Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the can-you-dig-it? dept

Sun, May 15th 2011 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

Each week we get more and more votes (which is awesome, keep it up), so it's interesting to see how closely clumped together the top two vote getters were this week for "most insightful." Every other comment was way behind these two, and yet these two were neck and neck right up until the end. However, the comment by "rubberpants" ended up winning by a nose, with his or her simple summary of the new PROTECT IP Act:

This has as much to do with "protecting IP" as the PATRIOT act did with patriotism.

Indeed. It would be more accurate if it was called the "Protect Legacy Business Model Act." Coming in second, just behind rubberpants, was an Anonymous Coward (again, who says that anonymous commenters are bad?) who responded to the post about how the music industry is desperate for techies:

Consider me: 30 years of experience as a programmer, system administrator, network architect, software developer, project leader, etc.etc.etc. -- all of it on the ARPAnet and Internet. 45 years of experience as a musician, including classical music as a child (w/competition), rock, folk, jazz since on 3 different instruments. Music collection and music-related book collection that is overflowing the room it's in. I own 7 keyboards, 5 guitars and listen to music constantly. Yadda yadda.

So I could make a pretty good argument that I have a deep grasp of technology and music, not to mention considerable expertise with both.

But I won't work for the bastards that are trying to destroy the Internet: I consider them mortal enemies. I don't care how much money they'd pay me: the answer is no.

For "editor's choice," we've got another Anonymous Coward, also commenting on the new PROTECT IP Act, in which he or she points out the massive level of corruption within our government in that it appears to work for companies, rather than people:

Seriously, we have all these expensive government agencies and just about every one of their purposes is to help ensure corporate plutocracy.

The department of homeland security - supposed to protect us against terrorists - wasting time protecting corporations against infringement (if anything shouldn't that be the USPTO's job or something?).

The FBI - Supposed to be protecting us against real criminals, wasting resources protecting corporations against infringement.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1725249183.shtml

The DOJ, supposed to be about ensuring justice, but instead they're about protecting corporations and continuing to help enforce their government imposed monopolies (GIMs).

Attorney General, supposed to be about protecting citizens, but now they're about protecting big industry instead.

FDA, supposed to be about protecting consumers, but they're more about protecting big corporations from competition.

FCC, supposed to be about wrongfully granting corporations monopoly use of public airwaves at public expense, and that's what they do.

When does the U.S. start to resemble Russia enough for us to be named the United States of Russia?

Our government spends so much effort passing and enforcing so many wrongful GIMs on just about everything that it's no wonder why our economy is struggling and income inequality is only getting worse. Monopolies on their own reduce aggregate output, they cost jobs, and they cause income inequality. Add to that the taxpayers cost of enforcing all these wrongful monopolies and you can see why our economy is in such a mess, because all that money that could be better spent on increasing aggregate output is being spent on pointless law enforcement and going after victimless criminals instead.

and why do we need a Department of Homeland Security, a Department of Defense, an FBI, a CIA, etc... with all pretty much having about the same purpose, go after terrorists/criminals (Oh, but the DOD and the DOHS goes after 'terrorists' while the FBI goes after 'criminals', and the CIA .... , we need to make such a distinction because one expensive department costing tons of tax dollars is too incompetent to go after both at once). We waste all this money on these people and, by and large, their collective effort doesn't catch very many real terrorists or real criminals at all. Easier for them to go after victimless criminals, like copy protection infringers, I guess.

You want this problem fixed, vote for Ron Paul. He advocates abolishing the department of homeland security and I, for one, agree. We already have the department of Defense and all these departments with about the same purpose (the distinctions are pretty minor, it's perfectly possible and more efficient for one agency to go after a wider variety of criminals) and this creates conflict and confusion and unnecessarily expensive redundancy.

And as the final editor's choice for insightful, we've got (making yet another appearance) Capitalist Lion Tamer, responding to the post on the music industry wanting techies and the "us vs. them" mentality so many in the (legacy) recording industry seem to have:

What the hell is it with them (or the "us" in the "us vs. them" equation � this includes the RIAA, MPAA, various performance rights groups, etc.)?

They bully ordinary citizens, small businesses, charities, internet service providers, and their own artists. They push around Congress and encourage Congress to push around other countries who fail to fall in line. They wave around "poor artists" as if they were so many starving children being hustled by Sally Struthers.

They do all of this lawyer-aided and Congress-abetted bullying and yet they still have the temerity to constantly play the victim.

"Our rights aren't being protected."
"Our works are being infringed on."
"The internet owes us a living."
"Our industry, much like copyrights themselves, should be allowed to continue indefinitely, despite better models and attitudes on display elsewhere."
"Why won't somebody do something about stuff?"

