Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the commenting-on-the-commenters dept

Sun, Aug 14th 2011 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

It seems that there was a lot of interest in the idea of some UK politicians to crack down on the internet and other forms of communication in response to the London riots this week, as the top three comments voted most insightful were all about that. First up, was jakerome's comment highlighting just how backwards the thinking here appears to be:

Instead of exporting democracy to totalitarian regimes in the Middle East & elsewhere, western politicians seem intent on importing freedom-restricting "innovations" like censorship from these dictatorships.

Coming in second, on the same post with a similar sentiment is blaktron, noting:

Isn't the first sign of tyranny when the government shuts down public communications?

Interestingly, both of these comments could apply equally to Friday's story of BART actually shutting down mobile phone service in a weak attempt to stop a protest. The comment voted third highest (and which will be the first editor's choice of the week) is also on that same story, and comes from That Anonymous Coward, and provides some more context for what's happening:

A hacker group, Team Poison, hacked RIM and told them they would release a database of RIM employees to the rioters if they did this.

The situation is well out of hand, but the Government seems to think they can just tell them the street lights are on, you have to go home now.

Being on the outside, with only second hand information, I'm trying to hear both sides and find the truth in the middle. What is becoming clear is there is a massive disconnect between the Authorities and the People.

They went into a situation that was already upsetting people and then shortened peoples fuses by mostly ignoring the family. Then there are reports after hours of waiting for someone to talk to them a 16 yr old girl got upset and threw (either paper, a rock, or both) at the police and then was beaten by 15 officers. There is video circulating of the beating as well as eye witness accounts of it.

Now in the void of information about this, rumors of him having been executed or handcuffed then shot, followed by a police response that looks disproportionally heavy handed in the beating of a 16 yr old... it makes it hard to dispel the rumors gaining ground in this case.

Add a media machine set to frappe trying to get the next shocking headline out, add a dash of people who feel the Government was out to get them to begin with... and boom.

There is a massive disconnect between the people in charge and the reality of the situation. If we turn off the Blackberries everything will just stop and we all all resume our civilized lives.

At the end of the day, if they shut down the network the rioting will only get worse. More people will join in feeling the Government is committed to crushing everyone underfoot.

If when they manage to get some order restored, the UK is going to, as a nation, need to have a serious look at itself and figure out why the gap is so large and how as a society they manage to close the gap

As for the second editor's choice, I'll jump over to the story about Fark successfully staring down Gooseberry, the patent troll, and getting the "company" (and I use that term loosely) to settle for the grand total of $0... and even getting the company to waive the standard non-disclosure. DannyB thinks that Fark should have gone further:

A better best offer would have been:

How about you drop the lawsuit you started, PAY US, and then go away?

It's cheaper to pay us and go away than to fight.

And, because I'm greedy, I'll throw in one more insightful editor's choice, with Ken's idea for patent reform:

A working prototype should be a requirement for any patent. A simple description of an idea is not enough. I would even go as far as requiring a viable business plan as well as a capitalization plan to be in the mix as well.

There should also be milestones required by patent holders to meet or else risk losing the patent and patent holders who do not meet them should be subject to challenges by other interested parties.

Filing a patent with no intent to produce anything should carry heavy penalties since patents deny other who came up with the same idea independently.

While I recognize the appeal of this, it's unlikely to happen, potentially for a good reason. People point out that one reason to get a patent is for someone who can't reasonably build the product to be able to show the idea to someone who can build it, while retaining the ability to block them from just taking the idea and running with it. Additionally, some people will claim that they file patents with the intent for someone else to produce something. There may be ways to modify the suggestion above to deal with that, but they may have other unintended consequences. Like I could say you need a manufacturing partner if you're not doing it yourself... but that gives a lot of leverage to partners.

