Pirate Bear’s Techdirt Profile


About Pirate Bear

Pirate Bear’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 11th, 2017 @ 4:42pm


    The last I checked the EFF actually was challenging the DMCA on 1st amendment grounds in that security researchers aren't allowed to publish their findings due to the anti-circumvention clauses.

    Since takedown notices have (effectively non functional) repercussions for false notices it probably would just pass a 1st amendment test, but that's how I see it. What Sean is doing should constitute perjury, but nothing will every come from it. Actual constitutional lawyers could probably weigh in much better than I could here.
  • Sep 8th, 2016 @ 9:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    Zelda Maker did just this when they released last year, and it now goes by Legend Maker. The graphics are obviously a homage to Link to the Past, but they are legally free and clear. If it ever actually comes out, it looks really promising.
  • Jul 14th, 2016 @ 3:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    RE: The NDA

    The point of these is to tell local and state Law Enforcement that if they reveal the existence/use of Stingrays they'll take the local/state's cool new toys away. The local/state then will drop pretty much any case they can't salvage through "parallel construction" or other means to hide it's existence to ensure they can continue to use Stingrays. This is why this case and the Baltimore case mentioned: it's the first time the police have allowed the case to get far enough to get a court ruling against them (despite their attempts to obscure it).


    As far as I am aware, Stingrays have never been in front of SCOTUS. One would hope that considering their ruling on thermal imaging devices and the fact that Stingrays are far more invasive and active surveillance than thermal imaging, that they would rule that simulators need a warrant under most circumstances, but you never can tell.
  • Jul 12th, 2016 @ 6:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    As scummy as cheat makers are, the way to fight them is on a technical level, not an expansion of copyright law like Blizzard wants. Imagine Apple being able to sue jailbreakers for millions for copyright infringement since they broke the EULA of iOS (that can be changed at any time without notice I might add), or Microsoft being able to declare your use of Windows 7/8 to be copyright infringement because you disabled the strong-armed Windows 10 upgrade prompt. Blizzard's argument, if accepted, would give corporations complete control of devices and software use through EULAs, which already have too much power.

    Fortunately, Galoob vs. Nintendo have had courts rule on this already, finding that modifying a copyrighted work for personal use (which legally this is personal use) is not a derivative work and does not constitute copyright infringement. This lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere for a number of reasons, and Blizzard would be better off using the money to hire extra programmers to build better anti-cheat software rather than waste it in the courts.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it