They're like professional victims. You know, the kind of people who always know how to find the iciest bit of pavement in the parking lot. The ones who claim that a 5-mph collision resulted in a multitude of injuries and permanent unemployment. The ones who ignore every return policy and berate and shame customer service employees into obliging every ridiculous request.

It's exactly the same goddamn thing. These groups are the part of the world that only takes and never, ever gives anything back. They can always find they way they're being screwed, however minutely, in every situation. The entire world revolves around them and if they're not getting their way, there's litigious hell to pay.

They don't want things to get better or easier for the artists themselves, much less the end users. Every work of art, whether it's a song, a movie or a book, should be mutilated by regulations and stipulations and fine print until all joy has been sucked out the experience and all that remains is a soulless product devoid of beauty or life.

This is the world they want: a perpetual motion device that spins "useless" artistic endeavors into the only thing that really matters: money. Money that can be double-dipped, triple-dipped, quadruple-dipped and fed into the vindictive, gaping maw of self-entitlement and greed.

They don't need a techie. They need Rumplestiltskin.

Okay, enough serious. Bring the funny. While the top two in Insightful were very close in votes, there was no contest on the funny site of things. The winning comment, from Marcus Carab had more than twice the number of votes as second place and, I'm pretty sure, the most total votes ever of any comment on the site. And for what? For a silly pun on our story about a copyright lawsuit over origami patterns, to which Marcus responded simply:

The question is, who will fold first?

Second place went to an Anonymous Poster (not a Coward, apparently) who came up with a new slogan for Mozilla, after that organization resisted a request from Homeland Security's ICE division to take down the MAFIAAfire extension:

Mozilla: "Chrome's got speed, IE's got name recognition, and Opera's got indie cred, but we've got bigger balls."

Kinda catchy. For editor's choice, I had trouble narrowing it down, so we'll go with some extras. First up, we've got Spaceboy mocking the fact that the EC in the PROTECT IP Act stand for "Economic Creativity" (the full phrase is "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act"). Spaceboy pointed out that whoever came up with that silly acronym might not have meant what they're trying to express:

What does 'Economic Creativity' mean? To me that phrase sounds like something a bank would get in trouble for doing.

Next, (once again), we've got Capitalist Lion Tamer responding to the bizarre editorial in The Economist about how the US should approve more patents faster, because patents create jobs. CLT makes the point on the difference between correlation and causation simply:

job applications create more jobs. If we'd just print up several million job application forms and they all get "approved," we'd instantly create several million more jobs. I'm guessing the ratio would be 1:1.

And, finally, we have yet another Anonymous Coward, picking up on the story of the kid who was arrested for "disorderly conduct," for putting together pictures of his female classmates and ranking them on attractiveness. The commenter noticed an oddity with the charge:

If he was ranking the pictures it seems like he would be charged with "orderly conduct" rather than "disorderly conduct".

And, on that note, we leave you to start doing something more productive... like trying to score high for next week's rankings...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 12:18pm

How many government agencies does it take to screw in a light bulb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz, 15 May 2011 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  That's classified information due to National Security interests.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  We'll need about 1 year's GDP to find out who we need to pay to find that out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It takes 10 federal agencies just to answer that question.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 1:17pm
  
  the story of the kid who was arrested for "disorderly conduct," for putting together pictures of his female classmates and ranking them on attractiveness.
  isn't that the same with miss america pagents?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 2:25am
  
  Re:
  There's no agency for screwing light bulbs. All of the agencies are designed to screw people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 12:33pm

Dang, I thought this was my week!
Especially when I saw the top comment was a short & sweet comment about PROTECT IP. Eventually, my day will come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 1:05pm

sorry but I blame the EFF and tech sites like Techdirt for this protect ip act. They could have offered advice or solutions to the government to try and help them accomplish something fairly, but instead they just fought it the whole way. Then the lawmakers just tuned them out.

way to go mate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 12:41am
  
  Re:
  sorry but I blame the EFF and tech sites like Techdirt for this protect ip act. They could have offered advice or solutions to the government to try and help them accomplish something fairly, but instead they just fought it the whole way. Then the lawmakers just tuned them out.
  
  Huh? Accomplish *what* fairly? If there was a reasonable goal to be accomplished, I would have been more than happy to have offered constructive advice, as I have to the government previously (see: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100319/0353418628.shtml ). The problem here is that it's not clear what they're really trying to accomplish other than protecting some businesses.
  
