Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the troll-responders dept

Sun, Jul 15th 2012 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

Well, this is a first. We've had one comment take first place in the voting for both funniest and insightful before, but I believe that this is the first time that the top two comments in both lists were the same (and yes, in the same order). Neat. Also odd, but worth noting. Both comments were from anonymous commenters (who says anonymous commenting is a bad thing?), both came on Friday and both came in response to comments to the same anonymous commenter who seems slightly unstable in his seething, angry, often incomprehensible rants against us. Anyway, the absolute consensus for both funniest and most insightful comment this week was on the story about the MPAA's bizarre response to Jimmy Wales suggesting that the industry's failure to provide what consumers want was crazy talk. The AC made the situation quite clear:

Consumers: We would like to pay you for x

Distributors: We don't want your stinking money.

-------------------

Distributors: We aren't making as much money as we think we should be making.

Politicians: How about we pass laws effectively tax people but give you the proceeds.

Distributors: That's not enough.

Politicians: Well what do you want?

Distributors: We're spending a fortune trying to enforce copyright against the vast bulk of the global population.

Politicians: Ah, so that's why you're making less money.

Distributors: Well strictly speaking no, but if you're willing to believe that against all evidence, then why not.

Politicians: How about we take over the vast bulk of those costs that you are currently wasting on ineffective recourse to the law to fix a problem that isn't actually affecting you?

Distributors: Well, that's something but we still get the feeling that you're not really trying.

------------------------------------------------

Consumers: WTF?

This is more accurate than you might imagine -- though the part about politicians actually understanding why the industry is having problems is a bit far-fetched.

The comment that came in second place on both lists was in response to that same angry commenter, who insisted that I was wrong to suggest that a terms of use buried on the Olympics website somehow bound users not to link to the Olympics website, and demanded a full legal analysis for what is basic common sense. Before I could reply, this Anonymous Commenter succeeded in making the point clear:

By reading this comment you agree to be legally bound to immediately throw your computer out of the nearest window.

As of the time I'm writing this (about 12 hours after the comment was made), that individual has not come back to comment. So, perhaps he was actually intellectually consistent for once and did, in fact, throw his computer out the window. I doubt it, though.

Moving on to editor's choice, we'll start with insightful, with another comment, this one from Jeremy Lyman, also in response to that same article about the MPAA's response to Jimmy Wales. Lyman pointed out that for all of the "services" the MPAA listed off as proof that they're responding to customer needs, the reality is a bit different.

Okay so we've got six studios with thousands of titles and we've got dozens of online streaming sources, lets match up which titles are on which services. Remember, the consumer has NO FRAKING IDEA why some shows are on some services but not on others.

Connect the Title to the place you'd go you view it.

Psych-----------------Netflix
Terminator----------Amazon Streaming
Family Guy-----------Hulu
The Daily Show------HBO Go
All in the family------Vudu
Game of Thrones----Crackle
Shrek 3------------------UltraViolet
The Office--------------Epix
Batman Begins---------Mubi
Arrested Development----Torrent

It should not be this hard to figure out how to watch that you want to see. And I'm not subscribing to 10 different services even if I can figure it out. That's the barrier that Studios need to break down.

While we're on this theme, I'll also point to another Anonymous Coward's response on that same thread, pointing out that Jimmy Wales is in the UK, and every service the MPAA named does not provide the content he wants in the UK:

Hmmm...lets see, the guy is from London and the MPAA representative gave him the options below:

Hulu:
Wikipedia quote:
Currently, Hulu's content is only available in the United States and Japan with licensing reasons cited.
Hulu was planning on launching in the UK and Ireland in September 2009, but as of April 2010 these had been abandoned for the foreseeable future after failure to sign any content deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu

HBO Go:
Quote:
To access HBO GO^℠, you must reside within the fifty states of the United States of America.
If you reside in this area and are still experiencing difficulties, please contact your television provider.

Source: www.hbogo.com

Not available in the U.K.

Vudu:
Only available in the US.
Owned by Walmart.

UltraViolet:
Authentication scheme, not a delivery of media or services.
Wikipedia quote:
UltraViolet does not store files, and is not a "cloud storage" platform. The rights for purchased or rented content are stored on the service. UltraViolet only coordinates and manages the licenses for each account, but not the content itself. The content may be obtained in any way, in its standardized multi-DRM container format.

