James Burkhardt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2642)

• On the post: Seventh Circuit Again Says Long-Term Pole Camera Surveillance Isn’t Unconstitutional

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2024 @ 09:08am

  Its amazing how half of these are just the same conditions rephrased a bit. Theyve had to bulk it up. It breaks down into 3 categories - you dont own the car, which means they aren't applicable - You have some contract which stipulates the presence of the GPS, which is far enough outside the context as to be 'true, but not really applicable to the implied situation' - The police had a warrant. Its the most on point and funnily enough, it isn't neccisarily true. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/27/state-court-says-it-isnt-theft-to-remove-unmarked-law-enforcement-tracking-device-your-car/ I frankly assume me's comment was in refrence to that very case. So yes, really.

• On the post: You Don’t Believe In Free Markets And Free Speech If You’re Demanding Criminal Charges Against People For Their Free Market, Free Speech Decisions

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2024 @ 08:00am

  A repeated scenario Techdirt highlights is the incumbent corporations closing off a market to new entrants via burdensome regulation. Deregulation, in abstract, can improve competition, and therefore support a free market. Thats how the grift works. Identify a real problem, and provide a corrupted solution. Bad faith calls for deregulation use the fact that some regulation is in conflict with the free market and argues all regulation is in conflict with the free market. But the opposite, that all deregualtion is in conflict with the free market, is just as bad faith.

• On the post: Judge: Just Because AI Trains On Your Publication, Doesn’t Mean It Infringes On Your Copyright

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2024 @ 06:21am

  OKay, rereading, I better understand your claim, but you seem to think a lot more of the text of the internet is protected against copying with DRM than id imagine is really true.

• On the post: Judge: Just Because AI Trains On Your Publication, Doesn’t Mean It Infringes On Your Copyright

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2024 @ 06:15am

  Dear lord, you have no idea how the internet works, huh? Thats how the internet works. ALL uses of the internet copy data into local storage. Courts have ruled in multiple cases, that the copying necessary for the internet to work is legal. There is no difference between temporary transitory storage for a human to view content and temporary transitory storage for a computer to view content.

• On the post: Judge To Zuckerman: Release Your App First, Then We’ll Talk Section 230

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 10:52am

  What the court should or should not do is not my lane. I am attempting to interpret the court to correct your misunderstanding of what the problem is. The ruling does not imply the app doesn't exist, only that the app isn't published, and it (factually) could change in any number of ways between what it is now and what is published. He could have an entire code base with changes specifically to make it more palatable to a court. I don't think Zuckerman does, it is important to note. Because of this, no amount of showing the code or the app changes the court's analysis. UNtil Zuckerman actually publishes, no harms can be incurred, and an effort to apply section 230 in a novel way should come from an actual, not theoretical risk. Do I agree with the court here? No. Digital distrubution and automatic updates makes the stability of the published product no better. But it is not due to a claim the code is not availible (though, ive certainly seen no evidence Zuckerman has a finished product yet either).

• On the post: Judge To Zuckerman: Release Your App First, Then We’ll Talk Section 230

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 10:27am

  The ruling, as little of it as we have due to a lack of sources for the quotes in the article, implies nothing can be done until the dispute is 'ripe' by publishing the app. That the court would not entertain performing such an analysis on the unreleased product that might change before release (while the rapid turn around of digital distribution makes the pre-launch/post-launch distinction less meaningful, reading this distinction in the courts analysis is the only way any of this makes sense). To my read, nothing here implies Trade secrets are the cause of the dismissal, which would be the claim behind a need to hide source code.

• On the post: Judge To Zuckerman: Release Your App First, Then We’ll Talk Section 230

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2024 @ 10:08am

  Given the lack of traditional linking to source coverage or source documents, we lack any of the details necessary to assess your comment. There are lots of details this hinges on, and that's kinda the point of the court. That said, from the description provided, I read the issue not as standing, but ripeness. The claim appears to be that until Zuckerman Publishes, the threat of harm is not ripe. Of greater concern to me is that this implies, like fair use, there can never be the clean win Mike is looking for. Every app must be assessed for the details individually.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2024 @ 10:01am

  In all these cases, attempts were made at shotgunning defemation cases were more about shutting down speech that vindicating rights. It doesn't work. Indeed, Mike Masnik of Techdirt coined the phrase describing how it regularly backfires. Editor insightfuls often reinforce a common theme or message of the site, particularly new ways of expressing them. IN the one and only case that went to court, the statements made about Jewell were ruled to be substantially true, and that no defamation occurred. The court specifically noted that in that specific case the paper had cast doubt about the suspicion of Jewell right next to the reporting the suspicion existed. This fits within the theme of the labelled individuals. Most if not all of them got settlements. All of them sought to vindicate themselves against a newspaper that stood by its reporting, and all failed when those cases went to court. That Jewel may have had meritorious cases against some dirt slingers who went above and beyond does not absolve him of his lawsuits against truthful reporting. Some of the settlements may be for papers which went much harder on the accusations, made those accustaions more directly and had merit. But The only case to be decided on the merits found the reporting was truthful, and that the reporting proceeded to question why he was a suspect. The AJC lawsuit was a terrible move for free speech. Shotgun spewing lawsuits isn't a good move. Suing everyone, regardless of the specific merits of each case, is bad. Wrong. Anti-free-speech. Jewell was a hero in the moment when the bomb was discovered, and history vindicates that. But it was still truthful the FBI was looking at him. And therefore well founded defemation claims need to be tied to the specifics of the reporting, not simply filed en mass against institutions big enough to pay.

