melonlord 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (74)

• On the post: Justice Department Files Disgusting Attack On Journalist Jason Leopold For Being Good At His Job

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2022 @ 06:49am

  Love the argument that the lawsuit wasn't the catalyst for the DOJ to release the emails, even though they fought tooth and nail not to release them and only did so... after getting sued. Yep, that checks out. The system works.

• On the post: Court Strips Immunity From Cop Who Shot A Dog Within Seconds Of Arriving On The Scene Of A Non-Crime

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2022 @ 12:05pm

  Cops are both extremely aggressive and massively whimpy, traits I think we all recognize from our middle schools' bullies.

• On the post: Supreme Court Takes Section 230 Cases… Just Not The Ones We Were Expecting

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 10:40am

  I think Aaron Burr's Twitter account would've been a goldmine. Can you imagine the founding fathers tweeting clapbacks at Benedict Arnold? Idk, Thomas is onto something.

• On the post: Supreme Court Takes Section 230 Cases… Just Not The Ones We Were Expecting

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 10:39am

  You're making policy arguments, which I totally understand -- I do think big internet companies have social responsibilities, like not encouraging suicide, and maybe a legal solution exists to ensure they live up to those responsibilities -- but Congress hasn't made that law yet. Pretty much all legal scholars that have spoken about the Gonzalez case think it's cut and dry for Google, because it is: under current law, Google making personalized recommendations doesn't impute ownership or publication of those materials onto Google any more than a newspaper recommending local movie showings gives that newspaper responsibility for the movies' contents. Case in point, SCOTUS granted cert in Gonzalez without any circuit split on the meaning of Section 230, making it seem like this is not the Court trying to resolve hard legal questions but an attempt by... ahem... certain justices to redefine a statute they don't like.

• On the post: Supreme Court Takes Section 230 Cases… Just Not The Ones We Were Expecting

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 10:24am

  I look forward to the Supreme Court's cogent, coherent, legally sound, honest, nonpartisan, principled, and not at all radical decision upholding the plain language of the statute. I especially look forward to Thomas's inevitable concurrence or dissent where he makes totally reasonable, historically accurate, and sane arguments grounded in solid First Amendment law and basic common sense and not relying entirely upon citations to his own prior batshit dissents. Exciting times!

• On the post: Hundreds Of Authors Ask Publishers To Stop Attacking Libraries

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2022 @ 06:07pm

  Let me say it again, even though a dozen other commenters already have: DRM is a condition to the deals publishers have with libraries. It's not some evil librarian initiative. The fact that DRM often comes with ebook loans because of the publishers doesn't mean our tax dollars are "funding DRM" except in a vague, obtuse sense. The alternative is to either renegotiate the licensing deals (with what leverage?) or to not offer ebooks at all (net negative result). Please provide your plan for convincing the private sector to sell ebook licenses to libraries without requiring artificial scarcity. And frankly, I think you're vastly overestimating (a) the harm caused here and (b) how much the average person actually cares. Libraries provide a valuable public good. Remember: you're attacking libraries on a post about publishers trying to sue libraries out of existence because of digital book distribution. Your implication re: taxes seems to be that because libraries use DRM, we shouldn't fund libraries, and do you know how much that would damage learning and knowledge in this country? Please correct me if this is not your meaning.

• On the post: Hundreds Of Authors Ask Publishers To Stop Attacking Libraries

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2022 @ 10:58am

  Just going to leave out that (a) libraries don't make those policies, they come from publishers, and libraries don't actually want DRM, and (b) libraries are free? Like, free-free? Like, one of the few direct, unconditional benefits that taxpayers get for their money in this country, and yet you're accusing them of "selling us out," which is the exact opposite of what libraries actually do?

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 09:19am

  Timothy Dexter, is that you? You keep inventing comments where I say things you want me to have said. Sorry to disappoint, but I made no accusations of low intelligence based on spelling. I would never do such a pretentious thing. I only accuse you of low intelligence based on your opinions.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 06:49am

  Since you also misspelled "court" as "corut," "therefore" as "therefor," and "PruneYard" as "Prunyarard," I really don't think you intended "pontiffs" as an esoteric double entendre. But I respect the attempted save.

