That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile

thatoneguy

About That One GuyTechdirt Insider




That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:29pm

    When you make Gollom's long-lost brother look sane...

    Erdogan may be a thin-skinned thug, but as far as I know he's never sentenced someone to death for saying mean things about him, so at least he hasn't sunk as low as the pathetic ninnies in Pakistan.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:20pm

    Re: death sentence

    And when the US sentences someone to death for 'blasphemy'(one of the more absurd and stupid ideas out there), then you might have a point comparing the two. But they haven't, and I don't see it happening any time soon, so your comparison is completely empty of meaning.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:37am

    Hit enter too soon...

    Something like that might get them to be a little more careful in their words, if they faced a real financial penalty for being a little 'lose' with the truth.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:34am

    Re: Re:

    "I solemnly swear upon my pay and retirement fund, which shall be forfeited and given to the accused should I be found to have violated this oath, that I will tell the truth to the best of my ability, and shall not make any false or misleading statements at any time."

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 1:54am

    Well nuts to that

    Yeah, Murray and his team really did not think this one through. It could have been over with, brought up in a single episode and then left behind as the show covered other topics, but by going legal they've ensured that it will be covered again, drawing even more attention both to the original episode and it's contents and now the fact that he's suing over it.

    So congrats Murray and company, you just Streisand'd yourself quite nicely, and if you think you had it bad from the previous episode covering you, just wait until the next one.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re:

    The multiple retroactive extensions to copyright laws would seem to argue otherwise.

    Not saying it should be allowed('What you did was legal yesterday, and isn't today. Guess who's going to court tomorrow?'), but the legislature doesn't seem to have a problem doing it anyway.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 3:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are much better ways

    Then you should have no problem at all providing a few examples and explaining why you think they would work better.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 2:41pm

    Re:

    The fact that they are basing their demands off of accusations of infringement should have been all it took to laugh them out of court.

    There could be a discussion about fitting penalties for actual 'repeat infringers', those that have been found guilty of copyright infringement multiple times, but they aren't even getting to that point, and instead are insisting that an accusation of guilt be treated as equivalent to a finding of guilt. To say that their argument is absurd is to do a great disservice to the word, with 'insane' probably fore fitting.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 2:15pm

    Why spend $21 million when $2 will get the job done?

    Given the severity of the 'threat' they should deliver a flashlight to the FBI and tell them that should be plenty. Perhaps include a complementary box of light-bulbs just in case the FBI main offices are 'going dark' and need some illumination as well.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 2:14pm

    Re:

    Considering the way that copyright terms have been extended repeatedly by Congress, perhaps we should be very glad that patents don't grant the holders anywhere close to the 100+ year monopolies that copyrights bring.

    Yet.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 1:59pm

    For a start, sure

    Hutchens and every "veteran officer" she's referring to should be fired immediately.

    Followed by being blacklisted from ever working in law enforcement ever again, and placed under investigation for perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and I'm sure a good number of other crimes. They didn't 'just' flat out lie under oath, they did so in a case where a person's life was on the line. Something like that should carry hefty penalties.

    An immediate reversal of any guilty verdicts that involved the office would probably be a good idea as well, given if they were willing to lie on something this serious I don't believe for a second they haven't been lying through their teeth in other cases as well, such that the default assumption should be that they lied in all of them.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 4:03am

    Consistency in corruption

    States passing laws to cripple if not outright eliminate local competition = States rights, absolutely fine.

    States trying to pass laws to ensure that broadband companies can't lie through their teeth and advertise something they won't/can't deliver = Terrible, absolutely not acceptable.

    Pretty easy to see through the PR and glimpse the underlying idea about what 'rights' they think states should be able to hold, and which can be summed up as simply 'States have whatever rights will allow us to make the most profits, and should be free to pass whatever laws will best serve that purpose.'

    While I've no doubt whatsoever that the argument of the lobbyists will get a warm welcome with the current FCC hopefully the courts will nicely shut down their latest attempt to screw over the public if the FCC tries to back them up.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 11:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?

    So insults and accusations, got it.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 10:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?

