Stoatwblr’s Techdirt Profile


About Stoatwblr

Stoatwblr’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 17th, 2016 @ 4:33pm

    Why do adblockers exist?

    Simple: For the exact same reason antispam DNSBLs exist: Marketing is full of sociopaths who believe their rights trump everyone else's and that they're fully entitled to operate cost-shifted models (ie, you're paying for the computer CPU and bandwidth needed to download and display the ads, plus run any payloads they may contain)

    Spammers tried suing over block/boycott lists. It didn't work out so well for them and it won't work out so well if advertisers try going down the same route.

    There's a world of difference between website operators running adverts to offset costs and blindly selling space for adverts which consume excess resources on the client computer.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: Option 2: Shame

    > He already quit.

    And in all liklihood has been rehired somewhere else.

    Quitting allows bad cops to change location with no further penalties.

    Tracking him may well become difficult and should his new employers (the city, not the cops there) become aware of his history after he's hired, it may well prove nearly impossible to get rid of him until he pulls another inexcusable stunt in front of cameras.

  • Aug 16th, 2015 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CDA § 230

    "That simply allows anyone to censor literally anything they want by claiming it is defamatory."

    Firstly: Defamation claims are the one area of law where _everything_ goes topsy-turvy.

    A: You either have to prove what was uttered was true and in the public interest (in some countries even that isn't enough. Defamation is frequently upheld in many countries despite statements being provably true, on the basis that they injured public opinion of the plaintiff)


    B: prove that you didn't utter it at all. (proving a negative...)

    It's like bring in the court of the red queen.

    Secondly: Republishing defamatory material is also defamation and makes the republisher liable.

    Thirdly: The defamed is free to pick and choose who he goes after. (yes really)

    Fourthly: In most countries (including Canada), republication restarts the limitations timer and several countries have ruled that each successive web visit is a new publication.

    Fifthly: Even publishing the accusations made by the plaintiff's lawyers may count against you in court.

    Defamation actions are almost entirely about who has deeper pockets - and of course in the USA there's no concept of "loser pays", even for vexatious actions.

  • Aug 16th, 2015 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Yet again, problem is simply lawyers, the cockroaches of civilization. They'll do anything for hire.

    "The problem is SOME lawyers and SOME clients."

    It is a pity that lawyers such as yourself (I assume you're a lawyer, apologies if not) don't file more complaints with the local bar association over ambulance chasers.

    The profession is supposed to be self-policing, yet there appears to be precious little of that going on.

  • Aug 16th, 2015 @ 11:08am

    In the USA

    You're free to sue anyone over anything.

    Actually doing so may or many not be a good idea, but you're free to do so.

    You're also free to be put on a pedestal and paraded around as an asshat. Court filings are public unless sealed and once republished most judges won't bother.

  • Aug 16th, 2015 @ 11:05am

    Thanks to the Internet

    The School principal and the police officers will _never_ manager to have their names disassociated from this mess.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

    You can't go around screaming "repect my authorita" when you have none - and when you're exposed as a bully in a senior position that stigma will _never_ be undone.

  • Aug 16th, 2015 @ 8:08am


    "It seems that the standard method for eradicating from the internet all types of surreptitiously recorded content is by firing off DMCA claims aimed at all the hosting providers such as YouTube."

    Making such claims is running very close to the perjury provisions in the DMCA. I know that "big media" do an end run around that by not actually claiming copyright over the item in question but small fry won't usually be smart enough to do that.

    I'd love to see a DMCA perjury case actually hit the courts. It'd definitely be popcorn time.

  • Aug 16th, 2015 @ 8:01am


    "Remember that one of the talking heads from Rightscorp said they don't agree with the law so they will keep doing what they want until SCOTUS rules in their favor."

    It's more likely the SCOTUS would issue a permanent restraining order preventing Rightscorp, its sucessors or agents continuing the behaviour or inciting others to do so.

    One can hope anyway.

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 4:17pm

    Re: Re: "Unringing the bell..."

    "But if you exclude truth and justice from the court room, what's the point of having a court in the first place?"

    Sorry, you are confused.

    It's not a justice system. It never was a justice system.

    It's a LEGAL system. Justice only peripherally enters the frame. This is pretty much the first thing taught in Introductory Law 101

    WRT the "slanderous" statements - as far as I can tell those would be the previous judgements quoted on those sites and as such they're legally protected reports of events in a courtroom (You are immune from defamation proceedings for anything uttered in court or in parliament/congress - yes, really)

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 4:11am


    "I'm sure the Nazis considered themselves the 'Good Guys'."

    The Nazis had belt buckles inscribed with the words "God is with us"

    Hitler believed he was on a christian Mission from God - he even wrote it in the last page of Mein Kampf

    The Lord's Army is running round beheading people and kidnapping schoolgirls for forced marriages.

