing from the films themselves, and those 'snacks' are pretty much the only thing keeping them in business.

    While I imagine they would like to make the experience better, to draw in more customers, when they're already having trouble even breaking even, they may simply not have the money to burn trying to make the experience more customer friendly.

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 8:40pm

    Re: Manipulation

    Not a chance, with how well bought out both parties are, there is no way they'd risk future 'donations' by shooting down the thing if it came to a vote. The only ones thinking about the public are the ones refusing to vote in favor of TPP, every single one voting in favor are thinking only of the money they stand to gain.

    As for what they have to gain? Keeping their owners happy. They know who stands to gain most from the 'trade' agreements(hint: not the public), and they don't want to make any moves suggesting that the ones paying them might have made a poor 'investment' in case it affects future bri- I mean 'donations'.

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 7:07pm

    Tiny little difference

    There's an attempt being made here to paint the government as no worse (and possibly even better) than private companies' data harvesting efforts, albeit by way of omission rather than by comparison.

    Notably omitted by any that try and spin government data harvesting as no different than corporate data harvesting: Corporations can't jail or kill you based upon the data they gather, nor can they add you to lists capable of seriously screwing with your life in various ways.

    If a company like Amazon draws the wrong conclusions based upon your buying and/or browsing history, the most you're likely to deal with is some ads for stuff you have no interest in. If the government draws the wrong conclusion from the data they grab, you're likely to be looking at much worse repercussions as a result.

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 6:52pm

    There had to have been an easier way to say it

    Really, would it have been that hard for them to just admit, "This job is too difficult, I can't do it, get someone to replace me"? Going through all the hassle of voting for a bill admitting that they can't, or won't, do their jobs just seems like wasted energy when a simple statement would have done the job.

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 3:15pm

    Look, a distraction!

    One is a really massive country, with significant influence, the other... isn't.

    Censorship and propaganda are bad, yes, no matter where they happen, but with only so much space to fill and time to write, the focus will naturally end up on the larger players more often than not.

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 2:38pm

    Re: "not sharing consumer data with third parties without the explicit consent of consumers"

    Please, explain if you will how Google, which is a search/advertising company, falls under the same rules being imposed on ISP's. Now, Google Fiber would fall under the rules, sure, but the majority of Google's services would not.

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 1:50pm

    Why Is The Attorney General Making Claims About PATRIOT Act That Her Own Agency's Report Says Are Not True?

    Because she knows no-one has the guts or courage to call her on it. When you know you can say anything, even blatantly wrong things, and no-one will point out that you're either lying or ill-informed, why not lie to your heart's content?

  • May 22nd, 2015 @ 5:35am

    Getting it all wrong

    Don't you see, the weapons they are developing and deploying aren't missiles and jets and whatnot, no, the NK government has moved past them and into the realm of humor as a weapon.

    Their efforts in showing off their Photoshop skills(or lack thereof) aren't meant to show off weapons they don't have, they are the weapons.

    No weapon is perfect at first, and as such it makes sense for these early attempts to be only chuckle worthy, but once they make the breakthrough, and truly grasp the essence of humor(something NK is famous for, as I'm sure you all know) then other, more primitive countries who are still reliant on physical weapons will undoubtedly be brought to their knees in tears of laughter, leaving them wide open for conquest.

More comments from That One Guy >>