Anyway... enough of the serious face. Let's jump to the funny. This week's winner (by a pretty wide margin) was an Anonymous Coward, responding to the news that the actor behind Roscoe P. Coltrane on the Dukes of Hazzard was suing Warner Bros., claiming the studio stiffed him on royalties. The AC was first up with the appropriate response:

The studio accountant was Boss Hogg?

Coming in second was AG Wright for a comment concerning the TSA's response to claims it seized insulin and ice from a pregnant diabetic at the airport. The TSA claimed it only allows ice packs if they're "completely frozen and the woman's were not." That raised the interesting point:

The woman must have gotten defective ice. You know the kind that melts.

Two quick ones for editor's choice. First, we have Richard's comment about my "what if" scenario concerning Tim Berners-Lee patenting the web, and how it likely would have limited the massive growth and success of the internet. Richard pointed out that some people might have liked this:

As we speak MAFIAA executives are working on a time machine to go back to 1991 and make this happen.

(Well it stands more chance of success than their present strategy!)

Finally, in response to the claim of a record label who pulled its music off of Spotify to "protect its artists," claiming that "physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries where Spotify is active," an Anonymous Coward noticed that there might just be a third variable worth plugging into the regression equation:

Holy Christmas, have they been living under a rock? In case they haven't noticed, physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries PERIOD. Welcome to the new millennium gentlemen. You're about a decade late, and in for one helluva bumpy ride. Please turn off the lights on your way out.

In other news, Sony Entertainment pulls all their music from iTunes due to plummeting Walkman sales.

On that note, kick back with a little bit of news on what you might have listened to on that walkman back in 1991, and get ready for another fun week...

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

73 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 12:09pm

On that note, kick back with a little bit of news on what you might have listened to on that walkman back in 1991, and get ready for another fun week...

I didn't listen to any of those things in 91. I had taste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 7:59am
  
  Re:
  arise was a great album!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 12:39pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/14/robert-levine-digital-free-ride
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 2:32pm
  
  Re:
  If you're going to point at articles that support your point of view, you should avoid those where the majority of the comments (165 in this case) are in disagreement and refute most of the author's points. Or stick to articles where commenting isn't allowed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The author did a fine job himself of debunking the idiotic comments left there, many of which read like the silliness that is posted here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I like the part he explaining away the numbers from BPI showing the industry doubled in size in the U.K., oh wait he didn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 5:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Many would argue that point, but since you'll continue your mindless screaming of 'yes he did!' and 'lalalalalala! I can't hear you!' we'll just leave you to troll.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  He got completely trashed in the comments.
  People just don't believe you people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 4:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Completely trashed" translation: Freetards saying the same stupid debunked shit they always say.
    
    And you wonder why nobody takes you dorks seriously...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't think anybody wonders about that.
      People don't even wonder if those claims from you people are serious anymore we all know is just rubbish.
      
      Those claims don't pass the sniff test when everybody get the own numbers from the BPI to prove those claims wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Freetards saying the same stupid debunked shit they always say."
      
      Or, a few copyright maximilists saying the same stupid debunked shit they always say despite dozens of people explaining clearly and logically why you're wrong. These commenters are readers of The Guardian, hardly a "freetard" must-read.
      
      "And you wonder why nobody takes you dorks seriously..."
      
      That is not something I wonder.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 11:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      no wondering:
      generally, those who don't take it seriously are those who's income depends on not taking it seriously.
      
      those who don't have such vested interests care more about the truth, and generally do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 9:44pm
  
  Re:
  I think my favorite line is this one:
  
  "The same film that costs pennies to send across the world might cost $150m to make."
  
  Yeah, and then you realize that $149 million of that cost is Tom Cruise's salary. So I guess they mean, in a world without copyright, actors and musicians would make a normal wage instead of a rock star salary inflated by a legal monopoly.
  
  Really tugs on the ole heart strings, doesn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So then why don't they just charge 150$ a single ticket. they recoup the costs the first day!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nicedoggy, 14 Aug 2011 @ 11:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or they can do it the old fashioned way and get their return from theaters tickets and merchandise sales that are not affected by piracy.
      
