That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 28th, 2016 @ 10:47pm

    Re: More Bullshit

    Yeah, pretty sure the last paragraph from his comment is applicable to those with opinions similar to yours.

    'But when fortune turns around, and it happens to you, or your grandchildren or your descendants down the line, when they become the persecuted, when the death camps are cooking once again, you had best hope that the people controlling those borders are kinder, more empathetic or more honorable than you are.'

    Every nation gets the government it deserves! We are destroying ourselves, EU is destroying itself and are begging to follow suit!

    Absolutely right! That's why if you voted for someone that lost, and the other person who's ideas and policies you disagree with made it in instead, suck it up, you still got the government you deserve!

    Didn't have a good option available, such that you don't agree with any of the choices? Deal with it, it's your fault for not voting properly!

    Politicians acting contrary to what they claimed they would do, such that even if you did vote the 'right' person in their either acted in a way that you didn't want them to or their efforts were nullified by all the other politicians? Too bad, it's still your fault!

    Government agencies lying to the public and the ones supposedly in a position of oversight, such that the lawmakers have no idea what they're doing 'in the public's name' until someone brave enough comes forth to (almost literally) trade their life for informing the public? Tough, they(but more importantly you) should have known anyway and stopped them!

  • Aug 28th, 2016 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh by all means, please explain how demanding a fee to display images, whether the one who posted the image wants to be paid for it or not, somehow qualifies as 'checks and balances'.

    While you're at if you can also explain how Google and Facebook have 'too much power over the internet', and how this is supposed to reign that in by putting them in the position of dropping images entirely for anyone in france, or simply shutting down service in france if that's not enough to bypass the idiocy that is this law.

  • Aug 28th, 2016 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Protecting your rights... after we steal them from you

    Yeah, that sounds about right, though I am rather surprised they even tried to give him 'his' share in the first place.

    It's not even close to just a french 'collection' agency problem though, all the 'collection' agencies seem to think that the only way someone should be able to listen to music is if someone pays them first, so it's not surprising that a composer that had the utter gall to claim that they shouldn't collected money from his stuff got a hostile reception. They are owed that money after all, he should have just shut up and let them keep it if he did't want it, not have the audacity to claim that they had no right to collect it in the first place.

  • Aug 28th, 2016 @ 1:06pm

    Re: So Techdirt has no problem if anyone creates a copy of this site

    I love the fact that numerous people seem to think they've got the ultimate 'Gotcha!' argument with something like this, only to have it fail utterly time and time again.

    "Oh yeah, well what if I copied your stuff/site, bet you'd feel different then!"

    "Nope, knock yourself out."

    "That's what I- wait, that's not what you were supposed to say! Stop going off script!"

  • Aug 28th, 2016 @ 1:02pm

    Re: What a joke.

    They'd still demand that everyone else pay them.

    Can't remember which company it was specifically(think it was Google), but france is one of those 'right to re-write history' countries, and they asserted that simply blocking french users from the results of a 'blocked' search wasn't good enough, it had to apply globally so that no-one would be able to see the search results that were ordered censored.

    Even if it was literally impossible for french users to see the pictures in question they parasites there would still be demanding payment just in case someone saw an image and didn't pay for the 'privilege' of doing so.

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 6:55pm

    Re: Re: What the hell are they thinking?

    How exactly do you imagine Google has 'power over the internet'? They're popular sure, but that's because they have products and services that people like and use.

    As well, how exactly do you think charging Google for displaying pictures, whether the (theoretical at this point) owners of said pictures want to be paid or not will 'put [Google] in their place'?

    If history repeats they'll just dump the pictures, or worst case shut down the service entirely. In the first case we'll get to enjoy listening to the whining about how it's just so unfair that they didn't want to pay, followed by a bunch of begging to get them to show pictures again, while the latter is likely to have that and then some with the politicians crying that Google's refusal to pay out the nose is somehow an 'abuse of their power' and 'evidence that they need to be brought under control' or some similar rot, as though Google owes anything like that.

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 6:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He makes a passable case, but ultimately I'm still not buying it due to the massive difference in how the two are treated under the law, as well as the idea that you can 'steal' something without actually taking something away from someone not striking me as logical.

    If I come up with an idea, say I write a book, and someone makes a direct copy or writes a fanfic/derivative, despite the fact that they may have infringed on the 'rights' copyright grants me(whether I want them or not), I'm not going to be thinking 'They stole from me', because to me at least stealing/theft requires that one person take something such that the other person no longer has it, which the act of making a copy would not qualify as.

    When I start to see a general push by those putting forth the idea that copyright infringement is theft to actually treat the two the same, then I might take it seriously, but until then it just strikes me as an emotional plea without substance, trying to have the best of both worlds, the emotional impact of the label of 'theft', with the insane laws covering copyright infringement.

