Sneeje 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (572) comment rss

  • On the post: UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: It's getting old.

    Actually, no. Infringement is a tort and in limited cases is criminal.

    And, don't be disingenuous--you know that infringement is subjective enough that all that is required here is for the subject of the statement to be concerned about some form of threatening behavior from the other.

  • On the post: UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2011 @ 09:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes

    Good grief Bengie, you sound like a thoughtful individual, but you need to scrutinize your fundamental assertions.

    For example, "artists need to eat" - this statement assumes that artists cannot make enough money to eat without copyright. Some points to consider:
    1. Copyright does not guarantee income, people can use their money for what they wish
    2. Artists can make money without copyright and often do (e.g. fashion industry).
    3. Artists have made money since artists became a profession without copyright.
    4. Many artists today make their money in ways other than through their art.
    5. Income or $ generated through the enforcement of copyright more often benefits market actors other than the artist
    6. Economics and income generation in free markets are based on the ability to compete, something demonstrably possibly without copyright; copyright can both support this and also hinder this--artists cannot have it both ways--they cannot lean on copyright to prevent others from infringing unless they themselves are willing to actively avoid infringing on others.

  • On the post: UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2011 @ 07:52am

    Other examples of that statement:

    The male population is an important part of the US political system, and they regularly report concerns with women being able to vote.

    The law enforcement is an important part of the US's ability to keep its populace safe, and they regularly report the Bill of Rights as a serious problem.

  • On the post: Are Entertainment Industry Profits More Important Than Civil Rights?

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2011 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    that should be "fine with BLOCKING speech that participates in..." Sorry.

  • On the post: Are Entertainment Industry Profits More Important Than Civil Rights?

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2011 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re:

    I think you missed an important part of my point. You keep asserting that the only speech that is blocked is that "participating in or benefiting from" illegal acts and the rest of your response flows from this premise. However, I think I've definitively shown that isn't the only speech getting blocked and not by a large margin.

    I grant that free speech is not unlimited, however, those limits are extremely narrow. And I'm quite frankly fine with speech that participates in or benefits from illegal acts. But I have a HUGE problem with speech getting blocked as collateral damage or speech getting blocked in situations where the question of illegality is even somewhat in question (i.e., ICE seizures).

    Matters of copyright are very complex, the law is not settled, and it differs from state to state and country to country. Regardless of individual opinions about the behavior of those involved in the ICE seizures, I don't see how they can be classified as not "somewhat in question".

  • On the post: Are Entertainment Industry Profits More Important Than Civil Rights?

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2011 @ 07:55am

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

    Okay, so you now grant that some speech is blocked--you just don't believe that anyone should be concerned about the speech that gets blocked.

    False DCMA notices never block valuable speech, injunctions never affect valuable speech, etc.

    I think the others in the thread believe that ANY speech, that is not obviously infringing is worthy of protection. I do as well--any other position allows for too much variation and the likely inclusion of even extremely worthy speech.

  • On the post: Are Entertainment Industry Profits More Important Than Civil Rights?

    Sneeje ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2011 @ 07:33am

    "What legitimate free speech has been stopped (aside from chats or blog entries on infringing sites?)"

    Let's break this down a bit. If we accept that no legitimate speech has been blocked, then we must also accept that every single DCMA takedown, every single domain seizure, and every single injunction that prevented the release of an allegedly infringing item was absolutely and without question, correct.

    That to me seems to fail on its face--it cannot possibly be true given that the definitions of infringing are not discrete and that the processes to achieve the above ends allow for discretion.

    So, if we then conclude that SOME speech was blocked--the argument cannot be that no speech was blocked, but how concerned are we about the speech that is blocked and just how much it is blocked.

  • On the post: FCC Asked For Declaratory Ruling That BART Shutting Off Mobile Phone Service Was Illegal

    Sneeje ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird...

    The problem is that once you *do* provide a service (regardless of what it is), how you manage that service is subject to normal constitutional protections.

    They can't say, "well we've decided we won't allow african americans to use our service that we don't really need to offer anyway."

    That's where the problem lies. If they want to shut it off because they feel the service is more trouble than it is worth, they can do that. But if they choose to shut it off during a legal protest--that's another thing entirely.

  • On the post: Stop The Scourge Of Illegal 'Downwriting'

    Sneeje ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2011 @ 05:12am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You can have *gravy* in a casserole?!? Why wasn't I informed? Too many years of boring, unappetizing casseroles just wasted... sigh.

  • On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either

    Sneeje ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2011 @ 07:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...

    Ummmm... have you been reading the other comments in this post?

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 10:20am

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

    I see your point.

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 09:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Actually....

    Ha! Some people may disagree, but while you do require air to live, I don't think you require cellular reception. I'm not sure we can equate the two.

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 09:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well even that is an interesting question, since disabling comments would not prevent them--there are nearly infinite avenues on the internet to comment on a web-based article. And, choosing to offer the chance to openly comment via a blog would be an optional service.

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 09:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Completely agree, but their action would only hinder communication among the protesters, not "stop" them.

    The more I think about it, the more I think this isn't an issue of preventing free speech, but possibly one of preventing assembly. The hard part is whether "hindering" is sufficient to make a claim, particularly when the service-provided is entirely at the discretion of the government and when the service was removed indiscriminately (i.e., not targeted at specific people, but at all people).

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 09:05am

    Re: Re:

    But the example you gave isn't the same. Shutting down one specific expression of free speech (your example of shutting down a website) vs shutting down a single mechanism for future speech.

    What they did was still incredibly bone-headed and should not be allowed, but I fail to see how we can all claim a free-speech violation. Now, I think a better argument would be an abridgement of right to assembly.

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 09:00am

    Re: Re:

    But they don't have to facilitate it either. If a government entity decides to start a blog, but disables comments, are they "preventing speech"?

  • On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law

    Sneeje ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2011 @ 08:57am

    Re: Re:

    I really don't want to agree with the real AC, but I'm not sure the 1st amendment argument is so clear, quote from the stupid BART official aside.

    They were suppressing a service they provide that does not exclusively facilitate protected forms of speech. What isn't so clear to me is where the line is that says they can or cannot remove or decline to provide services that are "nice to haves". Having cellular service underground is a great benefit or competitive advantage, but it is not a mandate.

  • On the post: When Even Dilbert Is Making Fun Of The Absurdity Of The Patent System…

    Sneeje ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2011 @ 09:07am

    Re:

    Ummmm... let's just look at that statement: "any time Dilbert cartoons make fun of something, it needs to get fixed?"

    I would really love for you to point out where Mike extrapolated his use of Dilbert to all 'somethings' and where he concluded the patent system needed to be fixed simply *because* it was in a Dilbert cartoon.

    And, by the way, in the process of making your completely hyperbolic statement are you dismissing the role of cartoons in social and political commentary?

  • On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement

    Sneeje ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2011 @ 04:16pm

    Re: Re: Infringing as defined by...

    You're right, I could have read the article, but part of my point (ok, the part I'm making now) is that the criteria is going to be defined by them and will likely not take any sane or reasonable factors into account. For example, a take down != infringement.

  • On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement

    Sneeje ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2011 @ 02:37pm

    Infringing as defined by...

    I'm sure it won't be a challenge to apply the criteria for "infringement" while taking into account global differences in copyright law...

Next >>