DC 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (272) comment rss

  • On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 07:24pm

    Re: Re:

    I think the link has been disapeared, but this morning before the judge's ruling, I saw a story about Ellison spinning the jury verdict as a win on the copyrights.

    The pic of Larry was not a good one.

  • On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 07:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Alsup

    Yeah, well ...

    Judges can be wrong and it is ok to point out when you think they are wrong.

    Funny that, I didn't notice you actually pointing out anything you thought was either correct or incorrect in the posts or the rulings. You aren't here just to slag off Mike, are you?

    I don't read this post as saying the judge is a genius, but rather: Thank God we have a technology case in front of a judge who understands technology a good bit.

    The joinder case, I don't read as Mike calling the judge an asshole, but rather that it was unfortunate that the default judgement had to be rendered because the defendants didn't respond, and "WTF, why did he go beyond simple joinder to joint liability. Boggle."

    Who knows, maybe the judge has been spending time to better understand this new internets thingy.

  • On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 07:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Please make sure you read the AC who starts:

    "Judge was not overstepping authority. The CA constitution has a part that specifically talks about equal rights. In CA, there are two types of modifications you can make to the constitution. The first is for trivial things (eg: pay raises for legislatures), which is designed to get around the stalemate of partisan politics. The other type of change materially affects the rights of a group (ie: minority). It's a higher bar which is designed to protect minorities from oppression by majority."

    I'm doubtful of your familiarity with the details of this case.

  • On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots… While Ignoring Real Threats

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:58pm

    Re: Re:

    You mean like justifying the domestic war on Islam?

  • On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots… While Ignoring Real Threats

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:57pm

    Re: It's not that simple

    "Entrapment happens when an officer of the law induces someone to commit a crime that they had no intention of committing, so as to be able to trap them and arrest them. That hasn't happened in any of the cases I've read about."

    Funny, I seem to recall the cases are generally of an Islamist who is enticed into looking for ways to commit terrorist acts, not already actively looking.

    Even if you parse that very finely, I'm pretty sure none of the convicted were intending to commit a specific criminal act before the FBI stepped in and planned and facilitated a specific criminal act.

    "I hate the USA and I want people to die", even if said out loud, does not rise to the level of intent to commit a crime, to the best of my knowledge.

    Corrections always welcomed.

  • On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots… While Ignoring Real Threats

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:46pm

    Re:

    Not going to happen. They do thorough background checks on all of their victims.

  • On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots… While Ignoring Real Threats

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:45pm

    Re: Re:

    They do not universally know what they are doing. Some of them do, some of them are fascists, and some of them are lazy glory hounds.

    They are absolutely trying to entrap. They entice, solicit, plan, and equip the attempts. The guilty to a man are clueless, incompetent losers who were not engaged in terrorism or with "terrorists" until targeted by the FBI (from what I have read: welcome to correction if wrong).

    IANA Civil Rights L. I personally think the judges who rule that none of these cases are entrapment are getting it wrong. Judges are not infallible.

  • On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:35pm

    Re:

    Care to specify what contract is being voided? Broadcast networks broadcast. Anyone with an antenna is free to receive.

    There is no contract between the broadcaster and the person or persons receiving.

    You really just don't seem to get it sometimes.

  • On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:31pm

    Re: Re:

    Given that the content industries all hate the internet, and the legislators are mostly in the pockets of the content industries, I doubt that must carry will be extended to the internet anytime soon.

  • On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Lies Again: Attributes Millions Of Jobs To IP Laws Based On Flimsy Correlation

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You made the assertion. It was challenged as false. I think it falls to you to make that list supporting your assertion.

    It won't support your assertion, but it is on you to make the list and support your assertion.

  • On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Lies Again: Attributes Millions Of Jobs To IP Laws Based On Flimsy Correlation

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 06:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    1) "Oh Please" would suggest you are rebutting the point (aggressive compliance). The rest of your comment does nothing to rebut that.

    2) Thankfully that legislation got shot down, and didn't get a chance to damage the net.

