That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 2:08pm

    Gold dust on a cow-pie does not jewelry make

    I'm thinking the better option would be to just scrap corporate sovereignty provisions entirely, as it's both toxic and unnecessary, and leaving it in at all sets the wrong precedent, namely that corporations have equal if not more power than governments.

    Corporate sovereignty is a 'solution' to a self-solving problem, one that simply requires that companies show merely a tiny amount of self-restraint and not expect that every single venture be profitable.

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Appointment

    No no, getting rid of the agency entirely would be a bit too obvious, instead what you want to do is get rid of any power it might have, perhaps under the guise of 'streamlining the agency to better allow it to focus on it's core job' involving gutting it's funding, changing the law so that it can only apply it's power extremely narrowly, or both.

    Then you staff it with people that will rules as you like to make sure that whatever power it *does* still have will be used as you desire.

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 5:12am

    "That thing you want? Yeah, you actually don't. Stop it already!"

    "People don't need unlimited plans. People don't want unlimited plans. Do you hear us customers?! Drop the unlimited plans you have and move to capped ones already! If you don't we're just going to keep raising the price and making the service even worse, so switch already!"

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 4:52am

    Re: Re: How...?

    Well, with such a well thought out and presented argument, backed by extensive evidence and references to what he got wrong and why, I must say you've certainly convinced me.

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 4:50am


    Gutting net neutrality won't likely kill them off entirely, no, as they're entrenched and big enough to handle it, but with no agency looking over the shoulders to keep the excesses of the telecom companies in check Netflix may once more find itself facing 'unfortunate network issues' that will require them to pay a 'fair price' for 'their' use of the connection.

    Killing net neutrality won't kill them as well, but if they don't think it won't impact them then they haven't been paying attention to their own history and how other companies have tried to squeeze them for money in the past.

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 2:34am


    Of course.

    Everyone knows that copyright is The Most Important Thing Ever, Without Which The United States Wouldn't Exist, it makes perfect sense that they would go all out 'protecting' it. Protecting copyright is protecting the US, and the DOJ is absolutely dedicated to that.

    A few people who are almost certainly criminals being shot or roughed up? Eh, not that big of a deal. If the cops involved say they were justified who is the DOJ to say otherwise?

  • Jan 20th, 2017 @ 2:22am

    Think of the (long dead) creator

    If such blatant copyright infringement were to be allowed the original author would have absolutely no reason to create new works. If people are allowed to build upon works that have come before the very heart of culture and creativity is at risk, as the protections that creators depend upon, protections which are of course the only reason that anything is ever created in the first place will be shredded, and without those protections who will bother writing new, entirely-original-and-not-in-any-way-based-upon-anything-that-came-before books, movies or music?

    As such it's quite proper that the author's wife brings this lawsuit to stop such activity while the original author is temporarily unable to do so, on account of the man currently being dead and having been so for 31 years, as I'm sure any day now he'll rise again, and without the knowledge that his works from seventy-one years ago are still protected what possible reason could he have for ever creating anything again post-mortem?

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 3:28pm


    Going outside endangers your life. So does staying inside. Drinking water or not drinking water. Any number of things 'endanger lives', the fact that they couldn't point to so much as a single death caused by her actions makes it pretty clear that despite their histrionics about how Manning's actions were so horrible because 'lives were at risk!' either that risk was minimal at best or every single person impacted was insanely lucky.

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Maybe

    The worry about Wheeler was due to him being from the industry he was now tasked with providing oversight for, raising issues of possible conflict of interest. That's notably different than the incoming people to the agency all but admitting flat out that they have no intention of being anything less than stanch supporters of the industry, and completely ignoring reality with such insane ideas as stating that there's no monopoly problem in the industry.

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 3:13pm

    If you think it's bad now...

    With the current rules there was at least a possibility that a company blatantly screwing over their customers would get the FCC's attention and get a slap on the wrist, so they at least had to pretend to care about the customers and the rules in place.

    With the rules gutted and the FCC not only defanged but filled to the brim with people that insist that the industry is super competitive and composed of companies that think of nothing more than how best to serve their customers they won't even need to pretend, and can focus entirely on 'How can we get the most money with the absolute least amount of work on our part?'

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 7:09am


    Likely because their idea of 'public relations' can be boiled down to 'Pick up that can'.

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 7:06am

    Couldn't even make it through two paragraphs

    "We’ve got to make sure we don’t ever compromise that relationship with consumers, so we’ll do that in a very responsible way,” Walden continued. “But what we do know is that when you bring that kind of data, that rich set of data from Verizon into the platform, the result you get on targeted advertising is significantly better."