    The KKK believe that they're followers of "God"

    I'm sure you won't mind if I take issue with anyone who believes they can justify or excuse discriminatory or violent action on the basis of doing "god's work", no matter which "god" that may be.

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 4:06am

    Re: Re:

    "oddly enough, the ONLY union NOT to be (generally) excoriated"

    There are plenty of others. They tend to be called "Associations" though - and they're also allowed to be self-policing when their members get up to illegal stuff.

    One rule for the rich, etc.

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 4:03am

    Re: Re: Re: If the NYPD wants to eliminate crime...

    I am surprised that the original filing didn't try to go for the backups that are legally required to be taken and retained.

    It's much harder to delete those without getting federal interest in what's going on.

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 4:01am

    Re: Re: If the NYPD wants to eliminate crime...

    In the "land of the free", braves live on "reservations".

    That's all you need to know to realise the way the USA really works.

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 3:08am

    3 years is easy to achieve

    All he (or his union) had to do is keep fighting it every step of the way.

    The point being that each go-around adds a couple of months - and this has nothing to do with legal systems as it didn't go through the courts.

    By the way, the fact that he's been allowed to resign instead of being fired means that he doesn't have an official blot on his copybook which in turn means that he's likely to be able to walk into a LEO job next week. This happens regularly as there is no register of corrupt officials anywhere in the world. (The cop fired in Ferguson is already working in another police department, The county clerk fired for refusing to sign off on marriage certificates for gay couples is now working in the same position one county over. Cops allowed to resign in England for abuse of power simply sign up for another police department elsewhere in the country and carry on.)

    One of the _untapped_ powers of the Internet is that such people can now be tracked by the general public and their new employers called out on it. Of course this will never happen as anyone operating such a tracking site will be harrassed to death.

  • Aug 15th, 2015 @ 2:56am

    Re: I can't see how this is Markham's fault

    Given the gloating, it would be karma for the department to now try to recover the monies paid out.

    More to the point, this shows the power of police unions is on par with other corrupt entities such as teamsters and as such needs investigating.

    (Most unions are "good" and don't try to pull this stuff. The bad ones like this give power to those who wish to eliminate unions altogether)

    Covering for bad cops makes the cops involved bad cops too. It's clear that investigations of the entire setup are needed. Bad cops are why people don't trust police. Where else can you avoid criminal prosecution _and_ get a paid holiday _and_ get a pension to boot? not even the mafia offer that.

  • Feb 6th, 2015 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Reminds me of..

    22 years ago.

    "In 1986 TVNZ took all music shows off the air following a dispute with record companies, who were demanding payment for video clips that were becoming increasingly expensive to produce. TVNZ refused to pay to screen them on the grounds that this was ‘a form of sales promotion’. The dispute was resolved by the end of the year and the shows returned to air. "

    That "dispute was resolved" is putting it nicely.

    The record companies _begged_ TVNZ to air music videos again as sales had fallen substantially (lack of exposure, plus the record-buying public put the blame for not seeing music videos firmly on the shoulders of the music industry.)

    Several weeks before the end of the dispute, TVNZ was paid full commercial advertising rates to air Michael Jackson's "Thriller" during an ad break in the 6pm news. It was subsequently aired several more times as a paid advert.

    That's not just a surrender, it's a full scale crying of "Uncle!"

    It's worth also noting that the seed of the idea for MTV came from New Zealand -

  • Jan 6th, 2015 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Quick question

    IANAL anywhere, let alone in NY state, however:

    It's virtually impossible to have someone declared vexatious on a couple of cases, although individual cases can be declared vexatious - which normally results in the other party getting a judgement for all costs and ancilliaries.

    Once someone's declared as a vexatious litigant they have to apply for and get court clearance for anything which might possibly be remotely construed as a legal threat and such orders usually bind for 20 years.

    I've only ever seen one person declared vexatious and it effectively barred him from saying anything without court clearance. He was in court a few months later on contempt charges and the judge's ruled pretty much disembowelled him (it's amazing what a pissed off judge can order, even against a lawyer, if sufficiently irritated)

  • Jan 6th, 2015 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The IRS does whatever the hell they want, you may think they may be constrained by rules, but they don't think so."

    The judge in tax-evasion cases is an ex-tax inspector, not a lawyer and they take a very dim view of lawyer posturing in tax courts.

  • Jan 6th, 2015 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Getty's library is chock-a-block with copy fraud already

    Wouldn't Getty claiming copyright over items they do not own on that kind of scale constitute criminal copyright fraud?

    Or is it only criminal copyright fraud when the *AAs say it is?

  • Jan 6th, 2015 @ 11:54am

    Bogus registered address

    It's worth noting that the company registered address given for Guardaley is a "virtual office" provided by CloudBuy

    To the best of my knowledge, this is not legal under UK company law (nor is using a Mailboxes, etc or similar dropbox).

    It would be worthwhile getting some input from the UK's registrar of companies on the matter.

More comments from Stoatwblr >>