Wyrm’s Techdirt Profile


About Wyrm

Wyrm’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 17th, 2018 @ 11:44am

    Potential win-win case for the public?

    • If they win, any other lawyer can just use this case (and maybe add to the irony by quoting their arguments verbatim, including the outrage section mentioning "zealous copyright holders") to defend against them.
    • If they lose, others could file their own lawsuit every time Disney "borrows" from them until they finally decide to lobby against copyright maximalism. As Ninja commented earlier, there is only so much they can still borrow from the public domain given the effect of their own lobbying against it.

  • Aug 3rd, 2018 @ 11:18am

    (untitled comment)

    Also, Cox and other ISPs might not have helped their case during the Net Neutrality debate.

    Since they're saying that the content they push to their users is their own speech (they plead "first amendment rights" over what transits through their network), I assume they want responsibility for all the illegal content too. Right?

  • Jul 19th, 2018 @ 4:25pm


    It's a good news / bad news kind of thing.

    • Good news: Justice has been served.
    • Bad news: This happened at the taxpayers' expense, as usual.

    This is the problem with such cases: there is no incentive for the cops to act properly since any mistake is paid for by others.

    This will happen again, and again, as long as there is no personal accountability for cops. They should foot the bill, at least when there is evidence that they broke procedure to secure a quick win.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 9:49am


    Said every cop in a court room:
    "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

  • Jul 17th, 2018 @ 2:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    (...) it will need to avoid a veto by President Trump, who has yet to signal he has the faintest idea what the fight is even about

    He has signaled that he has... less than a faintest idea about "the cyber" and his 10-year-old son who "is so good with computers".

    Reminder here.

    It might best if he's kept away from this debate. Or any debate at all.

  • Jul 16th, 2018 @ 2:29pm

    (untitled comment)

    And how does that conclusion prevent parallel construction? It happens all the time already, this will just give them one more reason to use this illegal - but hard to prove - practice.

  • Jul 16th, 2018 @ 11:55am

    Pai's honest quote of the day

    I can assure you, however, that the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal to determine what position appears to have greater support, nor does it attribute greater weight to comments based solely on the submitter's identity.

    All of this is true... since they just ignored the comments altogether.

    Now, if only he was as honest in the other quotes, it would be a day to celebrate. But we all know he's just a political hack placed to take no positive action other than dismantle the authority of his agency. (Which is a common trait in the current administration.)

  • Jul 5th, 2018 @ 10:17am

    Re: Pirates escape for a few months. -- But BIG NEWS to the GOOD:

    First, he's not a "hero" to anybody. He's more a symbol of the overreach and lack of due process from the US. Nothing more, nothing less.

    First, check your definition of "stealing". He didn't do that, neither literally nor figuratively. He offered a service that was heavily (but far from exclusively) used for sharing copyrighted content without authorization from the copyright owners.

    There might be a need for a proper trial regarding some of the uses he made of his own platform (advertising for "piracy", uploading unauthorized content himself or through his employees, etc.), but that requires 1. correctly labeling the facts and 2. following due process. If you advocate for a suspension of due process because you don't like the guy, you open the door for any other abuse. Including against yourself. There are very likely a ton of people out there who don't like you for some reason. Do you think you should be denied due process if they accuse you of anything, simply on the basis that you are unpopular? (Well, I'm half convinced you will answer "of course I do" because you're so sure it will never happen to you. Or "of course I don't" then proceed to tell us how Dotcom is the one and only exception... until the next one.)

    This is what is at stake here. Not whether this man will face "justice", but whether we'll be talking about "justice on a criminal" or "legal harassment from big corporations".

  • Jun 18th, 2018 @ 1:35pm

    basic rules

    As I see the problem, there should be two basic rules. We can elaborate but these two should be the foundation:
    - no intermediary liability, as long as they don't proactively push for illegal content. (This would need to be very strictly and narrowly defined, as the vet few exceptions to free speech are supposed to be.)
    - no automatic takedown required, ever. Automatic detection of "bad content" can only lead to notification, either to a moderation team or to potential "victim" of the content. Mandating automated takedown will definitely lead to abuse.

  • Jun 14th, 2018 @ 11:20am

    Copyright Maths

    Doesn't that remind anyone of the "Copyright Maths" presentation with "the 8-billion dollar iPhone"?

    Here it is...

    The copyright lobby has used such obvious fallacies to claim money they never deserved.

