That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 7:18pm

    How to fix the problem in five minutes:

    'Any seized property and/or money without proper, verifiable documentation tracking who it was taken from, when it was seized, and the legal justification for the seizure shall be considered to have been acquired illegally.

    The property/funds shall be immediately transferred to a neutral third party, which shall hold on to it for a period of six months, during which members of the public may present evidence to demonstrate that they were the previous owners of a given pieces of property. Any property left unclaimed after this period has expired shall be liquidated, and the resulting funds shall be transferred in their entirety to the public defender's office, to be used to pay the legal fees of those that would otherwise be unable to do so.'

    Wouldn't be perfect(those that couldn't provide proper documentation would still be screwed, but I'm really not sure how to get around that offhand), but it would remove the NYPD's main motivation for stealing anything they can get their hands on, and provide a good motivation not to do so at the same time.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, respect is not a right. If someone puts forth a stupid idea/ideology and/or acts like a buffoon neither I nor anyone else are under any obligation to respect them or what they have presented. You can respect their right to believe something without in any sense respecting them for believing it, or respecting what they believe.

    If someone wants to be respected, then it is up to them to earn it though their words and/or actions, and I take it as a given that anyone who demands respect does not deserve it.

    (As an aside, it might help your argument that respect is a right if you weren't constantly showing none of it to anyone who you disagree with. It's rather like watching someone preaching pacifism while punching someone in the face, it kinda undermines their/your argument.)

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 3:44pm


    One has already been proposed in fact.

    Clocking in at a whopping two pages, the bill would neatly and precisely close the loophole being exploited here by making it clear that the sovereign immunity can not be used to dodge the IPR process.


    • (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703).
    • (b) ABROGATION OF IMMUNITY FOR PURPOSES OF INTERPARTES REVIEW.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe may not assert sovereign immunity as a defense in a review that is conducted under chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code.'

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 3:29pm

    Well if you're not willing to play by ALL the rules...

    Seems that if the troll wants to avoid one part of the law with regards to patents they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the other parts either. If they don't want their patents to fall under the law with regards to the IPR process then it seems only fair to say that it doesn't fall under the rest of the patent law, and is therefore immediately invalidated, as though the patent had never been granted in the first place.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 3:26pm


    Take away the 'official' channels so that the handful of people that were still naive enough to think that they would accomplish anything other than painting a target on their backs by going through the 'official channels' are faced with either keeping quiet or dumping anything directly to the public.

    That'll certainly cut down on that whistle-blower problem.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 3:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: a very old game

    On it's own, no. As soon as someone starts reading the comments...

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 3:03pm


    Wait, seriously? Please tell me you have a link for that, I could use a hearty laugh.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 2:55pm

    "... that burned down, fell over THEN sank into the swamp."

    Now, the Ars post goes on to state that there have been rumors of a 5th release of Denuvo, with an update that the company hopes will once again render the DRM software something other than completely obsolete.

    At most a new version will reset the clock even as it provides more incentive for cracking groups to see who can get Devuno's 'latest and greatest' take on DRM cracked within a week/day/hours.

    Companies can keep throwing money down the drain on a system that will be cracked in time(again), or they can work on other methods to address why some people engage in copyright infringement and try to move as many people as they can from that group to the 'paying customer' category.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 2:55pm

    "Here's the bill, here's the talking points, now get cracking."

    My guess as to why she's apparently clueless is because it's likely not 'her' bill, and she's just repeating what she was told.

    If she's just repeating the talking points that were handed to her it wouldn't be at all surprising that they would be so obviously stupid, such that she and the bill she's pushing comes out looking even worse after she tries to defend it than before.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 9:52pm

    Cutting off your nose to spite your neighbor

    In other words, if you already censor then you have to do the whole job.

    This line seems to be in contradiction with the one immediately following it.

    The Internet badly needs to continue to have uncensored forums

    If partial moderation means that sites need to engage in full moderation then you can kiss 'uncensored forums' good-bye. Sites will either engage in zero moderation(have fun with that), or institute a 'remove anything that might be problematic' mindset such that only the absolute blandest, 'not going to offend anyone'-content is allowed.

