That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 24th, 2017 @ 9:49pm

    Impossibly high standards, what do you think they are, members of the public?

    Balderdash, who hasn't accidentally bribed someone and/or smashed someone's teeth in?

    I mean we're not talking about serious crimes like copyright infringement here, I'm sure that after a stern talking to they learned their lesson, no need to go overboard and impose some sort of punishment for what really amounts to harmless pranks.

  • Feb 24th, 2017 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Given this proposed law, I'd vote 'poe' more than 'funny'.

  • Feb 24th, 2017 @ 12:44am

    Re: Re: Re: hmmm

    I'll preface this by stating that I can't seem to find the article that covered it, so the details might be off, but the closest I can think of was a case a few years back where either the FBI or another group sent someone to play 'terrorist recruiter' in a mosque in the US, the people there got suspicious and tried to report the agent, only to have pressure brought to bear on them in an attempt to turn them into unwilling informants.

    Like I said though, I can't find the article so the details might be somewhat off, though trying to force people to become informants and punishing those that refuse is S.O.P. for the FBI, so it's likely to be fairly close.

  • Feb 24th, 2017 @ 12:03am

    Re: How is this legal?

    Because those 'protections' have more holes than a target at a gun range hosting a 'Free bullets' day, to the point that it is effectively impossible for them to trigger, barring the accused literally admitting in court that they knew that they were filing a bogus DMCA claim and did it anyway, and even then I wouldn't put good odds on their being punished to any real extent.

    The fact that the law theoretically requires a statement made under perjury, and bots, which cannot do so are allowed to send DMCA claims should be all the demonstration you need to show how pathetic the 'protections to prevent fraudulent claims' are.

    The law was meant from the get-go to be entirely one-sided, it's 'legal' because it's working as intended.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 8:33pm


    No, 'unfair as hell' would be blaming a site for what their users do because a) you're too lazy to go after the user, or b) you can't find them.

    'It's too hard/much work to do it right' does not give you the right to place the burden on someone else and screw everyone over in the process.

    Put bluntly, the free speech rights, including anonymity(something which you yourself are taking advantage of), of the public far outweigh the hurt feelings/reputations(justified or not) of the individuals that might find themselves at a dead-end because even after going through the song and dance of court the most they can get is the removal of one or a few posts at a time.

    The cost to prevent anonymous people saying mean things by requiring site to pre-screen everything is a cost far too high, causing real and significant harm for a comparatively insignificant amount of gain, so while it may suck for those frustrated by being told 'No, you are not in fact allowed to sue the site because someone who uses it said something mean/bad', that's just too bad for them.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 8:05pm

    Re: Re:

    A 'Fair Use' issue made by someone who is attacking the very concept of fair use?

    Clearly he's just too lazy and uncreative to come up with his own words to explain the concept, and has to steal them from other people, taking money out of the pockets of those he could have paid to come up with something simply because he's too cheap to do so.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 7:59pm

    "That's is me, that is absolutely me! ... wait, why are you saying that I would ever do that?!"

    And, perhaps more importantly, the character that Lohan is desperate to associate herself with for the purposes of this lawsuit is one that is depicted engaging in sex acts in a public setting and being photographed doing so. I'm struggling to understand why one would want to engage in this kind of legal reach under those circumstances.

    The funny thing is, while people may not have associated her with those sorts of things before this lawsuit, after spending years telling the courts how similar the character is with her she really has no grounds to complain if people make that connection now.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 7:52pm


    Exactly. This was never about solving the problem of age discrimination, as that would force them go go after the wealthy studios who are throwing lots of money at politicians, it was about going after an 'easy' target and pretending that doing so is solving the problem.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 7:41pm

    Re: "We love the first amendment, but..."

    If someone feels the need to tell you how honest and trustworthy they are, especially if they do so time and time again... it's generally a good assumption that they aren't to be trusted.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 6:55am

    It's a complicated relationship

    And without that analysis exploring the First Amendment implications, we now have the RIAA, MPAA and their friends trying to make the powers to censor even stronger, which is quite ridiculous coming from two organizations that often highlight their commitment to the First Amendment.

    The RIAA and MPAA are 'committed' to the First Amendment in the same way that a drunk is 'committed' to the beer they're holding. They'll gush about how much they love it and declare it's the best thing ever... right until it no longer does what they want it to, at which point they'll throw it in the trash without a moment's hesitation.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 6:39am

    Re: Re: Speaking of false premises...

    As the saying goes,

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    More stuff is being created than ever before, much of it in spite of copyright law(especially copyright law according to the AA's), but to admit that would be to admit that copyright does not in fact need to be constantly ratcheted up, and could in fact do with some reduction, which would undermine their whole argument of 'More copyright = More creativity'.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 6:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am

    How do you know that the post was from someone else and not the site owner? Perhaps one if the staff?

    Section 230 combined with anonymous posting leaves few legal options. That sites could post and repost the same materual and claim it is from a new user waxh time creates real issyes.

    And now you're moving into conspiracy theory territory based upon wild speculations of 'what could happen'.

    Sure something like that could happen, but 230 wouldn't do squat there because if it did then 230 wouldn't apply, as it only covers content not made by those that run the site.

    You might say that 230 would still apply and shield them because you couldn't prove that the site owner was the one reposting the content, in which case that's still working as intended. Even in that case, where the site owner is the one posting the content unless you can prove it holding them accountable is still punishing a party that as far as the evidence is concerned isn't responsible.