Epix:
Owned by Viacom (via Paramount Pictures), Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Lionsgate.
Wikipedia quote:
Epix offers a companion video on demand service. In order to access online on-demand program content, subscribers must have a digital cable television receiver.

Only available in the US.

EpixHD quote:
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.epixhd.com/" on this server.

Quote from MUBI:
amazing independent, international and classic movies and visit our curated cinemas. Stream for $1.99/film or an unlimited number with a $5.99/month subscription

I don't know about you guys, but I don't think it has Game of Thrones in there either.

Crackle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackle

Owned by Sony doesn't have the rights to show anything in the UK from HBO.

HBO owned by Time Warner.

Game of Thrones produced by HBO which in the UK have an exclusive contract with Sky Atlantic which may or may not show Game of Thrones ont their Sky Go(go.sky.com) website.

So there is not that much places to watch a show because studios keep making "exclusive" deals with other companies and so, those things keeps getting fragmented and nobody will sign up for 10 services to watch everything, I think they will just pirate that crap instead, which is the way to go me thinks.

If the MPAA wants to know why the online landscape pisses off so many people, they really need to spend some time reading and re-reading those two comments. But that won't ever happen.

Anyway, moving on to editor's choice for funny comments, I'll start with Torg's comment in response to a ridiculous column that suggested the failure of ACTA was a "cultural disaster." Torg explained why:

Cultural disaster is when the Visigoths overrun our borders and advance towards the capital, raping and killing any men, women or children that cross their path.

Rome didn't have copyright, and look what happened to them. We have to learn from history!

And, finally, we've got Chris-Mouse responding to the fact that Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee don't seem at all interested in engaging with the public:

There's a lobby group called 'The Public'? How much did they contribute to my campaign fund?

Not enough, apparently. Not enough.

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

100 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:39pm

Before I could reply, this Anonymous Commenter succeeded in making the point clear:

Before you could reply? Angry? LMAO! Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why? Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says. Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong. Two years, and you won't even debate me on the merits even once. What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:42pm

Re:
Yeah! I bet he also refuses to debate the crazy man on the street corner talking about the Mayan apocalypse. What a coward!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:44pm

'There's a lobby group called 'The Public'? How much did they contribute to my campaign fund?
Not enough, apparently. Not enough.'

so much truth, so few words!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re:
Yeah, that's it! Mike won't debate me 'cause I'm stupid just like the folks who believe in the Mayan calendar. It's got nothing to do with the fact that the law is actually on my side, the fact that he's trying to change policy at all costs, and the fact that he's purposefully ignoring the law that doesn't comport with his world view. You're totally right! Mike is just so dang sure of himself that he hasn't even got five minutes to debate a dissenter such as myself. His views are so perfect, so one with the universe, so undebatable, that he doesn't even need to ever address a challenger. That's it! You figured it out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keii (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
If you raise a valid point or bring something new to the discussion then he might respond to you. However, every single thing the copyright cartel has said has already been addressed and proven false. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
Dude, even if the law is on your side as you claim, that law is like you, inconsequential and impotent.

Nobody and I mean nobody respects copyrights not even you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
AC is great that you are in DC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
Do all you shills take a Hypocritic oath? You never replied to the comment about being legally bound to throw your computer out a window.

Why would Mike debate you when you've already been facepwnd in the wtfbbq and run off with your tail between your legs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
There really hasn't been much to debate since you bring nothing new to the table, no new "evidence" to back your position, no new insight, no new.....

Starting to get it?

A debate requires that the two people engaged have some commitment to actually listening to one another with minds a whole lot more open than a rusty steel leg hold trap which, given what you bring here pretty much eliminates you.

OK, the law is on your side. Has that stopped piracy?

No.

Will it?

No.

Does that negate studies that clearly show that when an artist's material is pirated that sales through "traditional" channels increase?

No.

Does that mean the travesty we now know as copyright is a good thing and comes anywhere near close to its original states goals in the UK or US other than to make more money for distributors of the work than the creators in the vast, vast majority of cases?

No.

You've got the law on your side. Bully for you.

Does that make the law right?

No.

It just means that it's time for the citizenry to fight harder to get copyright and patent law to more reflect their unoriginal goals than the corrupt steaming mass of filth they've become.

