Stephen T. Stone’s Techdirt Profile


About Stephen T. Stone

Stephen T. Stone’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 22nd, 2018 @ 7:38am

    (untitled comment)

    Wow. Racism, homophobia, and racist homophobia. This is a bigotry trifecta! (Throw in some sexism and I bet you’d get a free sundae at the next Klan meeting.)

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr

    If you'll use slurs to describe one group, what's your logic behind other people using other slurs to describe another group?

    Cops can stop being cops whenever they want. A person with Middle Eastern heritage cannot take that heritage off like a uniform when they clock out of work or go on vacation. A gay person cannot stop being gay when they get called “faggot” by a mouthbreathing, backwards-ass moron.

    A slur used against a profession can only be insulting to people who are in that profession. Last time I checked, no one was going around conscripting people into a local police force against their will. The profession of police officer—like all other professions, and unlike inherited/inherent human traits—is a choice.

    But it's ok to insult the cop with a slur but not the Muslim, Inuit, or Waitress?

    Insulting people is not a good thing, in any instance. But if you really think a cop being called “pig” is even remotely on the same level as the N-word…well, there’s really no nice way to say this, so I’ll just say it: Honey, you’re fucked up.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    It's a SLUR - a comment that dehumanizes and often ridicules the group it's directed at.

    If a police officer does not want to be called “pig”, they can stop being a cop whenever they want. The same cannot be said for Black people, gay people, women, or any other group of people who have been marginalized just for who they are.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 5:57pm

    Re: Re:

    there may be, as you point out, a difference between denigrating and discriminating, but on the receiving end that difference might be moot

    If you were to denigrate someone using a slur aimed at them for who they are, you would merely be insulting them. (Granted, it would be a hell of an insult. But still.) If you were to discriminate against that same someone based on who they are, you would be doing far more than insulting them—you would be denying them a chance to participate in the public sphere.

    Denigration can lead to discrimination, but the two are not inextricably linked to one another. (Anti-gay business owners can discriminate against gay people without saying anti-gay slurs, after all.) So long as the denigration does not happen alongside any other illegal act (including calls for violence), that insult is legally protected speech, no matter how distasteful or offensive it may be to you or I.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:49pm


    …that regularly has people call for (and sometimes act on calls for) violence against them…

    This is what I get for not proofreading.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:48pm

    (untitled comment)

    Did you know that Black people cannot remove their skin after a long day at work⸮

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    Being gay is a choice as well

    If being gay were a choice, no one would choose to be gay. Who would actively and knowingly choose to be part of a denigrated and historically marginalized minority that regularly has people call for (and sometimes act on calls for) violence only because they exist?

    And by the by, as someone who identifies as bisexual (and queer, interchangably), I can tell you from my experience in figuring out my own sexual orientation that it is not a choice.

    as the thousands of ex-gays who've left the lifestyle and whose very existence is constantly denied and suppressed by the gay community will tell you

    “Conversion ‘therapy’ ” is a fraud—a form of psychological torture inflicted upon vulnerable people who are driven to undergo said torture out of a desire (either their own or someone else’s) to be “normal”. Anyone who claims to be an “ex-gay” is deluding themselves.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 4:38pm

    (untitled comment)

    Denigrate a legally protected minority, law break.

    I…I’m sorry, but when, exactly, did using racial slurs in a derogatory context become illegal?

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 7:54am

    (untitled comment)

    Unless you—or the police—have proof that anyone in any of those groups has done or said something beyond legally protected political dissent, none of those groups deserve to be “monitored” any more than groups that are pro-Trump/pro-police (brutality).

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:45am

    (untitled comment)

    I'm inclined to bet that most police in Massachusetts keep tabs open to monitor "leftist" groups because in favor.

    Prove it.

    I've never run across a site with more uniform, er, anti-uniform, anarchist views than Techdirt.

    Have you ever seen an actual anarchist’s blog? Techdirt is far, far more conservative in comparison.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:38am

    (untitled comment)

    Chicago is a cesspool.

    Even if this is true, it does not—and should not—excuse bad policing.

  • Sep 21st, 2018 @ 6:30am

    (untitled comment)

    The issue of Nintendo re-releasing old games (or not) has nothing to do with copyright law. Nintendo owns the copyrights on the games it developed/published; legally, it can go after any ROM site that hosts those games regardless of whether any of those games have been republished within recent memory. Hell, Nintendo could have never re-released any of its NES or SNES games, and it would still be able to go after ROM sites. Copyright is not contingent on keeping the copyrighted material in circulation.

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 11:11pm

    (untitled comment)

    We can also keep what we have now, which seems to work very well.

    I…but…if you think things work well the way they are now, why the hell would you want to change anything?

