Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324)

• On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2021 @ 10:07am

  As a Wisconsinite...

  Can we please add a theme park exception to this bill? I really would like more theme parks in my state, even if it is run by Google or Facebook!

• On the post: Law Enforcement Officer Openly Admits He's Playing Copyrighted Music To Prevent Citizen's Recording From Being Uploaded To YouTube

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2021 @ 10:20pm

  Re: Re: Who says ASCAP can win when there's no prior case law?

  Ah, I can see the future Techdirt headline now:
  Judge Gives Recording Industry an Undeserved Loss: Cop Playing Taylor Swift to DMCA Recording of Him Protected under Qualified Immunity You know that the law is super messed up when I can fathom a world where Techdirt says the RIAA losing a potential copyright lawsuit is the wrong result...

• On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Ubisoft Makes Its Own Game Unplayable By Shutting Down DRM Server

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2021 @ 10:10pm

  Re:

  But you wouldn't steal a server that's no longer online, would you?

• On the post: Supreme Court Says Patent Review Judges Are Unconstitutional, But It Can Be Fixed If USPTO Director Can Overrule Their Decisions

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2021 @ 10:44pm

  As ironic as it is, this... messy patent ruling from SCOTUS has the potential to help overturn bad copyright law as well. The newly passed CASE Act would likely suffer the same fate with regards to members of the copyright claims board. This is even clearer than this case: This one panel in a non-judicial branch of government acts as judge, jury, and executioner of copyright claims in one fell swoop. Their decisions are final and virtually unappealable. What was stated before has been made clearer with this SCOTUS decision: This arrangement makes the CASE Act unconstitutional.

  Of course, there is the potential that this could backfire, given the logic of the majority that ANY presidential appointment confirmed by the senate could save the panel of pseudo-judges. There was a bill floated around a few years ago that would turn the registrar of copyrights into such an appointment. If this bill was re-introduced and passed, the registrar of copyright could be proposed to fill the same role as the patent office director here. Let's hope that won't happen, but given the copyright maximalists whispering in the ear of Congress, I don't exactly have high hopes that they could let this bad law go.

  But as it stands currently, this SCOTUS decision makes it all but certain that the CASE Act is unconstitutional. Of course, we'd need a live case or controversy to make that happen, which won't happen until someone decides to contest the judgment of the copyright claims board in an actual court of law. Until then, all we can do is speculate and hope.

• On the post: Congressman Nadler Throws The World's Worst Slumber Party In Order To Destroy The Internet

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2021 @ 11:42am

  Congress: We need you to fight IP theft and be small!

  For instance, how does it make sense for Congress to think that big tech should potentially be liable for intellectual property rights violations by people who use their platforms unless they actively police it, and yet simultaneously criticize them for being so big they need to be broken up into smaller entities that can't possibly meet all of their new proposed demands? Answer: it doesn't make any sense at all.

  FTFY.

  Between this big tech copyright paradox and using section 230 as a cudgel against big tech to stop the "censorship" they're supposedly experiencing, the end result is the destruction of the internet as we know it! Congress needs to think twice before they attempt to "break up" big tech or limit liability protections websites enjoy.

• On the post: Babies & Bathwater: WSJ OpEd Suggests Banning Cryptocurrency Entirely To Stop Ransomware

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 26 May, 2021 @ 01:30pm

  I see one tiny flaw in this plan on "banning cryptocurrency to stop ransomware attacks". Namely, ransomware creators could care less about the law. Operating ransomware is already illegal, but that doesn't stop cybercriminals from creating and spreading this kind of malware.

  And what will happen when ransomware attacks the average citizen, encrypts all their data, and the criminals demand payment only in some type of cryptocurrency in exchange for the decryption key? Sure, there's no guarantee that the crooks will play by their own rules, but this isn't your own data we're talking about. While security firm Sophos recommends NOT paying the ransom, they don't say you shouldn't pay it under any circumstances. After all, when it's your data on the line, and you know you don't have backups of what's been encrypted, you're SOL without paying the ransom.

  But under this proposed solution, the victims are left with no recourse. The cybercriminals could care less about the legality (or lack thereof) of cryptocurrencies, but now you have to figure out how to secure something illegal for yourself just to get your data back. What's the solution to their predicament, then? Wait for law enforcement to track down the cybercriminals and recover the decryption keys? What if one of the encrypted documents is time-sensitive and they need to get the data back ASAP? The victim shouldn't just be treated as if they're ever only pipeline workers and government agencies. This is why I'm also against a blanket ban of paying a ransom demanded from ransomware.

