That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile

thatoneguy

About That One GuyTechdirt Insider




That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 8:03am

    Re: Rights

    Of course, because as they like to remind people they're the 'good guys', and since the 'good guys' are always right, clearly anything that makes their jobs harder is to be removed or ignored as being 'bad'.

    Of course the above is only for the 'good' cops, the real scum go into the job to indulge their power-fantasies, and for them anything that keeps them from believing that they can do whatever they want clearly needs to be removed, as it takes all the fun out of the job.

    /poe

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Statutory fines for fraudulent copyright claims, matching the fines for copyright infringement? Sounds good to me, even more so imagining the screaming that would result from the companies throwing fits that they actually have to start caring about accuracy, and can no longer just automate everything and not give a damn if innocent people and sites get hit.

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 7:46am

    (untitled comment)

    If the local police don't like it that sounds like a pretty solid endorsement for it to me.

    The 'lethal weapons' clause, 5.1, could be fixed easily enough simply by striking out 'lethal', such that it prohibits any drone mounted weapons, rather that just lethal ones. If someone wants to play around with weaponized drones they can join the army, otherwise they can do without.

    The rest of it looks fairly solid, though the 'Exigent circumstances' clause, 4.1, seems rather open to abuse, given how easy it would be to argue that every call presents 'imminent danger to life or bodily harm'. A nice modification to that would be a requirement post-event to submit a justification for the need of the drone's deployment, with any gathered or resulting evidence barred from use if the justification was found to be too weak. Not perfect, but it would at least do something regarding the large loophole.

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 6:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They should have reported it as involved with copyright infringement, that would have led to it being taken down the same day the report was filed. Phishing though? Eh, they'll get around to it eventually.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 5:05pm

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

    And of course you continue to defend the fraud. At least you're consistent on that, even if you're hypocritical about it in general.

    As for the emotional argument, you mean like 'Won't someone think of the poor starving artists?', or 'Piracy will destroy music as we know it'? I don't care how old the fan is, what matters is that they were punished for doing something the actual creator said that they could by a fraud, with help from a company filled with incompetent fools.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 4:33pm

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

    Filing a fraudulent copyright claim against one of his fans, forcing them to either take it down or fight it and risk their account, yeah, sounds like attacking his fans to me.

    As for the hypocrisy, all I'll say is that you're projecting again.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re: Oh patent office, when will you ever NOT screw up?

    I read it as two claims, one for items the customer can download, one for items that need to be shipped. Even if it was just talking about items that can be both downloaded and shipped(CD's/movies), it still talking about online shipping, albeit a narrow part of it.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 3:59pm

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

    Again with the "rake in", this money doesn't, for the large part, exist.

    And yet frauds continue to claim songs by other people, so clearly they're getting something out of it, though I suppose some of it could just be losers trying to make themselves feel important and powerful by abusing the system.

    But, if say someone pulled this off with say Gangam style at it's height, I would have pissed myself. I think we all would. (not you though)

    So fraud, theft, and forcing someone to fight to reclaim the ownership of their own property = funny, got it.

    Why does it have to be a 'multitude' of songs? You always ramp it up for effect. It's annoying.

    Well hey, if someone fraudulently claiming ownership over one song is funny, doing it to several should be downright hilarious, no?

    If you must know I'm largely against this sort of shit, a lot of my friends are musicians.

    So you're against it, except when it's funny, in which case you're not, glad that's cleared up.

    But mostly here it's the hypocrisy of the boy.

    And again with this tired line, there's nothing hypocritical in his reaction to what happened. He said people were free to share or use his works, someone committed fraud by lying and claiming to own his works, screwed him out of any monetization for the song(s) in question, attacked one of his fans, and forced him to spend time and effort fixing the mess.

    Hypocritical would be, oh I dunno, him claiming to be against such fraud and then committing it against someone else, or voicing support for someone else who did.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 5:04am

    It's not for the sake of the trolls

    The responses ideally aren't actually aimed at the trolls, given that's a complete waste of time and effort, rather they're aimed at those that might read what they wrote and not realize the glaring holes or inconsistencies in their arguments.

