Just Another Moron in a Hurry 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (81) comment rss

  • On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2009 @ 07:41am

    Re: Not all of us...

    I read through a couple of the other comments and at least have somewhat of a better idea about why this could be a bad thing.

    The big one is the fear of a juror researching and coming up with bad information, or taking opinion as fact.

    But then, it seems like the problem is more with a juror not knowing how to do research properly, rather than with research itself. Perhaps a better answer is to let juror's do research, but have the lawyers assist in doing it thoroughly, and making sure to point out what is fact and what is opinion?

  • On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2009 @ 07:32am

    Not all of us...

    "we all understand the reasons why the current system wants to limit things to just what's said in the courtroom"

    Actually, I'm Just a Moron, and I don't really understand the Reasons.

    Could someone please educate me?

  • On the post: Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2009 @ 01:32pm

    Re:

    I thought there already was such a political party?

  • On the post: If Movie Piracy Is Really A Problem, It's Hollywood's Fault

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2009 @ 01:23pm

    Re: Wrong...

    Dude... Biting on my name? meh.

    Anyways, I have a hard time swallowing this pill.

    Hollywood may be every bit to blame for not giving the customer what they want. But that does not mean that they are to blame for piracy. There are other legal alternatives that dissatisfied customers could have pursued. No one held a gun to anyone's head and said 'download this song/movie or else'. That was a choice made by each individual user. They could have chosen to do almost anything else, but they chose to download something illegally.

    And to flip the coin around, yes, Hollywood has had several opportunities to handle the 'problem' in a better way, and failed to do so almost every single time. But no matter how many times they fail to satisfy their customers, that still is in no way forcing the customers to do anything illegal.

  • On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2009 @ 01:50pm

    Re: Re: If Then Else

    Re #1
    Fair Use allows you to make copies in these instances. No money is owed. Fair Use does not apply in the situation we've been discussing.

    Re #2
    In this case, I'd say the song's Artist may be guilty of infringement, since they are not the copyright owners. You may not be aware of the situation and are probably not liable for that piece of it. However, once you make a non-temporary copy of that file, then you may become liable. It depends on whether or not you've been led to believe that you are allowed to make this copy, or if you would be reasonably expected to know that it would be infringing. IANAL. You can't be held liable for the artist's actions; only your own. The record label does not owe you anything, since you voluntarily offered the use of your device without arranging for any sort of payment. You did this when you clicked the song on myspace.

  • On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2009 @ 01:40pm

    Re: Re: If Then Else

    @Fiercedeity

    I base my statement from this belief:
    If someone does something wrong to me, then I deserve to be compensated by that person for those wrongs.

    It seems by your logic, someone could walk up to my car(its the internet. we need a car analogy) with a baseball bat, and take out my headlights, and they should only have to pay for the repairs if I gave him the baseball bat.

    Maybe you would argue that the analogy doesn't hold because there is no actual harm done with file sharing. That's a reasonable argument. Let me try a different analogy.

    Say I put up a no trespassing sign on my lawn. But someone (lets say a punk teenager, so I can be a stodgy old coot) comes up and walks across my lawn anyways. They didn't do any real damage, but they did violate my wishes, and my rights as a property owner. They have done me a wrong, and I think I deserve some compensation for it. Maybe in this case, they have to mow my lawn for a month. Or even just give me an apology. Something is owed for the violation of my rights.

  • On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2009 @ 01:11pm

    If Then Else

    Tell me what you think of this statement, Mike.

    If the Record Label owns the copyright to a song
    and they choose to only make copies of the song available in exchange for monetary payment
    and someone obtains copies without making the monetary payment(and outside of Fair Use)
    then the Record Label is entitled to the monetary payment from that person.

  • On the post: Obama Administration Fails Its Own Transparency Promise Just Days Later

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2009 @ 08:05am

    Direction Needed

    How is one supposed to find these laws that are up for public review?

  • On the post: Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2009 @ 01:47pm

    Related

    This story made me think of an unusual situation in my own company.

    We have a piece of accounting software that we use to generate various management reports. Some third party comes in and creates another product that attaches to our database, and then generates another report, which we weren't supplying.

    Now, if we add that report to our own software, does that violate their rights? Have they violated our patents by tapping into our software data without our permission? None of us are lawyers, so we are kind of scratching our heads on this.

  • On the post: Website Sues NY Times For Linking To It

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2008 @ 07:45am

    Commercial Use

    I could sort of see an argument for the non-commercial clause being broken. The boston globe is a commercial product, and if they link to quality material, then that improved their reputation, which increases their readership.

