Techdirt is off for Memorial Day. We'll be back with regularly scheduled posting tomorrow!Hide

That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile

thatoneguy

About That One GuyTechdirt Insider




That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • May 28th, 2016 @ 2:43pm

    In spite of the law rather than because of it

    I don't care what kind of moronic reason some idiot comes up with, fan art, fan fiction, fan films have never been considered "fair use". The reason most rights holders don't press it is because they don't consider them a serious threat.

    I've seen that claim put forward before, and the funny thing is that it's not actually a pro-copyright argument when you think about it.

    Massive amounts of creativity, ranging from very similar to the source material to wildly different, and under that reading of the law(which may very well be 'correct' in that it matches what the law says) most if not all of it is in violation of the law.

    Given the entire purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public by having more works created, that it can be read to make vast amounts of creativity flat out illegal is not an argument against fan creations, it's an argument against the law, and a strong indicator that it needs to be updated so that it better serves it's stated purpose of serving the public.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Stop wasting time

    In a very real sense that's how it is in practice, if perhaps not on paper just yet.

    Government agency* does something that they shouldn't, gets caught, and receives a stern talking to about not doing it again.

    They do it again, and then some.

    Agency gets a really stern talking to this time around, with several wagged fingers to express the displeasure of those dealing with them and an extra stern warning that no, really, stop doing that.

    Agency enjoys a hearty laugh and does it again.

    Politicians/Tools pretending to be judges, about to deliver a super-extra stern warning remember that they utterly lack any spine required to hold the agency accountable, and rather than admit that they just change the law so that what wasn't allowed before is now legal, making it retroactive while they're at it so that now they don't have to face the fact that they don't actually have any power over those they thought they were providing oversight for.

    Now that the thrill of breaking the rules is no longer there the agency immediately starts looking for more rules to break, and the cycle starts anew.

    (Of course the above is actually the best case scenario these days, usually they don't even get a warning, instead getting a 'Oh, looks like those laws are in your way, let's just get rid of those shall we?' from the tools that are supposed to be keeping them in check.)

    *Pick one, they're pretty much all the same at this point as far as this sort of thing goes.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 2:38pm

    Re:

    Glorious. Tries to duck out of paying court fees and instead leaves himself wide open to discovery which may make said court fees look like loose change in comparison.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 1:51pm

    "The light is better over here."

    Sure they could go after the actual infringers, collecting evidence, going to court, presenting their evidence and getting a favorable verdict if the evidence is strong enough, but that takes work, time and money they'd really rather not spend. Easier by far to go after the tool and anyone who so much as mentions it, as the number of targets in that case is drastically smaller and the costs comparatively tiny.

    Going after the tool also has the not-so-coincidental side-effect of killing off potential competition, as a tool that can be used for infringement can also be used for perfectly legitimate content/distribution that isn't controlled by them, so killing off the tool is a win-win all around.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 1:45pm

    Re:

    1. Companies can already hire third-parties to do file DMCA claims on their behalf, and courts already accept bot-filed DMCA claims as valid so there pretty much already exists a way to anonymously file DMCA claims.

    2. Unlike claims made against 'minor' accounts I can guarantee that any claims against a large company actually receives human scrutiny, so the only people that would really get screwed over by something like that are the same people that already get screwed over, the smaller accounts and individuals, the larger ones wouldn't even notice.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 12:36pm

    Stop wasting time

    At this point they might as well just add a 'secret interpretation' that makes it so that no government agency is required to follow or be bound by any law that they themselves don't agree with. It's heading that way anyway, why waste time pretending otherwise?

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 12:34pm

    Re:

    Please, the gestapo of old could only dream of the kind of powers and abilities that agencies like the NSA and FBI enjoy.

  • May 27th, 2016 @ 11:30am

    Surprising

    At this point I imagine it's only a matter of time until they declare a 'state of emergency' because the previous 'state of emergency' is almost over with, and if the government loses any of it's power then clearly the entire world will end and the sun will go supernova.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 7:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.

    Number 1 through 3 is great for you, but if you can advance those 3 by causing those things on others, then it is perfectly natural for you to do it in the world of Darwin.

