The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677) comment rss

  • On the post: Greatest Legal Filing Ever? Mark Cuban Files Photo Of Mavs Championship In Response To Charges He Mismanaged The Team

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2011 @ 07:03am

    Questions

    Is that picture now in the public domain? Did he secure the rights to use it?

    These are the questions that go through my mind now, thanks to you, Mike. I hope you're happy.

    Stupid copyright system...

  • On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2011 @ 11:34am

    Re:

    Oh, that's right. You don't want law enforcement involved, nor do you want the studios and record labels involved either.

    I can't speak for Mike, but I know I want copyright infringement back in it's proper place on the list of priorities for things we need our government to look in to. You know, towards the bottom.

    Seriously, you can't think of any crimes that are perhaps more important and deserve these resources? None?

    Side question: What is your definition of 'piracy apologist'? Just so I know what you mean when you type it.

  • On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2011 @ 11:29am

    Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"

    If someone breaks into my house and I call the cops, I'm not "lobbying" for them to be my "private security force."

    If I you take the police chief out to an expensive dinner and for the next month your ex wife has her car impounded 5 times due to a series 'paperwork errors' it's pretty obvious what happened.

    The fact that you have the testicular fortitude to attempt to pass this off as 'nothing to see here' makes me weep for your children, or anyone else who may attempt to learn the difference between right and wrong from you.

  • On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2011 @ 10:57am

    Re: Killing the messenger

    You make a valid point up until you suggest that we need to go off planet to find intelligent life, because that includes you.

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Big Yet Again, Cementing Two Previous Issues

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2011 @ 09:32am

    Re:

    What no one has produced is any authority that states once an owner of a copyright grants an exclusive license to another, that owner loses standing to sue for past infringements.

    That entire wall of text (twice!) and this is all you needed to type. I'll grant you that I am not a lawyer, so my next sentence may not have any bearing on the legal system, but from a common sense standpoint (I know, right?) the ruling you have issue with makes perfect sense. One of the functions of holding one of the 106 rights is the ability to sue for infringements. So, if you have given up all those 106 rights, you lose the functions that go along with those rights.

    In much the same way, one of the functions of a bat is the ability to hit someone with it. If I give up my bat, I no longer have the ability to hit someone with it, no matter how much I would like to. Furthermore, if someone sells me a bat solely so I can loan it right back to them, this does not magically give me the ability to hit people with my bat, because I have loaned it out.

    Like I said, I don't want to go around saying that the law should follow common sense, but there you have it.

  • On the post: Righthaven Loses Big Yet Again, Cementing Two Previous Issues

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2011 @ 09:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The guy he's mocking has a login name. Since you don't, I can't see how you can take offence to what he said.

    Plus, he's kinda right.

  • On the post: Sony Continues Suing People Who Help Others Modify Their PS3s

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2011 @ 07:54am

    Re: Are you really surprised?

    Any comment that starts with "In 1984" must end with "He loved Big Brother."

    I don't make the rules.

  • On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2011 @ 07:37am

    Re:

    Could you identify them

    The major one is that, although the rightsholders have the ability to do what they did, it may not make good business sense to do so. Certainly they could have contacted the artist directly and voice any concerns they had, and perhaps worked out a deal. Last I checked, a phone call or email was much cheaper than a lawyer.

    The underlying point I usually take away from these types of stories is that, regardless of whether you feel it's parody or derivative, there is now less art in the world directly because of copyrights. Directly because of copyrights. It needed to be said twice.

  • On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2011 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You, madam, are an idiot.

  • On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re:

    Honestly....how can you possibly advocated the latter?

    Because he's paid to?

  • On the post: Peanuts Rights Holder Shuts Down Peanutweeter, Pisses Off Fans For No Reason At All

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2011 @ 09:36am

    Re:

    You really have too much free time. Get a job, ya hippy.

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2011 @ 09:37am

    Re:

    He understands completely. As AJ, he quite happily stated that he had no qualms exploiting loopholes in the legal system to make money-- this is exactly what was attempted here. They couldn't transfer the right to sue, so they instead tried to transfer everything and 'license' back everything except the right to sue. It's underhanded and goes directly against the spirit of the law, which is why it got slapped down.