  Like so many issues discussed on Techdirt, these issues are nuanced and complex, and they shouldn't be treated with patchwork, one-size-fits-all solutions. I'm not saying this to defend the makers of ransomware; I'm saying this to defend all of the victims of ransomware attacks, both large and small. And that's without even looking at, as this article points out, all of the legitimate reasons to use cryptocurrency. Some forms of ransomware may rely on cryptocurrency to function, but cryptocurrency doesn't depend on the existence of ransomware. It's time to start targeting the right problem and not make boogeymen out of things you don't understand because some criminals can use it nefariously.

• On the post: New Jersey State Legislators Think They Can Get Trump Back On Facebook By Passing A Stupid Social Media Moderation Bill

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 17 May, 2021 @ 11:12am

  Republicans got it wrong, AGAIN!

  the faulty assumption that social media services go out of their way to bury posts from politicians "they" don't agree with

  As someone who voted for Biden (can't say I like his copyright maximalist stance, nor did I support him in the primaries), how come I was bombarded with Trump ads on social media and only saw a handful of Biden ads? Either the AI in the algorithm can't tell that I'm politically liberal, anti-Trump, both, etc., or conservatives are dead wrong about social media companies wanting to control the narrative against them. Granted, this was (obviously) before January 6th, but still...

• On the post: Bad Section 230 Bills Come From Both Sides Of The Aisle: Schakowsky/Castor Bill Would Be A Disaster For The Open Internet

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 12 May, 2021 @ 04:06pm

  Hell, someone should turn this around and push it back on Congress first. Hey, Congress, can you restate the US civil and criminal code such that it is "clear, easily understood, and written in plain and concise language?" How about we try that first before demanding that private companies be forced to do the same for their ever changing policies as well?

  Way to steal my joke!

  In all seriousness, I do not doubt that Techdirt would fall under the definition of a "social media site" in this bill. I'd be concerned that every other troll and copyright maximalist that is flagged and/or caught by the spam filter would then have a cause of action against Techdirt.

  But beyond that, the fact that the rules would be enforced by the FTC is also concerning. The FTC defines a website under a different law (COPPA) to include individual YouTube channels and not just YouTube itself. Under this law, would any YouTuber that moderates their comment section (i.e., EVERY YouTuber), would that open the door to pointless litigation between commenters and YouTubers under this law? I could be wrong, but I normally wouldn't think COPPA affected individual YouTube channels until the FTC said otherwise.

  Another question worth asking the sponsors of this bill is... Can the FTC even handle this? A lot of anti-section 230 arguments make more sense as pro-Net neutrality arguments. Yet, when the FCC got rid of net neutrality in 2017, one common argument I've seen from defenders of the repeal is that the FTC would be able to handle the complaints about net neutrality instead of the FCC. Yet, even before it was voted on, the FTC came out and said they couldn't handle such enforcement. And considering that it's a much taller order to police websites as opposed to internet service providers, I doubt the FTC would be able to handle this, either.

  And to answer your question about what problem it solves, it appears that at this point, Section 230 is a problem simply because it's a problem. Until we address what it is we're even trying to do, we shouldn't be trying to reform section 230 in every which way possible. Regardless of how some conservatives and even a few liberals might say, Section 230 is working well, and as the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

• On the post: Disgraced Yale Law Professor Now Defending Anti-Vaxxers In Court With His Nonsense Section 230 Ideas

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 11 May, 2021 @ 11:59am

  Man, what a title!

  For a second, I thought I stumbled onto a parody of Techdirt by that title. It takes a very special person to make anti-vaxxers spreading misinformation on Facebook to NOT be the WORST bad guy(s) in the story!

• On the post: Wired's Big 230 Piece Has A Narrative To Tell

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 07 May, 2021 @ 01:01pm

  A recurring theme here at Techdirt

  Cathy Gellis hits the nail on the head in her tweet above, not just for this section 230 piece, but also for Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal, copyright law reform proposed by Thom Tillis, Article 17 implementations in the EU, etc.:

  …remember that there are plenty of credible voices [they] ignored or mischaracterized.

• On the post: Not This Again: Facebook Threatens To Sue Guy Who Registered 'DontUseInstagram.com'

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2021 @ 10:51am

  Re: Don't think that's true

  Unless you have evidence otherwise, I don't think Instagram installs malware. It defies common sense. What social media site is going to install malware on the devices of their userbase? Doesn't sound like a way of winning new users over. You also claim:

  Signing up/using instagram gives them carte blanche in the TCs to install whatever the hell adware/malware they feel like.

  Assuming "TCs" refers to "Terms and Conditions", I looked into Instagram's terms of service. There is no reference to malware in the current terms of service. But in an earlier revision from 2017, the word malware only appears once:

  You must not interfere or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, including by transmitting any worms, viruses, spyware, malware or any other code of a destructive or disruptive nature. You may not inject content or code or otherwise alter or interfere with the way any Instagram page is rendered or displayed in a user's browser or device.

