Wyrm’s Techdirt Profile


About Wyrm

Wyrm’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 2nd, 2018 @ 4:19pm

    Re: We need to extend copyright

    Time travelers have a way to optimize that. They create something at any time, then travel to the future to die on the very last day of humanity. (Or even 50 years before that.)

    That's how you get eternal copyright when you can time-travel.

  • Dec 26th, 2017 @ 9:58am

    old problem

    That's a question so old it was already formulated in the Antiquity.
    "Who watches the watchers?"
    Seems like our modern governments decided the answer is "nobody".

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Trying to silence a critic is one thing...

    Not to mention the issue with the grandfather paradox.
    If the blogger complies and removes the post before the 24th, then the lawyer doesn't have a reason to send his C&D on the 25th, so the blogger has no reason to remove the post... You get the point.

  • Nov 4th, 2017 @ 1:21pm

    Re: State what police and prosecutors did WRONG here.

    And why are **you** wrong?

    - the FBI didn't just passively "record IP addresses" as other websites do, they sent a malware to other people's computer for that purpose.

    - you're assuming what we're assuming, that the cops must obtain warrant for an unknown place. What we're saying is that the cops must follow the procedure because that's what respect and trust for the law hinges on. If they can't apply for a federal warrant, they must apply for 50 state warrants. If that's too much paperwork for them, I'm a little worried about their resources.

    - finally, we hear a lot about evidence accepted under a "good faith" exception... that doesn't really exist. That allows the cops to basically do anything as long as they pretend they didn't know better.
    I could - at the very most - understand this as a way for a cop (or fed, or whatever) out of being sued, but allowing evidence based on invalid warrant (or none at all in some cases) is basically making law enforcement completely lawless. That's the opposite of a country based on the rule of law. Accepting this is equivalent to allow for arbitrary arrests.

  • Oct 31st, 2017 @ 7:55pm

    virtual? reality?

    Apparently, teenagers are more skilled at distinguishing reality from imagination than adults with a law degree.

  • Oct 27th, 2017 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Hats off... more money for nothing

    Trusting the facts to match your usual anti-relation rant... Funny, but as well as usual.

    The government here didn't "give the power" to Verizon to scam their customers. The government here removed himself from preventing that.

    So *you* got exactly what you asked for - less regulation - and Verizon magically became honest and ethical... not.

    Hence, that's not "with our blessings" since that's the exact opposite of what citizens asked.

    You keep pointing at "regulation" being the problem when "systemic corruption" is.

    And I'm pretty sure that, should we remind you that monopoly and abuse of monopolistic position are the obvious direction things would take, you'd mention that antitrust laws are all we need, defeating your own argument that we need no regulation at all.

    That's funny at times, but a little repetitive overall.

  • Oct 26th, 2017 @ 7:36pm


    Also note the other change:
    Redefining anything they obtained from another agency as "not collection".
    Easy way out of any accusation of "correcting too much data": "we didn't collect it, was graciously handed to us by a friend."

    But seriously, how much can they stretch definitions when "homegrown" becomes included in "foreign"?

    At this stage, like another commenter stated it above, there might still be rules to private data connection, but you can basically assume there are none from a normal person's point of view.

  • Oct 20th, 2017 @ 2:14pm

    Pre-emptive attack

    If companies try to - so obviously - circumvent the IPR process, the PTO has an equivalent - and more obvious - reply available to them: stop granting patents, at least not so easily.
    If patent granting takes much longer and fails more often, companies might reconsider using such dubious tactics.
    They can start with more thorough evaluation of patents requests coming from companies that have already demonstrated this kind of behavior (Allergan, SRC) in the hope of just discouraging others.
    If that doesn't work, then let this be the default behavior.

    Of course, all this assumes the PTO is interested in solving the problem.

  • Oct 6th, 2017 @ 7:19pm

    Forfeiture should be like RICO.

    And yes, it's never RICO, for a good reason, and forfeiture should be subjected to similar standards.

    Basically, forfeiture was created to deprive criminals from the proceeds of their activity when you couldn't indict the criminal himself. (Think about contraband shipped through containers. The owner is abroad so you can't get to him.)

    In recent days, it's just a lazy way to legally steal money. If the purpose was really proper law enforcement, well, you have your criminal right there since you're literally taking his property from his hands. If you really have strong evidence that he's a criminal, you could arrest him there and then, then build your case and indict him legitimately.

