Wyrm’s Techdirt Profile


About Wyrm

Wyrm’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 4th, 2018 @ 10:21am

    Re: NOPE! Due to Backpage taken down - BEFORE FOSTA!

    Trolling or just misunderstanding?

    The article doesn't attribute the raise in ads to FOSTA (ie "they raised because of FOSTA"), but notes that they still raised after FOSTA (ie "they raise despite FOSTA"). Hence, the law didn't accomplish this objective and introduced a lot of other negative side effects (censorship, more difficult investigations, ...) that were indeed attributed to this failure of a law.

    It also points out that the supporters lie about the result both in effect ("raise" instead of "drop") and cause ("it dropped because of FOSTA", when the small-term drop that did occur happened before FOSTA).

    I'll pass on commenting the rest of the ridiculous rant.

  • Oct 29th, 2018 @ 11:18am

    (untitled comment)

    The Court reiterates that a religious group must tolerate the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith, as long as the statements at issue do not incite hatred or religious intolerance.

    So, you must tolerate criticism, unless you can't tolerate it?

  • Sep 24th, 2018 @ 4:44pm

    Re: This? Do this more often. Do this ALL the time

    Obviously, it would be even better if they stopped SWAT-raiding the wrong houses on a regular basis, but accepting responsibility is a very good start. One can only reduce mistakes after acknowledging that he did make mistakes.

    Later, they might even see them stop considering a SWAT raid as the default option to serve warrants.

  • Sep 20th, 2018 @ 5:57pm

    Fighting fire with fire

    So basically, Sessions' conclusion is that crime stops crime. Only difference is that the only allowed crime should be state-sanctioned crime by badge-wielding grunts.

    Another example of the mentality of "the solution to the problem is more of the problem".

    Also, this illustrates the subverted quote that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". It has recently been quoted by some authoritarian politicians to mean "we have to be on guard from terrorists", but the real meaning is that "we have to be on guard from the abuse of power of those we put in charge". The moment we give a free pass to those in positions of power (politicians, cops, ...), we lose our liberty.

  • Sep 19th, 2018 @ 1:22pm

    Re: So, federal rules likely dangerous and impossible?

    Please clean all the straw on your way out.

  • Sep 13th, 2018 @ 4:18pm

    Re: Re:

    Of course it's bound to backfire. But by the time it does, nobody (in power) will want to acknowledge why it did.

    On this matter like on many others, some of the people advocate that "the solution to the problem is more of the problem." And since they are the "loudest" in the room (remember, "money si speech"), politicians listen to them.

    If controlling everything fails to bring more fans and revenue, it must become there is not enough control, right?

    (For other examples, see "the solution to the gun problem is more guns".)

  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 2:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    Really amazing. This "war on fans" is growing so fast. The problem is coming from the "permission culture" that is itself based on two axioms:

    1. everything must be owned,
    2. anything I own is under my exclusive control.

    Point #1 is just absurd. Point #2 only makes sense for material goods that only one person can enjoy at a given time.

    Normally, both points are irrelevant when applied to ideas, and a legal monopoly is used to allow temporary and limited control over the expression of an idea.

    This has been blown out of proportion thanks to a copious amount of lobbying money (aka legalized corruption). Now, most politicians and a good part of the general population has been convinced that "copyright" grants full control on every aspect of a work and its context (which is made easy by the fact that, regarding digital goods, every use implies a copy), and some are even going so far as to think it should last forever. Both scope and duration have been pushed to extremes.

    Can we please become reasonable again?

  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 12:15pm


    Even though it's a little off-topic, I would point your dishonest comment on section 230.

    You pretend that it prevents from suing anyone, which is patently false. It only prevents suing the platform. The author of the defamatory content can still be sued.

    The fact that it's more difficult (he might explain his view) and less profitable (probably less rich than the platform itself) doesn't make suing the platform the right thing to do. And thanks to section 230, it also doesn't make it the legal thing to do.

  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Oh, Bunker?

    Thanks for admitting that you're siding only with the rich and powerful. :)

  • Sep 10th, 2018 @ 2:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sadly, the Law is not written so elementary school students can understand it. Not even adults can. Not even adults working in law enforcement. (Sadly, these ones are not required to.)

    It might seems absurd. It probably is morally speaking. But lawyers can twist the words of the law to still make it the "legal truth".

  • Aug 31st, 2018 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Dialog, what we expect from them

    (I would add something at the end inspired by a cop interview a while ago.)

    Cops: Whatever. We have guns so shut up and do as we say.

  • Aug 31st, 2018 @ 4:27pm


    Nice potential exploit there:
    you can't resell the code separately from the DVD...
    but can you resell the DVD separately from the code?

    If that works, expect Disney amend the T&C in order to try to also prevent the reselling of the DVD without violating first sale doctrine.
    I'm not wishing you luck with this one, Disney.

  • 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".

More comments from Wyrm >>