sniperdoc 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (73) comment rss

  • On the post: Game Developer Won't Edit 'Aliens vs. Predator' To Appease Australian Censors

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2009 @ 06:57am

    Frickin' AWESOME

    Rebellion deserves a pack on the back. That is an amazing statement and nations need to take note.

  • On the post: Ferrari Doesn't Want Web Racing Simulation To Use Ferraris

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 03:46am

    Stupid article

    pI can't believe this even made it as an article into Techdirt. This is a clear trademark violation and anyone who decides to go against trademark agreements needs to recognize getting a cease-and-desist.

    There are plenty of games out there that have Ferraries and they don't get cease and desist orders because... they pay licensing fees. No brainer there.

    Trademark your own slogan/design/name/etc and you can make money. That's the great grand world of capitalism.

    Now... someone remove this pathetic excuse for an article please and bring some quality back to Techdirt.

  • On the post: Guy Convicted Of Hacking For Uploading Naked Picture Of Himself

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 07 May, 2009 @ 11:51am

    Re: Endless Permutations

    Ummm... it's not HIS computer at work. It's a COMPANY computer and they can do what they like with it. The fact that he used it for ANY personal business shows his disregard for company policy or ethics.

  • On the post: Lord Of The Rings Fan Film To Debut… Raising Some Copyright Questions

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 01 May, 2009 @ 08:15pm

    Re: Trademarks

    Ummm... actually all Trademarks, for them to be legal, must be made at the Trademark and Patent Office. The only thing that doesn't have to be filed to be legal is a Copyright, since it arises at the creation of the work.

  • On the post: Lord Of The Rings Fan Film To Debut… Raising Some Copyright Questions

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 01 May, 2009 @ 08:12pm

    Derivative Works

    It's actually very interesting... I remember back in the day when the books were very popular. Children and Adults actually wrote continuations of Middle Earth stories themselves. This is just another way to pay homage to a great author/historian. :)

    If movie houses try to squelch this one, it would be a sad day to see, and just confirms the greed of Hollywood.

  • On the post: The Pirate Bay's New Business Model Apparently Working Wonders

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2009 @ 06:11am

    The Pirate Bay vs Somalia

    I think it was an astute assumption...?

    JUST KIDDING!

    I do think that the Anonymous person doesn't use TPB nor do they follow the Trials... so it's only fair to assume they're not aware of what TPB is. Insulting their intelligence is pretty immature.

  • On the post: Disappointing: Mozilla Siding With Bogus EU Antitrust Action Against Microsoft

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2009 @ 08:15am

    That's no the point...

    The problem is not that they "bundle" IE with the OS. The issue at hand is that IE is so heavily integrated into the OS, i.e. Windows Explorer.

    That is the real issue. Our organization cannot use Firefox for example because our accounting system is based off of ASP, so we need several ActiveX controls that will not work in Firefox. We are LOCKED into use IE.

    That, I believe is the real issue that the EU has with Microshaft. The fact that no matter what you do, you cannot remove IE. It is used in some way, shape or form.

  • On the post: One More Reason Not To Blindly Trust What A Computer Tells You

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2009 @ 06:40am

    Ummm no.. not infallible...

    Interesting that the author writes

    "whenever we end up with various 'automated' warning systems, we tend to start believing what the systems tell us -- even when we know they're fallible."

    It's not the system that was fallible. It was a user programming error. It's humans that are fallible (despite what the Pope may believe). Computers just do what they're told. They do not make decisions without user input.

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 02:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

    1. Unemancipated minors no. Their contracts are not binding.
    2. We did progress... didn't we? We're not in the Medieval times anymore are we? Renaissance ? But then again.. that's the point that you're trying to make, isn't it... be progressive? Then we'd be stepping back into the Dark Ages again, no?
    3. The law is as it is written. That's all I have to say about that. Just because the school found the phone doesn't make them the owners of the photo on the phone. The owner of the phone and creator of the photo are the owners. Just because a police officer finds you have child porn on your computer and takes possession of your computer does not make him prosecutable.
    4. Again... this refers back to no.1. They cannot make legal binding decisions until age 18. That's it. Do I agree with it...? It doesn't matter. It's the law. Do I think it's right that kids can go off to war, like myself, at age 18 and can die for their country, but they can't drink? There's plenty of things for me to be upset about... but in the end what matters is the law.
    The fact of the matter is that CHILDREN can ruin their own lives and not realize it. There are plenty of times when parents tell kids about situations and how to get themselves out of situation. It's called advice or in better terms... being a parent. But most children choose not to follow their parents advice. They always want to find out for themselves... the hard way.
    But then when things happen, and they're in trouble, or brought someone else trouble... it's "I didn't realize" or "I didn't know". Forgive me for being a caring individual and wanting children to succeed in life... there's a reason there are rules and why they not meant to be broken.