    If you object to what they do now, pause and consider how bad they'd be if moderation carried a very real risk and they had to worry about what was posted and how best to mitigate that risk.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 8:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: a very old game

    That was the best you could come up with?

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 4:44pm

    Re: Re: Mapping

    Yup, which means they are either lying through their teeth when they claim that providing that data would be impossibly expensive because they already have it, or those sites are providing false information when they claim to list what areas have service, something which might get them in a bit of hot water if it were to be confirmed.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 4:37pm

    Re: England vs. USA

    It would seem that his lawyers are employing the same 'logic' that was covered in a somewhat recent article about an East Texas judge, where if one of the parties might have possibly thought about doing business/breathing the air in a location that's good enough to fall under it's jurisdiction.

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 4:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Amendment

    Today the government actions that got the case thrown out of court are legal.

    Oh it's even worse than that, with the courts these days there would be very good odds that even if the actions in question weren't legal the government would still get a pass on 'National Security' and/or 'Good faith exception' claims.

    "Your Honor, though our agents were ultimately mistaken in their view of what the law allows, at the time they conducted the surveillance they fully believed that they were acting within the law."

    Invoke the magical words 'National Security' and I'd give such an argument a very good chance of working(hell, just look at the Playpen cases where that argument has worked multiple times).

  • Oct 19th, 2017 @ 1:06am

    Re: Re:

    Soon enough, civilian body camera's will be around enough that none of the Departments and FOP obfuscation against FOIA for video will matter very much.

    Not a problem, Spain already figured out the solution to that little issue.

  • Oct 18th, 2017 @ 8:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: How TechDirt Can Do Better

    If you are using a method of submitting comments that you know is likely to cause your comments to be caught by the spam filters(VPN, Tor), then they shouldn't need to 'alert' you at all, you should know already that your comments stand a good chance of being flagged and caught. What more do you want them do do, check every IP address pre-post before allowing you to post so they can give an additional warning?

    Regarding your 'try if from my perspective', I'd suggest doing the same thing. Picture if you will what the comment section would look like without a spam filter in place. I can tell you that the one time I saw it fail on a notable level was bad enough that I do not even want to think about how bad it would be without it in place, such that having some comments caught by the spam filter is very much the lesser of the two evils.

  • Oct 18th, 2017 @ 4:50pm

    Re: How TechDirt Can Do Better

    Unless you comment on a friday night or weekend they're generally pretty good about going through the 'Held for moderation' comments fairly quickly, so I find it kinda hard to believe that they are blackholing 'completely appropriate' comments simply because they were caught by the spam filter.

    I've seen the kinds of comments that make it through moderation, so you'll excuse me if I'm hesitant to accept the 'my completely appropriate comments were completely blocked' claim simply on your word.

  • Oct 18th, 2017 @ 4:10pm

    "So you don't know where you offer service? I'm sure the public would LOVE to know that."

    Such proposals would impose enormous costs on fixed broadband providers without providing any real benefit to the Commission or the public.

    With respect to the Form 477, the Commission should avoid collecting data that is so detailed or voluminous that it is expensive for providers to produce, difficult for the Commission to process, or unhelpful to the public.

    Being able to pull up information as to whether or not they are able to offer service at a given location is kinda necessary for them to be able to tell people that might be moving there whether or not they can actually offer service, so either they are admitting that they regularly lie when it comes to that, or they are claiming that it would be prohibitively expensive to offer information they already have.

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 10:29pm


    You know what they (should) say: 'Anything goes so long as you claim it's being done in the name of Copyright'.

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 5:03pm

    "... yes, but the /fear/ of crime is rising."

    It's easy to just make up excuses for why the data doesn't match a preconceived notion, why don't we stick to verifiable facts? If you want to say that crime is actually going up despite the numbers saying otherwise, then it becomes effectively impossible to get a verifiable number at all, and it devolves into nothing more than gut feelings(which are useless).

    The numbers could be higher, they could be lower, who knows. Perhaps even more crimes went unreported in the past, such that even with large numbers of unreported crimes now the numbers are still lower? Once you open that particular can of worms involving unverifiable factors you might as well toss the data out entirely and just state from the outset that it's nothing more than a matter of opinion what the crime rates actually are.

More comments from That One Guy >>