The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677)

• On the post: Facebook Abusing Computer Crime Law To Block Useful Service

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 May, 2010 @ 11:21am

  Re: Re: Ummmm

  Maybe they mean automatic as in "automatic transmission"? :P

• On the post: Why Do People Keep Insisting That Google Has A Better Idea What's Infringing Than Viacom?

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 05 May, 2010 @ 11:19am

  Re: Question for Viacom and Cass

  That's the entire point. Even worse, (better?) as more and more companies (including Viacom!) make use of youtube for legitimate means, the ability for Google to determine infringing from non-infringing becomes nigh impossible.
  
  But hey, their lawyers are getting paid.

• On the post: Copyright Defenders Don't Realize That New 'Fair Use' Report Mocks Their Own Study

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2010 @ 10:02am

  Re: Re:

  How dare you accuse TAM of thinking! :)

• On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That Blog Commenter Was Not A Journalist

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2010 @ 10:07am

  Re: Re: Er...

  Clearly he is improving.

• On the post: Justice Dept. Boosts Number Of FBI Agents, Attorneys Focusing On Copyright Infringement

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2010 @ 09:57am

  Re: Re: Re:

  You have no idea how bit torrent works, do you?

• On the post: UK Labour Party Claims 'Innocent Error' Absolves It Of Infringement — But Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2010 @ 09:55am

  Re:

  This!

• On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2010 @ 09:49am

  Re: More...

  ..and seriously, WTF?

• On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2010 @ 10:04am

  Re: Re:

  ..and neither of the above mentioned competitors actively attempt to block you from streaming to your TV.

• On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2010 @ 10:03am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  *To be determined
  
  It's about $10/month. The cost of a VPN service to encrypt your data. That right there proves people *are* willing to pay for content, because even those people pirating are willing to pay a monthly fee to continue to do it.
  
  So, if the content creators were smart, they'd offer an all-you-can-eat service for that price.
  
  Of course we both know they aren't smart.

• On the post: Band Says: If You Want To File Share Our Music, Cool, But Please Share It Widely

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2010 @ 09:50am

  Re: Makes sense to me

  If only this point of view was as easily copied and shared as music.

• On the post: Reed Elsevier Sues Punk Band Over Parody Logo That Was Discontinued Years Ago

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2010 @ 12:16pm

  Re: Re: Re: Not Parody

  It's not on their album, it was removed before release.
  
  You should really learn to read, pal.

• On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2010 @ 12:39pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value

  I agree completely, it's almost as bad as the pro-copyright people calling copyright infringement stealing.
  
  I usually don't bother to read posts from either type of person. :)

• On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2010 @ 12:28pm

  Re: Re: *Very* Annoying.

  The Gangster of Love, but everyone called me Maurice.
  
  Also annoying.

• On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2010 @ 10:38am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value

  Longer copyright duration encourage new works because longer copyright durations increase the NPV of copyrightable works.
  
  The logic flaw in this statement is that you assume that the only reason people *don't* create is because they don't feel there is money in it. Phrased differently, you are assuming that anyone can *decide* to be creative. This is obviously not true, or we would all be MegaSuper Stars, wouldn't we?
  
  Now, if we remove this logic flaw, it's much easier to see that we don't want the few people capable of creating great works doing so only once, we need to give them incentive to create multiple works in the short time they live. Thus, shorter copyright lengths, so that they must continue to create, are best for everyone.

• On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2010 @ 10:06am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value

  No more this if its published its its automatically copyrighted. Because that leads to a sense of entitlement.
  
  Copyright itself leads to a sense of entitlement. The real argument against automatic copyright is that it creates "orphaned works" which, no matter how you spin it, goes directly opposite of "promoting the progress" because in that case, someone did create, sees no return for it *and* we can't use it.

• On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2010 @ 09:53am

  *Very* Annoying.

  I ran into something like this recently. I was attempting to legally change my name and was required by the courts to post a legal blurb about it in the paper of their choosing-- the small, local city paper. (Oddly enough, the city the courthouse was in, not the city I reside in.)
  
  So I call the paper and make arrangements to post the blurb and come to find it will cost me $140. Now, that's not a lot of money, except that I *couldn't* shop around for a better price. The paper could have charged me $1,400. If I wanted to go through with the process, I had to put the blurb in the paper.
  
  As soon as I was told I had to use a newspaper, I immediately wondered what would happen when there is no newspaper. It was the first time I've ever given money to a newspaper, and hopefully it will be the last.
  
  ..and the crazy thing: The paper had dozens of similar legal blurbs in it.. I imagine it's how they stay out of the red.

• On the post: Dungeons And Dragons Players Revolt, Storm Super Rewards Castle

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2010 @ 12:59pm

  Re:

  Now, I like FUD just as much as the next guy, but when I think of concerns about data mining and aggregation, Techdirt falls *way* below, oh, I dunno, Google.
  
  If you don't like the stories on Techdirt, just go away. Really. If you're not here to actually *discuss* the topics, why are you here? I mean, the only way you could get me to go to a site that I didn't like-- that I refused to even discuss topics with-- would be if I were... paid to.
  
  Hm..

• On the post: Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2010 @ 12:49pm

  Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

  Care to elaborate on what you say?
  
  I haven't found a good way to explain it to someone who isn't already concerned, but I'd like to.

• On the post: Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2010 @ 12:46pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: About time...

  They should care, but they don't.
  
  They will, one day. Something tells me "I told you so" will be very bittersweet.

• On the post: Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'

  

  The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2010 @ 12:43pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward the shill

  It's good to remember that this site, if you leave the "name" slot blank, adds "Anonymous Coward". So, two posts by someone named Anonymous Coward may not be the same person.
  
  Confusing, yes, sometimes. I'm not quite sure why it's so hard to just type a name, but that's their prerogative.
  
  It's sad really, because you used so many capital letters, all for nothing. :)

Next >>