    Unless you want to say that the source material is factually incorrect, your faux outrage and insults doesn't actually refute the points.

    1. They were engaged in 'drug interdiction patrols' when they got a cut of the money gained from it.

    2. A budget cut of various programs resulting in them no longer getting a cut.

    3. They stopped doing drug interdiction patrols.

    4. If the only thing that changed was that they were no longer profiting from the activity then it seems pretty obvious that the reason they did it was for the money, not 'stopping drug trafficking' or whatever other excuse they wanted to use.

    Now you could respond with a reasoned counter-argument as to why this isn't likely the case, or you could double-down on the insults and accusations. I'll let you decide which route you want to take.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?

    'Hampton County suspended drug interdiction patrols until the payment program resumed.'

    There is nothing 'abstract' about the fact that when they no longer were able to profit off of 'drug interdiction patrols' they stopped engaging in them. They cared about drug busts only so long as they were able to profit from them, and as soon as that wasn't the case they lost all interest, making their actual motivations pretty clear.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 5:16pm

    Re:

    As far as I know it's 'only' at the 'threat' phase, though after having the threat blow up in their faces it's possible that Murray and his legal team will kick sanity to the curb and follow through with the threat.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 3:49pm

    Downright polite really

    It's always handy when someone starts out with a line and/or tell letting people know that reading past that will be a waste of time. Such a great time-saver.

  • Jun 20th, 2017 @ 4:59am

    Re: "repeat infringers"

    The problem with "repeat infringers" is it is based on accusations.

    And that right there nicely highlights how absurd their 'You need to disconnect 'repeat infringers' assertion is, and makes the fact that they actually got a judge to buy their crap all the more insane.

    The 'repeat infringers' they're talking about aren't people that have been found guilty of copyright infringement, instead it's (as far as I can tell) people that have merely been accused of copyright infringement. Boil it down and they're basically saying that an accusation of guilt should be treated the same as a finding of guilt, such that multiple accusations should be grounds for disconnecting someone from the gorram internet.

    Unless of course the accused wants to caught up a 'little' money and make that problem go away of course...

  • Jun 19th, 2017 @ 10:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I didn't say infringement didn't happen, all I pointed out that the fact that the DMCA claim might not be as 'effective' as some may want it to be at combating infringement isn't really of concern to anyone but them. They can run around trying to stamp out something that will never be stamped out, or they can save their time and energy and change tactics such they can ignore the majority of copyright infringement as not a big deal.

    Infringement happens, and so long as it's not commercial, which I imagine the vast majority isn't, I'm not going to get overly concerned that it happens, especially when I see the people trying to 'combat' it using and abusing tools that cause significant 'collateral damage'.

    As for 'aren't enforced very often', that's complete and total crap. With the exception of one case where it was a default judgment the worst that typically happens is a slap on the wrist and a 'And don't let me catch you doing it again' I'm not aware of any cases where any real penalty was handed out for filing a bogus DMCA claim. If you have any examples that are even remotely in the ballpark of what people face thanks to bogus DMCA claims(removal of speech being the low end of things) then by all means, share them.

    On the other hand, you don't have to look very far at all to find example after example, after example, after example, after example, after example, after example of abuse of the law and accusations of infringement that results in perfectly legal content being taken down and/or people having to defend perfectly legal content because again, there is no penalty for filing bogus copyright claims, whereas the law is very much stacked against those on the receiving end of them.

    It seems to me that you don't like copyright and you don't care. I'm 99% sure Mike agrees--but, of course, he won't just say it. Kudos to you.

    Ah the good old lies and strawman, because nothing says "Take me seriously" like making blanket assumptions on the other person's position and then claiming that they're too dishonest to admit it should their actual position not match what you claimed they were.

  • Jun 19th, 2017 @ 7:34pm

    Re:

    The fact that it isn't as effective as some parties might like it isn't really of importance to anyone not playing the 'whack-a-mole game'.

    The fact that it's regularly abused and used to remove and/or chill perfectly legal speech is of importance, in large part because as it stands(and as pointed out in the article) there are no penalties for filing a bogus claim.

More comments from That One Guy >>