The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677) comment rss

  • On the post: Judge Actually Recognizes The 4th Amendment: Says Police Can't Get Location Info From Telcos To Arrest You

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2011 @ 03:32pm

    Re: This is whats wrong with Amerika

    I like to pretend that people are innocent until they're proven guilty.

    I know, crazy.

  • On the post: Why President Obama Has The 'Jobs' Equation Backwards; Supporting Patent Reform That Limits Jobs

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 03:36pm

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

    He loves state law (like anti-SLAPP in California, where he hides out)

    So, you're in favor of misusing the legal system to silence critics? Well, now that I type it out like that, I realize there's a high likelihood that you are.

    and dislikes pretty much anything done at the Federal level.

    Tell me, madam, what things you like that the Federal Government does.

    Since Mike is also a big supporter of the old "hiding in between jurisdictions" way of avoiding the law, I am sure he would be much happier with 50+ new jurisdictions with little or no federal oversight.

    So, you're in favor of misusing the legal system? Oh, dang, this again. You *are* in favor of misusing the legal system.

    What is funny is that he attracts so many socialist friends, because they mistake his views on piracy and such as some sort of hippie-dippy share the love view of the world.

    This is pure conjecture, if not simply your personal fantasy.

    They don't realize that it's just another business model, just another way for him to sell his own views (and his time for interviews, conferences, and the like). That is a pure conservative / Republican thinking, and the baggers are just the far end of one of their corridors, right after the large closet that many of the Republican "men" hide in.

    This smells a lot like jealousy. And faintly of libel. I can only assume that you would have no issue if Mike brought a lawsuit against you, and brought it in Alaska-- since you clearly have no need of anti-SLAPP laws, nor lawsuits to be brought in proper jurisdictions.

    So no, I don't have any grand insight into Mike Masnick off the web, except to say that I haven't seen anything in public that plays any different from the persona he has built up on this site.

    Wait.. what? So, as far as you know he's exactly as he shows himself to be on this site. So.. about paragraph #3, where you suggest that he *isn't* like he shows himself to be...

    Certainly his bully boy tactics are in keeping with the best bagger methods!

    I don't know what this sentence means. Did Mike push you down behind the swing set and rip your new dress?

    It seems like you're a brave lady, heckling from the safety of anonymity without fear of having your life scrutinized.

  • On the post: What's In A Name: The Importance Of Pseudonymity & The Dangers Of Requiring 'Real Names'

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2011 @ 05:47am

    Re: Re: Graduated sharing.

    Did you read past the sentence you quoted?

    I put the sentence you quoted to point out that those people who are against Google knowing their real names aren't going to be pleased with my proposal. No where did I say that people shouldn't discuss, gasp, or criticize google's policy. In fact, if you had read past the sentence you quoted, you would see me discussing said policy.

    It's people like you who fly off the handle with a keyboard-courage fueled tirade at a misunderstanding that give anonymity a bad name. Relax.

  • On the post: What's In A Name: The Importance Of Pseudonymity & The Dangers Of Requiring 'Real Names'

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2011 @ 12:28pm

    Graduated sharing.

    I've had this discussion with people on Google+ and I think there is easy middle ground. (for once)

    Google wants to know your real name. It's their party, they can ask for whatever they want and if you don't like it, go elsewhere. That being said, the big "privacy" feature of G+ is the ability to pick who sees what about you. I can share a post to just my friends circle, or to only the people I've found from Techdirt on it, or to everyone in my circles, or the whole damn world. I can do the same to who can see where I live, went to school, my pictures, etc. They also have a "nickname" field. It seems only logical to allow this type of fine tuning with your real name-- and in the absence of real name privileges, a user would see the user's nickname. (Colored or otherwise designated as a not-real name) Bringing it a step further, you could pick different pseudonyms for different circles-- so if your world of warcraft (or whatever) friends know you by Lord Owthathurts, they'll see that, but your coworkers will see you by your long-standing nickname "sparky". You get the idea.

    That seems like a good middle ground, to me.

  • On the post: The Story Of Patent Reform: How Lobbyists & Congress Works… And How The Public & Innovation Get Screwed

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 02:52pm

    Re:

    Speaking of "other" political parties: This new so-called "Super Congress" pulls members of Republicans and Democrats to fill its seats. What happens if one (or, hopefully both!) of those parties aren't a major player in congress?

    It's like the lawmakers have forgotten that we don't have to be a two party government.

  • On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 02:38pm

    Re:

    I know for sure I haven't heard of him denying it!

  • On the post: Court Says Logging Into Someone Else's Facebook Page And Posting A Message Can Be Identity Fraud

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 12:10pm

    fitting

    http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/?p=2908

  • On the post: What Do They Say About The Lawyer Who Represents Himself?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2011 @ 09:24am

    This is the most amazing sentence I've read all year

    They are continuing to libel him so they can cause him to sue them, and thus make them appear as victims on the internet and thus enhance and encourage others to contribute to their tort reform causes.