  And, for what it's worth, I was asked if I would be on a roundtable to discuss COICA with federal government staffers and agreed... and then heard nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Huh? Accomplish *what* fairly? If there was a reasonable goal to be accomplished, I would have been more than happy to have offered constructive advice
    
    Mike Masnick doesn't think piracy enforcement is a reasonable goal.
    
    While I'm a little surprised he has admitted this, it does indeed explain why everyone except his pirate zealot buddies has tuned him out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 16 May 2011 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your troll scorecard:
      
      - Failure to acknowledge clear pwning of orignal poster (He was totally wrong, did you see that?)
      - Telling a bald-faced lie (He did't say what you claim he said.)
      - Make sweeping statements claiming as fact things that you couldn't possibly know (How do you know who's listening to Mike and who isn't?)
      - Accuse all those who disagree with you of criminal behavior (That happens a lot. It's a poor way of convincing people of the correctness of your arguments.)
      
      Overall a pretty good troll. The general distain and self-righteousness was a nice touch as well. Thanks for playing!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This nicely highlights the problem of your mentality. Nobody cares about goals like "piracy enforcement" except those who benefit from them. That's not a goal at all. A goal is something like "more healthy creative industries" or "better access to culture for all" - you know, something that actually matters. As has been demonstrated over and over, more piracy enforcement might be a goal in-and-of-itself for some, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything that the majority of the public gives a damn about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - buck lateral (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about, "the ability to be compensated for one's creative output"? I know that probably doesn't matter to someone not trying to make a living in this manner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The founding fathers didn't give congress the power to pass IP laws to accomplish giving artists the ability to be compensated. They passed it to promote the progress. The idea is that allowing such compensation promotes the progress and helps expand the public domain.
        
        Unfortunately they were wrong.
        
        No one is entitled to having a government give them the ability to be compensated for something. That's a business model issue. I suspect the public cares about IP about as much as they care about 95+ year copy protection lengths. These laws were put in place by corporate entities, not the public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (Your argument also falsely assumes that IP is the only way to be compensated for your work. It's not).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (No one is against artists being compensated for their work. We're against people using the government to get compensated for their work).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And your argument fails because you're only using music or movies as examples of IP.
        
        If you're not going to protect one aspect of IP, all others are at risk.
        
        It's like the fire department saying they'll put out the fire at your neighbor's house, but not yours.
        
        That's not how things work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What other copyright is there?
        
        Food?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rubberpants, 16 May 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I make a sculpture from my own feces do I *deserve* to be compensated for it? It is reasonable for me to expect that I will be? Should the government make laws to ensure that I am? What if anyone in the world could have an exact replica of my sculpture for free? Do you think I should expect to make money from that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you copyright it, offer it for sale and have it illegally taken without payment? Then yes.
        
        Offering up an example of why no one would want to compensate you for *your* art does not negate the rights of others. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Did you copyright it"
        
        Automatic copyright inclusion.
        
        "offer it for sale"
        
        So if people turn down the price, I guess that's because it could be pirated.
        
        " illegally taken without payment?"
        
        That's akin to saying if someone took a picture of an art piece it decreases in value.
        
        Hmmm... If I did a Google search on the Mona Lisa, does that decrease the perceived value of da Vinci's work?
        
        How about if I create my own? My supposed right is guaranteed by the government? That isn't a capitalist notion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about, "the ability to be compensated for one's creative output"?
        
        Yes! That is an excellent goal! And "piracy enforcement" has yet to get us any closer to accomplishing it, while others who pursue that goal directly by finding better business models are doing splendidly. I think you have demonstrated my point rather well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sales have been up still Limewire got shut down, Marcus. Still are.
        
        And when the ProIP goes into action they'll be up even more.
        
        People want the content. They'd just rather get it for free than having to pay for it.
        
        Just like anything in life. But that's not how a society works, is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sales have been up still Limewire got shut down, Marcus. Still are.
        
        Better look at the new post that just got published, because I'm afraid you aren't quite right about that. Maybe the data will make you rethink your position, but probably not I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron Rezendes (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus! Don't confuse the entitled faction with facts - they have no idea what they mean much less how to react to them!
        
        You may be liable if his head explodes during the epiphany!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nobody cares about enforcement of a law that has been on the books since the US was founded?
        
        I'm sorry Marcus, but you're edging far too close to the fringe. Think about what you're saying there and how much it encompasses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right. I was being overly optimistic in saying "nobody cares". It's just that nobody should care, artists who don't care are more successful, and the constitution itself explicitly states that what it cares about is a broader goal. (you might recall that bit about promoting the progress, and the notable absence of the word "piracy")
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh and if you think copyright as it stands today is "a law that has been on the books since the US was founded" then you are severely misinformed about history.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Mike Masnick doesn't think piracy enforcement is a reasonable goal."
      