    So long as you ignore the 'empathy' and 'compassion' bits maybe, and assuming I was a particularly stupid sociopath who hadn't caught on that humans are social animals and someone excluded for acting contrary to the well-being of those around them isn't going to be very well off.

    Again you assume sociopathic motivations of everyone other than you. Are you really so blinded by your beliefs that the only possible value you can see in others is due to your religion? Is the idea that life and well-being of others is important not because of what they can do for you but because suffering is bad and other people matter just a foreign concept to you? You've already admitted that you don't put much worth on being good as it's not important in the slightest without belief, and your comment certainly don't give the impression that you consider others to be of much value either outside of what little value your book assigns them.

    If that is really how you see the world I hope you never lose your faith, not for your sake but for the sake of everyone around you, as I imagine you would turn into an absolute monster if you did, as unlike me you don't seem to value others beyond what they can do for you, continually claiming that without a god anything is acceptable so long as you can get away with it.

    Had you been born in another time and place you might believe completely differently. That is the problem with taking your morals from society.

    You're right, I might have believed that killing unbelievers or unruly children was a good thing, enslaving anyone not in my tribe was perfectly fine, or that the brutal murder of infants was a just action. Someone with a book like yours really shouldn't be tossing the 'If you lived in a different time and place you might think differently' stone.

    Is that really the best you can do? 'If you lived elsewhere/when you might hold different beliefs'? Yes, quite possibly, but I could just as easily say the same as you, does that mean your beliefs can be brushed aside as well?

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.

    'Plainly states'... yeah, not really. There are numerous lines throughout the book that deal with what it takes to 'be saved'/make it into heaven, ranging from 'Do good' to 'Believe the right thing' and many others, all with various denominations following the various 'paths to salvation' and insisting that theirs is the 'correct' interpretation.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 6:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.

    Ah, but unlike you I do have a basis for my morality, and it's not one that can change overnight should one third-party change their mind. I'm not the one that would have to accept murder as moral just because someone else claimed it was in order to be logically consistent.

    I've mentioned the edges in several comments, but in more simple terms some of the core ideas are:

    1. Life is generally preferable to death.
    2. Health is preferable to sickness.
    3. I don't care to suffer, and my sense of empathy and compassion means I don't like to see other people suffer or cause them to do so.
    4. If I wouldn't want it to happen to me I should neither do it to someone else, or promote it doing so.

    Very simple concept that I'm guessing pretty much everyone can agree on, and I base my morality on taking them and applying them to the world and people around me.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.

    So how good a person is doesn't matter so long as they don't accept your master as theirs, good to know.

    Not a 'works and deeds' brand christian then I take it, which brings up the question as to why you're trying to claim that those that don't share your beliefs have no reason to be good/moral, as though you have the high ground there. I mean if it doesn't matter what you do so long as you convert and ask forgiveness before death, if being a good person is meaningless if you aren't also a convert, then what reason do you have to be a decent person? You've already been 'saved' after all, what does it matter if you're good to those around you or a total jerk, worst case you can just ask for forgiveness of your master later and be forgiven.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 6:23pm

    Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.

    So you seem to assume that everyone but you is a sociopath. That's... interesting. Dead wrong, and an assumption that brings into question how you would act should you ever lose your faith, but certainly interesting.

    Those who base their 'morals' on divine command are the ones who's 'morals' can shift on a whim(literally), those of us that base our morals on more solid ground aren't 'making it up as we go', we start with basic principles and work from there, it's really not that difficult so long as you're not looking at things through a sociopathic, short-term-only lens.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 6:12pm

    Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.

    Reminds me of a quote:

    The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. – Penn Jillette

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 6:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change

    Yeah, you keep trying to claim that if you don't have religion you can't have morals, missing the fact that by claiming divine command as your source of morality you lack any moral ground to argue from. Obedience to authority does not morality make, but it most certainly does open you up to some pretty nasty things depending on your 'authority' of choice.

    As I noted in another comment by getting your morals from a 'god' your beliefs would require you to accept that if your deity of choice said tomorrow that murder, rape and kicking old ladies was now moral and good that this would be true. That those actions would indeed be moral because your source of 'morality' said they were.

