Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: New Zealand Court Says Kim Dotcom Still Eligible For Extradition… But Not Over Copyright

    Karl ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2017 @ 05:14am

    The "fraud" part

    For the curious, here's the most relevant part (IMO) of the ruling:

    [84] Unlike the single word descriptions considered in Edwards, "larceny" and "embezzlement", there is no difficulty interpreting art II.16 of the Treaty. The wording of the provision is familiar and its meaning is clear. It closely followed the wording of s 257 of the Crimes Act at that time:

    257 Conspiracy to defraud – Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who conspires with any other person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means to defraud the public, or any person ascertained or unascertained, or to affect the public market price of stocks, funds, shares, merchandise, or anything else publicly sold, whether the deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretence as hereinbefore defined.

    [85] Similar wording was used in other jurisdictions to capture this offence which merely codified the common law concept of conspiracy to defraud. The nature of the offence and its broad application were well understood. Such offending could occur in a potentially limitless variety of circumstances encompassing the entire spectrum of dishonest means. The object of the conspiracy need not be criminal; a conspiracy to commit a civil wrong would suffice. I can see no reason in principle why a conspiracy to defraud could not include a conspiracy to obtain money by dishonestly infringing copyright to the detriment of the copyright holders. While art II.16 does not mention copyright infringement or conspiracy to commit copyright infringement in those terms, equally it does not specify any of the other myriad of ways in which offenders could conspire to defraud the public or any person.

    (Emphasis added.)

  • On the post: FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans

    Karl ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2017 @ 05:45am

    Re: Missing the problem

    You're citing as a source, a blog post by a user whose only post on medium is the post you're citing?

    Who starts off the post by insulting celebrities, then moves on to complain about "Social Justice Warriors and Wankers," which is really a tirade against uppity black people?

    And, who continues with prejudicial overgeneralizations like this: "Most Muslims, though, live in the Middle East or in places like Indonesia and Malaysia and Pakistan, where they treat non-Muslims with the same hate and violence and psychopathic homicidal delight that Middle Eastern Muslims reserve for my [Middle Eastern Christian] people."

    Yeah, not convincing.

    I absolutely agree that there is persecution of other religions in majority-Muslim countries, and that this is wrong, and that we in the West should do what we can to stop it.

    But I do not see anything that Trump has done as helping that cause. And I certainly don't think this article helps anything, either.

  • On the post: The Battle Over Public Performance Rights Of Old Music Heats Up: NY Rejects, Supreme Court Petitioned

    Karl ( profile ), 22 Dec, 2016 @ 04:12pm

    Good ruling

    This is a very good ruling, and also a pretty good primer on such notions as "partial publication" or the history of common-law copyright.

    Of course, perhaps I'm saying that because the lower court's ruling was a complete mess that didn't touch on any of those issues, and confused common-law copyright with federal copyright statutes.

    If anyone is curious, I wrote about the previous ruling here:
    https://tritonester.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/legal-analysis-of-the-siriusxm-loss-in-new-york/

  • On the post: Do You Have Examples Of Constructive Responses To Hateful/Abusive/Trollish Speech Online?

    Karl ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2016 @ 03:31pm

    Re: Re:

    And they'll declare to everyone else that your "unwillingness to respond" proves their claims.

    Obviously, I have to link to a commenter here who proved you right:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c1210

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2016 @ 09:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency

    Try again? What, do I need to win the approval of every anonymous commenter in the tank for PK?

    You do realize that I was ironically repeating the inane bullshit that you were spouting, right? As in, "That report was retaliation for the CO's STB comments. Try again."

    Also, you're wrong:

    > None of the documents you reference disclose the size of Google's payoffs.

    The link that I posted showed which category Google is in as far as donation money is concerned (and, again, they are in the same category as AT&T and DirecTV). This would have earned them a "B" on the exact story you quoted.

    Plus, you can always look at their form 990, where it is revealed that they got about half of their donation money from entities that donated less than 2% of their total donations. (If you really want to, I'll hunt this down, but really you should be searching this out yourself.) This is exactly the sort of numbers you see with a legitimate non-profit, and that you don't see with astroturf organizations.

    So, again, you're wrong.

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2016 @ 04:50pm

    Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency

    Try this one:

    An article from 2014, which gave PK a D back when they didn't have a working "Funders and Supporters" page...

    ...which they now do, which I've linked to, and here it is again:
    https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/sources-of-funding-for-public-knowledge/

    Meanwhile, in May of this year, Charity Navigator gave it 3 out of 4 stars:
    https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12060

    If you want, you can download all of their Form 990's from the NCCS:
    http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/522336690/

    Here's the one from 2014:
    http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/522/522336690/522336690_201412_990.pdf

    So, yeah, try again.