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 11:07pm

    (untitled comment)

    I could say the same about the Nintendo consoles, too. Given the hundreds of titles released on the original consoles, having only 20 or 30 games on each retro system seems like a huge waste. But hey, nostalgia is a hell of a thing.

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 11:04pm


    Oh yeah, the "you don't need protection of or control over your work." Actually, a creator does.

    Please cite where the article says or implies this exact line of thought.

    a creator can function under this model, and some will succeed, but why should they have to? Because some entitled thieves on the internet have to be fed?

    “Freemium” models do not count on pirates. They count on people to play (potentially addictive) games and pay loads of money for premium perks. That model would work even without the existence of piracy.

    if someone spends [ten years] figuring out how to save you $15 a month on your electricity bill, the only way they can make money with a book is for each reader to pay for a copy

    If that book can be outdone by a mere blog post that can be read for free, that writer needs to write something people would prefer to buy. No one is guaranteed a living, least of all writers, and not everything they create is going to sell well (if at all).

    A smart company will deal in reality and produce whatever makes the most money, though this doesn't mean that copyright should be weakened.

    Please cite where the article or any other comment on this article says or implies this exact line of thought.

    Is the author suggesting eliminating copyright proection?


    Exactly what does he want changed?

    Hell if I know.

    If nothing, then what is the puporse of the article[?]

    The point is to show how Nintendo chose to compete with “free”—in this case, emulation of their classic games—and won big, and how Sony decided to do the same damn thing so it could make some money from gamer nostalgia.

    Google didn't destroy them, Craigslist did, with FREE classified advertising, against which newspapers could not compete, thus losing their biggest cash cow.

    That sucks for them. But if a business model can be destroyed by the Internet…

    There are papers which survive soilely on the publication of legal notices. Make those "free" and those papers cease to exist

    If those legal notices are free for people to view on and download from the Internet, for what reason should they pay for the right to read those same notices?

    I've taken issue with Amazon forcing me to give away part of my books for "free" in the form of a free sample of the book.

    No one forced you to go through Amazon, least of all Amazon. You chose to follow their rules. Only you can decide to stop playing their game.

    weakened copyright is why that is produced, i.e., it's inexpensive and generates more revenue

    Two things.

    1. Copyright law has not been “weakened” in any meaningful sense. It has drastically undercut by the Internet, sure, but not “weakened”.

    2. Copyright still applies to cellphone videos and Vines and whatnot; even if they were not, plenty of companies still make money by selling public domain material. Numerous different copies of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the earliest Sherlock Holmes books, or Night of the Living Dead are available to buy right now, even though anyone can legally download both.

    Content piracy (which is not theft, no matter how much you try to make that emotional connection) will be a thing until the Internet is destroyed. Content piracy will continue to be a thing after that. People will find ways to get the content they want without paying for it; this is a fact of life. If you refuse to adapt in the face of this knowledge, you will have no one to blame for your failures in business but yourself.

    Movie theatres adapted (well, some of them did). Nintendo and Sony adapted. Authors, illustrators, artists of all stripes have adapted (some better than others). You seem to be one of the ignorant few who continue to believe piracy can be stopped if you wish hard enough. But wishing cannot, does not, and will never stop piracy. You can, however, mitigate piracy—provided you want to do the work—and as the article implies, Sony wants to do just that.

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 10:29pm

    (untitled comment)


    That is…kind of the entire point. The PS1 Classic will (presumably) be hassle-free compared to do-it-yourself emulation. It will not require anything to run correctly beyond what you bought. It will have a smaller selection of games, but that selection will have been curated by Sony so that no game is an outright stinker (by PS1 standards). Given the option of spending $100 for the retro console or going it alone with potentially buggy (and technically illegal) emulation, I would drop the dosh.

    You cannot compete with free when it's your own content.

    Sony knows people can emulate PS1 games. Sony also knows people have emulated NES games for a couple of decades now—and the NES Classic still sold out. Nintendo competed with “free” and made a shitload of money in the process. What makes you think Sony will fare any worse?

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 6:29pm

    Re: Re:

    Futurama references are always good.

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 4:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    The government isn't supposed to be a profit-driven entity.

    Someone should have told that to Donald Trump. (Not like he would have listened or cared, but still.)

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re:

    99.9% it is, then! (Seriously, being a billionaire should be illegal.)

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 12:50pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think everyone[’]s really made it worse in a sense and that [this] is all more complicated and harder to stop [than] everyone is willing to admit

    I’m willing to admit it. That admission does not excuse a blatantly racist remark about letting racial minorities kill each other without doing anything to stop said killings.

More comments from Stephen T. Stone >>