Jon B. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (140) comment rss

  • On the post: How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself

    Jon B. ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2011 @ 01:59pm

    Re:

    I have to agree with this.

    This isn't really that big of deal in comparison to more common situations. What's worse is when Walmart refuses to print a family photo because the photo LOOKS too professional and therefore *must* be owned by some photographer, and not you, you damned dirty criminal.

  • On the post: How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself

    Jon B. ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2011 @ 01:57pm

    Re:

    So, when strict IP control and ownership comes at odds with the free, anonymous flow of information, you assume that it's the free, anonymous flow of information that's the problem?

  • On the post: How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself

    Jon B. ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2011 @ 01:53pm

    Bill, I'm not sure you're aware, but Mike Masnick, or one of his partners, has reposted this story on techdirt.com. Can you verify, on a stack of Hitchhiker's Guides, that you are in fact, Bill Benzon of ΣE37901ΔΓ and that you give permission for this story to be reposted?

    There appears to be some guy from over in ΣE37901ΔΔ posting stuff without your permission, plagiarizing you in books and such, and we just want to make sure everything is on the up and up.

  • On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node

    Jon B. ( profile ), 31 May, 2011 @ 01:34pm

    Re:

    I don't think you need to bring a pro-pedophilia argument to a discussion about how network packets are distributed. It will only serve to harm the purpose of us who want a free and neutral internet.

  • On the post: Dow Jones Sues Texas; Says Taxing The Wall Street Journal Is A First Amendment Violation

    Jon B. ( profile ), 27 May, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    I think the point is not that the sales tax itself is bad. It's that taxing one publication differently from another is bad. And you're right, that tax should probably apply to ALL publications equally.

  • On the post: Dow Jones Sues Texas; Says Taxing The Wall Street Journal Is A First Amendment Violation

    Jon B. ( profile ), 27 May, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    I think the point is not that the sales tax itself is bad. It's that taxing one publication differently from another is bad. And you're right, that tax should probably apply to ALL publications equally.

  • On the post: Congress Folds: Extends Controversial & Likely Abused PATRIOT Act Provisions For 4 More Years

    Jon B. ( profile ), 27 May, 2011 @ 08:44am

    Re: Re: My plaintive plea...

    The most likely solution is to have a third party sort of combine efforts with one of the major parties.

    The "tea party" movement started as a series of rallies, but is evolving into a names political party. If this happens, you could end up with Republicans in office under two different banners.

    Same goes for Libertiarians. If Libertarians can nominate someone who is ALSO running as a Republican or Democrat, you could end up with someone in office under both of those banners as well. With the momentum starts, you could see one of those banners grow larger while the others shrink.

    This is more likely than seeing Tea Party or Libertarian unknown candidates gain any momentum on their own.

    Of course, right now, the intersect of these sets is Ron Paul, and I don't know how I feel about that, but I'd rather have 1/3 of the people in office be Ron Pauls than what we have now.

    Change is possible. I like this method of change a hell of a lot better than the "let Nader keep running for President" method of change.

  • On the post: Senators Reveal That Feds Have Secretly Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act

    Jon B. ( profile ), 26 May, 2011 @ 09:07am

    Re: Sec 215

    "It then hit me- as a society we're more concerned about entitlements ($$$) then the the Bill of Rights."

    Both have a direct relationship to government power, authority, and control. Both are important. Isn't it ok to be against both? (Or, in favor of restricting both...)

  • On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized

    Jon B. ( profile ), 23 May, 2011 @ 06:45am

    Re:

    Until there's a site taken down that most people are aware of and like, the media will only report this as the government taking down sites doing bad things like distributing porn, child porn, counterfeit movies, music and violent video games, terrorist communications, and leaked military documents that reveal strategic troop locations and endanger lives.

    It's cheesy to say "first they came for the pornographers...", but it's also true.

  • On the post: Guy Asks For Software Crack, Creator Provides Free App Instead

    Jon B. ( profile ), 19 May, 2011 @ 02:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Excellent Writing

    I think the set of people who know what the tell Stella Artois is and the set of people who like something called Stella Artois may not overlap much.

  • On the post: What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay

    Jon B. ( profile ), 19 May, 2011 @ 11:03am

    The Kentucky ruling was broad and stupid, and SCOTUS was right to overturn it.