And it takes a few more Courts like the Supreme Court of Canada to make it clear to maximalists that the user/consumers of material covered by copyright have rights too.

A ruling, by the way, that doesn't condone piracy one little bit except that maximalists having nothing better to complain about and far less educated on the law and the issues than they'll ever be, revert to screaming "It's MINE" and "you can't do that.....it's PIRACY!!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re:
"It's got nothing to do with the fact that the law is actually on my side, the fact that he's trying to change policy at all costs, and the fact that he's purposefully ignoring the law that doesn't comport with his world view."

At one time, "the law" was on the side of slavery too. So it's OK as long as its "the law" right? If (when) the US Govt starts taxing it's citizens to the tune of 50-90% of their income to pay for their grossly irresponsible spending and utter lack of ability to control the debt, are you going to be all "it's ok because it's THE LAW" then too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:12pm

The PUBLIC?
If they let the public in then the peasants....ahhhhhh...public might attack the nobility and the barons with pitchforks of flaming hay at the Capitol and the courtiers in the White House!

And then who knows what they might do! They might even remind the likes of Barclays Bank and others to stop screwing around with their money, loaned to them in deposit accounts and remember who it belongs to. Radical stuff there! Can't have that!

They might tell we nobles and barons that we can't have a war on endlessly borrowed money unless we actually have to declare that there is one instead of a "police action" stuff like that! Can't do that either..it would cramp our style! You mean we'd actually tell Outer Slobbovia that our troops near the border aren't having an exercise but will invade in the next 48 hours if they don't let us use the washrooms and, by the way, write the same IP laws we have?

You're NOT serious are you?

WHAT?

You are????????

DADDDDYYYY...the peassants are saying bad things and bullying me!!!...DADDDDDDDDYYYYY!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:17pm

Takes 2 to do the debate tango
I seem to recall mike responding to comments all the time on this site with rebuttals and links to evidence. can't think of a single time a detractor has come back with a sound argument and/or any evidence (or links thereto). Kind of hard to have a "debate" where one side throws a few ad homs, makes vague allusions to ancedotal evidence, then tops it off with more ad homs and personal accusations. Then, when he is responded to with evidence to the contrary to his position, disappears like a ninja, or ignores said evidence and continues with ad homs.

Personally I would love nothing more to have a 1 on 1 mike vs AC cagematch on IM/IRC/whatever that thing mikes been using for interviews is called. Maybe find a truly neutral 3rd party moderate, ideally whoever is behind yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ , and let them strike out any logical fallacies so no time is wasted on them. Too often "debates" on these issues end up with shouting matches, a real moderated debate style debate with all the hyperbole and logical fallacies stricken from the record would be most pleasing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:29pm

Re:
Before you could reply? Angry? LMAO!

Let's link to a few of your recent comments, shall we?

First off, this one.

Why are you and Pirate Mike such pirate-apologist sacks of shit? Sorry to use curse words, but as far as I can tell, you both deliberately lie about who is truly to blame for piracy. In my opinion, both of you are worthless sacks of shit for pretending like piracy is the fault of anyone other than the pirates. Please go fuck yourselves and die.

And how about this one

Brilliant retort! So devoid of substance! That's the par for Techdirt. Complete fucking idiots pretending like they know it all = Pirate Mike and Techdirt Army. Kudos!

I think most people can reasonably make the statement that you are angry. I won't even go digging for the comment from a couple weeks ago about how you think I'm going to get cancer and die soon.

Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why? Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says. Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong.

Okay. As I said right here, I have no problem debating people who act like grown ups and are able to have a debate. Clearly, that is not you. Note that the two comments I highlighted above are just from the past couple *days*. I can go back months and point to many more of the same. What I do *not* see as I go back through your comments is *any* indication that you ever had anything substantive to say that does not involve childish name calling, temper tantrums or the like.

And, since you asked me to "prove you wrong" I will do so. I have no problem debating detractors.

Here's me debating Jonathan Taplin: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience.shtml

Here's me debating Steve Tepp:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-hu man-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml

I assume you are not going to claim that you are somehow a more accomplished or more knowledgeable individual than those two, are you?

Fact is -- and yes, it's fact -- I have no problem debating someone who I disagree with, when the time and place is right, if they can act like they're older than 12 years old. You have not demonstrated the ability to act older than 12.