    There was also a french report claiming 10,000 jobs lost to piracy... by claiming stupid things like "value of a pair of eyes: 0.60 euro". (That's pretty cheap. This report killed the black market for human organs there.)

    It's time to make the politicians understand how outrageous these lobbies are. Sadly, their ears are stuffed with enough dollars to pave the way to Mars...

  • May 31st, 2018 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: 'They told you to do it, but you're the one who chose to do so.'

    You should add that their decision actually reinforces this behavior.
    This could not be successfully sued because no precedent exists to prohibit it. Since this case will not establish a precedent either, this behavior will not be prohibited in the future either.
    Even better, this case establishes more precedent that it cannot be sued.
    It's a vicious circle there.

  • May 30th, 2018 @ 10:44am

    Double checked

    Wayback machine doesn't show any mention of "space lizards" in the IP Center home page.
    It was likely a very short-lived hack or joke that was fixed as soon as discovered.

    Also, IP Watch uses Godzilla as an example of Space Lizard. I don't remember anything about Godzilla coming from space.

  • May 17th, 2018 @ 10:05am

    Re: Eternal Copyright

    Actually, I don't agree with "end with the author's death".

    When you want to sell or license the exclusivity to a work, the buyer will want a period he can plan on. If you say that the exclusivity might expire on the very day the contract is signed (accident, murder, etc.), the contract will have a very random value. The publisher might not like that.

    Instead, make it a set duration. Registration (to keep track of both the author and the date of creation, also keeping current beneficiary) for a minimal fee (a fee low enough to not be a barrier of entry something like $1), possibly short times renewable a few times. 5 years renewable twice, or ten years renewable once, that kind of duration would be ok since I've read somewhere that a close-to-optimal copyright duration is 15 years.

    Not a lifetime (you want to encourage creation? don't provide a lifetime revenue to craetors).
    No expiration on death (to keep exclusivity deal worth the paper they were signed on).

    Then, it's the author's responsibility to save his revenues and/or create more work as with any other job.

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 9:34am

    (untitled comment)

    Also, "use markdown" should be default. :\

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 9:33am

    (untitled comment)

    **Because Of** Its Problems, More Consumers Should Behave Like Beer Drinkers To Keep Trademark At Bay

    There, FTFY

  • May 4th, 2018 @ 2:30pm

    Biased by design

    This kind of survey is flawed from the questions and the answers.

    The idea is not so much "what do you think about this?" than it is "please give us reasons to censor you".

    Biased questions, multiple choice answers that lack either neutral or downright opposite answers to what they expect, baseless restrictions on answers... not to mention the super-obvious mixed-bag of "crimes" that serve as the basis for the survey.

    Anyone trying to answer will one way or another "support" censorship.

  • May 2nd, 2018 @ 2:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    We do not believe a reasonable person would be justified, in the eyes of the community, of being seriously offended and aggrieved by the statements at issue.

    And Loftis was offended and aggrieved... That says a lot about what the court thinks of him. And probably his lawyer too. :D

  • Apr 30th, 2018 @ 5:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    Once again, this is the result of "everything must have an owner" mentality.

    It has already reduced the copyright public domain to mere leftovers. (ie. whatever copyright holders failed to lobby into perpetual copyright.)
    It created absurd lawsuits about a monkey selfie.
    It leads to patent trolling operations that are increasingly difficult and costly to defend against.
    And I could on all day long.

    All in the name of the One True God of America.
    The Almighty Dollar.

    "Incentive to creation" is the excuse to every one of these bad ideas, and none of those "wise" ("wise" as in "wise guy") lawmakers will take just to few minutes to check 1. that this will actually be an effective incentive and 2. that the cost to society will not be worse than the benefit. (Nor the added bonus inherent to every law: 3. how it will be abused.)

  • Apr 23rd, 2018 @ 12:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    The terms “children,” “grandchildren,” “legitimate,” “widow,” and “widower” all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals that do not marry and do not have heirs entitled to property by law.

    Although I do agree that the Copyright Act only covers human works, this specific argument feels wrong on many levels.

    First, does that mean single humans who never marry nor have children cannot benefit from copyright?

    Second, even if they don't marry, animals do have children and grandchildren, whether they acknowledge that relationship or not.

    The point should be made based on the fundamental of copyright, not on nit-picking a few words in its implementation.

  • Feb 21st, 2018 @ 12:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    Are they trying to legislate themselves into extinction?
    They know it failed several times, so they want to try it on a bigger scale. "The solution to the problem is more of the problem", which is the insanity I thought the US had a monopoly on.

More comments from Wyrm >>