    They can also be used as 'practice' I suppose you could say, giving people the opportunities to work out their counter-arguments on easy targets, so they're better prepared to argue their position when someone actually looking for a discussion comes along.

    I will agree on stripping out the insanely long subject lines though, handy as they are to be able to instantly spot when Blue's shown up again.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 3:48am

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

    And at last you reveal your true position, took you long enough. Admiration and support for a fraud and liar, says everything I need to know about you.

    Just out of morbid curiosity to see if your position is at least consistent, I'll repeat a previous question of mine.

    Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?

    So, consistent slime, or hypocritical one, which will it be?

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 2:50am

    Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?

    No one deletes or orders the deletion of exonerating evidence, so yes, if they wanted the videos deleted that badly, odds are they feared what they would show.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 1:29am

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

    "If you have recorded your music or have music you own the legal rights too, then you are well on the way to being able to use our service."

    And the fraud met neither condition. They didn't record the music, and they didn't own the legal rights to it, so we can add Horus' terms as ones they failed to meet as well.

    Again, it baffles the mind why you continue to insist on defending a fraud, someone who claimed ownership of someone else's music and used it against both the original artist and one of his fans. It doesn't matter how much money was involved, it wouldn't matter if the issue was resolved an hour after it was discovered, you are still defending someone who abused the system, made fraudulent claims, and harmed both creator and fan as a result.

  • Aug 27th, 2015 @ 12:41am

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

    Incorrect, registering something with ContentID absolutely is making a claim of ownership for it. Doing so requires that you assert that you own what you are trying to claim, and not only that, but you have exclusive rights to it.

    Who can use Content ID?

    YouTube only grants Content ID to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.

    Qualifying for Content ID

    Content ID acceptance is based on an evaluation of each applicant's actual need for the tools. Applicants must be able to provide evidence of the copyrighted content for which they control exclusive rights.

    Content ID will match a user's reference content against every upload to YouTube. Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. Common examples of items that may not be exclusive to individuals include:

    -mashups, “best of”s, compilations, and remixes of other works
    -video gameplay, software visuals, trailers
    -unlicensed music and video
    -music or video that was licensed, but without exclusivity
    -recordings of performances (including concerts, events, speeches, shows)

    If accepted to use the Content ID tools, applicants will be required to complete an agreement explicitly stating that only content with exclusive rights can be used as references. Additionally, accepted applicants will need to provide the geographic locations of exclusive ownership, if not worldwide.


    Sources:
    How ContentID works
    Qualifying for ContentID

    The sleazebag in the story not only didn't own the copyright for the works that they claimed to own, even assuming for the sake of argument that Dan Bull's 'You can use my works freely' constituted an implied license for use and distribution(which seems to be the case as I understand it), it was never an exclusive one, which means the fraud failed both of the requirements listed to register something under ContentID.

    That you continue to defend blatant fraud is odd to say the least. Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?

    Sure you might say that the labels have not given a 'Use our works as you see fit' implied license, but Dan Bull never gave out a 'Claim ownership of my works' implied license either, so what's the difference? In either case someone is claiming ownership of something that isn't theirs and reaping the rewards from their fraudulent claims.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 10:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thats what will happen in the 'world without copyright' that people want, this is what it means to have no protection. In a laissez faire capitalist world with no copyright law, musicians will have to stand back and watch as others sell their music.

    That a handful of people want, mostly because the current copyright setup has shown itself to be so broken that they've become disgusted by the very idea of copyright, and no, even then it wouldn't be similar to what happened here.

    With no copyright, anyone could sell any music, this is true, but it takes copyright, or a similar system to force the original creator to pay up for his/her own works. With no control, there's no way to restrict control by others(in the same way you can't claim ownership over a public domain work and bar others from using it), so this situation actually required copyright, it wasn't showing what would happen without it.

