That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile

thatoneguy

About That One GuyTechdirt Insider




That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 17th, 2017 @ 3:11pm

    Re:

    Yeah, barring the accused from bringing up motive in their defense is a surefire way to ensure a conviction that might have been passed over otherwise. 'Why' matters, that's the reason 'self-defense' is considered a valid defense in court, because motive and circumstances can affect how an action is treated under the law.

    By stripping that defense away from the accused the system is entirely black or white, either they did do X and are guilty, or they did not do X and they are not.

  • Aug 17th, 2017 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I disagree on a fundamental level that one's freedom of speech costs others their freedoms. Substantiate your reasoning or this will be the extent of my answer to you on this point.

    It would seem one or more of us is misreading the other then, so I'll try to clarify.

    When I noted that it was in response to the 'freedom of speech is speech without consequences' line, which I half disagree with.

    I agree that the government shouldn't be handing out penalties for the exercise of one's free speech(again, barring extreme cases), but so long as the response is reasonable I do think that members of the public should feel free to impose penalties of their own, like counter-arguments or disassociating themselves from a person/group in response to something they said.

    Free speech means you can say what you like, but saying that it's only free if there's no consequences read to me as though it was saying that the public shouldn't be allowed to respond in kind, which is what I meant when I said one person's rights were being given preferential treatment over another's. If that's not what you were saying however then feel free to clarify, as it's possible we're quibbling over terminology more than stances.

    Yes, but limiting it to that invites mob justice to be the censors instead. And having been on the receiving end of mob justice, I can tell you there is no just outcome.

    Limiting it to what? People have opinions, they differ at times, and sometimes a large number of people will have opinions that differ from another person's and respond. Mob justice does tend more towards 'mob' than 'justice' to be sure, but that doesn't really invalidate the idea of multiple people disagreeing with someone and making that known, and so long as they don't go overboard while it may suck to be on the receiving end that's just how it works sometimes.

    Sure, and that's fine. Where it's not fine is [...]

    And this only covers ills on the individual level. Many more horrors have been enacted on the institutional level.

    I could go on but I'm sure you get my point by now.

    And such actions I wouldn't support and would consider going over(or way over) the line of acceptable, as those go from responding to speech with counter arguments or even insults into threats and actions that can have very real, possibly deadly consequences. 'Unless there's imminent physical harm on the horizon response should generally be limited to speech and/or choice of association' seems like a fair standard, though given I just threw it together it could likely use some fine-tuning.

    You lost me there. How in the world does speaking first deprive the rights of those who might want to respond?

    As noted above speaking first doesn't, the idea(which could very well be a misread on my part) that speaking shouldn't have consequences does, as it would limit the free speech and association rights of those that might want to respond.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 6:01pm

    Re:

    If your definition of 'freedom of speech' is along the lines of 'You can say what you want without any consequences' then we've never had it and never should, because that 'freedom' is entirely one-sided and is in fact 'protecting' the 'freedom' of one at the cost of the 'freedoms' of others.

    If you care to limit it to 'You can say what you want(barring extreme exceptions) without government consequences' then most people would probably be in agreement with that.

    If Person A says something that Person B considers stupid and/or offensive, Person B is not in any way infringing on A's free speech rights to call them out on it and/or decide that they want nothing to do with them(whether personally, as part of a group or financially). A is still free to speak, they just have to accept that doing so can have consequences socially.

    That the government can not and should not(again, barring extreme exceptions) be allowed to impose legal consequences for speech they don't like does not mean that society is or should be similarly constrained. To argue otherwise is basically saying that the person who speaks first has more rights than the people who might want to respond to them, that their right to speak and associate with who they will is more important that the rights of speech and association of those around them.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 5:14pm

    'Less money' is still vastly better than 'No money'

    Just because you made X profits last year does not mean you are owed or can expect X profits this year. Markets change, and this can result in less profits for certain parts of it even if they do everything 'right'.

    The sooner they accept this the better off they will be. Yes ditching the current model is likely to result in less profits as people who no longer have to pay them ditch them as a result, and they're stuck with only those that want what they are offering, but the alternative, sticking their heads in the sand and pretending nothing has changed is just going to result in more and more people deciding that what they're being charged is more than what they're willing to pay, going without entirely.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 3:51pm

    Enough strawmen to fill several fields

    Paraphrasing here: "Since piracy has not actually driven Hollywood bankrupt, it's not financially harmful, and they don't deserve that money anyway."

    No. Just... no.

    People are pointing out that for years the AA's and hollywood have been crying about how copyright infringement was such an insane threat that it would destroy the industry, all the while time and time and time again bringing in record profits, such that people simply stopped taking them seriously when they claimed that copyright infringement was this huge issue and a problem and continued on with what they likely feel is a harmless activity, making copies of stuff.

    You can only say the world is ending if X doesn't go away, only to have the world not end despite the fact that X is still there so many times before people stop listening to you.

    As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money"; even the most profitable content machines, like Disney, have good years and bad years, and occasionally completely awful years that get studio execs fired.

    [Citation needed], see links above for counter-examples.

    I don't think the movie industry "lost" the moral argument (at least as to the legitimacy of piracy) so much as a segment of the populace chose to completely ignore because they wanted free stuff.

    Because that particular strawman never gets old...

    Study, after study, after study have shown that those dastardly 'pirates' tend to buy more than non-pirates.

    They don't 'want free stuff', they are perfectly willing to buy, what they don't want to do is jump through a bunch of hoops, be treated like crap, pay unreasonable prices all to get a product that's demonstrably worse than the free version. Offer a service that's easy to use, convenient and at a fair price and you'll have people throwing money at you even if they could have gotten the content for free.