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 01:31pm

    Re: Re: The real issue at hand...

    I'm a frightning person why? Because I care about individuals themselves? The fact that I want to see young people grow up respected and with some type of moral standards??? That makes me a frightning individual?

    I don't think you understand either...

    There's no way this case will end up with the kids stamped as Sex Offenders. It's just not going to happen. But the case does need to get followed through with so people understand that when they screw up, that there are repercussions that follow.

    To have some moral values and self-respect should not be something that's overlooked... but it appears all individuals care about in this case is "privacy" of which there isn't any. At least not at that age. Kids are and SHOULD be held accountable. I could take a childs door off its hinges and not give them privacy. Parents are REQUIRED to have two sets of clothes for children. Why don't parents do that... because they understand kids and give them privacy and some sense of belonging without being chastized by only having two outfits. But that doesn't mean children are ENTITLED to anything other than good health, good mental and physical treatment, and no absolutely no abuse.

    Obviously the two girls have no self-respect, there's some type of problem that needs to get addressed. The fact that the boys didn't go to mom and dad and say: "Hey, I think someone needs to talk to this girl... that's just not right."

    But that didn't happen, there's no sense of morality in this situation... but labeling me as frightning because I CARE? Interesting view

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 01:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

    I'm just calling it as I see it. They're CHILDREN that's that... until they're 18 they cannot make their own decisions. PERIOD. Hence contracts are NOT binding when under-age.

    Anything else?

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

    Ummm as far as I know marrying a girl and having sex at 14 is not illegal in the Middle East. But, what I'm understanding from your analogy is the following:

    We once used rocks and stones as defense, then we made spears, and moved on to Bows and arrows. Then guns...

    A progression... the world evolved... am I right? We're supposed to look further and beyond. We went from women being playthings, to wearing bathing suits that covered their whole body, to bikin's and G-strings. So, due to that worldly advance of mankind we're supposed to be OK with CHILDREN sending nude images to friends. That's completely ok with you?

    I think you need a morality injection along with a good dose of self-respect.

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: I don't think most of you all get it...

    Wow you just sound creepy there... maybe the cops need to visit your PC.

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 10:46am

    The real issue at hand...

    Ultimately it comes down to the fact that most kids dont get it. The fact that what they do, doesn't just affect them, which is very selfish thinking... it affects others. Even if others are unaware of the situation.

    Let's say your kids decide to take nude pictures of themselves, with a webcam on your computer. Those files are being shared across the internet via some Peer-to-peer file sharing program. It doesn't matter who downloads them, hell some people don't realize sometimes what they're downloading or for that matter what they're doing by running certain programs. Does this sound very pessimistic of me? No... it's just that most people don't give a crap.

    Anyways, so said picture somehow gets found on the internet by someone from the law. Well... said image gets tracked... and guess what YOUR butt is in the sling for possession of child pornography. Let's say that some kid is using his dad's computer, and pulls up that image by mistake. Well... Dad is now responsible for having his arse in a sling. Even though he may not even have known that his son pulled that image up through some P2P program.

    The fact of the matter is, this judge decided to nip the situation in the bud... that's it. The charges may seem steep, but the kids should have realized that this is greater than just their "privacy"... this is something that impacts each and every one of us.

    It should be even more disturbing that those kids were sending nude images to their friends... what kind of morals or self-respect were instilled in those kids? Not much apparently. If kids have to resort to that type of tactic to get attention, then something is missing out of their lives. I'm not talking a bible or crappy parents... I'm talking just as a generalization, it's probably many things that can make them do something like this.

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 07:36am

    Re: A sort of Streisand effect

    Sure... gotta be a teen or child porn individual there with that comment.

    There are plenty of HR recruiters and companies out there who refuse to hire individuals who behave contradictory to a company's ethical policies.

    That's ok though... keep defending your point of view. Maybe some company recruiter will look up your nicknames on whatever sites you post on... then will read this article and your comments and refuse to hire you. :)

    Enjoy!

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 07:14am

    Re: Good

    Thank god I'm not the only one that seems to have a realistic view on the matter. Reading these responses on this page it almost looks as if child porn traffickers are trying to defend the kids that they prey on... man there's some scewed individuals out there!!!

  • On the post: Teens Face Child Porn Charges… For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2009 @ 06:00am

    I don't think most of you all get it...

    The point is, that they are laying down the law on these kids because they were doing something ILLEGAL.

    It's NOT ok for someone to OWN nude images of minors PERIOD

    So, where do you draw the line? Is it the individual that received the images? Why make that individual Atlas? Why should they burden all the responsibility? Surely he knew that the girl (or boy) in that image was 18? Can ANYONE for CERTAIN tell that when they cruise a site that has nude images of YOUNG people, that they are over 17? No.