    As for the 'no legal options', no, unless you want to claim that what I posted above about 'take it to court and then take that to the site' is wrong, then it's hardly the case that 230 doesn't leave any legal options, it just narrows them to the responsible party, the one who posted the content. If you can't find them then back to court to try and go after the site directly, and if that's an uphill battle then that's just too bad, the alternative is worse.

    The pin biard wxample is perfect. A store allows free for sale ads and stuff, but doesn't monitir it. Wheb someone likks the ads are all for dryds and hookers. If the store does nothinf about it, do they becone conspirators in these crimes?

    Not as far as I know, and the searches I just did didn't find anything either way, though the law as regards to physical message boards might differ from digital ones so it's possible.

    However, while a physical message board might be similar to a digital one at the level of 'Owner posts the board/site, allows content without vetting', there are some significant differences that would justify a difference in how the law treats the two, with scope being the main one.

    A standard physical message board is likely to contain a few dozen messages at most, and requires people to physically go to it, further decreasing the number of people that have access to it. Contrast this to a site, which can have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of posts on a regular basis.

    If a site had to worry about being responsible for any that 'slipped through' most of them wouldn't even bother, resulting in a massive chilling of speech, causing vastly more damage than would be prevented.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 3:41am

    Re: Shall I or not?

    Yeah, I'd avoid the US if at all possible for the foreseeable future. Look at the sights online if you really want to, but do not try to come here in person, spend that money in some other country that will appreciate it more.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 3:38am

    "Left Hand, could you at least send a LETTER to Right Hand every so often?!"

    So you've got one part of the government trying to make handing out passwords a felony, and another part talking about requiring those that wish to enter the country... hand over their passwords.


  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 3:26am

    Re: Re: Re: And the Judge?

    But I think he just secretly wishes he was Batman.

    In which case someone really needs to tell him this.

  • Feb 23rd, 2017 @ 3:20am

    Re: Some context

    Gotta love that second one. 'They tried to be nice and you still acted like a thug to shut them down. Time to take the gloves off and be a little more blunt about it.'

  • Feb 22nd, 2017 @ 7:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Logician on Feb 19th, 2017 @ 9:54am

    While the site may not have written it, they are publishing it, and do have control over its publication.

    According to an odd definition of 'publishing' perhaps. Is someone who puts up a physical board that people can tack messages and fliers on without the owner of the board pre-checking those messages for example considered the 'publisher' of whatever is placed? A site that allows user submitted content is essentially doing the same thing, putting up a 'board' where people can leave comments and/or content without the owner of the board vetting each submission beforehand.

    Arguing that sites should be considered liable for what their users post is like saying that the state should be liable for drivers that use their roads. Either can, should they desire, revoke the ability to use 'their stuff', and when the user/driver misbehaves the correct target to go after is the user/driver, not the one who owns the site/road.

    Overbroad section 230 protections mwans that a site can publish defamatory comments with any risk or any legal responsibility to deal with them.

    Host, not publish, and yeah, not holding sites liable for the actions of their users is a feature, not a bug.

    Given the alternative, where holding sites responsible for the actions of others would lead to mass chilling of speech as most sites and services would shut prohibit user submitted content at all to avoid possible legal liability, I'd say that's an acceptable 'risk'. It may suck a bit for those that want to have something removed and they have to jump through a few more hoops to find out who posted it instead of going after the site, but that's just the 'cost' required for a system that allows user submitted content.

    Moreover they also act as a protection for those who make the comments as tgeir id is protected.

    Not really.

    (I'm not a lawyer so some of the details of the following might be off, but as far as I'm aware it should be roughly accurate. If I botch something and anyone who does know the applicable law reads this feel free to step in and offer corrections though.)

    Go to court, convince a judge that the comment is defamatory and that they have good odds to win in court on those grounds.

    Take the ruling to the site and ask for the identification details of the poster in order name them in the lawsuit.

    If the site has that information and you have what they believe to be a valid court order, odds are they'll provide the information.

    If the sites refuses or says 'We don't have that info' go back to court, get default judgement on defamation claim ordering removal of the content in question and take that back to the site.

    Just because you may not be able to go after the original poster, it does not follow that the site should be liable.

  • Feb 22nd, 2017 @ 5:25pm

    That's just rude!

    Another possibility is that he was aware of it but figured that as part of the club his communications wouldn't be under surveillance.

    Remember for example Feinstein, who saw absolutely nothing wrong with the public being under the microscope but threw a fit when it turned out that someone was watching her.

    Indiscriminate spying on the public is one thing, but doing that to members of the government, why that's just uncalled for!

  • Feb 22nd, 2017 @ 5:21pm

    Par for the course

    'Re-purposes' a drug meant for one thing for another. Fails spectacularly.

    'Re-purposes' a law meant for one thing for another. Fails spectacularly.

  • Feb 22nd, 2017 @ 5:09pm

    Re: This is not the first place I've seen this suggested.

    Nonsense, the peons don't need to think, so long as they can obey the orders from their betters that's more than enough. Why, if they start thinking, they might start having dangerous thoughts, and we can't have that now can we? No no, much better to leave the thinking to those better suited to it, it's better for everyone that way.


    Anyone arguing that 'logic and critical thinking' are threats to their position(s) is essentially admitting that those positions are beyond weak and without justification and support.

More comments from That One Guy >>