DerekCurrie 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (74) comment rss

  • On the post: Barack Obama: We Don't Have A Domestic Spy Program

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2013 @ 09:16pm

    Suppressed: FISA Courts Find Their Own Behavior To Be Unconstitutional

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

    Headline:
    Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance
    Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.
    ?By David Corn | Fri Jun. 7, 2013 12:22 PM PDT, Mother Jones

    "In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.
    . . . .
    in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

    "* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    * I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion."

    Mr. President, We The People don't tolerate destroying the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution OR being lied to about unconstitutional government crimes. We don't care what party you puppets you. It's time for your impeachment, you criminal liar.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2012 @ 03:27pm

    Re: Nina Paley

    I suggest you read some studies about the history of socialism and the consistent failure of imposed socialist systems.

    Copyright provides that great creative force we call INCENTIVE. If there is no incentive, as is the case with socialist systems, there is only a small minority (which includes myself) of the community that is nonetheless creative. Every person requires full respect for their work at all times. Every person deserves credit for their work at all times as a default form of respect.

    Human systems without incentive consistently rot into crime and self-destruction. I know of no exceptions.

    Censorship is an entirely different subject. It is a practice I never condone. It is a driving force in the self-destruction of our current worldwide human culture. I am entirely in sympathy with stopping censorship of everything except that which harms other people. This is part of my personal identity as what I call a 'Positive Anarchist'. I strive for maximum choice. However, in order for choice to be successful, it requires maximum responsibility for the choices one makes. There is nothing beneficial in Negative Anarchy whereby poor choices are made and the consequences be damned. Negative Anarchy is one of the forces driving our worldwide culture in to the loom granite wall of dire consequence. I hope you are not one of the blind and lost who never use the steering wheel. That's not good for you or anyone else.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2012 @ 03:10pm

    Re: Re: References, Footnotes, Attribution

    No. I remain entirely correct. Sorry Killercool. In fact, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

    I decided, as author, what was adequate in the case of quoting my entire article. The full quotation didn't hurt me. It didn't deprive me of any profit. The graduate student made no profit from my article. Under those circumstances, I consider it to be 'Fair Use' to quote my article for the benefit of others. Just provide full attribution.

    Your reference to 'academia' makes no sense at all. The same rules, the same rights of the source author, remain in all circumstances.

    You actually missed my point entirely. Please do try harder. Repeating myself: "If Patti O'Shea had clearly designated the source of the quoted material, I doubt this problem would have occurred." But it is entirely up to the author regarding how to respond. IOW: There was no 'Fair Use' in Patti O'Shea's post because there was no attribution. Quoting ANYTHING written by ANYONE ELSE who owns the copyright requires attribution. There is no such thing as a free quotation of another person's work. That is no one's right at any time, in or out of academia. If you are attempting to disagree, I would have to quote you: "Just stupid."

    Stamping your feet and insulting the messenger, or writing articles attempting to berate a copyright holder for asserting their rights, changes nothing at all.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2012 @ 02:32pm

    References, Footnotes, Attribution

    Misunderstanding of the Fair Use Doctrine is common and expected. But the fact is that it requires full and adequate attribution of the source of the quotation. It also cannot be lengthy and cannot be used as the basis of profit by the person quoting the source.

    I once found an article I had written about computer security quoted in full on a website by a computer science graduate student. I freaked him out when I wrote to him and asked him for attribution. He had pulled the article out of an email I had posted to an enterprise computing interest list that was discussing the subject. If he had attributed what was posted to me, I would not have bothered him. I never had the impression that he was attempting to pass my work off as his. But I do require, as is the right of any copyright holder, to have my name clearly listed as the source of the material I wrote. We sorted it out, I received attribution and all was fine. He was just a kid who was ignorant of the Fair Use Doctrine and was sorry for his error.

    If Patti O'Shea had clearly designated the source of the quoted material, I doubt this problem would have occurred as no author wants to be marked as a venomous villain. Free marketing is of benefit to an author (a lesson the RIAA and MPAA can't get into their Neanderthal craniums). But when one is directly quoted at length, an author can't help but feel ripped off and damaged. That's not going to change. Without attribution I see nothing wrong in HS's response. It was their right. Instead I know that next time Patti O'Shea will consider what is required to fulfill one's end of the Fair Use Doctrine.

  • On the post: Actress Who Wished To Remain Anonymous And Under 40 Is Now Officially Neither

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 10 Jan, 2012 @ 03:49pm

    The Streisand Effect

    Darn! Way to get the wrong kind of publicity.

  • On the post: Merger Of The Also Rans: Rhapsody Buys Napster

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2011 @ 09:14pm

    Zero + Zero = Zero

    Why bother to pay anything for Napster? After the RIAA killed them, they became nothing but a lame RIAA puppet shop. And someone wants to pay for that? Really Real? Is this a form of suicide?

