elemecca’s Techdirt Profile


About elemecca

elemecca’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 10th, 2014 @ 10:29pm

    Re: Re:

    IANAL, but I believe that the difference is one of scope. In the case of the Netherlands' writable media levy, the ECJ directly struck down the national law. The data retention directive, on the other hand, is a EU directive which implemented by local laws in each member state. Since the directive was struck down each state must re-examine their implementations and ensure they comply with the ruling. Until they do so or the laws are struck down directly they remain in force.

  • Mar 17th, 2014 @ 2:12am


    Also worth knowing: if you append a + to a bit.ly link you get its stats page, which includes the target URL.

  • Nov 8th, 2013 @ 7:42pm


    See, this is the kind of chilling effect we worry about. Canonical's trademark bullying has got him worried enough to subconsciously misspell their mark.

  • Oct 31st, 2013 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Gag Orders

    But American citizens and entities are bound by them anywhere in the world. A fully independent part of Level 3 operating from a foreign country bound to its American parent only by contract obligations would be (mostly) immune from American court orders. Anything that's legally part of the American company is within the jurisdiction of the American court system regardless of where in the world they operate.

  • Oct 10th, 2013 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Going to the source

    The browser vendors are relevant here because they exert strong market pressure on the CAs in their root store to have reasonable revocation policies. Since the majority of their customers are using their certificates to operate HTTPS web sites even one major browser removing their root certificate is a business-ending event for a CA.

  • Oct 10th, 2013 @ 9:46am

    Re: Possible out

    The certificate holder doesn't even have to say they're in breach of contract. They just need to push a CRL entry with reasonCode=keyCompromise. Most CAs are more than happy to revoke keys that have been compromised; especially since they'll often get to charge the customer to re-issue them.

  • May 31st, 2013 @ 5:17pm

    Re: What?

    We haven't quite gotten to the point that gag orders issued by the executive branch apply to a federal judge with specific jurisdiction. Yet.

  • Mar 16th, 2013 @ 7:15am

    Re: Copyright property

    This. A thousand times this. Indirection and the various derived objects it creates is something many, many people have trouble following.

    I have one gripe with your explanation, though. You set out to explain that the creative work itself is not and cannot be owned, but then you describe it using the terminology of property (including the word "own"). The copyright in a work does not grant ownership of the work. Rather, it grants a temporary, exclusive right to exploit some aspects of the work. Inasmuch as we have collectively agreed that such a right exists, its exclusivity makes it rivalrous and thus it can reasonably be owned and transferred as property. Even allowing for the existence of the exclusive right, however, the work itself remains non-rivalrous and thus cannot be property.

  • Feb 25th, 2013 @ 10:02pm

    Re: Security Expert

    I tried looking for other filings that might go into more detail, but they seem to be behind a paywall. Anyone with access interested enough to check?

  • Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:58pm


    Horrifically bad indeed. They apparently don't know about GET parameters. To find the case documents you have to go here and enter "BC495593" in the Case Number field at the bottom:


    I couldn't figure out a way to create a direct link. It seems to POST the case number to one page which then redirects you to the display page without passing along the case number. I guess it stores it in your session or a cookie or something.

  • Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:47pm

    Security Expert

    ... concerning a security expert who pretended to be Plaintiff's lawyer and challenges to Dr. Glaser's diagnosis ...

    This seems like it would be an interesting story in and of itself, but the ruling makes no further mention of it.

  • Feb 25th, 2013 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Which is why they phrased it the other way around: "if it's nonprofit it's .org", not "if it's .org it's nonprofit". The converse of a statement does not necessarily follow.

  • Feb 14th, 2013 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Alan Cooper

    Well... apparently he is:

    If only my tongue were made of ass I might be mistaken for #BrettGibbs. #TrollBait Alan Cooper(@AlanCooperGhost) February 14, 2013

  • Dec 12th, 2012 @ 2:08pm

    (untitled comment)

    You might want to add some punctuation to that title. At first I read it as "EU Opens Itself Up To Massive Innovation, Hindering Patent Trolling" and was very surprised. After reading the article it becomes obvious you meant "EU Opens Itself Up To Massive, Innovation-Hindering Patent Trolling".

  • Nov 13th, 2012 @ 2:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Google seems to think so. After a long string of Samsung devices the new Nexus is a variant of the LG Optimus G. It's a pretty awesome handset.

  • Nov 7th, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The Razer devices do have built-in flash storage, or at least my Mamba 2012 does. Unlike Logitech's products, you don't need the configuration software running all the time in order to customize settings. Synapse is only used to modify the configuration profiles, which are then stored on the device itself and used even when it's acting as a plain USB HID mouse without drivers. It's one of my favorite features, actually.

    It's possible they've stopped including on-board storage and are relying on Synapse 2.0's cloud storage non-feature for new devices. If that's true I'll probably stop buying their products.

  • Nov 5th, 2012 @ 4:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter if it's a trespass.

    Trespass to land is a civil tort and thus isn't covered by the criminal statutes of limitations. The Wisconsin statute covering trespass to land doesn't provide a time limit. It does say it's a Class B forfeiture, but the definition of that doesn't provide a time limit either. My best guess is that the limitation is "reasonable" and thus determined by the court, but I Am Not A Lawyer.

  • Nov 4th, 2012 @ 1:09am

    Re: Re: Wow...

    The problem here is that profit really comes after step 3, so they never get to the rest of it. If they had to stop piracy in order to profit the Internet would be a different (and probably happier) place.

  • Feb 24th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    Integrity Cost

    For example, if the fans like a content creator, but they feel he charges too much and it takes too long to get the content legally, the $I cost of the content has just gone up.

    I disagree. The integrity cost represents how good or bad one feels about acquiring the content in a given manner. If the fans like a content creator the integrity cost of a legal purchase goes down, not up. An expensive and time-consuming legal purchase option has high monetary and time costs; those parameters do not affect integrity cost. In this case the high monetary and time costs may outweigh the lower integrity cost and make a legal purchase less attractive than pirating, but the integrity cost is still low.

  • Nov 18th, 2011 @ 8:58pm


    I think you've misconstrued the issue with routers. The only way in which DNSSEC will affect most provider devices (including true layer 3 routers) is by increasing the size of DNS packets. For almost all devices that shouldn't be a problem. ISPs, then, shouldn't have to upgrade their infrastructure much beyond their nameservers.

    Where DNSSEC could become a problem is the ALG in NAT gateways (including home routers), which is responsible for parsing DNS responses to determine which masked computer they're intended for. Poorly implemented ALGs may be confused by DNSSEC packets. I suppose it's also possible that some gateway devices include a caching DNS resolver or some sort of DNS proxy that would need to be updated, but I've personally never seen one. DNSSEC is not exactly a new protocol, however. Most reasonably new hardware should support it.

    Turning on DNSSEC too early won't break the Internet. Legacy clients will simply continue to use regular, unsecured DNS. Rolling out DNSSEC won't do anything to change that. While it is true that clients configured to require validation will fail if the recursive resolver doesn't support it, that's a per-client setting and can easily be disabled.

    All of that is largely irrelevant to the discussion of SOPA. Your post seems to be insinuating that DNSSEC is not ready and thus we have time to fix it. Unfortunately, SOPA doesn't just break some implementation detail of DNSSEC as the MPAA seems to think. It breaks the very idea of DNSSEC. It enshrines in law the idea that the recursive resolver must lie to the client, which is exactly what DNSSEC was designed to prevent.