    (While we're on the subject might as well ask, since you clearly do think that copyright infringement is theft, do you think that the penalties and how the two charges are treated should match as well?)

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    By all means then, instead of just making a cheap dig at my layman's level of law expertise, explain why the points I raised are wrong.

    Explain away why copying can 'comprise theft', or even should be considered remotely similar despite not actually depriving the original owner of anything beyond a possible transaction, and despite the fact that copyright infringement and theft are treated as separate, non-interchangeable charges, with vastly different punishments and how they are treated under the law.

    I can say 'You're wrong' all day long too, but that accomplishes nothing unless I explain the reason behind it(which I attempted to do so in my comment), hence the lengthy comment rather than 'oh look, another person dishonestly conflating the terms in a holier-than-thou attitude, just ignore them like all the others who do the same.'

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 12:18pm


    Awesome, so in those 'many, many instances' the charge brought (or that would be brought) is theft right? Not copyright infringement?

    Theft, with it's drastically lower penalties, requirement to show loss, punishment after a finding of guilt rather than before and after, where falsely accusing someone is likely to get the one making the accusation in trouble?

    As opposed to copyright infringement with it's insane penalties, no requirement to show any loss, punishment on nothing more than accusation and then further punishment if a finding of guilt is made, no penalties for bogus accusations...

    Beyond the idea that it's rather hard to 'steal' something when the original is still exactly where it was and nothing has been lost, but rather a new copy has been made(if you made a painting and I somehow make an exact copy did I steal your painting, or just copy it?), if you wouldn't want it to be treated legally as theft, then stop trying to use loaded language by conflating copyright infringement with theft.

    When I start to see the 'copyright is theft!' brigade start pushing to decrease the penalties of copyright infringement, bringing them more in line with the penalties for actual theft rather than constantly ratcheting them up, then I might start taking that argument seriously(likely not, but you'd certainly have better odds than you have now). Before then it's just a blatantly obvious bit of dishonesty and an empty emotional appeal.

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 12:02pm


    It always astounds me how often TD seems to bring out the brilliance in some people. How individuals that might otherwise just make simple comments are instead inspired to create masterpieces of logic, near enough to make a professional debater break down in tears with the simplistic yet superbly thought out and articulated points.

    The carefully crafted and presented arguments, each piece carefully constructed such that it rests on sound logic and evidence...

    I salute your Sir or Madam for your most excellent contribution to the discourse on TD. It's people like you that make this site great, and I can only hope that sterling examples of logic and maturity such as yourself continue to grace this site, illuminating it with the brilliance of your mind and what comes from it for many a year to come.

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 12:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, the 'science and useful arts' the law talks about are the ones available to everyone, not just individual rightsholders. Were it otherwise you could just as easily meet the requirement of the law by having literally eternal copyright, rather than the effectively eternal copyright currently in place, since the copyright owner would have the monopoly privilege for their entire life and under the warped version of copyright that would still count as 'enriching science and the useful arts'.

    Given that the goal is to enrich the public, with the method being the limited time monopoly privilege, it follows that what's protected by copyright for the (utterly theoretical at this point) 'limited time' enters the public domain for others to use and build off of once the duration is over with. The public has their ability to do certain things constrained by the law for a set period of time, and in exchange once that period is over they get their half of the deal.

    Not only that but if it was determined that no copyright at all was more beneficial to the public it would absolutely be within the scope of the law to reduce copyright duration to something like a five years, one, or even nothing at all.

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 12:37am


    Hmm, I had thought that maybe just gutting the pictures and offering the gutted version to french users might be enough, but given how insanely stupid this law is I doubt that would be enough to appease the idiots and parasites who put it into place and stand to benefit from it.

    So yeah, sounds like it's time for those sites to start blocking all users from france, followed immediately by the parasites and politicians(but I repeat myself...) throwing fits about how their blatant cash-grab still applies because people in france can still possibly access the sites.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 5:51pm

    (untitled comment)

    Even the comments to the Slate piece are filled with IT folks screaming about what a bad idea this is.

    Well, only one way to respond to that: Shut down the comments and claim that they're doing so because they care so much about their readers that they want to dump them elsewhere.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 4:02pm

    Protecting your rights... after we steal them from you

    When an image is published online, the reproduction right and the right of communication to the public of this image shall be transferred to one or more collecting societies appointed by the French government.

    I was wondering if they'd gone the 'irrevocable right to be paid' route that Spain did, but reading that it looks like they actually went even farther, and claim that the (theoretical) owners of the rights to the pictures are, like it or not, forced to hand over the reproduction rights to the collection agencies so that said agencies can collect the fees whether the (theoretical) owners want them to or not.