• On the post: Rockstar Tries To Bury ‘GTA6’ Leak With DMCAs, Streisands Them Instead

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 06:45am

  A tale as old as time. Not that the leaks mean much. Some reactions have been way over the top. Like y'all, this is pre-alpha footage. Cálmate. The only thing I learned from the leaks is that Rockstar is giving the female player character some insane body proportions. Did you see the naked screenshot? It looks ridiculous.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 01:23pm

  Ooh, yes. Please keep ripping parts of the syllabus out of context and acting like it's the entire holding. Talk to me dirty. Did you gather in your analysis of the case that it was founded on a provision of the California state constitution, or did that slip past you? And have you considered that a website is, in fact, not a shopping mall? See, e.g., NetChoice, LLC v. Moody: "The Florida statutes now at issue, unlike the state actions in FAIR and PruneYard, explicitly forbid social media platforms from appending their own statements to posts by some users. And the statutes compel the platforms to change their own speech in other respects, including, for example, by dictating how the platforms may arrange speech on their sites. This is a far greater burden on the platforms’ own speech than was involved in FAIR or PruneYard."; NetChoice v. Paxton, the lower court decision overturned by the 5th Circuit's cookery: "In PruneYard, the Supreme Court upheld a California law that required a shopping mall to host people collecting petition signatures, concluding there was no 'intrusion into the function of editors' since the shopping mall's operation of its business lacked an editorial function. Critically, the shopping mall did not engage in expression and 'the [mall] owner did not even allege that he objected to the content of the [speech]; nor was the access right content based.'"

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 10:40am

  The pontiffs? I didn't realize the Pope was suing Texas.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 10:38am

  No, I haven't read any of Mike's work regarding Pruneyard. I have actually read Pruneyard and understand that it does not support your bogus, intentional misreading of the law. But go off. And since we're attacking Mike for not having a JD, don't worry -- I do. Let me be the attorney who tells you you're wrong.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 07:07am

  Tell me you didn't read Pruneyard without telling me you didn't read Pruneyard.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2022 @ 12:58pm

  You mean a right for owners of private forums to regulate the speech that occurs in those forums? Literally the Supreme Court's entire 1st Amendment jurisprudence since the 1950s.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2022 @ 07:33am

  I have no words. If free speech dies in America, it's opinions like these that will have killed it. The 5th Circuit went further than just misconstruing the First Amendment -- they outright discarded it and replaced it with stream-of-consciousness legal gibberish better suited to your weird uncle's Facebook page than to the federal courts. I'm trying to think of another appellate decision from this century that matches this one in sheer stupidity, cynical partisanship, and legal illiteracy, but I just can't. Remember: unless institutions respect it, the constitution is just an old sheet of parchment. The 5th Circuit has declared war on the First Amendment, and forgive me if I'm skeptical about our current Supreme Court's willingness to defend it.

• On the post: Adobe Really Wants To Help Netflix With Its Dumb Password Sharing Cash Grab

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2022 @ 01:03pm

  The Adobe example is absolutely true. Copyright scholars have long talked about "tolerated infringement." Because copyright doesn't require IP owners to vigorously defend their rights like trademarks do, owners can and do allow some violations where (a) litigation wouldn't be worth it (interesting to see how much this changes with the new copyright small claims courts), (b) infringement might actually help them gain popularity or get good PR, or (c) they just don't care about defending their copyright. Probably the biggest areas of tolerated infringement today are fanfiction and video game streaming. Both probably violate copyright, but IP owners allow it because it benefits them in the long run.

• On the post: Adobe Really Wants To Help Netflix With Its Dumb Password Sharing Cash Grab

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2022 @ 12:57pm

  You're totally right. Netflix cracking down on people sharing accounts is such a great move for the little guy. When corporations hike prices and chase quarterly growth, they're doing it for those "individuals supporting themselves and their families." How utterly magnanimous of Netflix. How deeply deserving of "deference to ethics." But anyway... If you could go ahead and respond to my actual comment, that'd be great! For your convenience, see attached: "The key error here is to treat free-riders as potential paying customers, when in reality, most of those people would simply stop using the product and turn to piracy (which is easier now than ever) if they lost free access." Thanks in advance!

• On the post: Adobe Really Wants To Help Netflix With Its Dumb Password Sharing Cash Grab

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2022 @ 11:10am

  1. Provide links to these "numerous articles" and explain why they promote the idea that corporations should be immune from public criticism for their decisions.
  2. You're responding to a version of my comment where I expressed unqualified support for piracy. Please provide a link to this comment. Thanks!
  3. I think this is the first time that someone has equated criticism of a corporation with alcoholism since Prohibition. We're looking at an American classic here, folks. Take a screenshot for posterity.

• On the post: Adobe Really Wants To Help Netflix With Its Dumb Password Sharing Cash Grab

  

  melonlord ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2022 @ 11:06am

  First, my comment concerned the bad economics of Adobe's fallacious lost profits estimate, not the moral turpitudes of piracy. Second, I'm sure your absolute loyalty to giant media companies will pay off someday. Keep at it.

Next >>