    Contrast this to a system where what is good and bad is not determined by what one person says, but by the reasons behind it. Where murder is seen and treated as wrong not because someone says it is but because people realize that death sucks, and if you don't want to be murdered it's in your best interest not to live in a society that allows murder. If you don't want to be a slave it's in your best interest not to live in a society that allows it and so on.

    I wish more evolutionists would be honest about their world view and just admit morals shift with the wind.

    Coming from someone who has tried to excuse both slavery and the brutal murder of infants so far, and who would be forced to accept that something like murder can absolutely be moral so long as your god of choice says it is, that's just a little rich.

    As for morals 'shifting like the wind', that's your shtick, not that of 'evolutionists'(a term that makes as much sense as calling someone who believes in relativity an 'Einsteinien', especially given there are plenty of religious individuals who also accept evolution). Morals based upon things like 'Life is generally good, death is generally bad' and 'Suffering is to be avoided when possible' are pretty solid, and not likely to change as the core ideas behind them aren't likely to change any time soon in any society that values life and well-being.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Remember all - "Innocent until proven guilty"

    Yes and no. Do I want them to get a fair trial? Absolutely, and not just because it makes any appeals a lot more difficult to fight against and overturn on some minor technicality, but because everyone, from scum to saint deserves a fair trial in court or the very concept of 'justice' goes out the window.

    At the same time do I want to see them crash and burn for all the actions they have demonstrably done, from lying in court to extortion masquerading as 'copyright protection'? You bet so long as it's done legally, and really with how much evidence there should be for the FBI to work with they would have to really screw this one up to fail to nail the three of them to the proverbial wall.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 4:30pm

    Re: Re: It always amazes me how non-believers pretend to know the bible.

    Atheists are sure your wrong.

    Depends on the atheist and depends on the claim made. You can say 'I don't believe you' without saying 'I believe you're wrong', so a more accurate statement would probably be something along the lines of 'By definition no atheist believes the claim of the existence of a deity of any sort, and some of them will go a step farther and claim that no such thing exists.'

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 1:31pm

    "Sing my praises or you're next."

    They could be duped, or it could be that they got the message the lawsuit is meant to carry, 'Make me mad and I will crush you' and decided to make ti clear that they are 100% behind him and no need to sue them into the ground, they'd never say the 'wrong' thing.

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change

    Today slavery isn't ok, yesterday it was. Your world view allows for all kinds of horrors.

    Not so, because if you have a reason for why something isn't acceptable that's not likely to change from day to day. Murder for example isn't considered wrong because some dude in the sky said it was, it's considered wrong because it causes serious harm and people don't want to die, hence it's in their best interest to create a society where killing is considered wrong.

    On the other hand if you get your 'morals' from said dude in the sky then you have to accept that if tomorrow they declare 'Rape, murder, kicking old ladies... all that stuff I said was wrong yesterday is perfectly moral from today onward' then all of that is now moral and right.

    (And if your counter-argument is anything along the lines of 'My god wouldn't do that', the list of 'sins' that were to result in execution listed in your book are too numerous to list, and if it can be ordered once it can be ordered again, unless I suppose you care to argue that your god was wrong the first time and only learned otherwise later on.)

  • May 26th, 2016 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change

    Blatantly false(have you not read the book or are you just 'lying for jesus'?).

    Hebrew servants were to be set free after seven years, and even then there was a trick that would allow them to be enslaved for life(Exodus 21:2-6)[1]. Non-hebrew slaves were just that, slaves, considered property that could be beaten to death so long as it took them a few days to die(Exodus 21:20-21)[2], and able to be sold and passed down as any other form of property(Leviticus 25:44-46)[3].

    You might be able to get away with this kind of slavery apologetics with some people, but some of us have actually read the book and know what it actually says, not what you want it to say.

    Quick refresher on the verses in question:
    [1]
    21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
    21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
    21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
    21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
    21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

    [2]
    21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
    21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

    [3]
    25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
    25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
    25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

More comments from That One Guy >>