Let's be clear: you are an anonymous commenter on a website, where you regularly attack with ad hominems, you've asked me to "fuck off and die" you call me a "lying shit" more times than I can count. And I can't recall you ever making a single substantive point.

Let me be 100% clear: I don't debate you because I don't know and don't give a fuck who you are, but more importantly, because you have shown no reason to "debate" you. I've proven you wrong. I debate detractors all the time. I don't debate you not because I'm worried about some anonymous, unstable, individual who has a *massive* sense of entitlement and self-worth -- but because you can't act like a reasonable adult. Act like an adult, and maybe someone here will treat you like one.

What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.

One of us stands behind our words. One of us does not. I've already proven you wrong.

I don't know who you are, but I do know that you're the one spewing all sorts of anonymous and very personal attacks on me.

I have a two year old child. There's a very simple lesson that we know from raising him: when he throws a tantrum, you don't "debate" him, you quickly and firmly explain to him what the situation is and then you ignore him.

That's what I'm doing with you. If that means treating you like a two year old, well, look in the mirror, skippy. You've earned that level of "respect."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:33pm

And hell
Hell, while we're at it:

Before you could reply? Angry? LMAO! Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME?

-citation needed. if it's happened so many times it shouldnt be too hard to go back and find some for instance of what you're talking about.

Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why?

-i would call this "begging the question." also, again, citation needed.

Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says.

-ad hominem

Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong. Two years, and you won't even debate me on the merits even once.

- here's some counter-examples to your claims.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120713/14013119695/lord-finesses-lawyers-now-using-copyr ight-to-stifle-dan-bulls-criticism-his-lawsuit-against-mac-miller.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/b log/wireless/articles/20120709/11412719631/south-korea-gives-mobile-operators-permission-to-ignore-n et-neutrality-surcharging-blocking-voip-services.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/ 18134119613/acta-failure-inspires-most-clueless-column-ever.shtml

now as for mike failing to respond personally to you, i can't search for instances of that because you happen to be an AC. although, i believe the burden of proof is on you. please provide some articles where you made a comment which was not responded to (or responded to unsatisfactorily). Also, please keep in mind, if someone else responds to your comment in a manner which mike deems satisfactory it would kind of be pointless for him to post the same point over again.

What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.

-ad hominem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:35pm

dammit
damn you mike. beat me to the punch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 2:52pm

Re: And hell
"now as for mike failing to respond personally to you, i can't search for instances of that because you happen to be an AC."

And that's exactly why people like this remain unregistered AC's. That last thing they want is for you to be able to track their comments and hold them to something they've said before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord of the Files, 15 Jul 2012 @ 3:15pm

Re:
If you truly thought your pro-copyright position was as sound as you believe it to be, you wouldn't be hiding behind the Anonymous Coward tag. You would use your real name and take pride in knowing you showed the world how you are right and Mike is wrong. You won't though, proving just how fitting the tag is on you. You truly are a coward. Until you man up and play fair like you got a pair, I don't see any reason why Mike should feel obligated to prove anything, least of all to a troll like you, Mr. Nate (which is who I'm assuming you are because you sound just like him).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vegetaman (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 4:53pm

Speaking of which...
Speaking of "take my money", I'm sure the industry at large will ignore what I assume will be a truckload of money brought in by the Steam Summer Sale, as usual (I know I've already availed myself of the sale).

More cries from the 'so called content industry' at large against piracy and a trumped up need for more annoyingly invasive DRM to follow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 4:53pm

Re:
He responds to opposing views all the damn time if you'd bother to look.

He does not respond to ad hominim or full retard
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 4:55pm

Re:
If you'd bother to actually look you'd see He responds to opposing views all the damn time.

He does not have to respond to people who go full retard or is just name calling with no real point to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 4:57pm

Re: Re:
Actually, not proof of lack of firm belief.

Can be anything from paranoia to being lazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 4:59pm

Exclusive...
The next time I see that word used, I'll mentally replace it with the word it really is: monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:01pm

Re: Speaking of which...
I've spent $60 already and the sale just started...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:01pm

Re:
Shut up you dumb shill!!! Find another job besides shilling. You're worse than a parody of yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I perfer the LGBT BBQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: Re:
The law being on your side gives you the privilege to tell someone to fuck off and die? What kind of reasonable human being thinks that way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sad part is that there will actually be protests against stopping the insane amount of spending.

