That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 11:46pm


    Trying for funniest comment of the week are we? They'll never see a cent, unless the labels decided to take on any legal fees they incur to what the bands 'owe', in which case they'll see it on their bill.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 6:40pm

    See this? Fix it or stop whining

    And, of course, the local police union has greeted this decision with assertions that the officers involved did nothing wrong and that Judge Stewart is nothing more than an armchair quarterback,

    When video evidence shows police engaging in... well, let's be nice and call it 'misconduct' for little more than refusal to grovel sufficiently...

    When the facts are so contrary to what the cops claim happened that it is blatantly obvious that the cops are lying...

    When even a judge isn't willing to buy the 'official' story it's so disconnected from reality...

    The police and their unions still dig in and insist that cops never do anything wrong, and to even question them is unacceptable, refusing to even entertain the idea that an officer might ever step out of line and need to be held accountable for their actions. Police your own, show that you are willing to hold those amongst you who abuse their position accountable for their actions, and then, maybe, people might begin to start to trust police again. Until then, stop whining that the public doesn't trust you to act properly, you brought that on yourself.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 2:13pm

    Re: Re: Tell me he's the only one

    While they're at it, they should prosecute the power companies, a whole lot of crime is carried out that requires electricity, crime that wouldn't be possible without it, so clearly they are accomplices as well.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 1:23pm


    Just a tiny difference between drugs and infringing files. You know, just a bit. In either case though, seizing assets of someone based on accusation alone, someone who has never stepped foot in a given country, is not something that should be done or accepted.

    Open up that particular can of worms, and you could have any country on the planet seizing funds or assets, from US companies or people, or anyone else on the planet, and then justifying their theft by claiming that the accused refusing to travel to their country is evidence enough of their guilt.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re:

    He's a fugitive in part because he offered to come to the U.S. if the government would agree to his terms. They didn't.

    And what were those terms again? Oh yes, that they would guarantee a fair trial, and allow him access to his funds so he could actually afford to pay for a lawyer, instead of having to go with whatever poor, utterly unprepared sod that was assigned to him. Yes indeedy, quite the gall he has to be making demands like those.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 12:45pm


    No no, I'm sure they'd be glad to help him get a new one... once he's in the US... eventually...

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The seized the MU servers, and refused to let Dotcom or his legal team have access to them, or even pay for their upkeep, ensuring that they would be wiped unless the company who owned them wanted to pay the costs of maintaining them indefinitely. This despite the fact that as supposed evidence in a case, the DOJ should have been the ones paying the maintenance costs.

    They may not have directly destroyed evidence and MU property, but through their actions they knowingly ensured that it would happen.

    As for 'gushing', I couldn't care less about Dotcom personally, what I care about is seeing justice carried out, and having your property stolen and/or destroyed, all without stepping foot in a courtroom or being found guilty, is not justice.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    As opposed to the *AA's and the DOJ, who are all just super unbiased, right? /s

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 11:03am


    Yes, it's telling that he has a functional brain, and would rather not walk into the kangaroo court that the DOJ's actions have all but guaranteed he'd receive.

    The DOJ has destroyed evidence/ensured that it would be destroyed(and in the process destroyed his business, all without a finding of 'guilty' or even a trial), illegally taken evidence out of the country, knowingly lied to a court about the legality of serving him, and then tried to get the laws changed later to retroactively make their previous claims true, called for extension after extension for the extradition case in order to drain as much money as they can from him, conned the NZ police into performing a SWAT-style raid on his house by lying and claiming he could do something they knew he couldn't(remotely wipe the servers they had already seized)... do I really need to go on?

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 10:55am

    Re: Greater of two evils.

    On the other hand, assuming the NZ judges are even remotely interested in seeing justice done(though given they are still bothering with the extradition and haven't given a solid answer either way yet this is up for debate), the USG's actions are providing an excellent reason to deny extradition.

    If this is how they're acting when he's not even in the country, you could be sure once they got their hands on him the treatment would be much, much worse.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 10:50am

    Mountains out of molehills

    In all, more than 32,000 pieces of equipment were issued. Some kits are still in use, making it difficult to compile a precise inventory of what was issued and what might be missing.

    Umm, no actually, that wouldn't be very difficult at all, assuming they kept even moderately accurate records. Simply check the records and see where each piece of gear was sent, then send the recipient a 'request' to check and make sure that they still have it, or provide the documentation regarding it's allocation to wherever it was sent.

    Unless of course they want to admit that they don't even bother to keep track of who gets sent what, in which case I could totally believe that such a task would be difficult, if not all but impossible. In that case however, they've got bigger issues than just having some gear stolen every so often.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 10:45am

    Theft vs 'Theft'

    So Dotcom is accused of running a site that 'facilitated infringement', and according to the *AA's and their employees in the DOJ, costed honest filmmakers and popcorn farmers and stage hands millions of dollars, and this is supposed to be a horrible crime.

    Dotcom has the fact that he has a working brain, and knows the kind of treatment he'd get if he stepped foot in the US used against him, and the USG steals tens of millions of dollars from him as a result, along with a whole slew of other pieces of property. And this is not supposed to be a horrible crime?

    As if it wasn't obvious enough how big of a mess this whole case has been, and the kind of treatment he'd receive if extradited...

