That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 12:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, the 'science and useful arts' the law talks about are the ones available to everyone, not just individual rightsholders. Were it otherwise you could just as easily meet the requirement of the law by having literally eternal copyright, rather than the effectively eternal copyright currently in place, since the copyright owner would have the monopoly privilege for their entire life and under the warped version of copyright that would still count as 'enriching science and the useful arts'.

    Given that the goal is to enrich the public, with the method being the limited time monopoly privilege, it follows that what's protected by copyright for the (utterly theoretical at this point) 'limited time' enters the public domain for others to use and build off of once the duration is over with. The public has their ability to do certain things constrained by the law for a set period of time, and in exchange once that period is over they get their half of the deal.

    Not only that but if it was determined that no copyright at all was more beneficial to the public it would absolutely be within the scope of the law to reduce copyright duration to something like a five years, one, or even nothing at all.

  • Aug 27th, 2016 @ 12:37am


    Hmm, I had thought that maybe just gutting the pictures and offering the gutted version to french users might be enough, but given how insanely stupid this law is I doubt that would be enough to appease the idiots and parasites who put it into place and stand to benefit from it.

    So yeah, sounds like it's time for those sites to start blocking all users from france, followed immediately by the parasites and politicians(but I repeat myself...) throwing fits about how their blatant cash-grab still applies because people in france can still possibly access the sites.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 5:51pm

    (untitled comment)

    Even the comments to the Slate piece are filled with IT folks screaming about what a bad idea this is.

    Well, only one way to respond to that: Shut down the comments and claim that they're doing so because they care so much about their readers that they want to dump them elsewhere.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 4:02pm

    Protecting your rights... after we steal them from you

    When an image is published online, the reproduction right and the right of communication to the public of this image shall be transferred to one or more collecting societies appointed by the French government.

    I was wondering if they'd gone the 'irrevocable right to be paid' route that Spain did, but reading that it looks like they actually went even farther, and claim that the (theoretical) owners of the rights to the pictures are, like it or not, forced to hand over the reproduction rights to the collection agencies so that said agencies can collect the fees whether the (theoretical) owners want them to or not.

    Nothing says 'respect for the rights of creators' quite like taking those rights away and using them to profit at the creator's expense.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 3:20pm

    "It's never worked before, but this time, THIS TIME it will work for sure!"

    If France does follow through and a collection society actually goes after Google, it does make me wonder if Google might pull out the nuclear option yet again and shut down Google Images in France as it did with Google News in Spain, when the Spanish government passed a similar tax on news aggregation.

    'Please go nuclear' is not generally a phrase you would expect to see very often, but in this case if they are stupid enough to try and shake down Google for having images in their service I hope Google does the same here as they did in Spain, and responds by shutting down the service, maybe with a nice little message pointing to the french government as the cause.

    Chalk it up to another case of parasites demanding money for the work of others, lying about how they're just so very concerned about creators and want to make sure that they're appropriately rewarded for their creations.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 3:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

    No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.

    Yeah, no, not buying the 'But that's the old testament!' argument. Same god, and depending on your particular brand of chrisitity it might even be the same person since some sects believe that Jesus wasn't actually a separate entity but just god made flesh, so the idea that the OT acts/commands are somehow superseded is a real stretch(was god a horrible monster and mellowed out over time? Is Jesus actually more powerful than god and able to make new dictates that overrule the old ones?).

    If you don't want to own up to the OT and the acts committed in it then great, throw it out, but so long as it's part of the religion you don't get to act like the OT stuff never happened, or wasn't filled to the brim with bloodshed and butchery 'because Jesus!'

    37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

    Which leaves open a gigantic loophole, namely 'What happens if the master you love to much orders you to do something that isn't very neighborly'? Like say, sacrificing your son, killing anyone who worships other gods, or something along those lines?

    You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.

    Because it absolutely does command and justify violence in abundance, and I don't really see Jesus as much better, as it's in the NT that you get the idea of eternal punishment.

    In the OT, horrible as it was, dead was dead pretty much, that was the 'punishment' for making god mad, you got slaughtered(or given boils, or buried alive, or any other number of things). NT though you get the idea that if you get god mad and don't kiss up before death then you're going to spend eternity paying for it, which is if anything even worse than the OT atrocities.

    Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
    10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    . If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does
    not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen

    Boy, that sure makes this next part awkward now doesn't it?

    Luke, 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:15pm


    If so it didn't actually appear to do them any good.

    In the article that mentioned their optimization of the site the defense pointed out that despite drastically speeding it up, and massively increasing the viewing and downloading of child porn the number of people they'd charged was no higher than the number they had info for the same day they took control of the site/servers, meaning it didn't appear that they gained anything they didn't already have from running the site and making it run better for two weeks.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

    You may have missed it but the bible is chock full of 'God's chosen people' being punished by god for screwing up in one fashion or another, and as such it wouldn't be that difficult for a zealot to say that the jews had screwed up so badly that they were no longer 'god's chosen people', and/or that whatever is being done to them is their punishment this time around, because as 'god's chosen people' clearly if god wanted to prevent what was being done to them he could and would, meaning if he doesn't then he wants it to happen.

    Make other arguments if you want, but 'Hitler did terrible things to the jews and therefore couldn't be a christian' isn't really one supported by your book.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Dirty, thieving libraries!

    I really, really wish I couldn't think of several examples offhand that make it pretty clear that there are more than a few people and even companies who actually, honestly believe that...

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

    Yeah, funny thing but that 'master race' thing was also religiously motivated, as Hitler believed that the mixing of races was creating abominations and that only the true race was pleasing and 'in god's image'.

    From Mein Kampf:

    "The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."


    "A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."


    "That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"

    As for the whole 'Darwinism' line below about how Darwinism somehow supports actions like his, no, it really doesn't. First of all 'Darwinist/Darwinism' as a term makes absolutely no freaking sense(if you believe in relativity does that make you an 'Einsteinian'? Does accepting the gravity make you a 'Newtonian'?). It's the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, to explain the fact of evolution and how it works in general. Darwin may have been one of the big names that got the ball rolling, but it's advanced quite a bit since his time, so get your terminology right and stop using such laughable projectionist terms.

    On to the second half, evolutionary theory has nothing about should, only about is. 'This is what has happened and this is how it happened', it has nothing to say about 'this is what should happen'. People can run with it from there to commit all sorts of acts, some nice, some not so nice, but that has nothing to do with evolution theory itself, and if you'd like to say otherwise I could easily point to a good number of passages in your holy book that actually are 'should' passages that command some really horrible acts, so be careful before throwing those stones.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 10:57am


    Didn't you know, that's exactly what happens!

    Innovation doesn't actually occur when someone comes up with a new idea(or a re-hash of an old one), develops it and puts it into practice, no the moment of innovation only occurs once a patent on the idea/process is approved. If the patent application is approved then in that very moment something amazing was created, a new idea takes form and can be used to enrich the lives of everyone(but mostly the patent owner or whoever they sell it to). On the other hand if the patent is rejected then *poof*, no innovation.

    That's why absolutely not one single thing was ever invented before the patent system was introduced, because no patents equals no innovation and invention.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 10:45am

    "Hmm, no."

    Instead of paying the library should refuse the 'offer', and instead make it abundantly clear to the public just how far the company is willing to go to try to strong-arm people into paying them.

    "They took an archive that was free for the public to access, an archive that we helped them create in order to preserve the historical documents and allow people to more easily access them, and because we refused to pay for something we'd helped create they took down the free version and are now demanding that we pay out the nose for the paid version, an amount that would eat up a majority of our operating budget and leaving almost nothing for anything else.

    As a matter of principle we have decided that we will not cave in to their demands, and while we regret that this will mean that we can no longer offer the archives to the public, we feel that the alternative, putting a toll-booth between the public and their own history, history that we had helped archive, would not be in the public's best interests and would set the wrong precedent.

    Again, we apologize for the change. And any comments on our decision can be directed to our offices during the following hours, while any complaints should be directed to the offices of Newsbank."

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Now here's the million dollar question: Is that the goal, or the method of copyright law?

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 1:40am


    Yeah, given the rest of their 'shenanigans' I wouldn't count the fines as paid until it's been cleared by the bank for at least a week or two, and double, triple, and quadruple checked.

    Of course if they did actually manage to con some idiot insurance company to cover them well, sucks to be them, maybe they'll do a little research on who they're insuring next time, ideally before they sign the deal.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:30am

    Not far enough!