....who will probBbly argue the law is on their side. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:12pm

Re: Exclusive...
Do not pass go, do not be a rent seeking jackass
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:20pm

Re: Re:
Bonus points: the troll AC claimed you don't debate opponents thus you proove him wrong just by responding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:49pm

Re: Re:
Ouch, someone call an ambulance, AC just got BUUUUUUURNED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:58pm

"It should not be this hard to figure out how to watch that you want to see. And I'm not subscribing to 10 different services even if I can figure it out. That's the barrier that Studios need to break down."

It's called cable, satellite TV, FIOS, IP TV... you know how it works. Thanks for clearly identifying a problem and how the current distribution systems fix that for you.

Can you explain it to Mike now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 6:09pm

Re:
Whoosh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 15 Jul 2012 @ 6:24pm

re:
"It should not be this hard to figure out how to watch that you want to see. And I'm not subscribing to 10 different services even if I can figure it out. That's the barrier that Studios need to break down."

It's called bittorrent, usenet, cyberlockers... you know how it works. Thanks for clearly identifying a problem and how the current underground distribution systems fix that for you.

Can you explain it to legacy industries now?

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VMax, 15 Jul 2012 @ 6:46pm

Is your name Johnny Snow?
Does Mike have to be at the park by 8 because you're not allowed out past 9?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 8:32pm

Re: Re:
Yup, that was the sound you heard as the point went over your head. I asked Mike, not you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vegetaman (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re: Speaking of which...
Indeed. I've gotten Binding of Isaac and Left 4 Dead I & II so far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 10:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you can't even comprehend your own writing now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 10:22pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that's it! Mike won't debate me 'cause I'm stupid just like the folks who believe in the Mayan calendar

Noone here could have said it better. I'm glad we finally agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 10:40pm

I don't get why there is no compulsory license scheme for TV or movies, that way everybody who want it could just use that license and there would be no anti-trust issues.

No matter how much services there are, if you give "exclusive rights" through a contract to anyone in effect there is only one place to get anything, so that crap about how many digital services there are just seems hallow void of any meaning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 10:44pm

Re:
How it works is simple, it doesn't since "exclusive" deals are made all other distribution channels are in fact useless.

Maybe we should call for the government to create a compulsory license that would force the opening of the market to real competition on that distribution front.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 11:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yup, that was the sound you heard as the point went over your head. I asked Mike, not you.

You asked me to explain it to me? Somehow, I don't think so.

PS, I agree with the commenter above. You seem to have totally missed the point, and actually helped make the point even stronger with your response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 11:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wambulance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2012 @ 11:27pm

Re:
It is called monopoly dude and it shows why it is so bad.

Maybe as a gesture of goodwill congress should pass the TV and movie compulsory license act, forcing distributors of any sort of video to license their offerings to whomever wants them, you know like it happens in music and patents under FRAND and RAND.

Unless of course you really want to have to deal with piracy on the pirates terms on the pirates fields.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:08am

Re:
Because once upon a time, it took a very long time to get the content around the globe. They world was divided into different regions, and depending on how much they thought the region was worth directly affected how hard they worked to get the content there and released.

Now I can type these words and milliseconds later an upside down person in Oz can see them. We can instantly get content anywhere on the globe (or close to it). But they still like to pretend the old charts and old regions are the best way to do things.

To help keep these regions from doing anything with each other they created a huge mess of collection societies and rules and they did this so well they actually have stopped themselves from releasing content without having to pay themselves via 4 middlemen collecting fees.

Until they figure out the world is completely connected, and there is no benefit in pretending the people in Oz will avoid hearing the spoilers for new content and will pay an extra premium price because they had ship electrons very far, and invert them at the same time.

The first step would be to dismantle their own tangled web, and they worry they would lose money by not getting 15 shots at each and every dollar of income. Think of the market as the entire globe, not semidivided pieces.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:11am

Oh they know what the problem is and it's not us it's greed. They make too much from extorting innocent people.

Burn in hell Hollywood you'll never see another penny from me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 1:52am

Re: Re:
Umm, Mike, I hope you have more respect for your two year old than this idiot has earned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 2:05am

Re:
Out of curiosity, how much would your monthly bill be in total if you signed up to all of these distribution systems? More or less than your mortgage?

