The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677)

• On the post: Kim Dotcom Cleared To Pursue Case Against New Zealand For Illegal Spying

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2012 @ 08:36am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I find it very interesting that you claim to have an understanding of psychology.
  
  Try aiming that knowledge at yourself, and see what you learn.

• On the post: Kim Dotcom Cleared To Pursue Case Against New Zealand For Illegal Spying

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2012 @ 06:34am

  Re: Re:

  Hey, for a week or two a lot of custom android ROM threads were filled with dead links.
  
  Winning!

• On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property… And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 04:50pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Takings Claims

  I guess I wasn't blunt enough.
  
  Blame the politicians.

• On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property… And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 12:39pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Takings Claims

  Don't get me wrong, people should be mad at them, too, but when it comes down to with who to be mad at, I assign more blame to the people who put the country up for sale to the highest bigger, than the people who placed bids.

• On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property… And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 11:50am

  Re: Re: Takings Claims

  You forget that "the public" agreed to those incredibly one-sided and poorly thought out law changes. Specifically, "the public's" representatives were there, and agreed to it all.
  
  If you're mad at anyone, I'd suggest starting with the people who agreed to a bad deal on your behalf.

• On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property… And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 10:08am

  Re: Copyright is a grant of limited property rights for limited time.

  What does this have to do with MegaUpload at all?
  
  As has been said over and over again, copyright does not give the creator any rights. None. Not one. All copyright does is take away the rights from other people.

• On the post: Court Orders Yahoo To Pay Mexican Yellow Pages Companies $2.7 Billion In Mystery Case

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 09:30am

  Hm..

  That's a third of the Mexican GDP. So, The Mexican courts have said that if it weren't for Yahoo, *Mexico* would be making 33% more money a year.
  
  They must be very important companies.

• On the post: Canadian Copyright Law Caps Statutory Damages At $5,000 Just As File Sharing Lawsuits Make Their Unwelcome Return

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 09:16am

  Re:

  Actually, it's probably safe to simply throw away the letter, regardless. They're certainly not going to spend a bunch of money to collect less money than they spend.
  
  Even they can't be that dumb.

• On the post: The Pirate Bay's Perfectly Legal 'The Promo Bay' Blocked By UK ISPs

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 02:41pm

  Re: Re: Re: How is this handled for everyone else?

  Tsk, tsk. Come on, bob, you can do better than that, can't you? I asked you a very direct question, which (shockingly) you've completely ignored.
  
  No more (bad) analogies: How is shutting down PromoBay, which is completely within the law, NOT censorship?

• On the post: The Pirate Bay's Perfectly Legal 'The Promo Bay' Blocked By UK ISPs

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2012 @ 12:41pm

  Re: How is this handled for everyone else?

  Bob, you're so full of shit.
  
  Let's imagine that you set up a legit business in the front hall of a brothel, a crackhouse or an illegal casino.
  
  Let's imagine you know how the internet works, and you stop making up stupid analogies that don't work.
  
  But on the Internet, Big Piracy, Big Search and Big Hardware love to support organizations like Pirate Bay and so they support apologists like this who continue to come up with sophistic schemes to try to pretend that someone is somehow being censored or having their civil rights violated. Wrong.
  
  No, bobby, *not* wrong. Was there speech? Yes. What it illegal speech? No. Is it being blocked by the government? Yes.
  
  It is censorship. I'd just simply love to read why you think this isn't censorship. Love, love love. Please tell us. It will be doublespeak gold.

• On the post: NSA Releases Heavily Redacted Talking Points: Say It's Hard To Watch Public Debate On Its Efforts

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 10:31am

  Re: Re: "The terrorist threat to this country is real."

  I didn't report him, but that ridiculous signature is reason enough to do so.

• On the post: Universal Studios Sues Over Porn Parody Of '50 Shades Of Grey'; Ignoring 50 Shade's Own History As Fan Fiction

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 10:26am

  Thrust that double-edged sword.

  I thought it was mostly unclear whether porn was even really covered by copyright. Maybe now we can find out?
  
  Plot twist: Universal is the porn company.

• On the post: Kevin Durant Sued Over 'Durantula' Trademark Despite Not Using It

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 07:49am

  Dali

  Why is his cowboy hat melting?

• On the post: NSA Releases Heavily Redacted Talking Points: Say It's Hard To Watch Public Debate On Its Efforts

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2012 @ 04:25am

  Ahem..

  These are sobering findings.

• On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 10:47am

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

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights
  
  Hm.. sneaky.
  
  Property isn't a bundle of rights, property is easily explained as a bundle of rights.
  
  And, "property. (14c) 1. The right to possess, use, and enjoy a determinate thing (either a tract of land or a chattel); the right of ownership . ? Also termed bundle of rights. [Cases: Constitutional Law ​277; Property ​ 1.] 2. Any external thing over which the rights of possession, use, and enjoyment are exercised . [Cases: Property ​ 1.]"

• On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 10:40am

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

  Can I get a link to that definition, please?

• On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 10:25am

  Re: Re:

  Darryl and ootb don't know how to use html.
  
  AJ.

• On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 10:20am

  Ironic

  Her LinkedIn page says she's the "Business Advisor".
  
  I'd say she gave very poor business advice.

• On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 09:32am

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

  Property is a bundle of rights attached to a specific thing, whether that thing is a parcel of land, a chattel, a share in a business organization, an invention, or an artistic expression affixed to a medium.
  
  You're making that up. No where is a "bundle of rights" referred to as property. Copyright is a government granted *right* (not property) to prevent people from doing something with a creative work that they physically have the ability to do. (Make copies, etc.)
  
  I have the right (not property) to resell a pencil. Those two things are permanently linked-- I cannot just sell off the right to sell the pencil, while keeping the pencil. I also cannot sell off the pencil while keeping the right to resell it. If it were property, as you so desparately wish it to be, then it could be divorced from the medium it is connected to.
  
  There is property, there are rights; hell, there are even property rights, but property isn't rights.

• On the post: Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2012 @ 06:45pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution long lost

  I feel like you're trying to hard to stick to the result you want to arrive at.
  
  Don't worry, I'm sure you were an excellent follower. I'm sure it will serve you well in the civilian sector. The world needs more people who shut up and do as they're told.

Next >>