Jeffrey Nonken 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1260) comment rss

  • On the post: Paxfire Sues The Lawyers And Individual Who Filed A Class Action Lawsuit Over Its Search Redirects

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2011 @ 11:24pm

    Let us know how that works out for you, Paxfire.

  • On the post: How Sweden Dismantled Many Of Its Online Civil Rights At The Orders Of US Content Industries

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2011 @ 11:21pm

    Re: Re: Hypocrisy

    Quite so. Exporting stupidity may be a national sport, but not all of us play.

  • On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:48pm

    Re: Get Real

    I think you missed the point. She's talking about automatic copyright, not all copyright. And I don't think she's saying that artists are the enemy. She's merely pointing out the potential for abuse. In fact, I get the feeling that she's trying to address a specific argument.

    Please stop thinking in absolutes.

  • On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:43pm

    Automatic copyright

    So many of you seem to be skipping over that word, "automatic". Automatic copyright gives you a copyright on your every merest utterance, free, with no effort required on your part. And it's good for 70 years past your death.

    Is that really a good thing? Used to be to get a copyright you had to register the work with the copyright office, which tends to separate the trivial from works that actually were worth the cost and effort, and the copyright only lasted for, what, a couple decades? I forget exactly but it wasn't 70 years past the bloody heat death of the bloody universe.* With today's laws this message I'm writing is protected so long that probably nobody reading it will live to see it enter the public domain. Why? I certainly don't value it that much. It's good for a day or two, then it falls off the edge. The most I can hope for is that somebody finds it insightful enough that it gets an honorable mention this weekend and it lives on for a few extra days. I certainly wouldn't expend any effort to copyright it. I don't want it copyrighted. That's severe overkill, like putting an armed guard around a blade of grass on my lawn.**

    That kind of overkill tends to trivialize the value of copyrighting. Everything is copyrighted, no matter how worthless. And making it effortless tends to further devalue it in the eyes of most people. Hey, it's free, how much can it be worth? Right?

    I'm sure there will be plenty of people who miss my point, just as there were many that missed Nina's point. To those I say: willful ignorance is worse than ordinary ignorance.

    Instead of trying to argue why Nina is wrong, please go try to figure out why she may be right. Then even if you still disagree, at least your arguments will make sense.

    *That's called "hyperbole". It's exaggeration for effect. (Though in this case the effect is mostly me letting off some anger and frustration without resorting to abuse.) Please don't take it literally.

    **Note: not a car analogy. :)

  • On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:17pm

    Re:

    She didn't say "copyright". She said "automatic copyright". There is a non-trivial difference.

  • On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Russian localization?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSrw5vZEFFI&feature=related

    I don't understand a word of Russian (...OK, maybe three words... five tops) but I'll occasionally watch one of these just for the heck of it. What impresses me most is that these videos are properly lip-synched in both versions.

    That means they didn't just take the English version and slap Russian dialog over it, they fixed the animation as well. Since I don't understand Russian I don't know how natural the dialog is but I'd bet the adjusted whatever timing they needed to make it work.

    One of these days I'll play the English and Russian versions of one of these side-by-side to see what kinds of timing differences there are. But not today, I have some Steam games to play. :)

  • On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    Yeah, that's why I keep spending money on Steam. It gets me free content.

    O_o

  • On the post: The Insane Chain Of Sampling Rights: How A Folk Song Collector Became A 'Co-Author' On A Jay-Z Song

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I want some of whatever you're smoking.

  • On the post: The Insane Chain Of Sampling Rights: How A Folk Song Collector Became A 'Co-Author' On A Jay-Z Song

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lomax profiting on this

    It has definitely encouraged him to produce new and fresh art as a result.

    That is the stated purpose of copyright, yes? Here we can see how well it works.

  • On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

    And as That Anonymous Coward pointed out, requiring Google to not pass on to CE is attempting to add legal conditions to the DMCA that he has no right to add. Google is merely refusing to accept.

  • On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Stop the trolling or I'll shoot this puppy.

  • On the post: Big Time Music Producer Sues Artists For Defamation For Suggesting He Copies Their Songs

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:30am

    Re:

    I was going to mention the Harrison/Bright case but somebody beat me to it. No surprise, really.