    I won't argue that Hollywood/MPAA have completely clean hands, or that they didn't do some foot-shooting, and I won't deny that many of the tactics they have used to fight piracy have been awful by any measure, but I don't see any inherent flaws in the idea that content piracy is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.

    Which is something most people here won't disagree with in general(despite repeated lies by certain individuals stating otherwise), the point being made is that it's going to happen regardless, so it's much better to either ignore it, try to make it work for you, or take it as an indication that a particular market is being underserved and fix that.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 2:40pm

    Re: dang...

    It's not like it would be without precedent, I mean HBO has done so in the past, so Chaturbate doing so as well was certainly within the realm of possibility.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 5:04am

    That is not how that word works. At all.

    Of course it's not being explained that way in the agency's related notice of inquiry (pdf), the proposal couched under the pretense that we're simply modernizing the way the FCC operates -- or imposing new baseline wireless standards.

    I'm pretty sure 'modernizing' something generally doesn't involve setting standards that are years out of date and hilariously backwards when compared to multiple other countries.

    Modernizing a system usually involves making it better, raising the bar of what is acceptable from what it was before, as opposed to what they are trying to do here which is lowering the bar such that the standards are in fact getting worse.

    If they're going to lie in order to yet again serve the interests of their future(and current for all intents and purposes) employers I really wish they could spend five or ten minutes coming up with better, less blatantly obvious lies, for the sake of variety if nothing else.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 4:19am

    Those weren't jokes

    I may have exaggerated slightly for comedic effect on the subject in the past, but when I've noted that unless you absolutely must physically come to the US for some business reason don't come at all I was being quite serious.

    Spend your money elsewhere, go on vacations to locations within your own country or in other countries, but for your own safety and security do not come to the US if you can avoid it.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 1:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "You know what, just hand over the computers. All of them."

    "Give us everything you have on everyone that's visited/used your site and we'll narrow it down from there" does not strike me as 'specific' in the slightest, and if that gets a pass because that's just how they've been doing it I'd say that's a sign that the standards have been slipping quite a bit over the last few years.

    How about instead the DOJ does some gorram work, finds any suspect and/or potentially illegal posts and then requests the data regarding those items, rather than grabbing everything and sorting through it at their leisure?

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 3:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hitchens razor: That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    If you're going to claim that there is video evidence of something it's on you to present the video, not dump the task on other people and tell them to keep looking until they find the video you are talking about.

    Baron found two videos. They showed something other than what you claimed. The proper response at this point is for you to present your video evidence so people can review it, not tell him to 'Keep looking'.

    Refusal to do so can and should be taken to mean that you either don't have or don't want to present the video you're talking about, and as such your claims can be dismissed out of hand until such time as you present it.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    However, judges tend to give plaintiffs a very hard time when they are chasing "does" through a third party. From what I have seen and read here and on other places (such as Popehat) it seems that the judges tend to want more than "that nasty anonymous person said something bad'.

    How is that a problem? That strikes me as 'working as intended'. If someone is asking for a legally binding order to force someone to hand over personal details stripping the anonymity from someone the bar should most certainly be higher than 'someone said something bad'.

    Demonstrate that the statement(s) rises to actual defamation, that an actual law has likely been broken and I imagine a judge would have no problem issuing an order requiring that information be handed over so they can go after the person directly.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: http://www.disruptj20.org/

    Pai is okay with people leaving comments under the names of others, so that seems fair.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 2:29am

    "You know what, just hand over the computers. All of them."

    ... I'm not the only one surprised that this didn't come with a gag-clause and suspecting that the only reason there isn't one is that someone in the DOJ forgot to include it, right?

    I'm not sure which is the worse possibility, that they are deliberately asking for everything in an attempt to make an example of the site, they actually believe that they are owed everything, or they're too lazy to narrow the focus down to only what they need and figured they'd save time by demanding everything.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Wouldn't take long, neither of those substances would be likely to spend much time gushing about how awesome american broadband is, how the companies involved are beloved by everyone who isn't a puppy-punting communist jaywalker and how the less rules that might hamper profits the better for everyone.

    The 'Advisory Panel' on the other hand...

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 3:41pm

    Re:

    As an article a few months back noted his attempt to kill the rules isn't the main event, it's the warm-up, prepping things for the next steps.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 7:11am

    Re:

    'Secretly'?

  • Aug 13th, 2017 @ 4:12pm

    Re: Re:

    It was up against the curb, or not at all.

    Ignoring that biking there would mean dealing with debris and grates as your class noted, and require darting into traffic when you encounter a vehicle or other obstacle preventing you from hugging the curb I guess, but I'm sure all of that that would be totally safe...

    They either really didn't like people on bikes or didn't spend any time at all thinking through what their position would mean.

    Your point however is well made, if you can get two different positions from two different officers, then who exactly are you supposed to listen to? Whoever happens to have the highest rank at the time?

  • Aug 13th, 2017 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: women, from a young age all the way into adulthood, are pushed away from STEM fields by men who believe that said fields are “men’s work”.

    ... seriously?

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 2:18pm

    Re:

    Because addressing the actual underlying problems takes effort, likely won't have immediate changes(or might fail entirely) and might not be as popular with some people, whereas picking a random scapegoat is quick, easy, and allows for risk-free PR.

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 1:06am

    Re: Re: 'Easy prey here'

    ... and now you've sunk to 'the case will be settled because having a lawsuit against you makes it difficult to attract female company, and that would be enough justification for me to cave so surely he will too.'

    Could you get any more ridiculous? Perhaps 'the lawsuit makes it difficult to pick a shirt in the morning or decide which cereal to eat, and this is so terrible Mike will be rushing to settle the case so he can go back to easily making decision regarding his wardrobe and breakfast choices'?

More comments from That One Guy >>