  • On the post: RIAA Sending DMCA Takedowns On *FREE* Music Being Distributed Directly Off Universal Music Website & Promoted By The Artist

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 01:50pm

    The Never Ending Story Of RIAA Customer Abuse

    Way to go MPAA and RIAA. INSPIRE people to pirate your media if only in revenge for your longstanding and consistent customer abuse. You will never get the clue. You are far too stupid and self-destructive. Thus your biznizz fails. Where were these people when the brains were handed out...

  • On the post: Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 01:45pm

    This time it's BLATANT plagiarism

    Seriously TechDirt. Choose your rants more carefully. Anyone with a quantum of intelligence notices this particular logo is a blatant ripoff of BOTH LG AND Apple. It has a BITE OUT OF IT for Tesla's sake! Hello? Apple will win this lawsuit.

    As for the Woolworth's logo: There I can agree with you. Highly silly of Apple.

  • On the post: MPAA Mocks Entrepreneurs For Being Concerned About MPAA's Efforts To Stifle Innovation

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 01:40pm

    Customer Abuse, Pure And Simple and Stupid

    Way to go MPAA and RIAA. INSPIRE people to pirate your media if only in revenge for your longstanding and consistent customer abuse. You will never get the clue. You are far too stupid and self-destructive. Thus your biznizz fails. Where were these people when the brains were handed out...

  • On the post: UK Music Lobbyist Says Rethinking Fair Use Is 'Intellectual Masturbation'

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2011 @ 11:47am

    Corporate Oligarchy Bullshite

    As one of the "Creative Folks" I have to point out that killing off FAIR USE it nothing more than money grubbing Corporate Oligarchy bullshite. We have the same rubbish going on here in the USA where the Corporate Oligarchy are famous for creating such pointless catastrophes as: The Iraq War. Currently they're lobbying the US Congress to destroy real Net Neutrality, create a US Internet Blacklist as well as an Internet Kill Switch. Keep in mind that corporations DON'T VOTE and legally have no citizen rights, despite unconstitutional court decisions to the contrary.

    And what on Earth happened to Feargal Sharkey? I saw the guy live way-back-when. I thought he had a brain in his head and creativity in his heart. Apparently they've been removed and replaced with greed and mindless robotic mechanisms. Extremely sick stuff. Shame on Sharkey!

  • On the post: Fox Accuses Cablevision Of Telling People To Go To 'Illegal' Sites To Watch Games Fox Is Blocking

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2010 @ 10:35pm

    Frack Fux

    Lord-Of-All Rupert Murdoch dictates bloated pricing for his company's precious news and entertainment programming. So what else will abused customers do but find a work around for his greed and stooopidity. It's the age of the Marketing Moron where money rules and screw the irritating customers! The RIAA do it! The MPAA do it! News Corp do it! To hell with all of you and your psychopathy.

  • On the post: Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2010 @ 09:13pm

    And then The Corporate Oligarchy vetoed the bill

    One unfortunate thing to watch for and keep in mind is that the US federal government is over-lorded to a significant extent by The Corporate Oligarchy. These bozos own the 'Lobby'. They write the bills for Congress. They pay for their cooperative candidates to win re-election. They frack everything up. Witness what these clowns did to the economy via their manipulation of The Bush League.

    Therefore, if The Corporate Oligarchy wants to mess with censorship of stuff they don't like, expect them to force it to happen.

    Remember representative government in the USA?

  • On the post: Is Project Vigilant A Hoax?

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2010 @ 07:08am

    The NSA Already Has That Job. Thank You For Applying.

    Apparently the people at 'Project Vigilant' are a bit dim and gullible themselves. It is already well known that the NSA (National 'Security' Agency) has several sites around the country where they monitor all phone and Internet conversations and data. It was unconstitutionally set up by the Bush administration in coordination with their bogus war on Iraq. So who needs 'Project Vigilant' with the NSA around?

    http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.shtml

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

    http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/07/nsas-internet-surveillance-program.html

  • On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 24 Apr, 2010 @ 12:30am

    Re(2): DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it

    Sorry, but your comment and this tradition in the free culture community deserves a brief lecture:

    Obviously I see nothing wrong with satirizing the meaning of 'DRM'. However, it is IMHO required in public discourse to also provide the actual meaning when conversing with those who are not in on the joke. Most people would have no idea from what was written that the stated meaning of the abbreviation DRM was not real, thereby propagating misunderstanding and ignorance. Stating the actual meaning as well as the reinterpreted, satirical meaning takes nothing away from the message, while helping the reader to understand the issue.

