Scary Devil Monastery’s Techdirt Profile

perge74

About Scary Devil Monastery




Scary Devil Monastery’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 21st, 2019 @ 1:03am

    Re: Re:

    "The downloader's name has value on a mailing list..."

    Again with this imaginary mailing list which pirates apparently happily leave their names on.

    Your arguments keep suggesting that you live in a land of delusion and make-believe, bobmail, because I very much doubt there's a single pirate out there who ever left their name or traceable address on a "mailing list".

  • Feb 21st, 2019 @ 1:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Pushing piracy underground means only hardcore pirates will know how to steal content."

    You mean like every "pirate" in the last thirty years?

    What article 13 does - and any other such law - won't affect pirates at all.

    Instead it forces LEGAL USERS to get with the pirate program and turn that "underground" into the default venue for normal citizens.

    Hey, I'm all for it. It means you guys lose every last shred of the control you imagined you had.

  • Feb 21st, 2019 @ 12:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "SO? That's the whole point of law. Crime is reduced when forced out of sight, that's axiomatic."

    No, that's actually the OPPOSITE of law. A good law will allow for a paradigm where it is actually possible to implement the law. What article 13 does, otoh, is, to use drug laws as a comparison, the equivalent of forcing EVERYONE to hide and move fully legal accessories - like cosmetics and home electronics - using the same methods as drug smugglers use, making the job of the police impossible since absolutely EVERYONE is now behaving as if they had something to hide.

    That's why a law which makes it impossible for police to reasonably act is a shit law.

  • Feb 21st, 2019 @ 12:52am

    Re:

    "The pirates and aggregators created the need for Article 13."

    Wait, what...you are claiming that article 13, was created as a response to the phenomenon that particular legislation does not, in any way, address.

    That's even worse than claiming that invisible fairies are responsible for the need of laws against littering. What the hell are you copyright cultists smoking?

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 5:17am

    Re: Re:

    "It's appointed by Parliament and commissioners can be slapped down, as former Commissioner Karel de Gucht had pointed out to him after ACTA fell on its face."

    Not easily, alas. And it takes a huge public mess before the parliament agrees with the citizenry as a whole that appointing a given bag of moistened horse apples into legislative power was a mistake.

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: It don’t matter either way cause your dick don’t wor

    "Ohhhh are we doing the investigative reporter fantasy or the undercover policeman fantasy?"

    Neither. As usual his biggest hard-on is where he dresses as a priest and froths all over any listener in range.

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 5:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Guess I'll go curl up and die now."

    Well you'd better. Wouldn't want to be rude now would you?

    That said being sarcastic about the poor copyright cultists chosen religion really isn't kind. The poor man's taking it on faith that you've been destroyed according to his interpretation of what is surely holy scripture.

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: Abolish Copyright

    "You know this "haha, they won't know it's me because that's something I wouldn't say" trick doesn't work, right Blue?"

    Still, it's nice to see him make an actual point, even if he thinks he's being sarcastic. The world did just fine without any shred of Queen Anne's statutes or the french protectionist laws for centuries during which most of what we call classics and high culture today was made.

    So yes, abolish copyright. Or at least any of it which doesn't fit in a Creative Commons framework.

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 5:00am

    Re: Re: Re: The wrong is strong with this one (EU)

    "He really seems to think that nerding harder is the solution."

    There's a reason i dismissively refer to copyright maximalists as a cult. Almost every suggestion they come up with is faith-based.

    Unfortunately they tend to spend a lot of money selling their belief in black magic to the body politic where there's always plenty of uneducated morons willing to believe that a lobbyists ability to crap a solidly unbroken line of bullshit in a high arc through his mouth is a sign of high credibility.

  • Feb 20th, 2019 @ 4:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "His advances for those albums (money loaned to him by the record company) were several hundred thousand dollars for each record. He never made the money back to pay off those advances."

    So Lovett, like so many other entrepreneurs, took a loan which failed to render a sizable roi. Then the jokes on him for signing himself up on a label contract of indentured servitude.

    And secondly, given that every independent study on market impact of piracy has found either no measurable impact or POSITIVE sales effect pirates certainly can't be blamed for Lovett's hypothetical failure to recover his investment.

    "So stop using this trope to justify stealing from musicians, you d-bags."

    Says the man who managed to cram a flawed assumption, an outright lie, and some ad hom into that same sentence.

    Good going as usual, bobmail.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The Goal

    "The DMCA works fine..."

    Nope. Not even copyright enforcers believe the DMCA works fine at all. At least pay atention to what your own side has to say. Let alone the rest of the world which gets to read about one copyright troll outfit after the other abusing the DMCA while ever more judges start learning that it's a law so ripe for abuse that it has become the new black for third-rate tort lawyers.

    Didn't you read about Prenda? I'm pretty sure there's plenty of material there about in what ways the DMCA utterly fails in both proportionality and common sense.

    "and Article 13, at worst, will turn big internet companies into an umbrella for indies to make money, much as they already do on these platforms due to distribution and the copyright protection they offer."

    Nope.

    Article 13 will explosively raise costs for those online platforms for every account they allow. Which means youtube is gone as an avenue for indies, and any other indi now needs to put up a hefty premium - or take a hefty loan - in order to be represented.

    That's the minimum unavoidable consequence which puts us smack dab straight back into the land of indentured servitude artists used to complain unceasingly about back in the 70's.