      There are this studies that keep saying that piracy like TV affects rentals, not sales for which they act like promotional tools and tend to increase sales.
      
      Do Illegal Copies of Movies Reduce the Revenue of Legal Products? The case of TV animation in Japan
      Quote:
      Whether or not illegal copies circulating on the internet reduce the sales of legal products has been a hot issue in the entertainment industries. Though much empirical research has been conducted on the music industry, research on the movie industry has been very limited. This paper examines the effects of the movie sharing site Youtube and file sharing program Winny on DVD sales and rentals of Japanese TV animation programs. Estimated equations of 105 anime episodes show that (1) Youtube viewing does not negatively affect DVD rentals, and it appears to help raise DVD sales; and (2) although Winny file sharing negatively affects DVD rentals, it does not affect DVD sales. Youtube�s effect of boosting DVD sales can be seen after the TV's broadcasting of the series has concluded, which suggests that not just a few people learned about the program via a Youtube viewing. In other words YouTube can be interpreted as a promotion tool for DVD sales.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Progress and Poverty(1879)
    
    Quote:
    "Take now... some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city-in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?" He will tell you, "No!" Will the wages of the common labor be any higher...?" He will tell you, "No the wages of common labor will not be any higher..." "What, then, will be higher?" "Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession." And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse."
    
    In 1800's people were complaining about rent schemes, the thing is copyright/patents are a rent scheme that have no limits and can cause infinity damage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 3:00am
  
  Re: That observer article
  You know, after I read that bad tempered article all I could think was - NO I don't want any of your stuff - I don't even want to make illegal copies of it - just go away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 3:13am
  
  Re: An interesting comment on that article
  Some way down the list I found the following rather insightful comment
  
  Now, most of these groups, claiming it's theft, want it CONSIDERED a crime like theft, but not TREATED as theft. That would mean a change to things. Let's take the Jammie Thomas case in the US for instance.
  
  She had to find and pay for a lawyer (her lawyers, Toder, and then Camara have been working pro bono for now) . If it was 'theft' she's be entitled to a public defender, who would be paid by the government, and thus able to have the resources to defend.
  
  Criminal proceedings are strict in proceedure and process. The attempts to 'get a settlement' (aka speculative invoicing, as practiced in the UK by davenport Lyons and ACS:Law) could not have happened.
  
  Cases would not have mass enjoinder. Currently, media companies and p2p litigants like to try and enjoinder (join togehter) hundreds, or thousands of cases into one case, which makes it easier for the plaintiff, but harder for the defendants. At present, it's is is everyone speeding in a city were dealt with in one case, 'because they were all doing the same thing, at the same time, and probably interacting with at least some of the other defendants at some point' - seriously, this is the argument they use (although not verbatim)
  
  Standards of evidence are much higher. Criminal cases are tried with guilt being 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In civil cases, it's 'on the balance of the probabilities'. Since they have enough problems getting a "did they do it? probably' (in the US it's 2-2 win/loss) that a 'did they do it? ABSOUTELY, with no doubt at all' is all but impossible for them.
  
  Penalties. Ina civil trial, every track on a CD is considered independantly. In a theft cases, its ONE CD. Thomas was convicted on 24 counts (one per track) had it been two CD's she'd stolen, instead of $1.92M in damages, it would be two CDs stolen, value $30. The MAXIMUM penalty, even in California for shoplifting is $1000, and that wouldn't be reached because the value of the goods was so low. More like $200 at most, a value below even the inadvertant infringing value per track.
  
  So, yeah, let's actually make it THEFT. It's a real blow for the industries and their lobby groups if it was treated as such, rather than them just claiming it was. As usual, they're saying one thing, and meaning another. The intent is to confuse the facts, and they've succeeded.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:54am
    
    Re: Re: An interesting comment on that article
    The commenter in question is Andrew Norton over here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 3:22am
  
  Re: Robert Levine
  I assume he is the evil twin of David Levine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 12:55pm

So much for Masnick's lie that musicians don't care about piracy...