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: You Have To Do A Ton Of Busywork To Show Texas’s Social Media Law Violates The First Amendment

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2024 @ 12:40pm

  In regards to the Original AC claims that the actions of the fifth circuit in this ruling demonstrate a change in SCOTUS opinions on 1A jurisprudence post election, compared to the most recent rulings on 1A jurisprudence issued over the summer used to support claims about SCOTUS not throwing out the existing body of 1A jurisprudence, The actions of the fifth circuit in this case provide no evidence of a change in SCOTUS opinion on 1A jurisprudence post election. Have i sufficiently filled out the context?

• On the post: Porn Is Protected Speech. Trump’s New Presidency Will Test That Sentiment. The Courts Can Uphold It.

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2024 @ 08:07am

  The first start might be to look at context

  Previously, I’ve written across various outlets, like Techdirt, to address the “masculine policy” Trump and his new vice president, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, and his allies envision to “make America great again.” Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and the de facto head of Project 2025, a so-called “presidential transition project,” laid out the administration’s position on key culture war issues, such as access to online porn.

  In context, the masculine policy is referencing an entire suite of Project 2025 reforms, of which one is the porn ban. The masculine policy line echoes the messaging of the Trump campaign and right wing greviences.

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: Lol, No, RFK Jr. You Don’t Have Standing To Sue Joe Biden Because Facebook Blocked Your Anti-vax Nonsense

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2024 @ 11:41am

  Probably the fever dream that the legislature is giving the power of repealing law to the FCC.

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: Lol, No, RFK Jr. You Don’t Have Standing To Sue Joe Biden Because Facebook Blocked Your Anti-vax Nonsense

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2024 @ 11:40am

  NO, its not how this works was only in reference to the idea that the FCC would be the reaper or section 230, and not John Roberts or the courts or facist dictate. I have no fucking clue why people think the FCC is gonna be involved.

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: Lol, No, RFK Jr. You Don’t Have Standing To Sue Joe Biden Because Facebook Blocked Your Anti-vax Nonsense

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2024 @ 11:38am

  The FCC had no authority to impact section 230 before the supreme court lobotomized regulators. Its has less now. The courts could kill it. Congress could kill it. The FCC can't change shit about how the courts handle section 230.

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: Lol, No, RFK Jr. You Don’t Have Standing To Sue Joe Biden Because Facebook Blocked Your Anti-vax Nonsense

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2024 @ 11:36am

  Trumps FCC can not kill section 230. The FCC has no authority overlap with the functions or interpretation of section 230. Thats not how this works. Thats not how any of this works. The trump judiciary might throw it out or reinterpret it into nonexistence. Congress might attempt to rewrite it or repeal it and The loonies might work together this time and succeed. but in no world is that the "Trump FCC [killing] section 230".

• On the post: Fifth Circuit: Lol, No, RFK Jr. You Don’t Have Standing To Sue Joe Biden Because Facebook Blocked Your Anti-vax Nonsense

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2024 @ 11:59am

  thats not how this works. Its not how any of it works.

• On the post: Net Neutrality Heads Back To Court; Corrupt Supreme Court Could Dismantle U.S. Broadband Consumer Protection

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2024 @ 08:10am

  "Most". If a vote indicates appeal, Most voters didn't vote, finding neither candidate appealing enough to vote. Most states were close in that it was only a few percentage points, but weren't close in that we could call them early. And they paint the picture. Trump got as many votes as 2020. Biden voters didn't show up for Harris. Absent some massive fantasy about a scheme to outright dump Harris votes, that implies a lack of appeal for the cop who couldn't express support for LGBTQ+ rights. The dems have been terrible at messaging about accomplishments, and doubled down on trying to replicate the GOP social media clicks strategy rather than run policy. It got a lot of social media clicks. It didn't turn into electoral turnout. The dems ran on trump bad, and really just expected that to get them to victory.

• On the post: VGHF, Libraries Lose Again On DMCA Exemption Request To Preserve Old Video Games

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2024 @ 07:54am

  To the extent any conclusions are reached by the single study being cited, too much water will kill you, too much oxygen will kill you, too much of anything will result in harm. And water is wet. News at 11.

• On the post: Donald Trump And Joe Rogan Think Elon Musk’s Starlink Is Akin To Magic Pixie Dust

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2024 @ 09:50am

  Frankly, because the core thesis, that Starlink as an ISP is carrying users with malicious intent, is not clearly stated. Its wrapped up in abstract refrences rather than explain the thesis. It could easliy be read to be accusing Starlink to be the source of the malicious behavior, rather than simply be the root carrier of a user's malicious behavior. And if you reasonably assume OP can't be accusing Starlink of being a malicious hacker, you might from there try to figure out how the network is causing attacks, rather than jumping to the understanding that Starlink's users are the problem.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2024 @ 11:56am

  I for one am agaisnt deporting US citizens, nor stripping people of their citizenship generally, but its Musk, so rendering him pennyless and stateless is just reasonable i guess?

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2024 @ 09:57am

  You first.

Next >>