    Nothing says 'respect for the rights of creators' quite like taking those rights away and using them to profit at the creator's expense.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 3:20pm

    "It's never worked before, but this time, THIS TIME it will work for sure!"

    If France does follow through and a collection society actually goes after Google, it does make me wonder if Google might pull out the nuclear option yet again and shut down Google Images in France as it did with Google News in Spain, when the Spanish government passed a similar tax on news aggregation.

    'Please go nuclear' is not generally a phrase you would expect to see very often, but in this case if they are stupid enough to try and shake down Google for having images in their service I hope Google does the same here as they did in Spain, and responds by shutting down the service, maybe with a nice little message pointing to the french government as the cause.

    Chalk it up to another case of parasites demanding money for the work of others, lying about how they're just so very concerned about creators and want to make sure that they're appropriately rewarded for their creations.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 3:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

    No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.

    Yeah, no, not buying the 'But that's the old testament!' argument. Same god, and depending on your particular brand of chrisitity it might even be the same person since some sects believe that Jesus wasn't actually a separate entity but just god made flesh, so the idea that the OT acts/commands are somehow superseded is a real stretch(was god a horrible monster and mellowed out over time? Is Jesus actually more powerful than god and able to make new dictates that overrule the old ones?).

    If you don't want to own up to the OT and the acts committed in it then great, throw it out, but so long as it's part of the religion you don't get to act like the OT stuff never happened, or wasn't filled to the brim with bloodshed and butchery 'because Jesus!'

    37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

    Which leaves open a gigantic loophole, namely 'What happens if the master you love to much orders you to do something that isn't very neighborly'? Like say, sacrificing your son, killing anyone who worships other gods, or something along those lines?

    You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.

    Because it absolutely does command and justify violence in abundance, and I don't really see Jesus as much better, as it's in the NT that you get the idea of eternal punishment.

    In the OT, horrible as it was, dead was dead pretty much, that was the 'punishment' for making god mad, you got slaughtered(or given boils, or buried alive, or any other number of things). NT though you get the idea that if you get god mad and don't kiss up before death then you're going to spend eternity paying for it, which is if anything even worse than the OT atrocities.

    Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
    10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    . If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does
    not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen

    Boy, that sure makes this next part awkward now doesn't it?

    Luke, 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:15pm


    If so it didn't actually appear to do them any good.

    In the article that mentioned their optimization of the site the defense pointed out that despite drastically speeding it up, and massively increasing the viewing and downloading of child porn the number of people they'd charged was no higher than the number they had info for the same day they took control of the site/servers, meaning it didn't appear that they gained anything they didn't already have from running the site and making it run better for two weeks.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

    You may have missed it but the bible is chock full of 'God's chosen people' being punished by god for screwing up in one fashion or another, and as such it wouldn't be that difficult for a zealot to say that the jews had screwed up so badly that they were no longer 'god's chosen people', and/or that whatever is being done to them is their punishment this time around, because as 'god's chosen people' clearly if god wanted to prevent what was being done to them he could and would, meaning if he doesn't then he wants it to happen.

    Make other arguments if you want, but 'Hitler did terrible things to the jews and therefore couldn't be a christian' isn't really one supported by your book.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Dirty, thieving libraries!

    I really, really wish I couldn't think of several examples offhand that make it pretty clear that there are more than a few people and even companies who actually, honestly believe that...

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

    Yeah, funny thing but that 'master race' thing was also religiously motivated, as Hitler believed that the mixing of races was creating abominations and that only the true race was pleasing and 'in god's image'.

    From Mein Kampf:

    "The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."


    "A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."


    "That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"

    As for the whole 'Darwinism' line below about how Darwinism somehow supports actions like his, no, it really doesn't. First of all 'Darwinist/Darwinism' as a term makes absolutely no freaking sense(if you believe in relativity does that make you an 'Einsteinian'? Does accepting the gravity make you a 'Newtonian'?). It's the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, to explain the fact of evolution and how it works in general. Darwin may have been one of the big names that got the ball rolling, but it's advanced quite a bit since his time, so get your terminology right and stop using such laughable projectionist terms.

    On to the second half, evolutionary theory has nothing about should, only about is. 'This is what has happened and this is how it happened', it has nothing to say about 'this is what should happen'. People can run with it from there to commit all sorts of acts, some nice, some not so nice, but that has nothing to do with evolution theory itself, and if you'd like to say otherwise I could easily point to a good number of passages in your holy book that actually are 'should' passages that command some really horrible acts, so be careful before throwing those stones.

More comments from That One Guy >>