Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324) comment rss

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

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2021 @ 10:47am

    It's all fun and games until copyright maximalism goes too far!

    Twitch better be careful... Under the new copyright law passed last year, the feds could charge commercial entity Twitch with felony copyright infringement, on behalf of Metallica, for allowing Metallica to play Metallica's music, without permission from Metallica. Would Metallica members then realize how backward it has been for them to push for draconian copyright enforcement online?

  • On the post: 16 States Ask The FCC What The Hell Is The Point Of The Verizon Tracfone Merger

    Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2021 @ 02:34pm

    I can't be the only one...

    Me, a TracFone customer: I know the major telecom players like AT&T and Verizon are notorious for simply being bad to their own customers, but I have TracFone. I'm glad I don't have to deal with those issues directly. (Takes a sip of water)

    Techdirt: Let's report on several state's concerns they shared with the FCC over the proposed merger between Verizon and TracFone.

    Me, spitting out water: Verizon's doing what now? How did I not know about this? I really should have seen this coming!

  • On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: SoundCloud Combats Piracy By Giving Universal Music The Power To Remove Uploads (2014)

    Rico R. ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2021 @ 04:42pm

    Re:

    Yes, SoundCloud is up on the top of the home page. Their podcast is hosted through SoundCloud. Whether or not they support them outside of paying for more storage space is beyond me.

  • On the post: UK Music Rights Group Demands Payment From A Pub That Isn't Playing Any Music Because It's Closed Due To COVID

    Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2021 @ 11:24am

    What are you talking about?

    I've heard a rumor that this pub in question has been playing a song in a loop ever since they closed their doors: John Cage's 4'33". PRS must be wanting to collect fees from that!

  • On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure

    Rico R. ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2020 @ 04:18pm

    Tweets are more subjective than oral speech...

    The issue here is that no, Section 230 is nothing like the government "handing out immunity like a hunting license,"--

    When I read the senator's tweet in context, I don't interpret it as him saying that's what section 230 is today. Rather, I think it's a rebuke to certain "reform" efforts to section 230 like the dangerous EARN IT Act, which would give the government discretion on who does and does not get section 230 protections, and on what grounds. In the case of EARN IT, it would be like "a government panel handing out immunity like a hunting license". Just like there are certain conditions and safety training that goes into hunting licenses, the conditions under an EARN IT regime would be whether or not they handle CSAM in the correct way determined by a panel like the FTC. In other words, if you allow end-to-end encryption, you don't get section 230 protections. I read his tweet as rebuking such ideas, saying that section 230 shouldn't become dependant on the judgment of some government panel.

    Now, I make no claims about his actual section 230 bill. I haven't read anything about it or seen the text of the bill itself. But I will say that section 230 doesn't really need reform. As you explain in your article, section 230 critics seem to have a problem with the first amendment instead of section 230. Section 230 reform also isn't a vehicle for "reining in big tech". But I agree with the senator when he says that most senators (or even representatives in the house) don't actually understand section 230. And if section 230 is to be reformed (which it shouldn't be), such reform efforts must be handled with care.

  • On the post: Dutch Prosecutors Say One Man Got Into Trump's Twitter Account With 'MAGA2020!' Password

    Rico R. ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2020 @ 05:07pm

    Re: What's the point of publishing the password?

    First, the password is so laughably guessable that it would be impossible to convey how laughably guessable the password was without actually saying the password. Second, simply publishing a password with nothing more is not inviting people to attempt to hack Trump's account. It would be different if Techdirt used language more inducing or inciting people to hack Trump's Twitter account instead of simply saying, "His password was MAGA2020!" And it should go without saying, but I'd imagine that Techdirt assumes no responsibility for others who try to hack Trump's account. They shouldn't have to implicitly say that for them to be in the clear. Indeed, if someone did hack something of Trump's, or worse, a secure area of the United States, I doubt that "Techdirt gave me the password" would be an excusable defense in court.

  • On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him

    Rico R. ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2020 @ 01:57pm

    Re: But do you know WHAT was declared "un-Constitutional"?

