That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 9:19pm

    Two insults for the price of one

    What really gets me is that the excuses for why a given site is removing the comments section is both insult and lie at the same time. Gutting comments does not 'foster better communication' any more than cutting down a forest 'fosters appreciation of trees', so that's a lie. The insult come into play when they assume that their (hopefully ex-readers) are too stupid to realize that they are being lied to.

    "We don't care to listen to you any more, and we're firmly of the opinion that you're stupid enough to buy into the excuse that blocking you from commenting on our stories is meant to increase communication and discussion."

    They can remove the comments sections if they care to, whether because they get tired of reader comments showing how and when they're wrong, or simply because they can't be bothered to do even a bit of moderating, but when they lie about their reasons, then they need to be called out on it.

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 9:55am

    Re: Spelling?

    Well he's already brushed off the CIA torturing people as no big deal, what's ignoring a little slavery on top of that? /s

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 9:36am


    You're not thinking nearly sleazy enough.

    Delays followed by 'miscommunications', searching for the 'proper' forms and authorizations before releasing documents, claiming that what's blatantly written isn't nearly as bad as it could have been, utterly ignoring how bad it is, 'accidentally' forgetting to release certain parts until people specifically ask for them, and then dragging their feet regarding releasing those parts...

    Given the utter secrecy that has infused the 'negotiations' so far, and the overwhelming contempt they've shown towards the public and it's concerns, I fully expect that those involved will do everything in their power to continue to hide any real details from the public until it becomes a moot point, maintaining a condescending and dismissive attitude the entire time.

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 7:22am

    A natural response

    So long as there remains absolutely no penalty for sending bogus, even clearly bogus DMCA claims, this will continue. Why aim for accuracy when you're not penalized for screwing up after all? Why care if you target a few innocent sites if you aren't the one who has to deal with the consequences of your actions?

    Put some real penalties in the DMCA, penalties matching if not exceeding what those who post infringing works face if found guilty, or even simply enforce the penalties already there, and then you'll see this sort of thing stop happening. Until that happens though, the only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often.

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 7:13am

    Sounds good to me

    I mean who wouldn't want to have their legacy, the thing that they will be known for for years, decades or even longer to be 'Cares more about corporate interests than slavery'? /s

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 3:34am

    'Conflict of interest', clearly a term beyond government and police comprehension

    Seems to me you could use the same logic to drastically cut down on all other forms of crime, simply by letting those that perform the acts judge whether or not their actions are justified, and letting them choose what they want to report.

    Murders by non-cops? Simply don't happen, every last reported incident is found to be an act of self-defense by the one who committed the action.

    Assault? Not reported or justified.

    Robbery? Not reported or justified.

    Fraud? Not reported or justified.

    Arson? Not reported or justified.

    And so on.

    The FBI and police actions here are exactly the kinds of behavior that leads to loss of trust from the public. They are blatantly indifferent to the problem, and show no interest in anything more than the most transparently laughable 'solutions' that don't involve merely brushing it under the rug, and people see this. And when people see that those in charge, whether government agency or police, have no interest in holding their own accountable, it's not hard to understand why people would lose any trust towards those in charge.

  • Oct 4th, 2015 @ 9:44pm

    Re: I'm impressed! :-)

    Nah, most likely just a moment of sanity before it'll be balanced out by an even more insane ruling in favor of a ludicrous patent.

  • Oct 4th, 2015 @ 10:07am

    Because copyright

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as you claim to be doing it in the name of copyright. Extortion, censorship, gutting the public domain and sabotaging cultural growth, destroying the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'... it's all good as long as it's in the name of protecting the holy 'copyright'.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:48pm

    An honest man doesn't feel the need to remind you of that fact

    I briefly had to remind myself that this was not North Korea or Nazi Germany. This is the land of the Free."

    If someone feels the need to remind you that they're honest, what they're really telling you is that they cannot be trusted.

    If someone feels that they need to constantly remind you how awesome their customer service and/or product is, then it's because their customer service and/or product is terrible.

    And if you feel the need to remind yourself that you're living in the 'land of the free', then odds are it's because you aren't living in the 'land of the free'.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Less irresponsible or insane, just apathetic. They don't care, so long as they get people to watch. If that means handing some assholes all the fame they could ever want, then that's an acceptable price to them.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:36pm

    Once is a mistake, twice is suspicious, three times or more is on purpose

    Lipscomb & Co, as they did many times before, poorly redacted the document and exposed the defendant's name in violation of the protective order.

    Yeah, if they've 'accidentally' exposed the names of defendants before, in direct conflict with orders from the court, I'd say it's time to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're either incredibly incompetent, or doing it on purpose as part of their scam to add pressure to pay up.

    'Accidentally' revealing the defendant's name like that should be grounds for immediate dismissal of the case, with prejudice. Maybe having a few cases gutted would teach them to actually pay attention when the court tells them to not do something.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:18pm

    Not a good sign

    When they start treating even city mayors like this, you know they've reached the point where they don't believe they answer to anyone, and can do whatever they want.

    That said, I hope this happens more often, not less. Let those in positions of power get a taste of what it's like for those without the shield of position or money to protect them, maybe then they'll consider doing something about the problem(though most likely that would just entail adding laws that make them exempt from searches).

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 7:54pm

    Twisting the knife

    At this point this has nothing to do with 'protecting' their stuff, they're just making an example out of someone who can't fight back, simply because they can.

    I can't help but suspect that if he was able to fight back, by retaining a lawyer, they would be a lot less bloodthirsty, and a lot more willing to just drop the matter now that the party has been killed off. But with no lawyer, they know they can make whatever claims they want, and he has no way of knowing whether or not they're valid.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 7:05pm

    Re: citations

    Oh but I'm sure they'd be glad to set up an extor- I mean collections agency to handle that sort of thing. And if they can't or aren't interested in finding the actual photographers to give them their money, why I suppose they'd just have to keep that tiny amount of money all for themselves, what else could they do with it?

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re:

    (Hit enter too soon)

    The point being, just because it's not technically allowed under the law or constitution, don't expect them to care if they're determined enough to force the law into the books.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 9:25am


    Pretty sure US law doesn't allow retroactive law changes either, but as everyone can see, that didn't present more than a minor speedbump in them doing it anyway.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:51am


    They don't need to go that far, they'd probably be okay just blocking any and all pictures from showing up for anyone connecting from Argentina.

    And it's not like pictures are important or effective ways to convey information, so hardly anything of import would be lost. /s

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You'd be wasting your time if you were crunching the numbers for any reason other than curiosity. The ones pushing for ContentID and similar things care less about money than they do control(if for no other reason than they believe, not without reason, that control results in profits).

    Even if they were shown, flat out and with no room for mis-interpretation, that their actions were costing them more than they were gaining, so long as the 'better' solution gave them less control(and it would) they would still oppose it.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:09am

    That sounds familiar

    Life plus 70 years, where have I seen that before? Ah yes, that would be the copyright duration in several other countries, leaving me wondering if this is yet another example of a country trying to slip in changes to the law prior to a 'trade' agreement being passed, so they can lie and claim that the agreement had nothing to do with the law changing.

    Well, either that or a few palms were greased, some not insignificant amounts of 'donations' changed hands, and a few politicians are pushing the law for the ones who bought them.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:03am

    Well there's your problem...

    What tripped him up, and he really should have seen it coming, is that he foolishly thought that they wouldn't lie to him if they thought it would help them and/or they could get away with it.

    He foolishly thought that what they told him was the truth, acted accordingly, and was screwed as a result, and is now faced with the prospect of paying an insane amount if he wants his property to have an internet connection.

More comments from That One Guy >>