Gwiz 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4547) comment rss

  • On the post: State Attorneys General Really Want To Go After Big Internet Companies; But Claim It's About Privacy, Not Bias

    Gwiz ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2018 @ 08:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Comcast was not the subject until you injected it.
      That's true. So what? When read that sentence I immediately thought of Comcast and expressed my thoughts. Also, I was responding to a long-time commentor who uses various monikers but is easily recognizable by his verbiage and his ongoing hard-on against all things Google, but thank you for interjecting your opinions anyways.

  • On the post: State Attorneys General Really Want To Go After Big Internet Companies; But Claim It's About Privacy, Not Bias

    Gwiz ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2018 @ 08:12am

    Re:

    The antitrust approach is sound. A company is not supposed to use dominance in one market (infrastructure) to exercise control over another (content).
    That sounds more like what a company like Comcast-NBCUniversal does, as opposed to Google, yet I don't hear you wining about Comcast.    
    Bias is fine if you don't control 95 percent of search results, or X percent of conversations on your platform.
      Ahhh, we have another "Blueism", where he pulls made-up rules from his ass.   And just so you know, Google does not "control 95 percent of search results". Google may have a 95% market share for internet searches, but that is because 95% of the people CHOOSE to use Google over the multiple other available options.

  • On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite

    Gwiz ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2018 @ 02:23pm

    Re: Read the list first, saved much time. I have never sued a cat.

    Common law is the only reliable guide to what's acceptable.
      The more I thought about this statement the more realized how utterly silly it really is. Free Speech, although being enshrined in our Constitution, is really a product of common law. Two hundred and some odd years of judicial interpretations (or in other words: common law) of the First Amendment have given us the guidelines we have today. So I guess when Blue says "Common law is the only reliable guide to what's acceptable" he's actually kind of correct, but I'm guessing that's not what he meant. To Blue "common law" is some sort of mystical phrase that means "stuff he agrees with or doesn't offend him".

  • On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite

    Gwiz ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2018 @ 01:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Read the list first, saved much time. I have never sued a cat.

    You don't know what common law is. WELL, 'splain it, snowflake! Gainsaying is easy, NOW SHOW.
      I can explain what the phrase "common law" means. Here's what Wikipedia says:
    In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law, or case law) is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals.
    Now, can you explain what the phrase means to YOU, Blue, because it seems to differ from the definition that everyone else in the world uses.

  • On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite

    Gwiz ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2018 @ 01:48pm

    Re: Read the list first, saved much time. I have never sued a cat.

    Common law is the only reliable guide to what's acceptable.
      Really? That's very interesting. Can you provide a link to this so called "reliable common law guide" so I can read it?

  • On the post: In Which A Bunch Of Us Try To Explain The 1st Amendment To Jeff Sessions Concerning 'Social Media Bias'

    Gwiz ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2018 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    "common law standards"
      You keep using those words and I don't think they mean what you think they mean. "Common law standards" would be existing caselaw and most of existing caselaw concerning Section 230 says completely the opposite of the garbage you are spewing, Blue.

  • On the post: In Which A Bunch Of Us Try To Explain The 1st Amendment To Jeff Sessions Concerning 'Social Media Bias'

    Gwiz ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2018 @ 12:37pm

    Re:

    Section 230 is not difficult to understand.
      Yet here you are, not understanding Section 230, repeatedly. Mike refuted this garbage yesterday when you said, and I quote:
    Tell ya what, Masnick. If you'll refute that -- not just quote and contradict but show / argue basis in law -- then I'll never darken your site.
    Obviously you are not person who stands by their own words, so why should anyone ever listen to you concerning anything?

  • On the post: Artist Inspired By Andy Warhol, Creates Truly Astounding Work… Ends Up Giving It Away Over 'Copyright Infringement'

    Gwiz ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2018 @ 10:58am

    Re:

    HEY. I crumpled up food boxes and threw away tin cans just yesterday! I'd better go dig out that Masnickal ART!
      I guessing that I would consider any "art" you've created to be garbage in my eyes too, Blue. By the way, your hypocrisy is showing again, Blue. You consonantly are saying incorrect things like "the purpose and intent of copyright law is protect Creators" and here where an actual creator is getting screwed by copyright, it's all okay with you because YOU don't consider it "art". You seem to be getting more foolish with every passing day.

  • On the post: Compromise Music Modernization Act Will Bring Old Sound Recordings into The Public Domain, Tiptoe Towards Orphan Works Solution

    Gwiz ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2018 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: "the purpose and intent of copyright law" is protect Creators,

    After 10 years the work needs to become part of the Public Domain where the culture can enjoy the work without limitation.
      Personally, I think Derek Khanna's idea of a sliding scale for copyright renewal is the best:
    ...a sliding scale for copyright renewal, after a free initial term of 12 years. The fee for renewal would be a percentage of revenue from the work, and that percentage increases with each additional renewal term. Under such a system, those who are still exploiting the copyright can continue to hold one, but for most, where there is greater benefit to have the work in the public domain, the work goes into the public domain. Source

  • On the post: Compromise Music Modernization Act Will Bring Old Sound Recordings into The Public Domain, Tiptoe Towards Orphan Works Solution