    What should have been an exception became the norm, and it will only get better if judges step up and decline to rubber stamp these illegitimate forfeitures. Or if lawmakers decide to explicitly raise the standards LEOs have to meet in forfeiture cases (including attaching a forfeiture to actual charges). Preferably both.

  • Oct 5th, 2017 @ 9:29am

    Re: Techdirt often does this in less than 15 minutes on MY comments!

    I'm a little late on this one, but here's your complimentary xkcd:

  • Sep 13th, 2017 @ 1:09pm


    So let's sum this up
    - two guys *might* have met up, *probably* to discuss drug dealing.
    - they texted each other about buying food at Costco.
    - they *might* have met again at Costco.
    - they did meet again, *probably* starting 15 minutes before the cops saw them, and *probably* exchanging drugs during these 15 minutes the cops didn't witness.

    Based on all that evidence they didn't have, and their imagination about what happened, the cops decided to perform a warrantless search, and a majority of judges agree with them.

    There already were secret evidence presented to secret courts to uphold secret laws, now we're moving to imaginary evidence and testimony?

  • Aug 21st, 2017 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What you say would apply just as much to Hitler.
    How do we remember him without statues everywhere to remind us of the horrors of Nazism?
    Then again, it seems some people don't, seeing the kind of flags that were on display during the Charlottesville protest.
    (Unless those swastika flags, salutes and chants of "blood and soil" we're just a friendly historical reminder on their part? Does Poe's law apply IRL? /s)

  • Aug 5th, 2017 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Ugh...

    Regarding you comparison with hiring a hitman, this is a backwards comparison.

    In the case of A hiring B to kill C, A actually has the intent to kill a specific target. The intermediary B would do the actual murder, but A provided the intent first.

    In the case of A creating a malware that B then buys to infect C's computer, B had the intent, and B is the one to execute the task. A here doesn't have intent, nor does he acts against C's computer. He only created a general tool that might be used for nefarious purposes, or for research, or then again for legal investigation...

    There is no valid comparison here.

  • Aug 3rd, 2017 @ 10:36am

    (untitled comment)

    Wait, isn't the trademark already invalid due to the fact that Stinson doesn't actually use it?

  • Aug 1st, 2017 @ 9:48am

    you first, sir.

    Ok, there is no expectation of privacy in your phone calls or location.
    I don't mind the ruling if the judges prove consistency in their belief and release their phone calls and location history for the past thirteen months.


    Don't want to? That's your private life? Yes, I thought so.

  • Jul 28th, 2017 @ 3:04pm


    As I see it, the "good faith" exception should never be used to salvage evidence. Evidence obtained through illegal means should be thrown out, period. Anything else encourages ignorance... and ignorance can't even argued against. (How can you force an agent to admit he knew the warrant was invalid? After all, a judge signed it. Same for the judge: How can you force him to admit he knew the cop lied about the causes and scope of the warrant?)

    I can at most accept the "good faith" exception as a defense against charges against the agent for exceeding the scope of a warrant. And even then, the good faith must be proved (the cop must be assumed to know the law he enforces, the opposite would be just crazy and open to abuse). Then, any failure to prove "good faith" should result in charges and trial for abuse of power or anything of that order.

    Funny how ignorance of the law is only a defense for those charged with enforcing it. That's an imbalance in power in favor of those who already have (too much?) power on their side.

  • Jul 26th, 2017 @ 10:00am

    The other myth...

    "so that the government’s approach to internet policy doesn’t change depending on which party is in power"

    Since when is law settled, regardless of majority change, once voted in Congress?
    There are examples of laws being repealed or changed over time.

    This talking point is as stupid as the others.

  • Jul 21st, 2017 @ 9:45am

    US version?

    I can imagine the US version would have an explicit exemption for the president's tweets.
    If not, all of Trump's tweets would disappear within seconds.

  • Jul 7th, 2017 @ 7:25pm

    carrot and stick approach, but...

    "who needs a carrot?", says the copyright industry.

  • Jul 7th, 2017 @ 4:53pm

    the plan to end all copyright

    Under the premise that AI can own copyrights...

    1. Make an AI run on a computer to generate all possible works. Image, text, whatever...

    2. Shoot a bullet in the computer. (First check that killing an AI doesn't count as murder. You never with those lawmakers.)

    3. Wait for 70 years. As the AI owns every copyright, except that of works created before itself, nobody is going to ask for copyright extension on its behalf.

    4. Everything is now public domain.

    (Note that this is not to be taken seriously. Seems obvious to me, but some people seem to have a seriously broken sarcasm-meter.)

More comments from Wyrm >>