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 7:28am


    Because it's one of the best laws money can and has bought, and politicians know that keeping it around allows them to get a nice bonus payday anytime it starts looking like something might actually enter the public domain in the US.

  • Mar 27th, 2015 @ 7:27am


    And when he swapped them out for images he didn't need the rights to to use and still got slammed? Still his fault right? /s

  • Mar 26th, 2015 @ 4:18pm

    Good, but depressing at the same time

    The fact that this even needs to be done, that the laws have been twisted so badly that 'You need a warrant to spy on people's private data' even needs to be said, is both depressing, and disgusting.

    Depressing that it's reached this point, disgusting that there are so many out there arguing that people don't deserve such things as privacy, because it makes their jobs slightly harder.

  • Mar 26th, 2015 @ 12:21pm

    'Bias'? 'Conflict of interest'? What are those?

    For instance, the tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers unaccountable to any electorate, system of precedent or substantive appeal. Many of those involved rotate between acting as “judges” and as advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Such dual roles would be deemed unethical in most legal systems. The leaked text does not include new conflict of interest rules, despite growing concern about the bias inherent in the ISDS system.

    Oh yeah, you'd have someone arguing the case of a corporation in one case making the ruling on another case, I can't possibly see how that could lead to insanely one-sided rulings at all, as those making the rulings know that if you don't make the 'correct' ruling they're likely not to be hired by the companies to represent them in the future.

    The entire thing is rotten, but this part in particular takes corruption to whole new levels. It's no wonder they've been doing everything in their power to hide the details of this corporate wish-list, they know that it's bad enough there isn't enough spin in the world to make it look good, as long as people can actually read what's actually in the documents, rather than just be told by a biased party.

  • Mar 26th, 2015 @ 2:02am

    No, not really surprising at all

    Given the magnitude of the effect that TAFTA/TTIP could have on the economies and daily life of both the US and EU, it is surprising that there has not been more analysis of its likely impact.

    If the agreements were really focused on trade, then analysis would make sense, as they'd want to get a good idea of what should stay, what should go, what should be added, and what should be kept out.

    The agreements however, have almost nothing to do with 'trade', with that just being the excuse for them. Rather, they are more focused on giving large multi-national corporations perks and the ability to have equal, if not higher footing than the governments of various countries, giving them the ability to dictate what governments are allowed to do when it comes to making laws or attempting to tell companies what they may or may not do.

    Put more simply, the primary purpose behind these 'trade' agreements has nothing to do with trade, so it's no wonder they haven't bothered with any detailed analysis, as it would be a waste or time and potentially expose just how little they'd actually do to help anyone but the large corporations running the negotiations.

  • Mar 26th, 2015 @ 1:42am

    Re: Colorado TPP cheerleading squad getting fired up

    That's why I've repeatedly written to President Obama and the U.S. Trade Representative to make sure any deal in which we participate includes these critical protections.

    Given that claim, I certainly hope those attending make sure to ask if he supports Fast Track Authority, given approving FTA would completely take the matter completely out of his hands.

    Either they approve everything, no matter how many rotten spots(though I'm betting the rotten spots will be the vast majority of the 'trade' agreement), or shoot it down entirely, and there is going to be massive pressure on them from the WH to pass it I'm sure.

    I hope you'll be able to join me at CU Boulder on Monday for a forum on our nation's trade agenda and how it affects small businesses, wages, and job opportunities in our community.

    Bringing stats from the previous 'trade' agreements, what they were projected to achieve, and what they actually achieved, would be handy, though extremely unwelcome I'm sure.

    This event is a great opportunity to learn more about the TPP's potential impact in areas like workers' rights, job creation, and environmental protections.

    Oh those are easy, they eliminate them if it threatens corporate profits, moves them over-seas, and eliminates them if they threaten corporate profits respectively, though I'm sure they'll be lying through their teeth and pretending that TPP will create billions of jobs every week(because if you're going to lie, badly, why not go big?), gives every worker a raise to a million dollars an hour, and has environmental protections so strong that they'll bring back endangered species.

  • Mar 25th, 2015 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Conference table

    A for-profit company might consider the cost reasonable, given an impressed potential customer is more likely to become a paying future customer, but a government agency like this should have no reason to need to 'impress' anyone, and as such should be able to get by with what's needed to do their jobs, and no more.

  • Mar 25th, 2015 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re:

    In this case life +x has been relatively well established by research to be superior.

    Three things:
    1. Which research papers?
    2. Who did the research, and/or who paid for it?
    3. Who exactly is benefiting from life+X duration according to this research, because it's certainly not the public.

    Life plus 10 to 30 years seems to be the buffer with some reasoning behind it (Organized crime killing creators to force public domain).

    If that's the reasoning of why life+any amount of time whatsoever is 'reasonable', you need to look for a better example. Murder is already quite illegal, and I find it rather difficult to picture someone being murdered just so that their song/story/artwork enters the public domain earlier.

    "Right, now that we've gotten rid of [Creator X], just 10 more years, assuming none of us go to jail for murder, and we'll be able to make a killing once their works enter the public domain and... everyone can copy all of it freely... we did not think this through."

More comments from That One Guy >>