    Someone might slip past the cameras somehow, via a disguise or switching vehicles under an overhang, so you need something that can accurately track the people. As such members of the public* should be required to carry tracking devices on their bodies at all times so that any time a crime occurs you can know instantly who was where, and therefore drastically narrow down the suspects and/or track anyone who flees the scene of a crime.

    It goes without saying of course that removal of the tracking device, switching your assigned device with someone else, or blocking the signal in any way would be treated as a crime worse than any other on the books in order to ensure that people would rather face any other charge rather than the charge for removing the tracking device.

    Since this system would only ever be used against criminals, and would never be abused, the only people who would ever object to it are criminals, or those with criminal intent! As such they should be the first to be fitted with the tracking devices, because after all, 'If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide'!

    *Naturally law enforcement, politicians, and those with large enough personal wealth will be exempt from this requirement to avoid even the possibility of someone using the system to track their movements for nefarious purposes such as kidnapping, blackmail or stalking. Again, the system would never be abused for such purposes, the exemption will be purely as a completely redundant safety measure.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 11:58pm

    "For the Fatherla- I mean National Security!"

    "We will have to get used to increased security measures, such as longer queues, stricter checks or personal entry cards. This is tedious, uncomfortable and costs time but I don't think it's a limitation of personal freedom," he said.

    Good to hear, in that case I propose that the first buildings these security measures are installed in are government ones. If terrorists want to make a statement a government target is a pretty obvious one I'd think, as such clearly the first people that should be 'protected' by those measures are the politicians.

    I've no doubt that in the name of security the various politicians will have absolutely no problem being run through metal detectors, pat-downs, required to carry and present identification at numerous checkpoints around and inside the government offices, and be tracked via camera and RFID chips built in to their required identification everywhere they go within and near the buildings.

    It's for security after all, who could possibly object to that?

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollander

    Regarding the draft weren't women banned from the military during tha period when it happened? pretty sure that lack of men for available jobs is why women got to work and how Rosie the riveter came about and the start of feminism. pretty sure if there was a draft now it would b different.

    They might have been banned previously, I'd have to do some digging to find out for sure, but at the moment as far as wikipedia notes were a draft instated then no, women would not be required to register like men are.

    'On April 27, 2016, the House Armed Services Committee voted to add an amendment[ to the pending "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017" to extend the authority for draft registration to women. On May 12, 2016, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to add a similar provision to its version of the bill. If the bill including this provision is enacted into law, it would authorize (but not require) the President to order young women as well as young men to register with the Selective Service System.'

    Fo the first point, race is a protected class and ladies night is to ge more men into th bar, cause more ladies equals more dudes rather than discrimination. A better example would be women's only gyms. That one is weird.

    Yeah, I'm just not sure about it at the moment. I get where you're coming from, it's not meant so much discriminatory so much as a business decision to bring more of both genders in, it's just the idea of preferential treatment to any group that has me leery.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: 'You first'

    Oh I'm fully aware it's more wishful thinking than anything on my part, those that tend to push for these type of bills are almost always gigantic hypocrites who also believe that their privacy is of vital importance and absolutely not to be infringed, despite their completely indifference if not outright hostility towards the privacy of everyone else.

    My comment was along the lines of 'this is how it should be', where those pushing for a law are the first to experience it themselves, rather than being completely immune, as I imagine were the legal system that way a lot less stupid and/or unjust laws like this one would be proposed or passed.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 11:55am

    Can anyone say 'Conflict of interest'?

    The idea that the same agency should handle both offense and defense is beyond absurd, and a recipe for disaster from the get-go. Each vulnerability found and patched by the defense team is a vulnerability that the offensive team can't use, so it's a given that whichever gets higher priority(offense in this case) is going to be calling the shots.

    It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the 'defensive' half had basically just been re-purposed into finding and then reporting vulnerabilities to the offensive side, rather than fixing those vulnerabilities, given it's pretty obvious at this point that the only security the NSA cares about is their own, meaning the more vulnerabilities in other systems the better from their point of view.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 11:51am


    Now see, that's just not fair trying to use the NSA's 'mission statement' to score funniest comment of the week. How are the rest of us suppose to compete with that?

More comments from That One Guy >>