    3) I did a quick search. Can you cite a case where Google initiated a patent suit?

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 12:19pm

    Re:

    In principle, my GF hates 3 wall sitcoms primarily because of the laugh track. She wants me to find shows with outdoors scenes to avoid that. I agree, though I'm less dogmatic.

    However, we both love Big Bang Theory, which is classic 3 wall, and ridiculously funny.

    I got her to try The Muppet Show, and she likes it. Again, pure 3 wall with laugh track.

    If you are laughing at the comedy, you don't really hear the laugh track. As you point out, it's more a question of quality than it is of format.

    As an aside, part of the point of the laugh track is to have the cast perform the episode in front of a live, adoring audience to boost their performance. Not that they need to put the laughs in the final cut, but you know, that's how they think.

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    Re:

    Kudos, I flagged this insightful, and I hope everyone does. This is an excellent contribution to the dialog (re: IP, not kiddie porn).

    To echo Pro Se's argument:

    Kiddie porn, even within one jurisdiction, is not an entirely black and white call, because the perception of porn and the perception of child, as well as the perception of what part of the making of the content matters (make cartoons felonies?) are highly subjective.

    And yes, some people, for whatever reasons have monumentally stupid reactions to nakedness.

    Pro Se, I have a question about your reasoning here. I thought the "average person" reasoning, and the "know it when I see it" reasoning , i.e the Miller case, were regarding obscenity.

    Are you equating porn, which is really a genre of content rather than a legal classification, to obscenity in order to abbreviate your argument (type less), or are do you view them as equivalent, or even synonyms?

    My understanding is that, in the US, Obscenity is illegal, and child porn is illegal, but adult porn that is not adjudicated as obscene is legal. I assume you are merely conserving words and time, but it would be nice if you could speak for yourself on the conflation of obscenity and porn.

    Final point:
    Determinations of both copyright infringement and kiddie porn include subjective judgements. It is disgusting that the IP maximalists would conflate child abuse with making digital copies of their content.

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    IANA copyright L.

    Under current US law, I'm pretty sure showing an entire documentary to a class in school is fair use.

    Under current US law, I'm pretty sure showing an entire feature length film to a cinema class is fair use.

    Sorry, no citations, but John's assertion that context of usage is a critical factor in determination of fair use is correct.

    As an example, in grade school, my classes were periodically shown documentaries and educational videos pulled from the library (Those reel to reel projection video tapes that got stuck and the bulb burned out the tape) and even without citation I can guarantee that the school did not pay public performance fees.

    Example 2: Most schools in England showed Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to grade school classes. Again without citation, I can guarantee there were no public performance fees paid.

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Two dogs

    And I just reported my own comment :-)

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re: Two dogs

    Ok, I have to go 2 bridges too far.

    Felony version: 2 puppies in lust: on a couch.

  • On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Two dogs

    Nah,

    2^10 dalmatians doing whatever on a couch.

  • On the post: News Corp. Wonders If There Could Possibly Be Any Arguments Against Anti-Piracy Efforts

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re: Question

    "Of course there are no arguments against legislative/enforcement actions aimed at criminal endeavors"

    Uh, yes there are.

    Lack of effectiveness, lack of proportionality, violation of the constitution, etc.

  • On the post: News Corp. Wonders If There Could Possibly Be Any Arguments Against Anti-Piracy Efforts

    DC ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re:

    You give too much credit.

  • On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

    DC ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 12:17am

    Re:

    People, really ... this is not the only diabetic resource available. Aside from 1 million internet sites, you can talk to your doctor.

    "he is SELLING dieting councelling [sic] to diabetic people based"

    So? You have not shown that the "selling" (your pejorative) is not on a good faith basis. If people are buying and no one is dieing -- seems like it may be working, but I am not diabetic, so who am I to say.

    He's not claiming any licenses or certifications.

    You are free to ignore the entire site. He is not your doctor.

    Ignore the site!

    Talk to your physician.

    Please do not make conversations on the internet illegal.

    Just a guess -- but you are an activist in NC on this issue, and I am just a joe who likes my free speech.

Next >>