      So does Joe Karaganis, Nina Paley, Gabe Newell, Cliff Blizinski, or any actual creator in a variety of services and industries. What's your point?
      
      "While I'm a little surprised he has admitted this, it does indeed explain why everyone except his pirate zealot buddies has tuned him out."
      
      Says the AC that doesn't bother to log in. The fact that oh, hey, it hasn't worked in 10 years+ has nothing to do with an opinion, nor does it have anything to do with how he put in a letter saying there were more effective manners than giving "rights holders" and the Attorney General more powers to enforce. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over for a different result. Enforcement of copyright has yet to accomplish the professed goals. Now you want more?
      
      Bravo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There hasn't been any enforcement of copyright; there is massive piracy on the internet and no laws except one drafted back in 1994 to try and curb it.
        
        See, it's saying silly stuff like what you wrote that make it impossible for anyone to take you people seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There hasn't been any enforcement of copyright"
        
        Brian McCarthy's incarceration for channelsurfing isn't enforcement of copyright? Or the RIAA's 2008 "sue em all" strategy?
        
        "there is massive piracy on the internet and no laws except one drafted back in 1994 to try and curb it."
        
        Please tell me you know about the NET Act(1997), DMCA (1998), the ACTA and its problems, along with the PROTECT IP ACT. Who are you kidding, and why do you need me to do your research for you?
        
        Small suggestion, why not read up on those, then post. Your argument is falling apart.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The dmca and PIP act were drafted in the mid 90s and are obviously out of date, technology-wise.
        
        That's it.
        
        The other two laws aren't even on the books yet.
        
        And the RIAA stopped punshing infringers in '07 or '08.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron Rezendes (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright and trademark law are virtually unchanged except for length of term in a couple hundred years and are obviously out of date, technology-wise.
        
        Let's reform the laws to modern day standards then we'll all get together and decide if anything else even needs to be discussed.
        
        "And the RIAA stopped punshing infringers in '07 or '08."
        If you insist on standing by this total fabrication (yours or did you pirate this from someplace else on the web? Just asking...) you will find yourself in a cesspool that only contains a few outdated content industry execs and the law firms that they employ. Congratulations!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - buck lateral (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    The CDT apologists wrote the language narrowing the scope of the definition of a rogue site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:55am
  
  Re:
  ERm, I almost spammed the WIPO consultation, I spammed the COICA consultation, and I wrote to congresspeople AND THE PRESIDENT with suggestions on how to make copyright mean what its original intent was for.
  
  That fact that no-one lkistened to a reasoned argument, with data to back it up, means one of two things;
  
  1) They're so clueless in this area; or
  2) they know and don't care.
  
  Either is very bad for America.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - buck lateral (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe after you wrote your Unibomber-esque manifesto, they simply came to the conclusion that you were nuttier than squirrel shit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then we need new politicians because our current ones are insane. Copy protection lengths last 95+ years and none of our current politicians are lifting a finger to correct this.
      
      It's not The eejit that's insane, it's people like you that are selfish.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey, at least I'm honest about my insanity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 2:23am
  
  Re:
  Yes, a dictator usually blames his own people for the cruel tortures and executions he performs on them. And usually, the more people complain and resist, the more cruel and inhuman the punishment is.
  
  You are basically condoning this behaviour. Way to go mate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 1:18pm

really, how could I resist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 2:19pm

Yippee, I'm fifth funniest!
I think Marcus will be funniest of the year though. That was beautiful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 3:00pm

i wonder how much of the issue with the votes is that people can sort via the highest ranked (or they see that it was highly ranked already) and then vote for it at well. It's a common issue on Slashdot and other sites that do any ranking on comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re:
  You can sort them? I see the filter...but no sort. Then again, I barely notice any of the features on stuff...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, I mis-spoke, I meant filter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 3:52pm

Humor ore
Remind me to mine these for Mimi & Eunice ideas, should I ever run low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 6:09am
  
  Re: Humor ore
  okay.
  
  ....dont forget to mine these for mimi & eunice ideas if you should start to run low..
  
  there. you have been reminded.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 5:49pm

Pretty names
"This has as much to do with "protecting IP" as the PATRIOT act did with patriotism."

It's usually a safe bet that if the politicians (*cough* lobbyists) spent more time coming up with the name than they did the actual legislation, it's probably all crap.