    Again, you claiming otherwise simply means you're avoiding all the known facts in favor of your own personal opinion.

    "Without the DMCA, these platforms wouldn't exist at all since they'd be liable for all the infringement their users insist on committing."

    Only because the DMCA makes those platforms accountable without any need of proof.

    "Article 13 will not stop creators from making money, but it will stop pirates from taking their work."

    I can safely claim that article 13 will not affect nor impact ANY pirate. You'd be better served paying a voodoo priest to cure piracy - it'd be cheaper and just as effective. Article 13 will not, in fact, be able to even take down a torrent index page - even if those were still necessary which they aren't. Neither in technology nor in law does article 13 impact filesharing of any kind, in any way. Please DO tell me why on earth you'd think otherwise.

    Because that you believe otherwise is as divorced from reality as hearing someone claim that outlawing gravity will abolish the need for airlines.

    There is, on the other hand, ample evidence that article 13 will prevent creators from making money, by actively denying them a route-to-market outside of some major gatekeeping corporation. Hence putting all the power right back into the hands of major publishers. Which is the main reason and utility of article 13. It's what it was made for.

    So once again, Bobmail, I'm afraid we'll have to make up our minds on whether you're lying or just tragically deluded.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "All on a much smaller Internet, where outside of AOL, it was the playground of a few technology competent people."

    That tends to be a main issue with the arguments posited by "bobmail" - or the thousand-and-one nicknames all miraculously having the exact same flawed idea.

    Scale. The man simply doesn't understand that we're not talking about a few hundred people. We're talking about billions.

    And if he can't wrap his head around the fact that a solution which works to keep a small corporate intranet with a thousand accounts in total WILL NOT WORK when it's scaled up to a user base of billions then we've already lost all hope of having a sensible debate with the guy.

    I'm sure in his mind it all makes sense, since, going by his previous arguments, he doesn't realize that no one, not even Google, can employ the thousands of monitors required to make a small operation work under article 13.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re:

    *" "Decentralization would be a good start."

    OK. So, how do you make that happen?"*

    Shutting down the big five might work. If there's something the online netizenry are good at it's coming up with a new solution once the old one's broken. Or, in this case, actually start using any of the multiple proofs of concept which never caught on since the old version still worked.

    "I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's not really a positive solution I can see that doesn't cause bigger issues than the one you're trying to overcome."

    Although that may be true it's similarly true that we could be manning the barricades of common sense for generations against the endless legion of gormless lusers. At the risk of sounding a bit like a classical old BOFH it might be well past time to actually let the idiots pushing for these "solutions" reap the full rewards of their actions while the saner heads engineer or implement more robust solutions.

    Having much of the online economy burn to the ground may provide a highly needed example of WHY being an idiot in politics and/or allowing idiots into politics is not a good idea.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 6:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Goal

    "Sorry dude, business doesn't work by sitting around waiting for the stragglers to catch up when they become unsustainable."

    We have copyright to reverse that trend though. Bobmail is just a bit miffed that said reversion is inefficient and above all, does not appear to include him among its beneficiaries.

    Apparently, though, that will happen as soon as his oft-repeated prediction comes true and everyone who's ever downloaded a file from the internet is hauled off in chains.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Lovely, sounds to me like they've reached the point where they're the modern day nobility, concerned only with what will impact them and to hell with the peasants."

    That's exactly it. The EU, and most importantly the high tiers of the bureaucracy, have gone down the deep end of becoming entitled nobility.

    And the tours around the ACTA debacle proved full well that the people in the council and commission are not above breaking any and every rule to get what they want, even when the methods are in flagrant violation of the EU charter.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: How was you involuntary 3 day vacation?

    I think good old Bobmail gets his rocks off on self-inflicted humiliation.

    I'm not one to judge but I still believe he should take that kink of his elsewhere.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Easy fix.

    "So why wouldn't Google offer content filtering as a service and make even more money?"

    They probably will, which is why youtube has presented an ambiguous stance on article 13.

    However, Youtube knows full well that after a filter sufficiently trigger-happy to satisfy article 13 is implemented, youtube is deader than it was when GEMA was all over it in Germany. It won't really cost them anything not to geoblock, as long as any youtube visitor is met by the "smiley sad-face" on 3 out of 4 videos.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: When the site becomes liable for content I uploa

    "If the rightsholder is the person who posts the content, then he's granting permission for that content to be posted."

    According to US laws and possibly the US DMCA.

    Nothing in the EU to present that view, as far as I know.

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 5:59am

    Re: Re:

    "Yes, if by "govern" you mean enslave."

    There are far too many EU commissioners with that on their specific agenda for comfort. And has been ever since the EU took the ugly turn from the "four freedoms" into "full european unification".

  • Feb 15th, 2019 @ 5:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair use

    "It's an impossible task. Even if it were possible, it's impossibly expensive."

    And this is something quite well realized by the politicians who currently all pretend they can't understand or won't acknowledge the that.

    Article 13 exists only to protect the current media giants from competition. And EU politicians in France and Germany have realized it could easily be adapted to remove that protection from anything competing with the ailing at-home culture production as well. Which is my take on why the EU is suddenly pushing for an article 13 even the RIAA and MPAA don't want.

More comments from Scary Devil Monastery >>