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2016 @ 05:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    That NYT article is interesting precisely because it describes what a 501(3)(c) is not supposed to be.

    Still, it's a bit misleading to describe it as a "business model," since the goal of having a business model is to make a profit.

    And, of course, there's no evidence that PK does this. For example, many of its "Platinum level" donors - the same level as Google - are companies who have been lobbying against the FCC's set-top box proposal. (Companies like AT&T and DirecTV.)

    If PK is indeed trying to be a "pay-for-play lobbying group," these guys should get their money back.

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2016 @ 06:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    This ought to be rich. What exactly do you think the "business model" of a 501(c)(3) non-profit is?

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2016 @ 06:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    It's funny that you're constantly seeking evidence for my claims but you're unwilling to accept anything but PK's own words.
    Not true. I'm also willing to accept facts. So far you have provided none. You provide blind assertions based on nothing, and ad hominem attacks. So far, you still have provided absolutely no evidence for the notions that:
    1. Google saw Pallante, personally, as a "threat";
    2. Google's being threatened by Pallante was the reason that PK "attacked" her by name; because
    3. PK is Google's "puppet."
    All three things are wild accusations, thrown around by conspiracy theorists who are running a smear campaign against Google (and others they disagree with). The fact that there's no evidence for any of this (and plenty of evidence against it, some of which I've posted) doesn't matter to them.
    That's not how this game is played.
    What game do you think you're playing, exactly? The one where you win political points through unsubstantiated smear campaigns?

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2016 @ 03:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    What's your point, that PK is Google's biggest critic?

    My point is that PK is not a "Google puppet," as you put it.

    That idea is a pure conspiracy theory, largely originating from people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is part of some conspiracy or other.

    My advice: don't listen to them.

    The fact that PK and Google agree on many (not all) positions is not evidence of a "conspiracy." It's easily explained by the fact that both the public and Google benefit from things like an open Internet, or less stringent copyright laws.

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2016 @ 03:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    That report was retaliation for the CO's STB comments.

    PK certainly didn't claim that it was "retaliation" for the set-top box comments, and the report covers much more than that.

    So, do you have any actual evidence that it was "retaliation," other than vague hunches or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2016 @ 04:08pm

    Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    Just for funzies, here's a list of organizations that the David Lowery and/or Chris Castle (Trichordist, Music Tech Policy, Artist's Rights Watch) have claimed are controlled by Google:

    • the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    • Public Knowledge
    • Fight for the Future
    • Lumen/Chilling Effects
    • Free Press
    • Creative Commons
    • Michael Geist, via the University of Ottowa's CIPPIC
    • Kobalt Music Group
    • Berkelee School of Music's "Rethink Music" initiative
    • the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University
    • the MIC Coalition
    • the UK Music Manager's Forum
    • the Music Business Association
    • the CCIA
    • the DOJ
    • the FTC
    • the USPTO
    • the entire Obama White House
    • and, naturally, Techdirt
    Of course, they have also claimed that NPR is in a criminal conspiracy with Vuze, that the LA Times is in collusion with Bittorrent, and that Billboard is "the PR arm of Pandora." So, yeah, conspiracy theorists.

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2016 @ 01:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct

    Thanks for the quote. That report wasn't actually a response to the set-top box proposal, so I didn't know what you were referring to.

    BTW, Public Knowledge quoting her by name (and, given the quotes, deservedly so) still doesn't prove any of your points.

  • On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory

    Karl ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2016 @ 12:08am

    Re: WSJ is largely correct

    Google saw Pallante as a threat

    Can you cite any source that's not related to Chris Castle or the Trichordist?

    Of course not, because Google never said anything that indicated that Pallante was a "threat."

    > Google puppet Public Knowledge

    The notion that Public Knowledge is a "Google puppet" is pure hokum.

    The majority of their funding comes from foundations (not corporations).

    And though Google does give them money, they are hardly the only ones to do so. There are about a dozen other corporations that give about as much as Google (many of whom are Google competitors, including Microsoft), and at least two dozen other corporations who give lesser but still significant amounts.
    https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/sources-of-funding-for-public-knowledge/

    > attacked her by name in its ridiculous defense of the FCC's proposed STB regulation

    This is the only response I could find from Public Knowledge that is a response to the Copyright Office's attack on the FCC set-top box plan:
    https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-responds-to-copyright-office-attack-on-set-top-box-competition

    They do not attack Pallante by name. Nor is it "ridiculous;" it points out basic legal flaws with the Register's position, flaws that were pointed out by several other legal scholars:
    https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/IP%20Professors%20Letter%20to%20Librarian%20of%20Congress%207.22.2016_3.pdf

    So, yeah, the WSJ article is still wrong.