    Gwiz ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2018 @ 12:36pm

    Re:

    the purpose and intent of copyright law" is protect Creators,
    As others have pointed out - that is not the purpose and intent of copyright.  
    What ALWAYS matters is the protection, otherwise there's ZERO incentive to create new.
    Really? So nothing was ever created prior to copyright laws?  
    The notion that you push of old works being in public domain while still have commercial value is just wrong.
    No, that is actually the "purpose and intent of copyright law". Authors are given a limited time to monetize their works in exchange for turning them over to the public domain eventually. You really should research some copyright history and you will find that when copyright was only 14 years with an option to renew another 14 years only about 12% of the copyright holders choose to renew their copyrights. This indicates that majority of money made off of works happens in the first 10 years. The only thing that 70 year copyright terms are incentivizing is the creation of lazy grandchildren, IMHO.

  • On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright

    Gwiz ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2018 @ 11:26am

    Do I have give back my Insightful comment of the week award?

  • On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies

    Gwiz ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2018 @ 11:13am

    Re:

    You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
    Then why does the button say "Buy" and not "Rent"? As far as I'm concerned, when the terms of sale indicate that I am "purchasing" a digital copy, then that is exactly what I am doing. I will take "my copy" and do with it as I please, which includes removing any DRM and making backup copies. This is exactly what I do periodically with my Kindle and the wife's Kindle. I save un-DRMed copies of everything to my laptop with Calibre.

  • On the post: Farmer Lobbying Group Accused Of Selling Out Farmers On Right To Repair Laws

    Gwiz ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2018 @ 12:22pm

    Typo?

    More specifically, it started when John Deere decided to ban anything but "unauthorized repairs,"...

     

    Shouldn't that be "authorized repairs"?

  • On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue

    Gwiz ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2018 @ 01:39pm

    Re: Future of the first amendment

    I am not saying it should apply, but if everything becomes privatized, then what's the point of freedom of speech if it applies to nothing of significance?
      Modern technology hasn't changed anything in this regard, in fact, it's created more opportunities for your speech to reach wider audiences. Thirty years ago if you wanted to reach a wider audience your choices were either television or newspapers, both which are privately owned and had much more stringent rules about allowing anyone to use their platforms. Freedom of speech doesn't equate to "freedom to use someone else's megaphone whenever you want". With today's technology, there are plenty of options - find a platform that aligns with your views, create your own platform (like Mike has done with Techdirt) or invent something totally new. And, just because Facebook, Twitter & Google are at the top of the heap right now it doesn't mean they will stay there. AOL, GeoCities & MySpace were all at the top of heap at one time too.

  • On the post: Another Prison Phone Service Caught Recording Privileged Conversations And Passing Them On To Law Enforcement

    Gwiz ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2018 @ 09:50am

    Common Mindset

    I think this is just another symptom of what I see as a common mindset amongst law enforcement.

    It seems, from my point of view, that most law enforcement thinks that illegally obtained evidence is only illegal if you try to submit it as admissible evidence in a court of law.

    It never seems to dawn on them that it was ALWAYS illegal and they should not have obtained such evidence in the first place.

  • On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices

    Gwiz ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2018 @ 09:01am

    Re: Re: Then Twitter is NOT private!

    READ the Sandvig decision. It expressly notes that "internet" forums have become PUBLIC SPACES...
    So what? Common areas in malls are also "public spaces" that are privately owned. If you tried to setup a soapbox and a PA system in a mall so you could spout your nonsense you would be asked to leave. If you refused to leave, you could be legally trespassed from the property. This would not be a violation of your First Amendment rights because it's not the government who is restricting your speech, it's a private entity. The same concept applies on the internet. If you want a platform to express yourself on without restrictions, either buy your own servers or build your own mall.

  • On the post: Senator Mark Warner Lays Out Ideas For Regulating Internet Platforms

    Gwiz ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2018 @ 02:04pm

    Re:

    CDA Section 230 made an EXCEPTION to prior law. -- IF NOT an exception (as "Gwiz" asserted), then WHY is it necessary? HMM?
    At the very least, it's nice to know that you actually read one of my rebuttals, Blue.

  • On the post: Universal Right Back At It Issuing A DMCA For A Reporter's Video Of Prince Fans Singing 'Purple Rain'

    Gwiz ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2018 @ 02:08pm

    Re:

    Not at all clear the clip still retains its past newsworthy character....
    I don't believe that is how that works - things don't lose their "newsworthiness" just because X amount of time has passed. But, that is a moot point now anyways: Universal's decision to issue a DMCA on it has made it newsworthy all over again.

  • On the post: New Report Says The Feds' Focus On Device Encryption Is Holding Local Law Enforcement Back

    Gwiz ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2018 @ 07:37am

    Re: HA, HA.

    ....so I can watch you writhe when Shiva Ayyadurai destroy you, MASNICK.
      2017 called. They want your comment back.

  • On the post: DOJ Racks Up 90% Failure Rate In Inauguration Protest Prosecutions, Dismisses Final Defendants

    Gwiz ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2018 @ 01:36pm

    Re: Correction

    The article did mention conspiracy charges - it's the bottom bullet point.

Next >>