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/how-jay-z-and-kanye-west-bea t-the-leakers-1005315342.story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jakerome (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: What so hard about including a subject?
  Since you're making accusations, you want to link to the post where Mike said, "musicians don't care about piracy?" Is that the new straw man, as the ruse that internet visionaries constantly proclaim "information wants to be free" is getting a bit hackneyed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, they're genuinely innovating. I have one question, though: why are you using Billboard like religious nuts use holy texts?
  
  How are they innovating, you ask? they are trying to cut out the Internet completely. Which in this day and age, is both a blessing and a curse - it's a blessing in that ti proves it can be done, and it's a curse in that I'd not even heard of the album.
  
  Props for the prevention of leakage, though, I have to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 2:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course it can be done; people managed to find ways of making albums before the internet...
    
    The unfortunate thing is that they *had* to work this way to prevent piracy. The internet has been an amazing tool for the recording of albums amongst those who don't suffer from the kinds of piracy levels the above artists do. But since it was obvious that no level of security was good enough and no one could be trusted, they had to go forth in the manner they did, which placed (what should be) unnecessary burdens and cost on the production of the album.
    
    That's a very sad state of affairs.
    
    And why I don't imagine it will end up being one of Mike Masnick's "case studies".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't believe it is unfortunate on the contrary they deserve it.
      If only they should stop making music that would be even better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 8:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      People made fire before choose one, (flint and steel, matches, lighters, lasers) I don't see too many lining up to go back to the old way though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, they worked this way to prevent leaks. The DoJ could learn a thing or two from them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  So much for Masnick's lie that musicians don't care about piracy...
  
  Can you please point out where this wholly mythical version of "Masnick" ever claimed that "musicians don't care" about things like leaks? Because I've never said that. Not once.
  
  So let's just go with Occam's razor and say, once again, that you're completely full of it.
  
  Seriously, just once, (just ONCE!) I'd love to have a conversation with you in which you and I discuss what I've actually said, rather than whatever bullshit you falsely think I've said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 2:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't know; when are you going to post receipts that prove you've paid for the content you consume?
    
    Such purchases would be a tax write-off for you, so if you really did pay, you would have kept the receipts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jakerome (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's with the war on subject lines?
      You've engaged in libel by falsely claiming that Mike is a liar. Seems to be a pattern, and you sure do enjoy trolling. But really, if you're going to troll, troll well. Do it right. Find something Mike actually said, take it out of context and then engage in a thinly supported supposition to extrapolate an outlandish proposition that Mike never stated. That's how you do it.
      
      Just calling Mike a liar and making stuff up... I've no monks that troll better than that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When you open up all your finances to scrutiny too.
      But we all know you are not going to do that, are you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one said anything about all his finances.
        
        He is a very vocal and public piracy apologist, doesn't use Netflix, yet claims to purchase all his entertainment.
        
        That doesn't pass the sniff test, and he could he easily prove me wrong by posting receipts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, you accuse him of a crime and he needs to prove his innocence. Sorry, doesn't work that way in this country. You can spout all the invective and accusations you wish, but without a shred of proof to support your own allegations there is no need to pay a single bit of attention to you.
        
        Happy Trolling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think the troll must work for USCG or one of those other opened minded copyright extortionists. Ooooh or maybe for the 6 strikes program.
        
        Sorry I'm getting warmed up to try and win funny next week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jakerome (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 5:45pm
        
        SUBJECT LINES EXIST FOR A REASON!
        Mike can no more prove his innocence to you than Obama can prove to birthers that he's an American.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 6:46pm
        
        Re: SUBJECT LINES EXIST FOR A REASON!
        Sure he can: If he buys, he has receipts. He would keep them for tax purposes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: SUBJECT LINES EXIST FOR A REASON!
        We also need to see your internet browser history; to make sure you're not a freetard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: SUBJECT LINES EXIST FOR A REASON!
        First we need proof that you are not a tax evader using creative accounting to fleece the government.
        
