Harrekki's Techdirt Profile


About Harrekki

Harrekki's Comments comment rss

  • May 15, 2013 @ 12:33pm

    This bill will not save the public a cent. They will just charge "access fees" and a per channel rate that allows them to make the same amount of money. and then they will charge a "service fee" to comply with the new law.
    Anyone who thinks this is going to do a damn thing for the public and is not meant to push more special interest money McCains way is just delusional.

  • Aug 29, 2012 @ 05:38pm

    so no airplay...... but it works just fine with a HDMI cord from my laptop. Some people are just idiots.

  • Jun 05, 2012 @ 10:50am

    I know you have some time (90 days i think? correct me if wrong) to drop your service with no ETA fee. But all the cell companies have been able to bend you over and poke as hard as they want since the beginning of time.

    oh, and no amount of crying to the BBB is going to help. they are too big to care about the BBB. and the AG's are usually in their pockets (or lobbyist got to them already)

    The theory is, "don't like it? start your own cell company" which they know you can't do.

    Go USA! /sarcasm

  • Feb 20, 2012 @ 06:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    But you are ok with them taking works that were already in the public domain and placing them BACK into copyright status too, I assume?

    No one here is living in the past. they are pointing out errors of the past to show how ridiculous the now is, so we can make a better future. People who try to ignore the past are bound to repeat it. But then, I guess that's what copyright supports want anyways.

    Maybe you should stop dodging obvious issues with phrases like "beating your head against the wall" and "grow up". They are a sign of a weak argument, and immaturity.

  • Dec 02, 2011 @ 08:25am

    Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!

    if that's your stance, then the anti-piracy group no longer needs to exist, since artists don't need to be paid for their work......

    you just proved yourself wrong, Troll.

  • Oct 06, 2011 @ 01:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    going to see a game in person is not a legit alternative to seeing a game at home. people are not staying away from a home game because they can stream the game at home. they don't go to home games because it's too expensive.
    watching a game at home/ online means those who are working or have other responsibilities to attend to can still enjoy the home team. there is not a good reason to blackout a team game based on location, because you just piss off the customer base, and then those people give up on watching the team they want to see, in person or at home.
    Maybe they should look into THAT being the reason the teams supposedly lose so much money (that, and the retarded amount of money they pay their players).
    I watch the Cap's here in DC all the time. I never go to see a game because it is too expensive to get there, get the ticket, enjoy the game, and get home. forget eating or souvenirs.

  • Oct 04, 2011 @ 06:08am

    well, that's what they get

    for suing (and now winning against) people who make home brew software and devices.

    I love how companies can tell me how i can use an item I bought from them out right. I'm not leasing it, but they can still tell me what to do with it. that's bull shit. their right to tell me what can be done with MY hardware ended when I paid for it.

    Nintendon't is just feeling the Karma.

  • Sep 29, 2011 @ 07:58am

    Re: Re:

    stopping someone through use of law, or arresting someone is never a "private duty", so that statement has no place in this discussion.

  • Sep 29, 2011 @ 07:55am


    they have some expectation of privacy (like behind closed doors). But when you are out in the public, you have no right to privacy. Great example, the several thousand video camera system in NYC. as a US citizen (regardless of job, title, or position) you no longer have a right to privacy in the city, and are being recorded at all times. How are the 2 any different? Just because one is put in place by the government and one put in place by a private citizen should not matter.

    The Law enforcement will jump at the chance to use a private citizens camera footage if it helps them make a conviction, such as security cameras and private web cams set up in a house. But when the camera helps to prove the guilt of one of their own, it's a "legal violation". You can't have it both ways.

    If they come back and say you cannot video tape police,as a violation of wire tapping laws, then they need to offer any criminal in jail due to video evidence a new trial with the video tape evidence excluded.

    So how does THAT make any sense?

  • Sep 22, 2011 @ 09:48am


    really? did you really just bring that up?
    here's to more white knights on the beloved site.
    it's time to move.

