Matt P 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (42)

• On the post: New Zealand Lawyers Suggest Full Internet Ban For Repeat Infringers

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2010 @ 02:49am

  I think the Committee is getting its fill of this discussion, if the Twittering of the submissions is any indication. Whether it will help, who knows.
  
  Whatever you think of noncommercial file-sharing, the point is that this law doesn't include any protections against being hacked or spoofed, and frankly I don't like the thought of being dragged to court with the potential for up to $15K in penalties or disconnection on the table because my wifi was cracked. If this goes through, it will mean the effective end of legal wifi in the country because the account holder will assume all liability (and as I've learned, have little defense...this is a strict liability matter, so if it happens, you're basically screwed).
  
  And yeah, enforcement is the problem. If this goes into effect, suddenly a VPN becomes a lot more attractive. So does wardriving and using the neighbor's account. And if by chance somebody is thrown offline? What, you ban them from going to Starbucks? Ban them from using a computer within range of a hotspot (while we still have them)?
  
  Lots and lots of technology ignorance behind this one, and more comes to light the more I learn.

• On the post: Authorities Force 73,000 Blogs Offline?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:37pm

  So has the US gotten rid of that "land of the free" tagline yet?
  
  It doesn't seem to fit with their stormtrooper-friendly image.

• On the post: With The Recording Industry In Free Fall, Why Are RIAA Bosses Getting Raises?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2010 @ 02:59pm

  Because they work hard and achieve results, and capitalism rewards them for that.
  
  That's what all the apologists tell me, anyway.
  
  It's nothing to do with a culture of corporate fellatio and worship of big-business under the guise of free-market economics. No sir.

• On the post: Judge Says Damages In Tenenbaum Case Were 'Unconstitutionally Excessive'

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 03:40pm

  Back in my criminal law and criminology classes, we often talked about how punishment's role as a deterrent requires that it be proximate to the activity. This is one reason why the death penalty is rarely considered a deterrent to crime -- because it's such an abstract punishment and generally so far in the future that doesn't register in a way that would deter a criminal action.
  
  These fines are the same idea. People "know" they can get dinged for this, but the risk of being caught is low and the actual punishment is so far removed from the activity and so outrageous in scope that it doesn't serve as any kind deterrent or "educational" effect.
  
  It's just another ridiculous case of corporate power being exerted through the law. And people wonder why piracy exists as a form of civil disobedience.

• On the post: New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed… By 200 Downloaders?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 03:45pm

  If you want evidence of patents limiting innovation, all the research you could ever want is right here:
  
  http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
  
  That's what it looks like when you cite real evidence, instead of making up numbers.

• On the post: New Zealand Media Claiming That Huge Local Film Success Story Is Being Harmed… By 200 Downloaders?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 02:23pm

  The worst part is that the link above is just part of it. It was on every evening news broadcast, in the papers, etc.
  
  One of the local news shows did interview the director, and he was actually moderate about the whole thing. He said he expected it would happen and in some ways was flattered that people wanted to see the film.
  
  It's NZFACT making the usual garbage claims, and we have few if any public outlets down here to rebuke them, so the "millions of dollars in losses" are just thrown out like an absolute truth.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 02:10pm

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

  "civil disobedience done without anyones knowledge isnt exactly going to change anything. if anything, the need to hide shows not only the illegal nature of the act, but also that it is indefensible of it in the court of public opinion."
  
  You're right. The Pirate Bay? Never been in the news. File-sharing? I can't think of any time that's ever been a topic of discussion.
  
  It's almost like a large number of people sharing files online could be thought of as civil disobedience, whether they broadcast their identities or not.
  
  Do you apologists even bother to think before you type things, or is this some new kind of seizure I've never heard of?

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 01:50pm

  Re: Re: Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.

  @out_of_the_blue
  
  I'm also contending that it's fine for citizens to use civil disobedience in response to those government and corporate entities that have chosen to ignore their responsibilities to the citizens and/or marketplace, respectively.
  
  That those entities have forgotten (or just ignored) their roles is relevant to the situation only in that it eliminates their legitimacy.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2010 @ 01:19am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Just can't help but to keep on movin' those goalposts as fast as they'll go, can you? Anything to be right and avoid the point.
  
  And you wonder why nobody takes your side of the argument seriously. It's nothing but a string of logical fallacies dressed up as an argument.
  
  Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 10:09pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  If the legislative process is unresponsive, then sometimes civil disobedience is called for unless or until the government is responsive.
  
  Let me establish this point one more time, since you and your apologist friends seem intent on ignoring it: the government in democratic societies exists here to protect the rights of the citizens, as the citizens define those rights.
  
  Your appeal to legalism is no more than an attempt to slide the usual copyright apologism into the argument through a different avenue, and it is still not compelling.
  
  The law is not right simply because it's the law, and if there is no demonstrable harm (note this term before any knee-jerk rebuttals involving violent crime or any harmful actions) being created by civil disobedience, then citizens most emphatically should make use of it as a tool to enforce change.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 09:32pm

  Re: Load of BS

  Nick, it turns out that when you either ignore or just don't know what a term means, like oh I don't know, let's say "copyright infringement", and you repeatedly call it something else, like "theft", people don't take you seriously because you've made it clear you're not interested enough in the discussion to be informed about it.
  
  So why not run along and let the grownups talk, k?

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 09:22pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  "the analogy is pretty much a perfect fit."
  
  Sure, if you're absolutely incapable of even the most basic of logical reasoning.
  
  "LOL SPEED" is just another case of flawed analogy. The fact that you can't see why this is a flawed analogy is just more reason to ignore all of you making this dunce of an argument.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 09:19pm

  Re:

  Kinda like when the arguments against slavery were countered with people saying 'well it's the law', right?
  
  Note to apologists: just because something is written in the law does not make it immune from further ethical analysis.
  
  If a law is counterproductive to greater utility, then it's supposed to go away. You aren't supposed to kick back and go "see you idiots it's the law" as if that ends the debate.

• On the post: Canadian Heritage Minister Denies Calling His Critics On Copyright Bill 'Extreme Radicals'; Video Proves He Said It

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 08:52pm

  EDIT: Scratch that, his account isn't suspended, that was my fault.

• On the post: Canadian Heritage Minister Denies Calling His Critics On Copyright Bill 'Extreme Radicals'; Video Proves He Said It

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 08:51pm

  Cory Doctorow was slapping him around earlier on Twitter.
  
  Now it appears his account is suspended. Funny that.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 08:48pm

  Re:

  "my car can drive faster than the speed limit, that is certainly a disruptive technology. if i do it too often and get caught, i lose my license. at the point that cars were able to go past what is considered a reasonable speed, laws were put in place to maintain what is considered reasonable."
  
  The problem with idiots is that they think any analogy they agree with is correct simply because it equates two points.
  
  The unfortunate matter here is that you seem oblivious to the fact that this comparison is entirely irrelevant to the point that you're struggling so hard to make.
  
  If noncommercial file-sharing were an equivalent harm to the reasonably predictable dangers caused by driving too fast, then you'd have a point.
  
  I'm sure we're all holding your breath waiting on you to demonstrate how file-sharing is comparable to physical harm.

• On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 08:33pm

  Re: And I ask for evidence that "old business models" are failing.

  And you seem to forget that the government's first and only duty, in democratic societies, is to take measures to protect and otherwise promote the interests of its citizens.
  
  The fact that industry and government agents want it is utterly immaterial next to that.

• On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay… Entirely

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2010 @ 02:34pm

  This is the showdown I've wanted for quite some time. It's one thing to sue individuals or even ISPs. Tackling Google is a whole different beast. Get them into this battle and things might start to swing a little differently.
  
  Google is certainly no angel in matters of privacy, but they do thrive on an open internet and thus its in their best interests to fight crap like this. If you've got to pick a giant corporation to side with, might as well be the one most congruent with your goals.

• On the post: Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2010 @ 02:29pm

  Weak.
  
  I liked them on Facebook so I could troll their wall, but they don't have that turned on.
  
  Figures; these are the guys that don't like community participation.

• On the post: How Much Do Most People Really Care About Privacy?

  

  Matt P ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2010 @ 04:01pm

  I can't say I've ever seen the big deal about most of these privacy matters anyway. To me, it's always been a best practice to keep things you don't want public off the 'net in the first place. If I put it online to begin with, there's good odds I'm just not concerned who sees it.
  
  I think that's a lesson the social-media generation hasn't quite learned yet, and they're getting upset because they're posting things that they might consider personal or intimate with the expectation that they'll be able to control that information once it's online.
  
  And yeah, I think the norms may be heading towards people not caring in the first place.

Next >>