Put another way, if it needs a pretty name to sell it, then it's definitely has huge problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 6:22pm

Go, me!
My employer will be thrilled to know I made both those comments while on the clock. I'll be sure and point them out during my yearly review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 8:40pm
  
  Re: Go, me!
  He must really be getting his moneys worth!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Go, me!
    I'm going to ask him to start paying me on a per-word basis.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
buck lateral (profile), 15 May 2011 @ 7:54pm

Congrats on winning the pithy remark contest. How many votes does that get you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 8:41pm
  
  Re:
  You're just jealous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2011 @ 11:51pm
  
  Re:
  A few more than your victory in the troll contest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:56am
  
  Re:
  For somone witrh the word 'lateral' in their handle, you're awfully emotional.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  I love when people try to use "pithy" as an insult.
  
  pithy, adjective
  (of language or style) concise and forcefully expressive.
  
  Also noted by the OAD word usage guide thusly:
  
  A pithy statement is not only succinct but full of substance and meaning.
  
  So thanks buck, the Techdirt commenters appreciate your kind words!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 5:27am

And currently in the news
Just to add to the editor's choice:

Ron Paul discusses about a state raid against pasteurized milk

Sounds just like the raid against domain seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNY (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 6:41am

Intellectual "Property"
Maybe Techdirt and those of us who post comments, except when quoting others, should stop using the phrase "intellectual property" entirely, or at least always include scorn quotes. The phrase has always been Newspeak, a phrase the very utterance of which is a lie in service of those on power.

What is called "intellectual property" is not property, but a government-granted monopoly. Yes, there is, perhaps, social utility in granting such a monopoly (the American Founders thought so, for a limited time, to authors and inventors), but it is still a government-granted monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 16 May 2011 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: Intellectual "Property"
  Agreed. It's a totally artificial concept made possible (tenuously so) only by common agreement between people. In reality, an idea is no more property than gravity is.
  
  The ease of digital duplication and transmission is causing the public in general to question the wisdom of these constructs, as maintaining their integrity is possible only with ever more draconian laws, limitations of freedom, and outlawing of technology.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Taylor, 16 May 2011 @ 9:08am

"This has as much to do with "protecting IP" as the PATRIOT act did with patriotism."

No this is much to do about being one step closer for RIAA/MPAA/Copyright Alliance to make it mandatory to have DRM-Thought Police Chips implanted into yours and your family's brain just in case they try to remember or think of a song, imagine or try to be creative.

"When does the U.S. start to resemble Russia enough for us to be named the United States of Russia?"

No. More like United States of China.

"What does 'Economic Creativity' mean? To me that phrase sounds like something a bank would get in trouble for doing."

We'll to me it's nothing but materialism and love of money.

"They don't want things to get better or easier for the artists themselves, much less the end users. Every work of art, whether it's a song, a movie or a book, should be mutilated by regulations and stipulations and fine print until all joy has been sucked out the experience and all that remains is a soulless product devoid of beauty or life."

They don't protect creativity, they stifle it with their Satanic power. Do Artists get their share from the damages of infringer's plagiarism? No. The record companies get it. We are living in The End. Artists are just records, movie, and client's corporate puppets. If you're a creative artist, stop creating things for the corporates. They'll just take it away from you and claim it as of their own and throw you in prison.

"They don't need a techie. They need Rumplestiltskin."

And they don't need consumers, artists, or creativity. Once they treat creativity as a copyright offense. A child's creativity torn apart and thrown in prison.

The Question is: Which side are you on? Jesus or Corporate Materialism.

1. Make Jesus your savior right now.

2. If RIAA/MPAA/Copyright Alliance make the government to make it mandatory to have DRM-Thought Police Chips implanted into your little skull to make sure you obey copyright, leave your house, don't even bother bringing food or clothing with you.

3. Hide and live in the wilderness until the Second Coming of Jesus. Survive in the woods without corporate food or clothing by fishing with your bare hands, build a fire out of sticks. Read your bible and preach the gospel to your friends. Keep praying for His Return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
buck lateral (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:31am

Seriously Josh, just because I disagree doesn't mean senators and congressmen shouldn't hear what you have to say. I encourage you to make your feelings known to the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Please write and call (often) so that they come to understand the underpinnings of your beliefs on this matter. Yours is an important voice and representative of the majority of those who read and comment here on Techdirt. Do you know that you can walk in to any of the district congressional offices and speak to staffers about this? You could do the same in Washington DC. I urge you to take part in the democratic process. Don't just post here, go represent the Techdirt position in front of the lawmakers who will be voting on this bill. Make sure they know you speak for Techdirt and its readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]