Lord_Unseen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (105)

• On the post: UK Government Would Like To Put Internet Trolls In Jail For Two Years

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 07:55am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I assume you're talking about the story in the last link of this story. As I understand it, rape threats were the biggest problem with that situation. This would fall under threat of bodily harm. If they feel threatened they can go to the authorities, the same way they can in real life. If the authorities are able to find the perpetrators to punish them with this law, they are able to punish them with the laws against threats as well. Yes, if it's a he-said-she-said kind of thing, that's rather difficult to punish, but new laws don't fix that. You still need evidence to convict using this law (or any other they come up with) so that still doesn't solve the subtle harassment.
  
  For standard trolling, if it's a single person or small group, there is an "ignore" or "block" or "report" button on most sites you can use. If it's a large, organized group and things start getting serious, then you have anti-harassment laws and anti-stalking laws. Additionally, in most countries, you can tack on "conspiracy to" when the crime was organized to get anyone involved but not directly committing the crime.
  
  As for my previous post, I was just trolling... Guess I should go to jail.

• On the post: UK Government Would Like To Put Internet Trolls In Jail For Two Years

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 07:23am

  Re: Re: Re:

  I believe you've answered your own question. If law is the answer, then by golly, why not use the anti-harassment laws! I dunno, perhaps I'm too much of a simpleton for your obviously superior mind, but it still seems to me that there is no need for new laws just because you append "on the internet".

• On the post: UK Government Would Like To Put Internet Trolls In Jail For Two Years

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 02:02pm

  Re:

  "In Canada, 216.4a of the Criminal Code of Canada states that threatening someone with bodily harm is punishable by 2-5 yrs in prison. Doesn't matter if it is by phone, in person, or online. Should NOT matter!"
  
  Correct. Most countries already have laws on the books for threats of bodily harm. There is no need for new laws just because it's "on the internet". Besides, the law is talking about trolling, not just threats of bodily harm. I think Mike's got it right, it's clearly an attack on freedom of speech.

• On the post: New York City Court Buys NYPD's Claims Of 'National Security,' Grants It Power To 'Glomar' FOIL Requests

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 01:51pm

  You know you've lost it when the CIA thinks you've gone over(water)board.
  
  I'll see myself out now.

• On the post: Sheriff Slams EFF As 'Not Credible,' Insists ComputerCOP Isn't Malware & Would Have Stopped Columbine

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2014 @ 02:48pm

  Re: You all seem to have missed the best part

  Sounds about right to me. Limestone County Sheriff's Office, prepare for a security audit.

• On the post: Skies Safer Than Ever After TSA Prevents Passenger From Boarding Flight With Cartoonish Novelty 'Bomb'

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2014 @ 06:50am

  Re:

  The LAX shooting is certainly too far. However, I think the TSA deserves more than a few F-bombs. Maybe we could get them a couple of birds too.

• On the post: Behind The Veil Part 4: Customer Trying To Cancel Service Is Put On Hold Until Comcast Office Closes

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2014 @ 02:36pm

  I don't want to miss it.

  I would make a witty comment but I'm currently on hold with Comcast and I just know they'll be back any second now!

• On the post: Know Your Troll: Innovative Display Technologies Targeting Any Company That Creates A Product With An LCD Screen

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2014 @ 02:24pm

  Re: Re: Re: Patent selling

  That seems like a more workable solution.

• On the post: Know Your Troll: Innovative Display Technologies Targeting Any Company That Creates A Product With An LCD Screen

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2014 @ 02:09pm

  Re: Patent selling

  Actually, since the only way for a company to hold a patent is by transfer (whether buying patents from others or by contract with their employees). By making them non-transferable, we would effectively make corporate held patents illegal.
  
  
  
  I could live with that.

• On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2014 @ 02:53pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  You're forgetting the sentence directly before that one. He says; "The article's assertion the image belongs to no one or to everyone might make sense in a ideal world of pure philosophy, but we don't live in that world." He specifically includes it belonging "to everyone", the public domain. It's very clear from that sentence, and the one after it, that he believes the public domain has no value.

• On the post: NJ Supreme Court Says Rap Lyrics Can't Be Introduced As Evidence Unless Directly Linked To Criminal Actions

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2014 @ 02:38pm

  Re:

  If the lyrics a prosecution would want to submit are written from personal experience, then it wouldn't be difficult to line it up with actual events. If it doesn't, connecting them with a crime is pure speculation, you know, the kind of thing that's generally frowned upon in court.
  
  Additionally rap is a much wider genre than you give it credit for. There are certainly a number of rappers writing from personal experience, but, there are much more writing fiction in the form of rap. Saying it is "strongly correlated with harm to others and actual criminality" is disingenuous.

• On the post: Google Now Using HTTPS As A (Very Slight) Ranking Signal In Search To Encourage More Encryption

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2014 @ 02:41pm

  So when is the EU going to make this illegal?

• On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2014 @ 02:44pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  First, you can argue that you wouldn't have chosen a lens at random, but you can't argue that he didn't unless he stated otherwise.
  
  Second, no decision is made in a vacuum. It's dangerous because, if he would succeed in such an argument, it would imply that the setup is more important than the composition of the photo. I'm not sure many photographers would much care for that decision...

• On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2014 @ 02:40pm

  Re: Devils Advocate

  Possibly, but I doubt it. To get a copyright on it, he'd have to argue that he changed it enough to be considered a new work. Cleaning and cropping a photo aren't usually enough to make that argument.

• On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2014 @ 02:27pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  So, you're saying that having certain settings on a camera and attaching a lens (which, for all we know, he picked at random) means he should have the copyright? Even though he didn't compose the shot? That's a very dangerous argument to make.

• On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2014 @ 01:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  True enough, but he'd have to prove he contributed something other than "existing in that place at that time", and from his own words, that seems unlikely.

• On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2014 @ 01:28pm

  Re: monkey selfie??????

  That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? If the monkey took it, he has no claim of copyright. If he took it, it's just a pretty good photo of a monkey and nobody's paying anything for it. He should probably just give up.

• On the post: Blogger Defends Outing Politician Trolling His Comments

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2014 @ 07:10am

  Re: Can't trust that blog

  Exactly, he had the right to unmask the guy, and the politician sounds about as scummy as you can get, but in doing that, the blog lost the trust of every person who has an interest in staying anonymous. Unfortunately for him, trust isn't something you can rationalize back into existence.

• On the post: Australian Police Confiscate Pastafarian Man's Guns Because He Posed For His ID Card Wearing A Colander

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2014 @ 08:00am

  Re:

  Perhaps he had a license previously and was just up for renewal? Not quite as comical, but not quite as sad either.

• On the post: Hypocritical Authors Guild Photocopies Author's Book While Claiming That Scanning Works Is Infringement

  

  Lord_Unseen ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2014 @ 07:34am

  Mr. Rosenthal, you're throwing a tantrum. Now, go stand in the corner and think about what you've done.

Next >>