    The part of the Communications Decency Act that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was about censoring pornographic and other "indecent" content on the internet. That was struck down because it violated the first amendment. But the doctrine of severability saved section 230, as it should. The fact that part of the law was declared unconstitutional is not a reason that section 230 should be struck down. And as far as your other complaints, I think you're very wrong. Thankfully, I came across an article on this very topic that I think would prove helpful. It's on this technology and legal news site that's a bit small, so you might not have heard of it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

  • On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him

    Rico R. ( profile ), 02 Dec, 2020 @ 10:44am

    Oh, and then there's the claim about "election integrity" and... what? What the fuck does election integrity have to do with Section 230? The answer is absolutely nothing. He's just spewing words.

    Consider things from Trump’s perspective for a minute. Trump thinks “election integrity” as it relates to the 2020 election is about all the “voter fraud” and “election rigging” to “give” the election to Joe Biden. It’s this BS logic and not election security in the general sense of the word that Trump is likely referring to. Translation: Trump wants section 230 repealed not just because people are mocking him on Twitter to the point #DiaperDon is trending, but also because Twitter calls out his BS election conspiracy theories and false victory claims as just that: BS.

    In other words, no matter how you look at it, Trump’s problem is NOT with section 230, but with the first amendment. You know, the amendment to the Constitution he swore an oath to protect and defend? And he’s willing to defund the military unless he gets his way? No matter how unconstitutional his true wish is? January 20th can’t come soon enough! And I just hope Congress gets its act in gear, not succumb to the President’s temper tantrum, and can secure enough votes to override the impending veto.

  • On the post: Just As #DiaperDon Starts Trending, Trump Claims That Twitter Uses 'Fake' Trends, Calls For 'Termination' Of Section 230

    Rico R. ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2020 @ 11:58am

    Trump's child-like logic:

    "I am the President of the United States, who won re-election by a lot, and seeing that #DiaperDon is trending on Twitter is making me feel insecure. Therefore, Twitter is a threat to our national security! And if Twitter makes me feel insecure, I'll remove their security blanket, too. Bye-bye, Section 230. It's only fair!"

  • On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2020 @ 03:44pm

    Re: Re: Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well

    ...do you have examples of anyone at any of those networks cutting off somebody's mic for talking about copyright and/or the DMCA?
    Specific examples, no. I was more or less being dramatic. My point was more so how big media TAKES ADVANTAGE of using copyright as a tool for censorship. There isn't one cable news network that isn't owned by a giant corporation with special interests in copyright maximalism.
    ...the vast majority of incumbents get reelected. But I'm sure they like the campaign contributions from the RIAA and MPAA.
    I probably shouldn't have used the word "needed". A better phrase would have been "politicians like positive news coverage so they can reach more potential voters and improve their chance of getting re-elected." And even in this case, sometimes negative news coverage is better than no news coverage. It takes guts for a politician to stand up to big media. But good point on campaign contributions from the MPAA and RIAA.

  • On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2020 @ 02:17pm

    Another possible reason, and it affects the left as well...

    Five: Big Media LOVES Copyright
    Suppose for a second that a major cable news network, regardless of political leaning or bias, invites on a politician who wants to talk about online censorship and how much of it is causing a problem. If that politician brings up section 230, they can stay on. Section 230 doesn't affect the MSNBC's, CNN's, and Fox News's of the world. Change that to copyright and/or the DMCA, they'll cut off the mic. Media conglomerates love copyright just as much as the MPAA and RIAA. That should be no secret.

    Furthermore, they see the rise of the Internet as creating a bunch of new competition for these networks. Section 230 helps the free and open internet. Stronger copyright enforcement hurts it. And as I stated before on Techdirt, politicians need positive news coverage so they can get re-elected. Talking about copyright hurts that prospect.

  • On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: GoFundMe Addresses Controversial Fundraising Efforts (2020)

    Rico R. ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2020 @ 08:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The article isn't accurate in statements abo

    Well, he's being charged as an adult, so obviously had the right to make contracts.
    Do you know what other crime took place in my home state of Wisconsin? The Slender Man stabbing case. The perpetrators of this violent act were tried as adults. In Wisconsin, certain crimes, including murder (called "intentional homicide" in the statute), require the defendant to be tried as adults. That does NOT mean that these pre-teen girls or Rittenhouse were of legal age to sign a contract at the time of the crime.
    By the way, anyone reasonable should note that NONE of the fanboys links to even Wikipedia: they don't care about the truth, just want Rittenhouse jailed without trial.
    Well, for starters, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I hate to be "one of those people", and I do rely on Wikipedia quite a bit. It may be right 95% of the time, but it shouldn't be treated as Gospel truth. Any claim without a cited source should be considered suspect. And if you don't provide evidence of your claims, no one here will take you seriously. And as I've stated in several Techdirt comments elsewhere, I'm politically liberal. I also think that Rittenhouse's actions are abhorrent and that he's guilty of what he's been accused of. But I also believe that Rittenhouse should be given due process. It would be unjust of me to say otherwise.

