JMT’s Techdirt Profile

jmt

About JMT




JMT’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 23rd, 2014 @ 4:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "...there is a lot of porn out there that is disgusting and needs to be removed..."

    Who exactly determined this "need" you speak of? You? A vocal minority of moral crusaders? The government?

  • Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 5:46pm

    Re:

    "If the police and school administrators would start adopting a zero tolerance policy..."

    Any use of the words "zero tolerance" should set off alarm bells. These policies always claim to have the best intentions, but produce horrific results when rigidly obeying poorly considered policies becomes more important than applying common sense and appropriate responses.

    And it says a lot about you that you're offended by the idea that other important and relevant aspects of this girls life should be ignored while hyper-focusing on your pet concern. God help us if you're ever responsible for enforcing one of your suggested zero-tolerance policies.

  • Apr 21st, 2014 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Snowden is a traitor and his supporters are misguided.

    "With all due respect, those that support Snowden are those that oppose the United States."

    With all due respect, that's an extraordinarily stupid accusation. According to recent polls, half the US population is against what the NSA is doing, and most of them wouldn't have had a clue about the sheer scale and over-reach of their actions if it weren't for Snowden.

    "They know nothing of the classification system, the consequences of not following it, nor have any credibility to speak on matters of national security."

    Sorry, but the average intelligence of the readers here is too high for an "I know more than you so shut up!" appeal to authority to carry much weight in an argument.

    "These supporters only care about secrets if they're used to harm the United States, as repeatedly done through Snowden's misappropriated information, Greenwald's acceptance of stolen property, as well as other misdeeds against the US."

    We'd love it if you could provide any evidence whatsoever of the harm and misdeeds you refer to. You sound just like plenty of other blowhards claiming all sorts of shocking consequences, but can't actually point to any real proof. Y'know who else would like to see this evidence? The USG, coz they can't find any either.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 9:44pm

    Still not the best solution

    I think it should've been made clearer that this doesn't in anyway reduce the awfulness of the current notice-and-takedown system, it merely points out that the content industry's proposed alternative is far worse. A notice-and-notice system would provide the same (probably more) incentive to make works available, while reducing the crazy levels of abuse of the notice-and-takedown system.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 9:34pm

    Re:

    "You survived the last terrorist attack. Thousands of your fellow citizens did not."

    Wow, really? You sound like a typical politician trying to get elected with blatant fear-mongering.

    "Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a police state..."

    Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a state of imminent terrorism. This despite the fact that the chances of being directly affected by a terrorist attack are statistically minute, particularly one of foreign origin. The government has been given (or just taken) far more power than it needs to combat the problem, and is massively abusing that power.

    "I support the rule of law and will abide by the Court's decision, even if I don't like it. This is what the "Founding Fathers" also had in mind."

    The law is supposed to be a reflection of the public's will, the kind of society they want to live in. When the law is extended, twisted and abused to the point where it no longer reflects the public will, it should be changed, not supported. I'm pretty damn sure the Founding Fathers didn't have total acquiescence to government power in mind.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 8:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome

    "I think you presume a lot with very little support for your presumptions."

    You're either unbelievably ignorant in claiming there's no support for these "presumptions", or you're trying to convince us there is no such support despite the massive amount of published info providing quite solid support. So are you dumb or deceitful?

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Martyr Syndrome

    "U.K. intelligence has stated that known terrorist methods of operation and communication have changed (improved)."

    So the people who have been proven to be lying to the public on a massive scale offer one of the easiest and most obvious defenses, and you just believe them? Are you one of these people or just a bit naive and gullible?

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 8:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome

    "Make him your hero if you like, but more and more observers are waking up to one of the most massive media deceptions in American history."

    Who are these people exactly? Seriously, this is a pretty easy claim to make, but you're going to have to provide at least some proof, because it sounds quite overblown and without any merit whatsoever.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 8:12pm

    Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated

    "Wyden asked his Q of Clapper in a far less scripted context."

    Why are you claiming something that is provably and commonly known to be false? Kinda undermines everything else you say...

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 8:09pm

    Re:

    "...incredibly naive of him to think of Russian press as free and Putin's Q&A sessions as non-scripted..."

    What on Earth makes you think Snowden thinks that? Absolutely nothing he's done could make anyone who's followed his public statements leap to that conclusion. Your comment almost seems like a weak attempt to lead people to believe something you know to be false...

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 8:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Excellent analysis

    Actually I think it's dangerous not because of what they could do to me personally as you describe, but what they can do to other more important people that who may be working in my interests. What if some in the government decided they were sick of the actions of groups like Wikileaks, EFF or the ACLU, or up-and-coming politicians who start getting popular with voters because they challenge current government positions or actions. What if what you describe above is done to them? To me that's far scarier.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 7:49pm

    Re:

    If by comedy you mean comments that sound like they were written by a petulant teenager, then yeah, funny as hell.

    Feel free to offer some sort of intelligent, constructive rebuttal if you can. We won't hold our breath...

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 7:31pm

    Re: Re:

    What you've just described would be the result of a law suit that many people simply can't afford. The problem will not be solved unless the victim is someone who can afford to win.

  • Apr 14th, 2014 @ 6:06pm

    Re: Cool Story But Stupid

    "The assumptions made in this story are completely stupid."

    Be careful throwing that word around...

    "First off, you wouldn't get cable to watch a single show."

    Well done, you've actually hit on the main point without even realising it. People won't pay just to watch GoT, they'll get it elsewhere instead. An entire section of the market is being ignored and not earning anybody any money. How is that a good business decision? And if it turns out that keeping it exclusive does actually maximise their profit, why the hell are they complaining about it?!

  • Apr 14th, 2014 @ 5:56pm

    Re:

    There's nothing misleading here, you're just not understanding the argument. If you want to watch GoT legally, that is what you have to pay. The fact that you get access to other stuff is not relevant, because the discussion is about being able to watch this particular show.

  • Apr 14th, 2014 @ 5:31pm

    Re: directly to journalists

    You seem to have confused someone's past actions with other people's possible future actions. Not sure how...

  • Apr 10th, 2014 @ 6:00pm

    Re:

    Actually she had the looks and just enough talent to do alright in Hollywood, but it turns out being a complete bitch to everyone is a bit of a career handbrake.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Headline

    Well DH's comment exactly matched my first thought, so it doesn't hurt Techdirt one bit in my eyes.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline

    The headline is perfectly clear, the issue here is entirely yours.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Megaupload

    "To suggest Megaupload was primarily used for legal traffic is ludicrous."

    Suggesting the VCR was primarily used for legal purposes was also considered ludicrous by the MPAA, and yet looked how that worked out.

    It's clear to anyone with half a brain that MU and other cloud storage sites have "substantial non-infringing uses", so I don't understand why you think the end result should be different this time around.

More comments from JMT >>