        Who would give a crook financial data?
        
        In the meantime you can sing this song, after of course you pay dues to Israel Kamakawiwo Ole.
        "Someday I'll wish upon a star,
        Wake up where the pirates are far behind me
        Where piracy melts like lemon drops
        High above the chimney top that's where you'll find me
        Oh, Somewhere over the rainbow way up high
        And the dream that you dare to, why, oh why can't I? Oh, I'm hiii!
        
        Ooooo oooooo oooooo(4x)"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: SUBJECT LINES EXIST FOR A REASON!
        And you just missed the point...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 6:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your desperation is really getting more and more sad, TAM.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh snap your claims also don't pass the sniff test I guess that is only fair that you open up your finances first.
        
        Do you have all the receipts for everything you consume?
        
        Lets see it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mike allen (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Its none of your fucking business you little Mafiaa troll take your one single brain cell get to a doctor and transplant it for a Sinclair ZX81 it will improve your intelligence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 9:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't know; when are you going to post receipts that prove you've paid for the content you consume?
      
      So you lie about me, refuse to apologize, and then demand something silly of me?
      
      Such purchases would be a tax write-off for you, so if you really did pay, you would have kept the receipts
      
      Wait, what?!? How the hell would my music purchases be a tax right off? I can assure you they are not.
      
      But, since you're such a lovely guy, send me an email and I'll send you evidence of some of my recent music purchases. Use the feedback form above.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 4:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuck it, Mike. You know the IP, you can probably guess at the real name. Might be high time to abuse those defamation laws again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jakerome (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 2:49pm
        
        I insist on subject lines
        Dah, it's tough to sue someone for defaming you via your own news outlet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rubberpants, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow. This is the pi�ce de r�sistance of trolling. You have truly outdone yourself sir.
      
      An Anonymous Coward comes on the site and demands to see receipts as proof-of-purchase of "content" suggesting that the content was not paid for. What an idiotic request. You don't even know what content you're asking for receipts for. How would you know if he'd sent them all to you? Even if he did send some receipts to you how would that help you know that he did or did not have content without receipts? You didn't really think this through, did you?
      
      Yeah, I'm sure Mike is going to go into his files right now and get those receipts to copy and fax them to you at - oh that's right - we don't have any contact information for you.
      
      How about this? You email me your name and the name and phone number of your employer. I'll call them and arrange to fax the receipts to your boss who will then deliver them to you.
      
      No? Awe shucks. What's that? You didn't REALLY mean that you wanted him to send you some receipts because it's a stupid, unproductive, and ridiculous request? You were just using it to deflect attention from your painfully obvious straw-man argument?
      
      I'm curious what you do for a living. Are you involved in any way in lobbying per chance? Because, If these are the best rhetorical tools in your repertoire you must be a truly terrible, terrible lobbyist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re:
  Kanye West Compares Himself to Hitler
  
  Kanye West interrupts Hitler
  
  What the question should be is if people care about drug addicted alcoholics that have inadequacy issues.
  
  In an industry full or corruption, drugs, killers, pedophiles and worst the big question is why people still support them when they are the firsts to show the public how "cool" it is to be "bad".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re:
  How much money did doing things like recording music 1980's style cost, vs how much did it increase album sales?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 3:16am
  
  Re:
  o much for Masnick's lie that musicians don't care about piracy...
  
  He never said that - although he might have implied that sensible musicians don't care about piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fb39ca4, 14 Aug 2011 @ 1:29pm

The ice pack comment was great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alien Bard, 14 Aug 2011 @ 3:08pm

In other news, Sony Entertainment pulls all their music from iTunes due to plummeting Walkman sales.