  • On the post: Conspiracy Theories Run Amok Over Copyright Office Executive Changes

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2016 @ 03:29pm

    These "theories" all come from one guy

    If you read the articles, the "multiple" sources all involve Chris Castle.

    Castle is the person who started and runs the Artists Right Watch website. Castle is also the person behind Music Technology Policy. Though started by David Lowery, the Trichordist site now features more content by Chris Castle than anyone else - usually reposted verbatim from Music Technology Policy (almost certainly by Castle himself). These sources were the only ones quoted in the DMN story as supporting this conspiracy theory.

    And, make no mistake, Castle is definitely a conspiracy theorist. He calls Eric Schmidt "Uncle Sugar," claims that the EFF and Public Knowledge are both "shills" of Google, and consistently repeats any anti-Google story that he sees (and never retracts them when they turn out to be false). He's the main person behind the claim that the DOJ advocated full-work licensing only because Renata Hesse recieved her marching orders from Google. (Never mind that all music users who submitted comments to the DOJ said unanimously that they believed they had always gotten full-song licensing... or that Google didn't even submit a comment). There are plenty of other examples.

    But none of this is a surprise, since he appears to be involved in media and telecom astroturfing. For example, he was a consultant for Arts+Labs, an astroturf group funded by big media and telecom companies, and chaired by Mike McCurry of "Hands Off The Internet" infamy. (Arts+Labs was a big supporter of SOPA, and it folded when its political lobbying failed.)

    Essentially, all of this is just Chris Castle sock puppetry. It's a telling failure on DMN's part that they fell for it, and are essentially helping to spread the impression that this is more than just one guy's conspiracy theory. Please, don't fall for it yourself.

    (As a public service, I'm going to post this as a comment on the DMN story as well.)

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Dancing Baby Fair Use Case

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2016 @ 10:03pm

    Jenner & Block

    FYI, if the name Jenner & Block sounds familiar to you, that is because they are the legal firm that was hired by the MPAA to write CIDs for Jim Hood.

    Yes, the same CID's that Judge Wingate ruled unconstitutional (PDF).

  • On the post: Prosecutors Changing Charges Against Reporter To 'Rioting' Because Her Coverage Was Sympathetic To Protestors

    Karl ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2016 @ 08:44pm

    Well, the judge dismissed the case

    That was quick, thankfully:
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/10/amy-goodman-dakota-access-pipeline-press-freedom

    I haven't been able to find any written opinion... assuming it even merited one.

  • On the post: Donald Trump's Son & Campaign Manager Both Tweet Obviously Fake Story

    Karl ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2016 @ 06:31am

    What the Trump campaign thinks of his supporters

    Sure, people can get fooled by fake news. But what's really delicious is this:

    "I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart," said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. "I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em' and stuff." Downey continued, "I think we did a good job though. I was shouting at them the whole time, calling them losers, telling them to get a job or go back home to mommy’s house; I got a bunch of high-fives from my fellow Trump supporters. It was a great time."


    Someone on the Trump campaign read that paragraph, and said to themselves "yep, that's exactly what our supporters are like."

  • On the post: Digital Homicide Sues Steam Reviewers, Steam Drops It Like It's Hot

    Karl ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2016 @ 07:24pm

    Re: Re:

    If Digital Homicide's games are attractive enough

    Well, except they aren't. That's kinda the whole point.

    According to nearly every review I've seen, they're basically single-level maps that would shame even a beginning Half-Life modder, using stock (some claim stolen) assets developed by others, with counter-intuitive and unexplained game mechanics.

    You certainly have a point if we're talking about AAA games (or even good indie games), but this ain't them.

  • On the post: DOJ Makes Smart Decision On Music Licensing… Music Publishers Completely Lose Their Shit

    Karl ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2016 @ 06:29pm

    Re: Re: Judge Stanton rules against the DOJ

    Have you checked out Lowery's Trichordist site lately?

    Unfortunately, yes. I need something to get me angry sometimes.

    You're right, they're basically an anti-Google conspiracy site nowadays. But that's actually not so much that they're in "crazyland." Some people who write for that site (but not Lowery, AFAIK) are involved with pro-copyright astroturf groups, and they're deliberately pushing propaganda.

    On example: Chris Castle used to head up Arts+Labs, an astroturf group originally started by telecom lobbyists that also supported SOPA and PIPA (and disbanded immediately after they failed). Another frequent contributor, Ellen Seidler (also of popuppirates.com and Vox Indie), is on the advisory board of Digital Citizen's Alliance, the main mover behind the Project Goliath debacle.

    Still, they're good to read just to see what they're angry about, so that you can know what to actually support.

Next >>