  • Sep 21, 2011 @ 11:26am

    Re: Wait until someone you know gets hit by a speeding car..

    in high school, My GF got into an accident when the car ahead of her slammed on her breaks after seeing a speed trap. even though my GF at the time was going the speed limit, there wasn't enough time to stop.

    I consider speed traps a hazard, and as such, I warn of them.

  • Sep 21, 2011 @ 09:33am

    can we make cheap signs and post them just before known speed traps to advise " speed trap ahead"? they do it for red light and speed cameras......

  • Sep 21, 2011 @ 09:31am


    this is an old argument that holds no water, due to the fact the police themselves in some states list the location of drunk driving traps on their own web sites. you can't pick and choose what type of "trap avoidance" speech is acceptable.

    Also, web sites listing locations of regular speed and Drunk driving locations are not illegal. so unless we get a "length of the cord" type argument we got with infringement, these 3 acts are essentially the same, varying only in technology and distance from the trap.

  • Sep 16, 2011 @ 07:35am

    of course, you don't KNOW about the TOS to not sue until you have opened and used the console, meaning you can't return it.
    So... when Is congress going to crack down on this? oh
    wait, that requires action.

    Citizens are screwed.

  • Sep 15, 2011 @ 02:13pm

    food for thought: those who take photos of secured locations are never hit with copyright infringement, just trespass.

    as stated, copyrights are not affected by trespass. /thread

  • Sep 15, 2011 @ 02:11pm


    actually, in many states, failure to secure your property or place notice of trespassing means anyone can enter the property without recourse.

    if there were no signs stating trespass,and we know no one was there to inform the public they cannot enter, he is fine. If you can just walk into an unsecured space, then he is fine with copyright. he broke no laws, and violated no copyright.

    Nameless trolls fail at legal analysis.
    Troll more intelligently next time.

  • Sep 14, 2011 @ 11:37am

    You want to "let the TSA go away for 90 days" and you think it would prove your point? I say you might find out what anyone who actually looks at attempted attacks on US flights already knows: the US citizens are more vigilant, and have stopped more attacks than the TSA.

    Hell, they are also so over zealous, they can cause a mother to be take off a plane at it's destination, strip searched, and questioned because she looked like a guy who spent too long in the bathroom because he was sick.

    Let the people police themselves. will save 9 billion dollars. where are all the Tea Partiers calling for the TSA to be eliminated? they are a bigger waste of money than any "social welfare" programs they hate so much (until they need them)

  • Sep 14, 2011 @ 11:26am


    so you are ok with security theater. just say it. you are ok with violation of rights and privacy for the off chance it might have stopped something.
    But don't try to say that they actually have stopped an event or actively disrupted an attack. as the guy said, ?They?ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.?
    they are like rent a cops at a school. they are there to make you think twice, but as to their effectiveness, it's questionable. As a mater of fact, they have failed several times to prevent possible attacks. their win/ loss record is something like 0-3 or 0-5 now, isn't it?

    If I was 0- 5 in my job, I'd be fired. If a company was 0-5, they would be out of business.

  • Sep 13, 2011 @ 10:07am

    For the record, the FBI is now saying that a TSA screener worked with police from New York, Florida, and Connecticut to ship tens of thousands of Oxy pills.

    So, still think it's just Newark who has security issues? there's 3 different airports, in different states, who have a security issue.

  • Sep 13, 2011 @ 09:31am


    this would be a valid point..... if there haven't been other issues with TSA at other airports. I'd love to see a report on how many actual "events" the TSA have stopped.

    If you claim that the enhanced security that the TSA provides is to deter people from thinking about attacks, that's fine. But that's security theater. Call it as it is. Say that security theater makes you feel safer, and you think it's enough of a cozy feeling to violate passengers privacy.
    It's not a bad thing, but just say it. People need to stop pretending that the prevention of imaginary events have a valid point in this discussion.

    I would also like to know if by placing people of a non-disabled nature in a wheelchair, they violated some kind of ADA - anti abuse measure? I imagine with so many people complaining about people abusing ADA laws that there has to be some kind of penalty for taking money in an official position to fake an allowance give to those with disabilities.

More comments from Harrekki >>