  This states that YOU agree not to use Instagram to spread malware or use it to interfere with Instagram. It's NOT saying that Instagram is going to install malware and you can't interfere with that installation. Unless you have evidence I'm not seeing, I don't think Instagram is installing malware.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2021 @ 01:38pm

  Techdirt's spam filter

  One of my comments last week triggered the spam filter. That was the first time that happened to me! I don't know why, but I was surprised at how fast it got approved. I just don't get why people complain about filters affecting THEIR content in one breath and insisting sites do more to stop "illegal" and "infringing" content in another.

• On the post: Washington State Votes To Kill Law That Restricted Community Broadband

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2021 @ 08:26am

  [Entrenched broadband providers have] also spent countless dollars spreading a lot of nonsense and bile about how community broadband is "socialism"...

  I could see arguments for why community broadband could be socialism. I could also see arguments why it's not socialism. But even if it is socialism, that's a problem because why?

• On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: NASA Footage Taken Down By YouTube Moderation (2012)

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Apr, 2021 @ 06:44pm

  Re: Filter-inception!

  The fact that we are seriously considering if we need a Content ID-like system for Content ID itself just to stop false flags of public domain material shows that filters simply don't work.

• On the post: Activision Forces Online Check DRM Into New Game, Which Gets Cracked In One Day

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 30 Mar, 2021 @ 10:09pm

  Re: Re: Don't worry yourself about wasted effort. It's not!

  Let's look at each of your "claims" one by one. You say that this game's online CHECK was just a decoy, and it will really start sending IP Addresses and other personal information stored on the device. For that claim, you cite checks notes absolutely NO SOURCE. You're already off to a good start there. Before you say inside information, remember you said this later:

  Now, do I have actual inside info? No...

  So you've already discredited yourself. And even if that's true, imagine the PR nightmare such a DRM scheme would cause. It would make the Sony Rootkit scandal look tame in comparison. In Sony's case, all their rootkit did was open a security vulnerability on the listener's PC. But here, the game developer is essentially siphoning information off of a player's PC all because they didn't purchase an authorized copy of the game. Pirate or not, no game should ship with code that allows private data from a player's computer to be sent to the game publisher or some other third party. That's looking closer and closer to malware territory than actual DRM. But with no evidence this is the case, I'll move on from this "argument". Interestingly, the next thing you point to is the CASE Act. You're essentially admitting that the CASE Act was NEVER about enabling a small claims alternative for "smaller creators" to enforce their rights, but rather to make it even easier to establish corporate copyright trolling entities and even harder to dismantle them, especially in the case of a default judgment. Does Congress even know that this was your true intent? And you're wrong about how this would go down if Activision went down this route:
  Step 1 - Gather a list of individuals who are pirating your game.
  Step 2 - Sue as many individuals as possible under the CASE Act.
  Step 3 - Experience the backlash of fans (even paying ones) for going after people who dare defeat their DRM and/or pirate the game, creating a PR disaster and potential boycott.
  Step 4 - Profit????? This was done already by the music industry, and this was the result. After a few years, the RIAA abandoned the practice. You really think a different industry will be able to succeed this time without a PR disaster because a new small claims board was set up to enforce copyright? All that does is change the venue in which the legal claims are brought while ignoring the reasons going after individuals for file sharing was a bad idea in the first place. Oh, and the CASE Act will have NO effect on piracy. Could it make a handful of pirates pay damages to copyright holders? Maybe. But those that want to pirate will still pirate. And you're ignoring the fact that bypassing/removing DRM doesn't always mean piracy. What happens in, say, 20 years, when Activision shuts down the DRM servers because virtually no one is playing that game anymore, and legitimate owners of the game have no recourse to continue playing, even in offline mode, without bypassing DRM? Do you know who will be unaffected by such a move by Activision? PIRATES. In closing, thank you to the mighty Techdirt, who allows people (like me) to flag comments such as yours!

• On the post: Netflix Starts Cracking Down On The Diabolical Menace Of Password Sharing

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2021 @ 01:30pm

  Don't forget that Netflix is also now a part of the MPAA. Maybe that could have something to do with this crackdown? After all, many other members are against password sharing. And that's not to mention that they want everyone to never pirate and pay for every movie they want to own and every single streaming service that has something they want to watch. And pay for their Internet connection to watch said streaming sites. And their phone bill. And their electricity. And their water bill. And their rent. And groceries. And anything else they need to support a family. And probably more. And put some money in savings. And have an in case of an immediate emergency fund. And pay for gifts and other things they might want to buy. All while working a minimum wage job.

  Tell me: Who has the ability to pay for all that under those circumstances? That's why piracy exists. Not because they're too lazy to go to the store. Not because they don't want to support the filmmakers/artists/creators of the content they consume. And not because they just want to get content for free. It's because if there was no piracy, they wouldn't consume the content at all. Period. So maybe ask them if they would rather have those who share passwords move over to a torrent site instead, and see how quickly they change their views.