    How do you reduce the trafficking of that type of material? There's plenty of amateur videos online... can YOU tell the difference between a 17 y/o and a 18 y/o? Again, where do you draw the line?

    Just because you get some stupid kid, that sits in front of a webcam and pulls one off, saves the video to the default My Documents folder and doesn't realize that their My Documents folder is shared with Kazaa or some other P2P client.

    That kid's life is probably ruined and in no way shape or form are they relieved of their stupidity, even though they didn't INTEND for this to happen.

    But... there are plenty of minors who do things like that on PURPOSE and I believe they should be held accountable for their actions.

    Just because minors have sex before age 18, does not make it right. It's their own choice and of course it comes down to the fact that teens think they know it all but can't tell sh!t from shinola. When they reach the age when they are supposed to become independent and consider themselves adults, they won't be able to get a job because of all the stupid things they did in High School and College... it's plastered all over Facebook and MySpace.

    "But I didn't know...!!!!" will be a response when some Human Resources person tells them they won't get hired because of their incriminating behavior.

    But I guess you teens know it all anyways...

    Good on the court and their decision! Get rid of more idiots.

  • On the post: Cop Caught Slamming Cyclist To The Ground On YouTube Indicted

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2008 @ 06:10am

    And you wonder...

    Why people can't stand cops. Just recently I went back to a community college to get some night classes. It was daytime, and I'd just signed up for the new class. I was heading back to the lot which was relatively empty... I'd say like 80% empty. And traffic was just about non-existent. I got near my spot, and a girl that was parked next to me drove forward to get out of her parking space, completely ignoring the fact that she had the curb to the road in front of her along with a parking block. Tore up the bottom of her car really good. She was so embarrased when she noticed that I saw the whole thing, she sped off through the parking lot at about 20 - 30mph.

    Well, laughing a little I got into my car, and drove in the same direction as her since she drove the same route I needed to take. The way the lot is set up, it has a stop sign at every parking row entrance. I happened to be right at the parking lot entrance row, which had another stop sign. There was NO traffic around, other than an ego bruised female driver, and she was already long gone. Well, I decided skip the first stop sign, and stopped at the main road entrance stop sign. I drove through that, and started heading home. I saw that a community college cop pulled in right behind me, and I honestly thought I didn't do anything major here.

    Wrong... that bastard pulled me over and when I asked politely what I did wrong, he told me that I ran a stop sign. I asked him for some leniency as there was no traffic and I didn't see where I could have caused a major incident. All that a$$hat told me, was "Does that make it right?"

    Hell no it doesn't make it right, but I hadn't gotten a ticket in 3 years and even that one the cop confused me with another SUV that was speeding down the highway as I had my cruise control set to 75 in a 70. But I was being observant of traffic and kept safety in mind and I figured he'd come back with a warning, but I got slammed with 3 points and a $144 fine. I signed me ticket told him thank you very much and have a very Merry Christmas since he really contributed to my Christmas fund.

    I hope that arse dies from AIDS.

  • On the post: Students Dropping Out Of School To Pay RIAA Settlement Fees?

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2008 @ 01:58pm

    GREED Rules it all?

    @RD Ummm I can't recall that it's ever been ok for people to break the law. The law says and has always said that copyright infrigment will do the following:

    In the U.S., the online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to three years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to six years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.

    If you choose not the follow the law, then you are punishable to the full extent. To claim ignorance should be a double fine. People know it's bad, don't read up on the consequence of getting caught, and then say the crime doesn't fit the punishment??? I say bullhonkey! It's that inividual's fault for breaking the law that's been layed out before them. Crime doesn't fit the punishment my arse.

    Don't ever try justifying this article in any way, because it's complete malarky

  • On the post: Germany Finds Google Images A Violation Of Copyright Law

    sniperdoc ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2008 @ 12:39pm

    Re: Spreken Ze Duetsch?

    Ummm actually that comment was pretty assanine. It'd actually be better for EVERYONE if there was a way to opt OUT of having the google spiders add a site to their search. Like a keyword put into the keyword content tag of a site.

    Some people PREFER not to have their site listed on Google. Maybe they don't WANT higher traffic. There are lots of reasons why Google having a huge database of images or websites is bad for copyright.

    Google allows people to find copyrighted images or content in general and then plagiarize the content without making an effort to get the original creator's permission. Given the actual law just states that someone has to "attempt" to contact the original creator of the content. But if no contact is made, you can use that content freely. Thanks to the Orphan Act. :( Lovely little piece of legislature.

    Allowing people to opt out of Online Search Engines would alleviate a lot of lies, stealing, and cheating in the real world. For those that choose to be found... that's their own mettle. At this point... everyone has NO CHOICE.

Next >>