  • On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: GoFundMe Addresses Controversial Fundraising Efforts (2020)

    Rico R. ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2020 @ 03:55pm

    ...the killing of Jacob Blake by police officers...

    This is incorrect. Jacob Blake is paralyzed from the shooting, but he is still alive. (Source)

  • On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2020 @ 01:16am

    Re: Haven't seen it, but assuming arguendo that it's problematic

    A problematic movie doesn't justify a problematic DMCA takedown of someone criticizing that movie; two wrongs don't make a right...

  • On the post: Anti-Cheat Student Software Proctorio Issuing DMCA Takedowns Of Fair Use Critiques Over Its Code

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2020 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: DRM, anti-cheat software, drone flight restrictions enfo

    Well, it's certainly true that a non-zero number of students can't be trusted to not cheat, and the stakes involved with failing an exam are certainly higher than whether or not you listen to a song you didn't buy.
    I certainly agree with that statement. My problem with this software is that it operates under the assumption that you are going to cheat. Software alone isn't going to tell you whether or not a student was cheating, and I've seen some people on Twitter complain that their instructors are putting all their faith blindly in this software. It looks not only at what tabs you have open when taking an exam; it looks to see where your eyes are moving. I could easily see myself being accused of cheating by this software simply for looking away and slouching long enough while I try to think of the right answer. I'm no longer a student, though, and in some ways, I'm glad I've graduated already because then I won't have to deal with BS like this!

  • On the post: Anti-Cheat Student Software Proctorio Issuing DMCA Takedowns Of Fair Use Critiques Over Its Code

    Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2020 @ 02:40pm

    DRM, anti-cheat software, drone flight restrictions enforcement:

    All of these software tools have in common is that it assumes the end-user can't be trusted to follow the rules and/or laws. If your business model requires you to have distrust in your own customers and users, you're doing it wrong! And that's not to mention the lack of privacy that Proctorio requires...

  • On the post: 'Enola Holmes' Producers Go In Hard On Conan Doyle Estate In Motion To Dismiss Its Bullshit Lawsuit

    Rico R. ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2020 @ 10:56pm

    Re: The Public Domain shouldn't stop YOU from enjoying classics.

    Copyright isn't supposed to last forever. Even if you want it to, such an idea is unconstitutional. (See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution) And still, you can't copyright a character's name alone. The character itself is another story, but the bulk of the original works are in the public domain now. That's how copyright is supposed to work. Copyright should last for a short period of time (it's far too long now, but that's another issue), and then it enters the public domain for more people to build upon it. To quote Sherlock Holmes, "It's elementary, my dear!" Besides, just because a work is no longer copyrighted doesn't mean you can't enjoy it anymore. If public domain works = boring stuff, the public domain's existence would be pointless. Besides, no one enjoys a book, song, or movie because of copyright!

  • On the post: Tom Lehrer, Still Awesome, Releases Lyrics Into The Public Domain

    Rico R. ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2020 @ 09:46pm

    Amazing Copyright News!!

    Great. I'll now just go download youtube-dl so I can download the video of the now "public domain" Tom Lehrer song and make my own new work with it--
    And... it's gone!

  • On the post: DOJ Is Suing Melania Trump's Ex-Friend Over Her Book, Despite Never Being A Government Employee

    Rico R. ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2020 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Huh what?

    Didn't you hear? The DOJ absolutely has standing in anything and everything that could potentially harm Trump and his re-election campaign! /s

  • On the post: DOJ Is Suing Melania Trump's Ex-Friend Over Her Book, Despite Never Being A Government Employee

    Rico R. ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2020 @ 12:16pm

    In all honesty, this sort of abuse of power by Bill Barr ought to be impeachable. Using the power of the US government and the DOJ to censor a book that says something the President doesn't like is almost certainly a blatant violation of the first amendment. And the demand to recover every penny the book made when it's clear that there's nothing classified here could amount to high crime and misdemeanor. Whether the House will act on it is another story, and it's even a taller order to get the GOP-controlled Senate to convict on a two-thirds majority.

Next >>