PopeyeLePoteaux’s Techdirt Profile


About PopeyeLePoteaux

PopeyeLePoteaux’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 20th, 2017 @ 7:42pm

    (untitled comment)

    Funny how the GOP is supposedly for "smaller government", state rights and free market fundamentalism, but are premeptively prohibiting States and localities from implementing their own rules or building their own networks. Hypocrisy at it's finest! The GOP has proven to have no principles and only money drives their concerns.

    So in the end, the self-proclaimed party of state rights is working hard to undermine them when it conflicts with corporations' profits. Shocking!

  • Nov 2nd, 2017 @ 1:15am

    (untitled comment)

    This narrative raises some interesting questions
    1) If Russian ads have this much influence.. who doesn't anyone else's?
    2) If Russians have this capability.. who else does?
    3) What's the Russians's goal.. why would they be mustache twirling evil dicks when they could just license the technology to ad agencies and make TRILLIONS?
    ..oh, and 4) If Russian are these mysterious masters of mass manipulation.. why did the Soviet Union collapse? Why did they have to send troops to Ukraine, when a Tweet would have been enough?

    If they could flip an election with a few hundred thousand dollars while DNC lost after spending more than a billion, why aren't other countries learning the art of advertisements from them? We can can save billions every year and also cut down on the number of commercials everybody have to endure.

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 11:51pm


    "Good grief. In the world "According to Techdirt", there should be absolutely no copyright, where everyone can steal an idea from what someone else has created."

    Ideas are non material "objects" that do not get destroyed when consumed (as opposed to any material object) and whose production does not require direct consumption of material inputs, as what economists call services do.

    The economic concept of trade on which all arguments about the efficiency of markets based on well defined property rights, simply cannot be meaningfully applied to ideas, it makes no sense to "steal" an idea.

    "Copyright does not stifle innovation and change, it stimulates innovation and change. If we didn't have copyright, nobody would create anything because of the fear that someone might steal their idea or creation."

    Sure, because without copyright, all the ancient literature and music that were created without needing it wouldn't exist even if the Statute of Anne was created until 1710.

    "Must be nice to be thieves of copyright content, huh?"

    How infringement is stealing again? If I steal something, the owner no longer has the object I stolen, whereas infringment can entail copying it, no material object is lost.

  • Jul 12th, 2017 @ 10:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    *"It's unclear to me why Tim Berners-Lee has been so difficult on this issue -- as he's been so good for so long on so many other issues."*

    Everyone has a price. Someone simply managed to meet his price for making him stand against what he was supposed to stand for.

  • Jul 12th, 2017 @ 10:05pm


    Government regulation is there to make sure the ISPs don't cheat. That's what people seems not to understand, it levels the playing field.

    No government regulation; the ISPs will "self regulate" (hint, they won't), and we know how that will turn out for the consumer.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 11:11pm

    Personal anecdote.

    One of my closest friends, who is a parent of two, now told me once that the best way to monitor kids without becoming an helicopter parent was to actually show interest on what they are doing on the internet.

    Like, whenever his son is surfing the web or immersed on his smartphone, he (or his wife) just walks in and casually asks his kid what is he doing and starting a conversation with him, showing him that there is a genuine interest on his part to be included in his kid's life without being perceived as invasive. So his son shares his interests with him and tells him what kind of stuff is he browsing, who's talking to, if it is a school friend and whatnot, making the exchange to flow naturally and building mutual trust.

    So, leaving that personal anecdote aside, I think the question isn't even about how could ever this stop a parent from buying a smartphone for their kids outside the state, but rather how lazy and unattached some parents seem to be if they want a law that in the end will make them believe it will be easier to keep their children from engaging in harmful attitudes, most of which come from the lack of actual parental supervision and being involved in their children's lives.

    Instead, they invent this new boogey man just like Cartoons, Comic Books, Heavy Metal, Videogames, etc., were labeled as back when I was a kid, while preaching vapid sanctimony to bamboozle people and make them believe that anything that catches children's attention is inherently harmful.

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: The school was right

    "Give it a week or two."

    What year you live in? Are you seriously telling me that this wouldn't be known already in any social media?

    I guess we can wait a week or two to realize nobody around him has access to any freaking social media platform so your BS theory can be true.

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: The school was right

    Typo: know by now*

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 12:14pm

    Re: The school was right

    "Expect that if the gag order is lifted on the school we find out that he was getting smacked around by a few bullies on a daily basis and "built" this to "scare" them."

