DudeWasHere’s Techdirt Profile


About DudeWasHere

DudeWasHere’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 15th, 2019 @ 5:21pm

    Re: I disagree.

    It seems you missed the point. The decision os wrong because AirBnB is being held responsible for the speech of a landlord. This decision is the same as holding the manufacturer of a sheet of paper for what was printed on it. AirBnB should not have any risk associated with it for facilitating a conversation between two parties ( or more ). If some law is being broken in this advertisement, that is on the Landlord. AirBnB does not make any declaration to anyone that they shoukd break any law. In fact read the terms of usage and you find that they require all users comply with local laws.

  • Mar 13th, 2019 @ 8:31am

    Re: God News

    This is a prime example of an unhealthy market. Free speech does not apply to invading personal privacy. My phone is not a public space. I did not pay for a phone to hear from unsolicited callers dial me about whatever. Unless a unsolicited caller is willing to pay a fee to me for time and patience, at my option, then they should not be legally allowed to call period.

  • Feb 12th, 2019 @ 6:16am

    Re: Flip it around

    Hmm. Muat have missed that part about a copyright violation leading to jail time. Especially where no court was involved. Interesting. Can i have more details on this change?

  • Feb 12th, 2019 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re:

    And there lies the problem. Thanks for supporting the argument that Article 13 and 11 needs to go away.

  • Feb 12th, 2019 @ 5:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Is it? From your very statement, sounds like existing legislation worked. Perhaps if more copyright holders used existing laws to protect them as all citizens need to and do on a daily basis, then perhaps millions of dollars would not be wasted on grandiose extortion schemes. It seems you have been hoodwinked into believing this has anything to to with piracy.

  • Feb 21st, 2014 @ 5:26am


    And this is why you should not be a police officer. You obviously do not have the discipline or control to handle the job as required. Not everyone does, and there are those individual police officers who deal with these risks every day, living with the risks. Not taking the shot unless absolutely necessary. They are the ones we do not hear about. They are the ones we need.

  • Feb 21st, 2014 @ 5:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Really

    Hell yeah, or at least make sure the person being approached is not between them and the police. If a cop is approaching someone with lights on and hands on holster, get the hell out of there.

  • Feb 21st, 2014 @ 5:12am

    Re: Really

    I think you are missing the point here. It is not that all cops are bad (some may feel that way) but that the system attempts to hide the error in judgement by some individual police officers by passing the blame to someone else, instead of assigning the blame properly and correcting the situation through better training and discipline. The police are suppose to be professional and in control at all times. There is the difference. Police are only supposed to use deadly force when it is safe and prudent to do so. They lost control of the situation here. Were they totally in the wrong in this situation, no. Were they bad cops, probably not. Could they have dealt with the situation better? YES! The real issue here is that they failed to control the crowd. They failed to properly assess the threat, and finally only those with a clear sight line and low risk of collateral damage should have fired, and that means having the strength and professionalism to NOT pull the trigger if necessary. And yes the crowd bears some responsibility as does the perpetrator. The morons in the crowd that thought it was safe and prudent to stand with the perpetrator bewteen them and the police all deserve darwin awards, or at least honourable mentions.

  • Jan 23rd, 2013 @ 6:05am

    Re: hippies on a witch hunt

    I have to go with the hippies on this one. Publicly accessible locker on campus with no lock, and in some reports someone else was using it for personal storage. Network with NO restrictions, plug in and go. Aaron had a legitimate account to access JSTOR which "owned" or at least stored the public materials. JSTOR actually dropped all charges. The material was actually public domain unless someone else can correct me, except that JSTOR wanted to charge for downloading the content. My understanding is that MIT users had unlimited access which was why the laptop was on MIT's campus. Outside users could officially download up to 3 free articles. Definitely sounds like overreach to me. Like there was not some drug dealer, murderer, or other scum that could have been given more attention. I think in this case, the witch hunt was held by prosecutor in this case.

  • Oct 2nd, 2012 @ 5:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You make it sound like protecting private information in bitorrents is a bad thing. There are governments in the world who could monitor such downloads and identify the people (or at least machines) accessing restricted information. By making public sources of said restricted material would make the infrastructure vulnerable to attack, and place the content owners at risk. In this day and age, such things are real risks. Bitorrents are tools like anything else, and have to be designed well to work in real world situations, regardless of use.