    Having said that, I entirely agree that DRM is about restrictions, not rights. DRM tramples the rights of the media purchaser/owner. Sadly, this disrespect for the customer is pervasive in the current era. I call it the 'Marketing Moron Movement', not unlike someone taking a dump on your head, treating the customer as an annoying inconvenience apart from their ability to fork over cash. This method of marketing is terrific for destroying a company's reputation, as has been proven in the cases of the recording and film corporations. Any reasonable Marketing 101 class makes clear the relationship between company and customer. And yet these days we have MBA graduates making customer-phobic, self-destructive decisions.

  • On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2010 @ 11:55pm

    DRM does more to cause illegal downloading than prevent it

    "DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management"

    Incorrect. DRM, or Digital RIGHTS Management.

    I personally call it Digital Rights Manglement as it interferes with both fair use of owned media as well as the right to make a backup copy of owned media.

    The general effect of DRM is to make the customer feel they are being treated as a criminal. I personally believe that this distrustful and disrespectful attitude toward customers has itself catalyzed the illegal downloading of copyrighted media. If DRM had never happened, illegal downloading would IMHO have been far less a problem in the current era. IOW the RIAA and MPAA have helped create the problem they've sought to prevent through the use of DRM. Supreme irony.

  • On the post: Yet Another Paywall Experiment Fails

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 12 Apr, 2010 @ 06:19am

    Paywall FAIL, Subscription Over-pricing

    The 'Paywall' experiment ended in failure back in the 1990s during the advent of the Worldwide Web. These retrograde attempts at paywalls are amusing testaments to ignorance. The fact is that there will always be free alternatives that will attract larger audiences simply because they are free.

    Another FAIL is the attempt to over-price subscriptions to websites. Blatant user gouging has been going on such that paying for extended website access and features is prohibitive. With time there will be price corrections such that users will happily pay a reasonable fee if only to help out their favorite sites. For example, it's great that the New York Times now provides paid electronic versions of their paper. However, the cost is remarkably high considering the lack of required paper printing and shipping fees. Once they adjust their subscription fee to a reasonable price, their subscription rate will increase.

    Conclusion: Herr Rupert Murdoch, Führer of News Corp., is a 20th century Luddite. Like all other over-priced paywalls, his will FAIL.

  • On the post: Bad Things Happen When Politicians Think They Understand Technology

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2010 @ 02:30pm

    Nostalgia: Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens

    What is it with boisterous proclamations of ignorance from elected officials from Alaska?

    "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially." . . .
    "They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material." . . .

  • On the post: Syphilis (Or Was It Facebook?) Blamed For People Not Understanding That Correlation Does Not Mean Causation

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2010 @ 02:08pm

    Correlation: The most abused statistic

    Anyone who has taken a serious class in statistics knows the worthlessness of correlation figures. They also know that correlation is THE most abused of statistics. If you ever see anyone attempting to state cause and effect based upon correlation data, you know right off the bat that they are deadly desperate to have something to prove. Not gonna happen. Correlation has no statistical significance.

  • On the post: Microsoft Loses Yet Another Patent Lawsuit

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    Submarining

    "... the company's business plan basically admits that its business model is to win these sorts of lawsuits."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent

    If this is the case, AND they admitted it, Microsoft have a terrific incentive to appeal the decision. Submarine patent lawsuits are illegal in the USA, and this appears to be a clear case of submarining. Of course law versus reality is another matter. Submarining lives on. It is the worst of patent abuse, a plague that doesn't discriminate between types of patents. The perpetrators couldn't care less about the software patent crisis.

  • On the post: RIAA Takes The Cake: Equates File Sharing To Children's Fairy Tale

    DerekCurrie ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2010 @ 06:48pm

    Tardation: Killing off free marketing

    Prologue: I entirely agree with supporting artists via BUYING their artwork.

    However, where I find the RIAA is most Tardy is in their pursuit of killing off free marketing. There have to be some ridiculously stooopid marketing morons over at the RIAA to treat every form of access to music as evil piracy that threatens to destroy the entire recording industry. When they started pulling this stooopidity on every Internet 'radio' website I was utterly amazed. It's all FREE MARKETING! Hello?!

    What I think really goes on behind the scenes at the RIAA is a freakish requirement for CONTROL of everything we are ALLOWED to hear. They want to push Lady Gaga today. How DARE we instead listen to Little Boots instead?! They don't care if we happen to like Little Boots better and are likely to actually BUY her music if we get to hear it first. NO! It's Lady Gaga for us dammit!

    I'm hoping the marketing moron domination of the recording biznizz ends in a hurry so we can get back to sanity. Let us all listen to what we LIKE. How can I know what I like if I can't HEAR IT FIRST?! How can I know Little Boots is ultra-Radi-Kewl to my ears if the RIAA manages to destroy every outlet that allows me to hear her work? I don't want frickin' Lady Gaga! You're wasting my time playing her on the approved industrial radio sites and frequencies!

    I'm not going to buy what I don't like. So GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY RIAA!!! Let me buy stuff!

Next >>