    Bullshit, if that was the case, we would now by now from external sources (classmates, parents, etc.), unless you alredy know that he is "invisible" to the rest of the school because he has no friends and no one has ever interacted with him, at all.


    "Authority is NEVER WRONG" /s

  • Sep 1st, 2015 @ 6:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Check again

    I've been searching for your other articles, I meant.

  • Sep 1st, 2015 @ 6:33pm

    Re: Re: Check again

    ...for the last 20 minutes and I cannot find anything, provide links, please.

  • May 2nd, 2015 @ 7:39pm

    I have a crazy idea.

    It sounds crazy but hear me out. What about trying to act like parents and spend time with the kids as a way to see and understand what are they up to. It sounds crazy, I know!

  • Apr 10th, 2015 @ 6:20pm


    The comparison is valid.

    Compare "Licenses and patents" to the "Indulgences" sold by the catholic church and then compare the right of gatekeeping/distribution with the monopoly to read and interpret scripture for the other half.

    Finally, in order to even understand copyright you first need to blatantly ignore common sense, empirical evidence and the physical world.

    And of course, the IP maximalists like religious enforcers/zealots operating under the same tribalistic mindset where you are either for or against, no middle ground, no nuances, nothing in between, etc., and of course trying to cause moral panic over thought or imaginary crimes and portraying any kind of dissent or critical view as immoral.

  • Oct 17th, 2014 @ 2:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    At this point, I'm not surprised at all. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? Not at all.

  • Oct 16th, 2014 @ 9:15pm

    Re: Re:

    Well, I must admit that, assuming he's not a troll, at least he's honest about the current IP maximalist mindset and how obscene and dangerous it is.

    So, if people in developing countries can't afford medicines and other basic needs, then it's their fault, no one told them to be poor to begin with, so they better be healthy or learn to do without.

    It's "the end justifies the means" mentality we are dealing with.


  • Jul 16th, 2014 @ 9:38pm


    "If you aren't doing anything, don't worry about it."

    If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to prove either.

  • Jul 11th, 2014 @ 9:16pm

    Re: perhaps

    "I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?"

    Then, why are they being so secretive? If defenders of such trade agreements assert that benefits outweight the adverse consequences, secrecy would not be the norm and the rest of the people would not need to depend on leaks to know whats going on.

    "Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."

    Irrelevant, this isn't about companies benefiting from more or less regulation, is about presenting actual trade agreements, laws, regulations that could possibly benefit all, not a minority composed by certain corporate interests who are unable to compete due to their outdated business models who seek more and stronger industrial protectionism regulations.

    "The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely."

    We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.

    "I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."

    I would say the same for the bought and paid shills from those corporate interests, but recent history tell me that they are being willfuly dishonest, so no, I dont feel sorry for you and your ilk.

  • Jun 7th, 2014 @ 9:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nah, he won't bother to prove anything, people like him, who keep seeing infringers as immoral egotistical thieves, are only capable of attacking the strawman they think is the correct depiction of online infringers, I wouldn't waste my time asking them to provide evidence of what they claim.

  • Jun 7th, 2014 @ 9:44pm

    Re: Re:

    "Yeah, but the reality is a few people pay, most people just download for free and that ends that."

    Far from it, downloaders also are buyers, your assertion is demonstrably false.

    http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/online-copyright/deep-div e.pdf

  • May 19th, 2014 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid.You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid."

    Just to clarify, I and many others object the moral argument regarding copyright issues because copyright has never been about morality but practical utility, is just a red herring meant to create moral panic and bringing the whole issue to a purely emotional level where someone can claim the moral high ground and make detractors look as the inmoral ones.

    "The law here isn't evil. Rather, it's an attempt by the people (as a whole) to keep a small minority from ruining their lives by being able to protest and harm their enjoyment of life. Authorities did what they have to do to enforce the law and not give unfair advantage to one group or the other."

    Lawful =/= ethically acceptable, and since we are not talking about copyright but currupt athorities who use the "free trade agreement" label to rig the game in favor of a minority made up of corporate players interested only in filling their pockets while ignoring the adverse consequences for the rest of the people, so it follows that using physical force to disband a peaceful protest with demonstrably harming techniques is questionable at minimum, since they are just excercizing their right to protest against a corrupt system, unless I live in a dictatorship, I can't see your point.

More comments from PopeyeLePoteaux >>