    'Oh yeah, we are absolutely focused on customer privacy and making sure that we put the customer first... hey completely unrelated but have I told you how absolutely awesome targeted advertising, something that requires the use of personal data to be effective, is when you have the amount of customer data we collect?'

    Verizon really needs to fire whatever idiots they have running PR spin at the moment, you'd think they'd be able to go at least one page's worth of laughable claims before destroying their own argument, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves.

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 2:28am

    About that...

    The focus needs to be on making great content and connecting with people, not wielding legal threats as a cudgel.

    Which requires that you a) make great or even just passable content, and b) don't see your customers as nothing more than wallets filled with money that rightfully belongs to you, and that just happen to have legs and the mistaken impression that said money is not in fact owed you for your 'masterpiece'.

    If on the other hand you have a rubbish game, a burning loathing of your customers, a willingness to act like a thug and the knowledge that most of the time using the DMCA to silence people you don't like works, then legal bullying is hardly a surprising turn of events.

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 12:46am

    Re: How...?

    In the opposition, the Chargers are referred to as “Applicant” and LA Gear is “Opposer.” The document lists 22 U.S. trademark registrations owned by LA Gear. The oldest dates back to 1985

    I'm guessing that they haven't tried to challenge the Dodgers because if they tried to bring it to court, and the Dodgers have been using it for 60 years it would be really easy to turn it around on them and say that the Dodgers have used it longer, and therefore LA Gear, if anyone, was the one guilty of trademark violation.

  • Jan 18th, 2017 @ 9:17pm

    Should have remembered to add 'Pretty please'

    If the DOJ actually wanted them to do something about the problem it wouldn't be a request, but a demand, and one backed by a stiff penalty for non-compliance. Imagine that same boneheaded logic applied elsewhere and it's easy to see how weak it was.

    "My client is pleading 'Not guilty' Your Honor on account of the law merely asking people not to drive while intoxicated, it does not actually say that doing so is illegal or even bad."

    By merely suggesting that the PD put in place a group that might hold the officers accountable, or even present the facade of such, they basically gave the PD all the room it needed to decide that nah, they'd rather not.

  • Jan 18th, 2017 @ 6:31pm

    Re: Re: A more dangerous enemy

    Selective enforcement and intimidation.

    A and B are both on The List.

    A is a 'good citizen' and keeps his/her head down, doesn't make waves, doesn't question those in charge, and as such isn't given much attention by the higher ups.

    B is not a 'good citizen'. They speak their mind, question statements made by their betters, and have the audacity so suggest that the government might not in fact have their best interests in mind. As a result should B make too much of a hassle the can look forward to 'investigations', a 'few questions', maybe some 'administrative issues' should they try to fly anywhere or apply for a job that requires a background/security check.

    If everyone is guilty of something(and with the insane and near countless laws we have that's pretty much a given) then that gives those with the ability to hand out punishments enormous power, both direct and indirect at their discretion and/or whim.

  • Jan 18th, 2017 @ 6:04pm

    Re: Re: 'Corruption, noun: What happens in other countries'

    Quite right, even if the impossible happened and a politician that was less than absolutely perfect managed to slip through and remain undetected, the flawless legal system would without fail prevent them from causing any damaage, which just makes it even more clear that so much as mentioning the possibility is completely and utterly Un-American and an indication of a seriously warped, perhaps even communist mindset.

  • Jan 18th, 2017 @ 3:06pm

    Re: 'It's okay to do it to them, they're the BAD GUYS'

    Partial retraction:

    It seems McCain has been one of those that actually objected to the CIA's torture program and noted that beyond being repugnant torture isn't effective, so those claiming that it was 'justified' because it produced intel are wrong, so at least in general he's not pro-torture, it's just that he apparently doesn't see Manning's treatment as rising to that level and therefore objectionable.

  • Jan 18th, 2017 @ 2:41pm

    Re: LAGNAF

    Only if you don't have enough power and/or connections.

  • Jan 18th, 2017 @ 2:39pm

    'It's okay to do it to them, they're the BAD GUYS'

    McStain lied about his treatment in Vietnam. No one could have gone through that but yet still advocate to treat others that way.

    Not necessarily, as seen in his act of throwing Manning under the bus but rushing to defend Petraeus it's very clear that he's willing to apply different standards to different people, so it would be consistent for him to claim that he was tortured and decry that as a terrible thing because he's from the US and a Good Guy while at the same time advocating and supporting that those dirty terrorists be 'tortured' because clearly they had it coming for being accused terrorists, and as such are Bad Guys, so it doesn't actually count as 'torture'.

    Hypocritical and disgusting yes, but it would be consistent hypocrisy and revolting behavior.

More comments from That One Guy >>