    Personally, It would be better if he didn't understand the law, because in my eyes it's far worse to understand it, and then attempt to game it for personal gain. My opinion, obviously.

  • On the post: Microsoft To US Gov't: Hey, Only We Should Be Able To Use Patents To Shakedown Other Companies!

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2011 @ 06:53am

    Re: Complaining to who?

    FTA: Microsoft, which claims a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free license to all of Nortel's patents" following a 2006 deal, said in a filing with a Delaware bankruptcy court that existing agreements should be transferred to any new owner of the intellectual property, which spans many fields. (emphasis mine)

  • On the post: Microsoft To US Gov't: Hey, Only We Should Be Able To Use Patents To Shakedown Other Companies!

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2011 @ 06:51am

    Promote the regress of science.

    The company has made it pretty clear that it's mainly looking to buy those patents to keep them out of the hands of someone else who might shake down innovation in the mobile ecosystem.

    Just like our forefathers intended, by golly!

  • On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2011 @ 08:45pm

    Re: Ha.

    He's probably too busy happily giving lessons, helping someone grasp the fudmentals.

    Of course, he'd only do that if they dropped their attitude. Otherwise he'd just call them clueless.

    That's just a guess, though. I *can* say with certitude that he's not out somewhere taking the attitude that he's completely right, because that would make him look like a fool were he ever to be proven wrong, he doesn't like it when people are 100% wrong while insisting they are 100% right. He doesn't play that game.

    I could go on, but if I keep adding links I might get snared by the spam filter. Plus, it's too easy. ;)

  • On the post: Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2011 @ 09:40am

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

    Free speech may be suppressed if that speech isn't the target of the seizure. That's just how it works.


    If it was really "just how it works" why would I know the term prior restraint?

    Oh, because it's not "just how it works", is it?

  • On the post: Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2011 @ 09:27am

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

    The free speech wasn't the target of these seizures--the infringement was.

    But, free speech was suppressed. You don't feel that because of the nature of the internet as a medium to express speech, there should be a higher standard than, say, seizing a car? Seriously?

  • On the post: Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2011 @ 09:23am

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

    If you wish to address the merits of my posts, feel free.

    I did, Richard.

    *snip snip*

    I can't understand how you reconcile the two statements: "Keep in mind that the domain was seized because it is property used to commit crimes." and "It's not necessary to ever file any criminal charges.". How can they say a crime has been committed without accusing someone of a crime? Isn't it innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law?

    *snip snip*

  • On the post: Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2011 @ 09:12am

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

    I like to think I'm neither stupid nor a troll.

    I'd like to think that, too, but your (perfectly allowed) different point of view doesn't leave you with many other options.

    I'd address the rest of your post, but I don't like to chat with people who insult me personally because I have a point of view that differs from theirs.

    You're awfully thin skinned, aren't you, guy? If only you had the cojones to claim your comments with an account so we could see just how many times you've lobbed insults around, too. Alas, you're so ashamed of your dissenting opinion that you refuse to claim it as your own. I can't say I blame you; Your dissenting opinion is flawed in such a way that I can't believe you're that stupid, and instead I believe you're simply a troll. Hence the snarky picture. (oh em gee, copyright infringement-- sorry Mike!)

    I mean, you believe in free speech and all, right?

    I do, in fact, believe in free speech-- so much so that I took the time to learn what free speech actually is. It's clear you haven't, since you seem to be under the impression that my not wanting to listen to your poorly thought through ramblings somehow isn't in line with free speech.

    Thanks for playing, Richard.

  • On the post: Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2011 @ 08:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Apparently, Rojadirecta didn't see this notice. That's their fault.

    This applies to you.

    Assuming you're of the latter, I'm interested in what you have to gain from this, because no intelligent citizen of *any* country would want their government to have this type of power, yet you seem more than just apathetic about it, you seem *pleased*. How does this not set off alarms in your head? I can't understand how you reconcile the two statements: "Keep in mind that the domain was seized because it is property used to commit crimes." and "It's not necessary to ever file any criminal charges.". How can they say a crime has been committed without accusing someone of a crime? Isn't it innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law?

Next >>