For a moment my brain hiccuped and I thought this was a serious statement of news. It's a sad statement of current trends that my mind could manage to accept something like that as real, however briefly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 11:38pm
  
  Re:
  you're not the only one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dfed (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 6:44pm

I need to start logging in fully from work when I make one-liners about Dukes of Hazzard. Apparently I can be funny. Who knew.

Then again, do I want to publicly demonstrate I know anything about that t--oh hell. too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 6:44pm

atent
> While I recognize the appeal of this, it's unlikely to happen, potentially for a good reason. People point out that one reason to get a patent is for someone who can't reasonably build the product to be able to show the idea to someone who can build it, while retaining the ability to block them from just taking the idea and running with it. Additionally, some people will claim that they file patents with the intent for someone else to produce something. There may be ways to modify the suggestion above to deal with that, but they may have other unintended consequences. Like I could say you need a manufacturing partner if you're not doing it yourself... but that gives a lot of leverage to partners.

Actually I'd want something in between - grant a much much limited licence in short period (like 2-5 years, that ought to at least produce a half-working prototype if they really have intention to produce). If they managed to produce "something" they have the right to extend to full privilege patent at priority after examination. If they fail, the idea should be opened up to someone more capable to implement. Perheps the original idea owner can get a cut from patent registration fees if someone applied patent for his idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic Kley, 14 Aug 2011 @ 6:53pm

Masnick Practices what he Preaches
Great suggestions Masnick,

I'll back your ideas just as soon as you Masnick alone or with up to two other inventors perform each of your suggestions and publish your invention along with the other required material (like your business plan) along with pictures and performance information on your actual sample invention.

Yes just as soon as you get your patent issued.

Of course you must do this in each of the broad fields, mechanical, chemical, biochemical, software and business-process.

Oh and one other thing I'll keep my word but you agree not to blog while the work of the Masnick Challenge goes on. No cheating now, you can use friends and family money but no big companies or others trying to make a point. you may not take a salary (like most of us inventors) nor a vacation.

GOOD LUCK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware
  
  Not really he can draw from a lot of good open projects already under way.
  
  Can you compete in a open world?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 8:06pm
  
  Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
  Why patents when you can go open source?
  http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/
  
  Why don't you build a rocket that can travel to space and show us what you can come up with.
  
  More it should be open source and you should build a submarine that will serve as a maritime spaceport..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mike allen (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
    I cant speak for everyone here but I will tell you this mr AC. I am prepared to point to articles and comments that oppose my view, if intelligently written yours sir are not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 9:42pm
  
  Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
  Great suggestions Masnick,
  
  Which suggestions were you referring to specifically?
  
  I'll back your ideas just as soon as you Masnick alone or with up to two other inventors perform each of your suggestions and publish your invention along with the other required material (like your business plan) along with pictures and performance information on your actual sample invention.
  
  Oh. The comment where I actually said this idea *wouldn't* work. Do you even read before making yourself look like an idiot?
  
  Anyway, why would I need to get a patent. I make a living the old fashioned way by building a product and bringing it to market. I don't run crying to the gov't to give me a monopoly like some people.
  
  Oh and one other thing I'll keep my word but you agree not to blog while the work of the Masnick Challenge goes on. No cheating now, you can use friends and family money but no big companies or others trying to make a point. you may not take a salary (like most of us inventors) nor a vacation.
  
  I have no idea what you're asking me to do. And, if I earn a salary, why don't I get it? And I haven't taken a vacation in probably a decade. What's your point exactly?
  
  You don't earn any money and because you're a complete failure I can't comment on things unless I join you in failuredom? How's that make sense again, Vic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - martyburns (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:14am
    
    Re: Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
    And I haven't taken a vacation in probably a decade
    
    How do you manage to deal with all these idiotic trolls without a holiday?
    
    Who votes Mick deserves a break? I for one do!
    
    (Though you will still be expected to post while laying by the beach sipping Mojitos!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - martyburns (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
      Mick...Mike...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re: Masnick Practices what he Preaches
  Oh... I get it... your an IDEA guy, not a reading guy.
  My first thought was maybe your to focused on small nano style things, but my interest in Googling you ended there.
  