    This Indiana ruling is also broad and stupid, and SCOTUS should overturn it.

    The idea that you can't protect your property from trespassers as long as the trespassers are cops is wrong.

    I do agree that "common law" shouldn't be able to override written policy, but saying that's what happened here is plain wrong.

  • On the post: Righthaven Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over Its Sham Copyright Transfer And Lawsuits

    Jon B. ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 02:59pm

    I *still* can't read a Righthaven post without thinking of Ravenholm.

  • On the post: Well, That Was Fast: Sony's New PSN System? Hacked!

    Jon B. ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 02:22pm

    Whatever profit Sony was supposedly "losing" to piracy and jailbreaking has been immensely surpassed by the ongoing degree of fuckupitude.

  • On the post: Perhaps The Sequel Can Be 'Don't F**king Worry About Piracy'

    Jon B. ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 11:09am

    That picture is freaking hilarious.

    No, I probably won't buy it, primarily because I don't even want to explain to people why I have it.

    I just want the PDF. Awesome.

  • On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant

    Jon B. ( profile ), 18 May, 2011 @ 07:04am

    Re: Re: I guess it depends on the "scrambling..."

    Agreed... I don't know why the Kentucky court couldn't just say "Nope, it's a bad search because it wasn't exigent" instead of trying to carve out a whole new definition of terms.

  • On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant

    Jon B. ( profile ), 17 May, 2011 @ 03:34pm

    I guess it depends on the "scrambling..."

    Based on this post, it sounds like the cops were in the wrong.

    However, it sounds like SCOTUS would be right in concluding that "exigent circumstances" can include those instigated by the police in certain ways:

    Police get called to domestic disturbance. Police knock on door, and say "Hello! Police Department!" (assuming that identifying themselves is necessary for this hypothetical situation...) Police then hear gunfire that was obviously instigated by them shouting "Police Department!" and/or knocking.

    Is it ok for them to enter? There's a big difference between "scrambling" and gunfire, but a hard line saying that "exigent circumstances" can't be "created" by police.

    "The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances rule does not apply in the case at hand because the police should have foreseen that their conduct would prompt the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence,? Alito wrote. ?We reject this interpretation of the exigent circumstances rule. The conduct of the police prior to their entry into the apartment was entirely lawful. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rule applies."

    I see nothing wrong with that paragraph as written if it is indeed truthful.

    Now, the real issue here is that police are doing this when the crime is simply possession of drugs that lots of people don't think should be illegal in the first place. Now, if you want to argue whether those drugs should be illegal, that's a valid debate worth having. But that issue should be argued separately from whether "exigent circumstances" can be created by police.

    I'll agree and concede that the burden of proof should be on the police to PROVE that the "scrambling" they heard really met the proper criteria. I just don't think whether the police knocked first should have anything to do with it.

  • On the post: Google's Internal Collision Course: Chrome vs. Android

    Jon B. ( profile ), 13 May, 2011 @ 07:08am

    Re: I would agree... but...

    The two overlap when you get to "tablet"/"netbook"

    I don't think Android NEEDS a touchscreen to work, so it could work on netbooks. Some "netbooks" have had touchscreens, so which would be better?

    Once you're doing something on a netbook that Android can't do, you're probably beyond what ChromeOS is useful for and need a real OS like Ubuntu or Windows 7

  • On the post: Google's Internal Collision Course: Chrome vs. Android

    Jon B. ( profile ), 13 May, 2011 @ 06:59am

    Re:

    "Chrome OS is aiming at the very inexpensive laptop market"

    The first Chrome laptop to market is $450 to $500. You can be better, more capable netbooks for that.

  • On the post: Off The Deep End: People Claiming That Supporting Creative Commons Is Being Anti-Creator

    Jon B. ( profile ), 11 May, 2011 @ 11:28am

    Re:

    Oops... I skipped right over the statement "Anyone who supports CC is by definition anti-creators' rights." That's just retarded. My other comment is still valid, though.

  • On the post: Off The Deep End: People Claiming That Supporting Creative Commons Is Being Anti-Creator

    Jon B. ( profile ), 11 May, 2011 @ 11:26am

    See, I don't see what's wrong with the statement. I'm sure CC-like licenses HAVE put people out of business - people who were making a business out of selling copies of creations that were not of a high enough quality to beat out a free alternative in the market.

    This is a good thing.

Next >>