• On the post: Oh The Culture You'll Cancel, Thanks To The Ninth Circuit And Copyright

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2021 @ 08:56pm

  Re:

  I'm sorry to tell you that South Park already owns the rights to "trying and failing to come up with a 100% original idea"...

• On the post: Oh The Culture You'll Cancel, Thanks To The Ninth Circuit And Copyright

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2021 @ 05:19pm

  This case isn't just another bad fair use ruling...

  (Apologies for this super-long comment... I thought Techdirt wouldn't be publishing an article about this case anymore, and I've been thinking about this case a lot since the ruling first came down.)

  This case is proof that copyright lasts too long and is too restrictive. Mind you, under the original copyright term in the US, Oh, The Places You'll Go would be in the public domain right now. And so would a lot of the culture we grew up with and then some. But thanks to the lobbying of copyright maximalists, all this culture is locked away until well beyond our lifetime. And with the right to prepare derivative works encompassing nearly anything that is based on an existing copyrighted work, the only resemblance we have for reasonable copyright law is the fair use doctrine.

  But the problem with that is that fair use was never meant to carry such a heavy burden. Imagine if culture from the early 2000s back were public domain right now. We could build upon works in ways that aren't currently possible without permission. But because it's going to be protected for years to come, if we are going to build on existing culture still copyrighted, it has to be permitted under fair use. And under the 9th circuit's narrow view of the fair use doctrine (which is now sadly precedential), it's hard to imagine what could be allowed under fair use if it isn't something listed in the preamble or a parody. This is significantly affecting what kinds of new works can be created.

  And this ruling is already having a chilling effect on me... I'm a vidder, and while I'm convinced any of my fanvid's visual elements would likely be fine under fair use, under the 9th circuit's logic, the use of the song would be infringing. For that reason, I'm not sure I'll be creating or posting any more fanvids anytime soon. I've often described vidding as a sort of mutual transformation under the law in terms of copyright and fair use. By that, I mean the visuals transform the audio, and vice versa. The 9th circuit's ruling suggests to me that the visuals could be seen as transformative by the song used, but the use of the song would be infringing without permission. Good luck finding a publisher willing to license synchronization rights to you when the visuals aren't cleared. And not to mention the price range is likely out of reach for the average vidder.

  I suppose that you could always write an original song specifically for a fanvid. But 1, no one would likely watch it, 2, not every vidder is a musician, and 3, I doubt many musicians would want to write a song simply for a fanvid of other copyrighted material. Not necessarily because it's infringing, but because it could tarnish any sense of "professionalism" and "seriousness" in their craft as musicians. At least that's why I, also as a musician, don't like pairing up my original music on a fanvid.

  Before some copyright maximalist says, "So what? Copyright is meant to be incentivizing ORIGINAL creativity. Your use of existing works isn't original enough." Answer me this: What constitutes "original enough"? Cue the usual "sOmEtHiNg NoT bAsEd oN eXiStInG cOpYrIgHtEd MaTeRiAl." Okay, name 1 work created in the past 10 years that is 100% original. Go ahead, I'll wait...

  Spoiler alert: It's not possible. Every existing copyrighted work is at least partially based on another earlier work. And I'm not talking about Di$ney turning "The Ice Queen" into Frozen. I'm talking about how things like The Blair Witch Project inspired the film genre of found footage. Or how musicians are inspired by those that came before them. The laws of physics don't cease when it comes to creativity and storytelling; you can't make something out of nothing. (See the first law of thermodynamics)

  And that's what makes this ruling so problematic. Copyright is now censoring more works than it is incentivizing creativity, and perhaps that's by design. If fair use is going to remain the last stand many creators have against creativity that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement, this ruling must not be allowed to stand. I'm sincerely hoping they'll appeal to an en banc court and/or the Supreme Court. If they don't and/or fail at doing so, then the last hope is either an act of Congress (unlikely given the current ideas of copyright reform) or another copyright ruling the other way in a different circuit, which then must be upheld by the SCOTUS when resolving the circuit split. But until then, this is the end of fair use as we know it.

• On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Tasing A Person Soaked In Gasoline And Setting Them On Fire Isn't An Unreasonable Use Of Force

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2021 @ 09:24am

  SCOTUS this past week: Hey, 5th circuit... You messed up a lot of Qualified Immunity cases. We expect better from you.
  5th Circuit, looking at this case: **Fingers in ears** LA-LA-LA, I can't hear anything!

• On the post: Karma: Twitch Replaces Live Metallica Concert With 8-Bit Music To Avoid Copyright Madness

  

  Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2021 @ 10:49am

  Re: It's all fun and games until copyright maximalism goes too f

  I doubt that this would happen, but given how vague the language of the law is, it wouldn't be off-limits.

Next >>