    Discuss.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 09:55am

    Re:

    The system doesn't need patents to work, but patents do appear to make things work better, to encourage investment, and provide a mechanism where developments can be shared through licensing which is beneficial to all parties.

    I disagree with much of your post, but this statement is outright ridiculous. The linked article specifically mentions that you couldn't actually create something using the words and drawings in a patent-- even if you're the one who wrote the patent!

    I also have to question how a patent on, say, streaming music, in any way is beneficial to 'all parties'. It's a patent that never should have been granted, and it's being used to extort money from a company that actually attempts to innovate. It looks, from where I'm standing, that the patent system is exactly the opposite as you have described it. So much so, that I find myself wondering if we're talking about the same patent system.

  • On the post: House Committee Approves 'Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act of 2011'

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 09:16am

    Re:

    Our uteruses would fly out of our bodies as they were accelerated to that speed.

    In their defense, the only way previous to railway trains to get a woman to reach speeds of 50mph was to push her off a cliff, which nearly every time ended badly for the woman. It's science. :)

  • On the post: Writer Explains How Copyright Has Prevented Her From Ever Seeing TV Shows She Wrote

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2011 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Pirate it!

    Piracy isn't *the* answer, but it is *an* answer. *The* answer is to have all affected parties (including us lowly consumers) to sit down and re-evaluate the usefulness of copyright law. I'm not saying it should be abolished, but if it is no longer required for creators to create, then shouldn't it be removed from the books? It may very well turn out that copyright-- in a much different form (read: less insane) is actually useful.

    What really makes me sad in knowing with complete certainty that my culture will not be available to me to do with as I please until long after I die. Maybe even long after my children die.

    Would you have created your work without copyright? Was it what motivated you to write, over choosing a more secure source of revenue?

  • On the post: The Absurdity Of Comparing Copying To Stealing

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2011 @ 10:02am

    Re:

    What level was he entitled to, that he exceeded?

  • On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2011 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 5th, 2011 @ 6:13am

    I shared a clip of family guy on youtube to make a point about how stupid my friend was being. Since I was not making fun of the clip (parody), but instead using it to comment on something else (satire) and since the clip has since been taken down, and linking to infringement seems to be a crime, there is a good chance I violated a law.

    You'll never take me alive, copper.

  • On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2011 @ 06:27am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 5th, 2011 @ 6:13am

    Are you suggesting that I don't have to stop and wonder if I'm allowed to express myself? Copyright law has gotten so out of control that I literally violate it on a daily basis. Were I a person of any amount of notoriety I would live in constant fear of being sued. That's not freedom, is it?

  • On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2011 @ 05:56am

    Nice.

    I've never really thought about it that way. Thanks for making my world even more ridiculous than it already seemed. :)

  • On the post: Can Google+ Succeed Merely By Being Not Facebook?

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2011 @ 07:48am

    Re: A little addition

    I will need an email for you. I couldn't find it on your blog.

  • On the post: That Didn't Take Long: Turntable.fm Blocked To All Non-US Users

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2011 @ 04:49am

    Re:

    It can't really be stopped, because that'll just force it underground - and I don't doubt there's a team of devs in Russia with a few terrabytes of dodgy mp3s who will jump in with a similar idea if nobody else does.

    This is a very good point. I don't understand why these record labels don't understand that they can work with new ideas/business models or they can drive them underground, but they cannot stop them.

    If you can't beat them, join them. Right?

  • On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2011 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How would you get the metrics? Turn off security entirely and count the bodies at the end of the year?

    I think the metrics about how they let guns past security are plenty for me.

  • On the post: That Didn't Take Long: Turntable.fm Blocked To All Non-US Users

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2011 @ 10:28am

    Re: In another universe...

    Normally I find myself agreeing with your comments, but I can't wrap my head around this:

    with only a few hundred tickets available, they sell out fast and can pull impressive prices

    Artificial scarcity? Really? You mentioned server load, but I can't imagine a chat room coupled with low grade avatars and music streaming will require "managing server load" to a few hundred. You've fallen into the same trap that the **AA's do.

    It's okay, I forgive you. :P

  • On the post: Author Can't Quote A Single Line Of A Song In His Book Without Paying Up

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2011 @ 09:01am

    Bigger Fish

    One very minor point: there is no "10% rule" as many people seem to assume when it comes to copyright and fair use.

    You take the time to talk about this phrase, but no mention for the single worst phrase on the page:

    It?s generally accepted that the purpose of copyright is to prevent bootlegs from being produced, so that no one buys an illegal copy instead of the original and cheats the artist out of a buck.

    That's not the purpose of copyright, and the fact that it's "generally accepted" as the purpose of copyright is the reason we're in this mess in the first place. Even the people defending against these obscene copyright rules are quoting the copyright maximalists' propaganda. That's bad.

Next >>