The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677)

• On the post: Cisco VP Threatens To Stalk Memo Leaker… Driving More Attention Than Original Memo

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2012 @ 09:11am

  Re:

  ..which failed, considering the threat itself was leaked.

• On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star… Taken Down Because Of Music

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2012 @ 09:02am

  Re: Re: Re: One small correction

  Rochambeau ain't a good punishment, it's a softie, nancy boy version of choosing to die.

• On the post: Viral Video Of 9-Year-Old Girl Football Star… Taken Down Because Of Music

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2012 @ 08:57am

  Re: "How is that a good solution?"

  Are you referring to the 9 year old girl as a talentless sports player? Do you even know what we're talking about?

• On the post: Another Key Motorola vs. Apple Patent Trial Tossed Out By A Judge Frustrated With Apple's Games

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2012 @ 10:09am

  "That guy"

  Of course, just as this case is getting thrown out, it's been leaking that the FTC's main focus in its planned antitrust attack on Google will be... Motorola Mobility and the licensing rates for these patents.
  
  As the case is getting thrown out, the case is leaking the info?

• On the post: DMCA Censorship: 'Revenge Porn' Site Owner Tries To Censor Criticism With Bogus Takedown Notice

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2012 @ 09:27am

  Re:

  How many of the millions and millions of takedown notices are sent in abuse? A handful.
  
  How much censorship is an acceptable amount? I assure you, if it was your speech that was being limited, you'd be quite upset.
  
  Turn it this way: you claim that a few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole barrel-- yet you'll happily denounce anything that has potential to be used for copyright infringement.
  
  It seems like you're full of double standards and ad hom attacks, and very short on actual critical thinking and logic skills.

• On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing… And Should Actually Be Encouraged

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 03 Nov, 2012 @ 11:23am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tough

  I use ddwrt, and this is the process I used, more or less.
  
  http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Separate_WLANs

• On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 03:23pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention idiots:

  Further proof of a broken law that has been twisted away from it's original purpose, and should be struck down.
  
  Good info, though.

• On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 01:05pm

  Re: Re: Re: Attention idiots:

  Statutory rates aren't meant as punishment. They're meant to make it easy to get a number when the math is hard.
  
  Do you think that this poor bastard cost this company 1.5 million dollars? Do you think it's even close?

• On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing… And Should Actually Be Encouraged

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 12:05pm

  Re: Re: Tough

  Most (if not all) devices allow you to manually enter a network.

• On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 11:24am

  Re:

  The problem is that when the law was written, it took considerable resources up front to commit copyright infringement on a scale that would matter to any copyright holder. Due to this overhead, it was assumed that there would be some kind of monetary reward for the acts of copyright infringement-- that is, that the infringer would be making money from the infringement, to recoup the costs of carrying out copyright infringement at that scale. So, the logic presumably goes, that a large fine would be appropriate for large scale infringement because large quantities of money would be involved.
  
  Now, most people can't make it though the day without *inadvertently* infringing, let alone those that do it willfully-- and all without much, if any, up front cost. This means that people who have little to no extra income can infringe on a scale that copyright holders will notice, but without any money being involved.
  
  The law just needs to be adjusted to where your average citizen sharing not-for-profit doesn't break the law. Of course, since that will never happen, we're better off just ignoring the law all together, and maybe it will go away.

• On the post: BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 09:51am

  Re:

  The same thing that stops them from extorting money with the threat of an expensive lawsuit: Nothing.

• On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing… And Should Actually Be Encouraged

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 09:15am

  Re: Re: Tough

  I've set up two wifi networks on my router, an open one, and a closed one. I then set up QOS such that anything on the closed network takes priority over the open one.

• On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 07:19am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I see that you are under the impression that no two people can come up with the same code independently. This false assumption breaks your entire theory.
  
  How do you know you didn't recreate the same code as your competitors without seeing their code?

• On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2012 @ 06:39am

  Re: Re: Re:

  How do I know if I've achieved the same results with a different method if I don't know the method you used? I can only know that if I've seen the source.
  
  I can't patent "achieving time travel by bending space-time" because that doesn't tell you *how* to do that. Similarly, if I just say "swipe to unlock a touch screen device" then I haven't told you how, just what. The how would be the source.

• On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2012 @ 03:52pm

  Maybe off topic.

  I was always under the impression that the "trade off" of patents was that the public gets to know how to make the thing once the patent expjres. So, why don't software patents include source code? A patent that describes making an image bounce when you overscroll is patenting an idea; with source included it patents a specific implementation of that idea.

• On the post: Marc Randazza Goes To War Against Revenge Porn Site Over Alleged 'Takedown Lawyer' Business Model

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 12:22pm

  Re: Re:

  You seem to be under the impression that you can't blame the victim. If someone does something foolish and it comes back to bite them, then they deserve to be called out on their foolishness.
  
  Simply put, if you don't want nude pictures of yourself to be put on the Internet, don't take nude pictures of yourself. Otherwise, you're taking a gamble.

• On the post: Anti-Pornography Guy Politicizes 10 Year Old Girl's Murder

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 09:51am

  Re: Meanwhile, the US murders children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  We're all stocked up on crazy, here. Go peddle it somewhere else.

• On the post: Being A Jackass On Twitter Shouldn't Be Illegal; Public Shame Should Be Enough

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 05:58am

  His Apology.

  He apologized and resigned from some campaign he worked for.
  
  He's still a douche canoe, of course, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

• On the post: Universal Music Settles Key Fight Over Eminem Royalties… With Secret Agreement

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 04:44am

  It's a trap!

  This almost certainly means that UMG paid through the nose, with the hope that it makes it more difficult for other artists to get similar rewards, and while allowing Universal to keep its secrets secret... for now.
  
  Can't any other artist now sue UMG for the same thing, forcing UMG to make the same decision: Pay out big or let the world see their books? It seems like either way UMG loses.

• On the post: How A Drone Might Save Your Life

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 04:38am

  Re: How will it deliver aid?

  "Drone" doesn't have to mean "jet". It can also mean "helicopter". (Or, more likely, quad-copter.)

Next >>