Toom1275’s Techdirt Profile


About Toom1275

Toom1275’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 23rd, 2017 @ 6:03am

    (untitled comment)

    He'll be fine.
    He already has the judge's signature on file, all he needs is to paste it into a "case dismissed" picture and he's free to go.

  • Sep 21st, 2017 @ 9:05am

    (untitled comment)

    Broadband for America and AT$T are certainly high on the "has motive" list, after their bogus "67% of comments favor repealing Title II" analysis of the comments (that excluded human-written comments in favor of the bots that posted with stolen credentials).

  • Sep 20th, 2017 @ 10:42am


    Except for the "houses must be connected to the grid even when completely unnecceary" part.

  • Sep 20th, 2017 @ 6:36am

    (untitled comment)

    I mean, technically the citizens have already paid for the software, so there's no reason to not let them access it.

  • Sep 19th, 2017 @ 7:32pm

    (untitled comment)

    "one or more cartridges are missing or damaged" is a blatantly false statement.

    Isn't intentionally making false statements to someone in order to dupe them into decisions that enrich you also known as fraud?

  • Sep 19th, 2017 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Success! (and confirming that the anonymous sur-reply is, indeed, me)

  • Sep 19th, 2017 @ 6:43pm


    "anonymous coward"
    I really wish my phone would stop randomly logging me out of things I clicked "remember me" on.

  • Sep 15th, 2017 @ 5:15am

    (untitled comment)

    So the MAFIAA is dropping the pretense that they're not like any other cartel?

  • Sep 14th, 2017 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re:

    You mean like how after the corrupt Lamar Smith's sham accusations against NOAA fell apart, a group of partisan hacks called Judicial Watch tried to grab the scientists' emails in his stead, only to be rightly beaten down in court?
    You're quite right, only somebody incomprehensibly stupid would believe that the demand for emails was ever for a valid purpose.

  • Sep 14th, 2017 @ 10:29am

    (untitled comment)

    And if Google has had this much trouble trying to insert itself into the internet access market, imagine the difficulty faced by a startup trying to do the same thing.

  • Sep 11th, 2017 @ 5:04pm

    Re: Discuss

    Lol, some ass in Ars's comments apparently isn't a Techdirt fan:

    (my comment linking this article to the thread:)

    Toom1275 wrote:
    Techdirt has a relevant analysis: ... dmca.shtml

    (their response:)

    There is precisely zero analysis in that link. The closest they come is saying "it definitely would appear to be fair use". That's not analysis, it's an assertion. They link to a single analysis that, wrongly, treats all videos with commentary at equal, and claim it as a majority opinion. The linked opinion also overstates a case that I happen to be connected to personally, so I wouldn't very my first born in the validity of it, were I you.

    You'll get better "analysis" from the commentors I disagree with in this thread than you will reading that piece. Calling that analysis is an affront to the very word.

  • Sep 11th, 2017 @ 1:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    Digital Millennium Censorship Act

  • Sep 11th, 2017 @ 7:05am

    (untitled comment)

    Vermont should have used Comcast's tactic of including an arbitratiin clause in the contract.

  • Sep 7th, 2017 @ 9:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's pretty much what the jusge said too. At the stage of litigation Ayyadurai's case died at, the judge is pretty much required to pretend that the plaintiff's claims are 100% truthful. Even under such conditions, there was no merit to be found.

  • Sep 7th, 2017 @ 7:44am

    (untitled comment)

    The definition of insanity is making the same bullshit anti-NN (but I repeat myself) arguments time after time and expecting the result to be different this time.

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 4:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    Pages 19-21 seem to contain, in my not-a-lawyer opinion, the most important part of the judge's reasoning:

    "The articles at issue provide all of the relevant fact on which defendants rely in reaching the conclusion that plaintiff's claim is false."


    "Not every article at issue fully explains the factual basis for the conclusion that plaintiff's claim is false. However, the articles that do not provide a full explanation refer to, and often provide hyperlinks to, the articles that do. Furthermore, as plaintiff has recognized, the articles should be viewed together and are each relevant context for the others."


    "By providing the full factual basis for his opinion, the articles cannot reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the author had information about plaintiff's claim that was not accessible to others."


    "Furthermore, and significantly, it appears that the core underlying facts are not disputed."


    "In addition, plaintiff has not challenged the accuracy of the factual statements relied upon in reaching the conclusion that his claim is false.


    "Thus, while the complaint challenges the conclusions drawn from the available facts, it does not challenge the underlying facts themselves."


    "In short, the articles disclose the non-defamatory facts on which they rely; make clear that the conclusions drawn from those facts are simply an interpretation of them; and do not rely on other, undisclosed and potentially defamatory facts that are not available to others."


    "Furthermore, by providing hyperlinks to the relevant information, the articles enable readers to review the underlying information for themselves and reach their own conclusions. See Riley, 292 F.3d at 289. Accordingly, the statements are not actionable. [bold added]

    [end of quotations]

    That part, I think, establishes that nothing published on Techdirt was defamatory in the first place.

    And even if Ayyadurai were to try to prop up his proposed appeal by shoveling in lies about the factual sources Mike's articles were based on, it would do nothing to change the situation. This ruling clearly reiterates that merely providing one's conclusions based off of disclosed facts regardless of how much hyperbolic language is used to do so, is not defamation. Ayyadurai would have to attempt to argue that not only are a few decades of factual record from multiple independent and unbiased sources false, but he would also have to prove that Mike knew his sources were false when he wrote the articles and decided to use them anyway. While Ayyadurai may believe any history of email he hasn't wormed his way into is false, a reasonable and knowledgeable person would not, and I don't see one scintilla of evidence that Mike was thinking "well these guys are total liars but I'll quote them in my articles because fuck Shiva." And no, Shiva, your hallucinations about Mike's motivations don't count as evidence.

    On a final note, the judge's statement that "a settlement is not a direct reflection of the merits of a claim" is something that bears repeating often, not just in this case, or even just for defamation cases, but also in copyright/patent/porn trolling cases as well.

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 2:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    Who could have predicted that weaving a defamation case entirely out of blatantly misrepresenting both fact and law would could possibly fail? It boggles some minds.

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 2:36pm

    (untitled comment)


    If only this decision had arrived a couple weeks earlier, it would have made a fine 20th birthday present for Techdirt.

  • Sep 6th, 2017 @ 6:20am

    (untitled comment)

    A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.

    "What sort of people live in the next town?" asked the stranger.

    "What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.

    "They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I'm happy to be leaving the scoundrels."

    "Is that so?" replied the old farmer. "Well, I'm afraid that you'll find the same sort in the next town.

    Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.

    Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. "What sort of people live in the next town?" he asked.

    "What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer once again.

    "They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I'm sorry to be leaving them."

    "Fear not," said the farmer. "You'll find the same sort in the next town."

    The moral of the story: If you come into Techdirt's comment section and try to claim that you're the only smart one and that all the rest of us are the stupid ones for not being lying racists... then perhaps some self-reflection is needed.

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Public road, no "right to privacy"

    Or post-hoc justification of unprovoked murder.

    "The dude we shot used the interstate every day so *obviously* he was trafficking drugs, which he must have picked up as he passed through the 'bad' neighborhoods to reach where he 'worked' in the inner city."

More comments from Toom1275 >>