    I'm not saying Dan is the victim I'm saying he's a crybaby, he's played the 'give it all away' card for so long and when it bites him on the bum cos some fool takes him at his word (and ballsack72 or whatever is a fool) he goes crying to Mike about it.

    Like I noted before, this is a bogus argument. "You can use and/or share my stuff" does not, under any reasonable interpretation mean or imply "You can claim ownership over my stuff and shake down me and others who have used it."

    He wasn't put in this position because 'some fool takes him at his word', given he never said that the ownership of his works was up for grabs, merely the use of them, he was put in this position because a fraud decided to try and claim ownership over his stuff and abuse said fraudulent ownership to claim money he didn't deserve, and punish another YT user for doing what Dan said he could.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 9:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I love how you're defending blatant fraud, as if the sleazebag that tried to claim ownership of the songs was the victim, and Dan Bull is somehow the 'villain' here.

    Not caring if other people share his work is leagues away from getting upset when someone comes along claiming that they own it, and charging him for hosting it.

    If someone makes it clear that people are welcome to take their creations and share them, change them, or modify them, that does not mean that someone is allowed to come along, claim that they own the work(s) in question, and then try and shake down the original creator and anyone else who happens to have used/hosted/shared the work(s).

    "I don't care if you share or use my stuff" does not, in any reasonable or even sane interpretation, even begin to include or imply "I don't care if you claim to own my stuff and charge me for it."

    This is a blatant case of copyfraud, and Dan Bull is most certainly not the one who committed it.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 7:03pm

    Re: Re:

    So long as other countries/government continue to act as though they have to obey when the USG tells them to do something, the USG will continue to operate under the idea that US laws do apply globally, no matter how ridiculous this may be.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 4:16pm

    Not surprising

    If anything, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often, given the risk/reward involved.

    Risk:
    None whatsoever. At most you might have to say 'Oh, sorry, my mistake'.

    Reward:
    Whatever money and/or mayhem you can grab and/or cause before you get caught.

    With absolutely zero penalty even if you get caught, why would someone with an abundance of greed or malice not claim everything they can, and get as much money, or cause as much damage, as they can?

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 3:58pm

    Oh patent office, when will you ever NOT screw up?

    12. A method for distributing products over the Internet, comprising:

    displaying a login screen on a video monitor that allows a user to enter an unique identifier for accessing database information;

    confirming the validity of the entered unique identifier; and

    displaying a shopping list that lists items for purchase as selected by said user, the listed items being in digital format suitable for downloading to a user's computer connected to the Internet and being in other media format suitable for shipping to said user.


    Online shopping.

    This claim is describing online shopping, the ability to purchase something online and either download it directly or have it shipped to you. But of course since it involves a computer, the idiots in the patent office thought it was 'innovative' enough to warrant a patent. And of course given how insanely broken the system is(especially in patent troll heaven, East Texas), it really does't matter how stupid a patent is, it will still be used as a tool for extortion against companies who can't or won't fight back.

    Ah what great innovation and progress the US patent system drives... /s

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 3:37pm

    Re: Nothing new

    I voted funny before I realized you might actually be serious. Please tell me you're not serious.

  • Aug 26th, 2015 @ 8:12am

    Always strive for redundancy in back-ups

    'TVEyes helps promote the free exchange of ideas, and its archiving feature aids that purpose.'

    ...

    'Allowing them also to download unlimited clips to keep forever and distribute freely may be an attractive feature but it is not essential. Downloading also is not sufficiently related to the functions that make TVEyes valuable to the public, and poses undue danger to content-owners' copyrights.'


    I can't help but think that the court undercuts their own argument here. If TVEyes archiving and saving something is serving the public by ensuring that footage isn't lost, then would it not be even better if as many people as possible also had copies, should something happen to TVEyes' archives?

    If a file is only backed up in one place, and something happens to it, then that's it, the file is gone. If multiple people have copies though, there are much better odds that what was 'lost' can be recovered if needed.

More comments from That One Guy >>