TKnarr’s Techdirt Profile


About TKnarr

TKnarr’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 2:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think the new narrative will fall flat simply because people have already been exposed to the reality that one of the biggest sources of malware is legitimate web sites that host advertising. That's why the use of ad-blockers is on the rise. All people will do is shrug at the DCA and go "That's different from every other web site out there how again?".

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 9:11pm


    I don't think it does. What it does is require that the plaintiff go back to the judge and make a motion to compel discovery, get it granted and go back to the service provider with the judge's order. Which is almost certainly what Yahoo told him to do when they rejected his request.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 11:12am

    (untitled comment)

    So, what Admiral is saying is that needs to be added to the list of domains that my local nameserver is authoritative for and which have a wildcard record resolving to a web server that responds to all requests with "404 Not Found". Glad they clarified that, now I'll never even contact their site to potentially copy their content so I'll never have to worry about whether I've circumvented anything Admiral's put in place to prevent that copying and thus never have to worry about Section 1201.

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re:

    It isn't. And those videos should be left up as well unless they meet the same criteria above.

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 10:59am

    (untitled comment)

    No, they shouldn't be forced to take it down. Not until he's specifically telling people to go to North Korea and try to kill Kim Jong Un, being aware that they can and will do just that. Until that point it's merely insanely offensive (not to mention IMHO simply insane) and that's not enough to move it outside the scope of the First Amendment.

  • Aug 4th, 2017 @ 12:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    What's more fun is that allowing AirBnb to be sued like this opens up another can of worms: how is what any hotel/motel does with on-line reservations (or even renting rooms in-person) sufficiently different as to render them less liable than AirBnb? If anything they have more knowledge of the activities than AirBnb and more control over honoring or refusing the reservation. This would be a huge sword dangling over the entire hospitality industry.

  • Jul 26th, 2017 @ 11:59am


    I think what Senator Wyden needs to do is to call for open hearings to "fully document the problems Title II classification has created for the broadband industry and to provide a solid foundation for the FCC's rules changes". Don't phrase it as trying to cut Pai off at the knees, phrase it as if you're trying to get the evidence he claims is there completely and clearly in the record.

    Then when the broadband people are done saying how it's hampered their investment in expansion and upgrades, pull out their own statements to investors and read out the relevant sections with the text projected clearly. Ask them whether, given the discrepancies, they've lied to investors about their business situation and plans or not and to provide good reason why this matter should not be referred to the SEC for prosecution. Don't involve the FCC here at all, just use the results the next time he tries to trot out his "hurt investments" line to counter him with "But the broadband companies themselves said before Congress that it didn't hamper their plans at all.".

  • Jul 21st, 2017 @ 3:40pm

    Re: There's a more obvious flaw with this "evidence"

    It's a pretty good presumption, though. People don't just go loaning out their phones for extended periods, so if he had it on him at all around that time it's likely he had it on him for the entire period. It's an easy presumption to rebut, but absent any rebuttal it's reasonable to assume that his phone didn't go randomly wandering off.

  • Jul 21st, 2017 @ 3:35pm


    It isn't even triangulation. The prosecution was essentially trying to base their location calculation on data from a single tower, and even assuming they got the right tower the error margin's far too high for their claims. And there's no guarantee they even identified the right tower, just imagine the error margin if they're trying to calculate the location relative to a different tower than would've been used at the time of the incident.

  • Jul 11th, 2017 @ 4:36pm


    Tiffany Inc. v. Ebay Inc. would seem to indicate otherwise.

  • Jul 11th, 2017 @ 9:30am

    (untitled comment)

    We won't get the FCC to do anything thanks to Pai, but it's important to have this on the record. When it comes time for court challenges the FCC's going to wave the public comments to justify their decision as being in the public interest based on their expressed views, and being able to show that not only were those expressed views provably falsified to some unknown degree but the FCC knew they'd been falsified before they made their decision and before they used it in court. That's the kind of thing that can get a judge to order the FCC to re-evaluate the comments and possible order new commentary.

  • Jul 6th, 2017 @ 8:34pm

    Re: As Dog's my witness ...

    I'd love to see an attorney in one of these cases call up the officer and hand him a sealed envelope, telling him to put it in whatever pocket he chooses. Then he hands the judge another envelope and says "Here's the police lab's analysis of what's in the first envelope, along with the lab's statement that they placed the sample in the envelope and sealed and signed it themselves and that it's the same sample they analyzed. Let's have the dog search the officer and the officer tell us whether the dog alerted or not, then your honor can open the envelope and tell us what the dog alerted to. Sound fair?".

  • Jul 5th, 2017 @ 11:52am

    (untitled comment)

    Now if we could only get courts to routinely add "Since counsel for the plaintiff was plainly aware or should have been aware that this argument has been ruled to be invalid, this court rules that counsel for the plaintiff shall pay all defendant's costs and fees in this matter and refers counsel for the plaintiff to the Bar for disciplinary action for professional malfeasance.".

  • Jun 28th, 2017 @ 10:58am

    (untitled comment)

    I do agree with Google about one point: if I search for a specific product I typically want to see either a) pages with information about that product or b) pages where I can purchase that product. Pages that offer me search results for that product... are what I went to Google to get, if I wanted another search engine's results I would've gone to them instead of Google. No matter what the EU bureaucrats may say, it's not Google's job to throw a lifeline to shopping comparison sites and keep them alive for another few months to a year before Amazon kills them off for good.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 1:47pm

    Re: Hah!

    Because law enforcement's going to target everything except child porn and child exploitation.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 12:46pm


    Look at those who are denouncing sex workers, any doubts they avail themselves of the services?

    Not any doubt at all. Maybe it's time for those sex workers to go to all their other important/influential clients and go "I'm going to get caught by this bill anyway, so if it passes I'm going to out all my clients publicly and negotiate for a light sentence in return for my cooperation. So you may want to make sure it gets scuttled and stays scuttled."

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 11:12am


    I sometimes wonder if it's not time for the courts to take matters in hand: "The Bar Association may do as it wishes, but this Court remains the final authority over who may stand before it's bar and lawyers who we find are consistently ignoring the basic rules of the legal profession and this court can go sit with the other spectators.".

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 3:26pm


    Well, yes, because to be illegal speech it first has to be found to be outside the scope of the 1st Amendment's protection. And the Court sets a fairly high bar for that.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 1:31pm

    Re: Re:

    Exactly. The terminology the copyright maximalists are using has long-established meaning in the legal system, and I'd like to see them jerked sharply back into legal reality by a defendant going "They're basing their entire argument on my having been found to have infringed repeatedly, yet there's nothing in the record showing I've been found to have infringed even once. If they can't cite the actions where a court reached a finding of infringement, I'd like this action dismissed.".

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 10:57am

    (untitled comment)

    I think the ruling might be usable to challenge blanket disconnection, but orders barring someone from accessing specifically sites offering pirated material would probably pass muster. That of course leads to other questions, including one that I haven't seen brought up much: the definition of "repeat infringer". I'd love to see someone contest disconnection on the basis that they have never been found to have infringed. Been accused of it yes, but anyone can accuse anyone of anything at any time and none of the accusations have gone through trial and been sustained.

More comments from TKnarr >>