  I could read it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
  
  Protip - In these posts the letters in italics are OTHER peoples words, the regular letters make up Mikes words.
  
  When you take a position and slap your **** into the butter to make a statement, you might want to have at least a couple of the facts on your side. Because now you look silly and need to wipe the butter off your ****.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:50pm

You don't need patents for that.
People point out that one reason to get a patent is for someone who can't reasonably build the product to be able to show the idea to someone who can build it, while retaining the ability to block them from just taking the idea and running with it. Additionally, some people will claim that they file patents with the intent for someone else to produce something.

You don't need patents for that. Before showing your idea to someone, you require them to sign a nondisclosure and licensing agreement. No sign, no show. Sigh and violate, see you in court.

Patents, on the other hand, are a way for someone take an idea and throw it out into the public, sit on it, and then just dare someone to do anything similar. You do it, see you in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:58pm
  
  Re: You don't need patents for that.
  The funny part, the USPTO is accepting everything so people start to patent the same thing hundreds or thousands of times, it will get difficult even for patent trolls to do their job since they will be in a race with others for the money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 3:45am
  
  Re: You don't need patents for that.
  You don't need patents for that. Before showing your idea to someone, you require them to sign a nondisclosure and licensing agreement. No sign, no show. Sigh and violate, see you in court.
  
  As is exactly the situation in other fields (eg pitching a movie idea to a studio).
  
  PersonallyI see patents as being really bad news for inventors. They struggle to get a patent instead of working on implemntation - then when they receive it they suddenly start believing that the world owes them a living for it and sit back and wait for something to happen. Any effort they do make goes into pitching the idea to others rather than implementing it themselves. Then, if one of the large companies they pitched to seems to be doing something similar off their own bat (NOT the same people that they actually talked to) they start getting litigious.
  
  Psychologically it's a disaster for the inventor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:51pm

I have noticed over at the Guardian site comments refer to articles here (techdirt for the one cell brain) as a source of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monkey, 15 Aug 2011 @ 3:56am

It gets better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74Q8g4sXlg

For all those copyright types that think they take to much shaft from behind by the pirates the monkey has a message.

It gets better, don't worry about it, you know stick in there, don't give up one day you could too become a preacher like MC Hammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:51am

What is with all the editor's choices? Mike, wasn't this suppose to be the top 3 insightful and the top 3 funny, and not just a list of what you found amusing? It seems to defeat the purpose, and mostly seems to re-echo the points of people who are agreeing with you.

Another TD Fail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  What is with all the editor's choices? Mike, wasn't this suppose to be the top 3 insightful and the top 3 funny, and not just a list of what you found amusing? It seems to defeat the purpose, and mostly seems to re-echo the points of people who are agreeing with you.
  
  Well well
  
  1) AFAIK Mike chooses the editors choice from amongst those comments that had high ratings from the readers.
  
  2) You're just jealous because your comments never feature.
  
  3)You're just sore because comments that you agree with never feature.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    1) I understand, but he only took one voted comment and added many more of his own selection. Why bother with the buttons?
    
    2) I don't expect my comments to be selected, I don't get enough votes from Mike's choir.
    
    3) See 2. Jealousy is not an issue, watching Mike yet again put his thumb on the scale to get his way is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, dang. If that's the way things should go, then you need to start by forcing the MPAA, the RIAA, the CoC and many other blogs to have open commenting in the first place. How dare they run blogs in a manner that they see fit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      1) I understand, but he only took one voted comment and added many more of his own selection. Why bother with the buttons?
      
      Not true. Each week I show the top 2 in each category (in other words, I use four voted comments) and then add in a variable amount of editor's choice.
      
      Furthermore, the "editor's choice" selections all come from the highest voted anyway, because those are the ones I review.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re:
  You were maybe confused because I managed to get 3rd and 1st with 1 post?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]