  • On the post: Big Time Music Producer Sues Artists For Defamation For Suggesting He Copies Their Songs

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 11:28am

    Our country is too litigious, and I'll sue anybody who disagrees with me.

  • On the post: Twitter Keeps Suspending Accounts Based On Highly Questionable DMCA Claims

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 04:22pm

    Re: Have you ever actually read the DMCA?

    They're also obligated to remove the account, kill the offender and his family, burn down his house and salt the ground it was built on.

  • On the post: Twitter Keeps Suspending Accounts Based On Highly Questionable DMCA Claims

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 04:18pm

    Re:

    In case you can't view the image, he provides the text. I can think of a number of reasons why you wouldn't be able to view the image, up to and including if a reader were blind.

  • On the post: Dear Sweden: Will You Tax Hard Drives And Give Me A Cut Every Time Someone Visits Techdirt?

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 12:55pm

    Only "legal" copies? Oh, really?

    "Great idea! By the way, it's illegal to copy protected media, and all the DVDs you market are protected, so there can't be any legal copies made of your movies. You don't get a cut. Have a nice day!"

    *smirk*

    a) I know it wouldn't work and b) I also realize I'm applying US law (DMCA) to Sweden, but since Sweden seems so eager to do that to themselves, I figure, why can't I get in on the fun?

  • On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: What everyone is missing ....

    Hear hear! I think when this is over we should all send them thank-you cards. (Dead-tree cards by snailmail. I don't want to be accused of promoting spam or a DDOS attack. :)

  • On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "First off, the first amendment issue is for a court to decide. Illegal speech is not protected by the first amendment, so turning off the domain may have few if any first amendment issues."

    Since the court has not yet determined that, suppressing Puerto 80's first amendment rights on the grounds of illegal speech is prior restraint. You're starting with an assumption of guilt. Next!

    "Seizing a domain used in a potentially illegal act is no more and no less valid than seizing a car or the contents of a warehouse. There is no judgement at that moment, only an accusation. Domains are not special property, they are no more and no less subject to seizure than anything else."

    As I understand it (IANAL) seizure of property prior to due process is intended for cases in which the prosecution believes that the the property constitutes evidence and that the accused may destroy or otherwise make unavailable the evidence before it can be used. So what you're saying is that if Puerto 80 is allowed to retain their domains, they could hide them or destroy them. And in fact that they're likely to do so. I'm still trying to figure out a) how they'd hide or destroy them and b) how they'd use them for their business after they've been hidden or destroyed. Moreover, you're suggesting that the actual domains may be evidence. Not the content of the web sites, but just the domains.

    "Further, if we want to get even more into it, Puerto 80 doesn't have any American free speech rights, unless they first want to admit that they are subject to US law. They would have to show that their "free speech" was occurring in the US, which could potentially make everything on their site subject to US law. Wouldn't that be fancy?"

    And yet the US has control over the domain system and is using that to prosecute Puerto 80. Isn't that fancy?

    "Why do you think that a Spanish website can be immune from prosecution in the US for any of it's piracy, but somehow able to benefit from US law in the matters of free speech? Either they are in or they are out. Which one is it?"

    It seems like they're making legal arguments in US court that the seizure of their domains is illegal in the US by US law. Which is exactly what they'd be doing if they were a US-based company, and they'd be doing it whether they were guilty or not.

    And if they are immune from prosecution, what right does the US have for seizing the domains in the first place? Seems like you're trying to say that it's OK for the US to seize property for alleged crimes outside its jurisdiction, but the defendant is not allowed to try to get its property back because it's outside the US's jurisdiction. Nice scam but not a very good simulation of logic.

  • On the post: Secretly Snapping Naked Pics Of The Woman Who Ended Up With A Stolen Laptop Might Just Be Illegal

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Doesn't have to be used

    My laptop is on the list. Yay! One of you young ladies steal this and start standing around naked in front of it.

    Because, you know, it's so hard to find porn on the Internet.

  • On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws

    Jeffrey Nonken ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Dangling?

    ... and tie him to the rack!

Next >>