    But even so, the point is that this can only help gate house with more awareness and more readers.

  • On the post: Can A Moron In A Hurry Explain To Jimmy Choo The Difference Between Shoes And Random Gifts?

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2008 @ 05:59am

    Huh?

    First off, everyone who has used the term 'moron' in these comments will be hearing from my lawyer shortly. I've trademarked the word. I am now the worlds only Moron. I shall set the standard by which all others are judged.

    Second, Mwa, ha, ha!

    And finally, I just got off the phone with Jimmy. I tried to explain things to him, but he won't listen to me. Something about he only takes advice from Morons with legal degrees. Anyways, best of luck Looie. We hope the courts are reasonable with you.

  • On the post: Is Putting Change.gov Under Creative Commons Really A Big Deal?

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2008 @ 02:49pm

    Credit where credit is due

    Does the pre-campaign information become Public Domain when he takes the whitehouse, or does only any future information become public domain?

    I would speculate that the reason they went with CC is that a lot of the people who contributed want their name to get out there, so allowing the use of their work with attribution helps them, by making their name more recognizable. So in 4 years, when its time for another campaign, they can get a job easier with one of the lead dogs.

    "Look at me. I helped put Obama in the white house. I can do the same for you."

  • On the post: You Don't Have To Sell Software

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2008 @ 07:37am

    Re: Re:

    Investment Capital.. Of course. It seems so obvious now.

  • On the post: You Don't Have To Sell Software

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2008 @ 06:59am

    I still have a hard time grasping how you get started with this model. How do you convince a developer to work for free, while you are waiting for people to adopt the software?

  • On the post: Dear 50 Cent: Did I Just Violate Your Trademark?

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2008 @ 12:51pm

    Link?

    Anyone got a link to the commercial?

  • On the post: Dark Knight… Both Most Pirated And Highest Earning Movie

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2008 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re: Piracy==theft

    You know what? If you just remove the last sentence, the entire article turns into a rather nice piece.

  • On the post: Dark Knight… Both Most Pirated And Highest Earning Movie

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2008 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Piracy==theft

    @Big Mook - Two points for you to consider.

    First:
    Piracy != theft
    Piracy == infringement

    There is a difference. Both are illegal, yes. But if that was the only measure of equivalency, then it would be just as logical to say that Jaywalking == Murder, and TPing someone's house == Rape. Yes, I'm using extreme examples to make my point, but the logic is the same. The reason that many of us from your linked thread argue that point is that the publicity arm of the RIAA is trying to use the emotional baggage that comes with calling something theft as a way to push for legislation that doesn't make sense, and doesn't fulfill the purpose of what copyright is meant to be. Instead, they just want to protect their own business, rather than competing with an open market.

    Second:
    This is not one of Mike's better articles. It seems like all the attention went to the wrong area. But given his history, I like to think that he would support the following statement.

    What I would take from this article is not that piracy causes good theater sales, but rather, that a good movie can still make money, regardless of piracy, and that if the movie industry would focus more on making quality products, rather than alienating the customers with DRM, lawsuits, and anti-piracy propoganda, they would find that they can still be a successful business. They just have to learn to innovate, and work with the new environment, rather than working against it and trying to protect and outdated business model.

  • On the post: Monty Python Puts All Its Content On YouTube To Increase Sales Of Scarce Goods

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2008 @ 01:38pm

    Not a fan

    You know, I've never been a fan of Monty Python. I watched the Holy Grail, and although it had its moments, the ending really killed the whole thing for me. I have never had any desire to see any more of their material, despite hearing it quoted religiously by several close friends.

    However, this is enough of an innovative idea that I'm going to forgive them, and at least give it a second chance. If I see something that thrills me, I may even make a purchase for an upcoming x-mas gift.

  • On the post: Bad Decisions: Judge Allows Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Computer Fraud Case

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2008 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Roe vs Wade

    "If you are so unfeeling that you could care less that two parents lost a child I hardly feel you should act as a judge in this case."

    Personally, I would say that the unfeeling people make the best judges. They can examine the facts of the case, without allowing the emotional hype to cloud their judgement.

  • On the post: Bad Decisions: Judge Allows Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Computer Fraud Case

    Just Another Moron in a Hurry ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2008 @ 12:34pm

    Re: well

    @known coward - You are correct. Criminal Harrassment is harassment, no matter what. The problem is that this case is not a harassment case. This is a case about computer fraud. that is the charge being filed.

    The suicide should definitely be considered, in a seperate case where the charges are for harrassment, and possibly something worse. But it should not be a factor in the case for computer fraud.

Next >>