Rose M. Welch 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1727) comment rss

  • On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2010 @ 02:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Saint? No. Masochist? Probably.

    No, seriously, the point isn't to change Darryl (Never gonna happen.) but to refute Darryl's outraged statements for any other folks who wander by and happen to think a bit of what he says makes sense.

  • On the post: Court Rejects Publicity Rights Claim Over Pixar's Lead Car In Cars

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2010 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re:

    That's true. :)

  • On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2010 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Trouble is the law does not work like that, you are not allowed to conduct an illegal business, even if you have a legal business as your 'front' operation.

    What illegal business were the hip-hop blogs running, exactly? And what judge presided over their trial?

    Like its common sense, what you are trying to say is, as long as you have 'SOME' legal content on your web site, you should be forever immune from legal action for the rest of the content that is illegal.

    No, what we're saying is that as long as you have content that's arguably speech, you deserve a trial. I realize that you're not American, and free speech rights don't mean the same thing elsewhere, but get a clue. Seriously.

    Do you think if you sold watches, as long as you also sold legal casio watches, you would be allowed to sell Rolex knockoffs ?

    I think that if you sold fake Rolexes, officers would have to show actual probable cause that a crime has been committed, get a warrant, serve the warrant (which means allowing the person being served to see it in it's entirety at the time of seizure), being charged with a crime, and then getting a trial.

    Just because you do SOME things that are legal, that does not make what you do that is illegal, any more legal than before.

    That's absolutely correct, and that's why it's so important for due process to be allowed. That's in our Bill of Rights, you know. It's kind of important.

    Mike, why dont you explain it, you know, how the law really works, instead of trying to create a army of people with just as little of a clue to reality as yourself.. Why cant you explain to them, that just because you do one thing legally, does not give you a pass to then do other things that are illegal..

    I explained, already. What law enforcement is doing isn't legal. And it's not right to ignore the illegal things that law enforcement is doing just because some of the things that they do are legal.

    We all know you hate the law, and want to promote people to break it, but do you honestly think that is the right thing to do.. to spend your life appoligising for criminals ?

    Which criminals are that, exactly? I don't see any criminals. Hell, I don't even see any charges.

    Not liking a law is no excuse for breaking it, or for inciting other to break it.

    What law is that, exactly? It's hard to tell, because this seizure occurred illegally.

    Incitement is just as bad as the crime itself, and that is what you do Mike, you incite people to break the law, by providing 'justification' for their actions..

    First, incitement is not 'just as bad'. Next, Mike has made it very clear, repeatedly, that he doesn't pirate and doesn't encourage anyone else to do so. Last, your description of Mike's 'incitement' doesn't meet the legal standard of incitement.

    More importantly, this post has nothing to do with pirating. It has to do with an illegal seizure made upon people who weren't pirating.

    its sad really, especially when you complain about people who have real jobs, and how have made a bigger difference in a short time, than you appear to have done in your entire career.. talking about you Mike..

    Taking orders from Hollywood on the taxpayer's dime is a real job? I mean, you're right that it makes a difference, but... so did Hitler.

  • On the post: Court Rejects Publicity Rights Claim Over Pixar's Lead Car In Cars

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2010 @ 03:47am

    Oh, Oklahoma... I wish I didn't have to live here.

    /sadface

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2010 @ 07:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Neato

    Also, why would you expect mind tricks from me?

    Not Jedi, am I.

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2010 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nicely done.

    Grog has alot of water, and usually some lime.

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2010 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Schemer Owl

    Really?

    Damn, I thought it was a political or pop-culture reference that I just wasn't getting. Drove me nuts. :P

    Well played, sir.

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2010 @ 01:53am

    Re: Neato

    ...only by reading it do you find the author is actually Rose.

    The title didn't give it away? :)

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 07:17pm

    Re: Nicely done.

    Brandy in mine...

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 07:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Schemer Owl

    No, it's Chad. :)

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 01:50pm

    Re:

    You know you're doin' it right when you have Internet stalkers. :)

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 01:49pm

    Re: Re: Schemer Owl

    That's what I thought last week, until my husband took a look and actually read a few of the articles. I think being able to read a blurb made him more happy to click through and read the whole post, as opposed to just seeing lengthy posts with intimidating legal documents. :P

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 01:47pm

    Re: Re: LOL

    Oh, I see. :)

  • On the post: Rose M. Welch's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 11:26am

    LOL

    ^^That's it. :)

    ^^This part was to let you know that the above text was the submission, not to be included in the submission. :P

  • On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet – Or The Law

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 01:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then what exactly was your point in that manifesto you posted?

    It's easy to see Mike's point, because he stated the following:

    "My point is that the way you prove contributory infringement is THROUGH A TRIAL..."

    See? His point is outlined after the words 'my point'. What was that you were saying about being willfully ignorant, again?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet – Or The Law

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2010 @ 01:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How do you know that they're all or even mostly infringing? Have you checked them all, or do you know of anyone who has? Sources, please.

    Also, you must be the President of that particular club, lol.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet – Or The Law

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2010 @ 10:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    A torrent search engine is dedicated to torrents, many of which are infringing, the same way that a photo search engine is dedicated to photos, many of which are infringing.

    In other words, Torrent Search Engine = Google Search Engine.

    Do you understand, you willfully ignorant douchebag? :)

  • On the post: New TSA Report: Every Test Gun, Bomb Part Or Knife Got Past Screeners At Some Airport

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2010 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Never pay a man to do the job of an inatimate object...

    If you're speaking of people holding up advertisements for pay, they generally can't be replaced by a stick and a staple gun, due to local ordinances. That's why they hire the guy with the sign. :)

  • On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet – Or The Law

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2010 @ 08:14pm

    Re: Re: Ummm no...

    Man, don't give 'em any ideas.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet – Or The Law

    Rose M. Welch ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2010 @ 08:13pm

    Re: Re:

    No, it's defined as:

    A website through which torrents are shared and transferred.

    There, I fixed it for you.

Next >>