Or you could make it available over the web for a reasonable price.

Hmmm. I wonder which one better serves your customer base?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 2:36am

As a Brit, I checked out all of the "legal options" mentioned above. The commenter was correct that only "MUBI" and "Crackle" are available in the UK.

MUBI seems to offer one single film per day, which is hardly a useful service.
Crackle has 36 films, all of which look like crappy straight-to-dvd offerings. The only one they offer which I've heard of before is "Cruel Intentions 2", which was abysmally bad. They have 21 TV shows. Most are crappy animated shows I've never heard of. They do have Dilbert and the Three Stooges, which are good quality. But that's hardly enough to call it a good or useful service.

Are those really all the legal offerings which currently exist? I subscribe to Sky Go, Netflix and Lovefilm's streaming service, and have access to on-demand services for the free-to-air channels, but all that gives me access to only a tiny fraction of the things I'd like to see. On the rare occasion when something I want to watch is available, it's always a couple of seasons behind (e.g. The Office US on Neflix up to S5, on torrent up to S8).

IF YOU GIVE ME WHAT I WANT I WILL GIVE YOU MONEY. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 3:09am

Re: dammit
That's why mike's the pimp and you're nothing but a beech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 3:56am

Re:
I accept that the final "A" in RIAA and MPAA stands for "America" but you'd think they'd have figured out by now that if
a) the population of the USA is about 300 million and
b) there are about 3 billion people connected to the web
then there must be people connected who aren't in the USA.
There's a lot of these people, and they could be customers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah he should bring something other than ...

~Fairies make the flowers grow.
~Fairies maintain a trillion dollar a year business.
~Telling Fairy tales is theft.
~Quoting Fairies violates their property.
~Fairies always believe the sky is falling.

The last one is pretty much true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:37am

Re: Re: Re: Speaking of which...
Binding? Sounds hawt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:49am

Re: Re:
Hey look a shiny blue area in the middle of the wall of words. Its a comment, I think I will read it and comment. :)

For the first time these copyright maximalists, are having all their schemes and machinations trounced. To them, these defeats, are outside their belief system, and unprecedented. The unruly masses have risen up, and they do not have a target to blame, attack, or propagandize against. You, Techdirt, Michael Geist, the EFF, Google, Wikipedia are convenient surrogate targets for their blame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 4:51am

Re: Re: Re:
"Can be anything from paranoia to being lazy"

Lazy ... LOL ... The man can type a wall of nonsense, but can not type in a 1-20 letter name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:14am

Re: Re:
ROFLLMAO @ Pirate Mike. Excuses, excuses, excuses. But never any actual debate. Anytime, anyplace, Pirate Mike. Fact is, you're too scared to have an actual debate. Priceless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:15am

Re: Re: Re:
Defeated? Nope. Pirate Mike won't even debate me. How could he win a debate he's too scared to even participate in. No one runs from a debate faster than Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Burned? LMAO! He won't even debate me. It's just excuses, excuses, excuses. C'mon, Pirate Mike. Why so scared?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cory of PC (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Re:
I think burn is an understatement. The AC just got roasted, fried, singed and burned to a crisp, leaving only a pile of day old ashes behind. ... And that's probably a bit much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cory of PC (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:46am

Re: Re: Re:
Hi Carreon, how's things going with you? Enjoying your Pyrrhic victory as of late?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:47am

Re: Re: And hell
I don't know; this AC makes it very easy to track himself down. Type in Pirate Mike plus a profanity and you'll probably get every single post he writes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
First - You are the one that's scared. All you do is throw out insults and change the subject. You use disproved talking points and are insignificant in the large picture.

Second - you really do not understand what is happening in the world do you? If you look at what I have written here and elsewhere you will see I am balls accurate when it comes to predicting future trends. This rising up of the masses against ACTA-SOPA-etc is just the beginning of a much larger social change that is occurring worldwide. Don't be surprised if in five to ten years mandatory worldwide licensing, shortening of copyright lengths, and registration is required of all copyrighted material.

Third - And most important. Take Wil Wheaton's advice "Don't be a dick" or in your case stop being one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 5:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You considering "fuck off and die" as debate says a lot about you being a sorry excuse of a human being.

That anyone posts in response to your vulgar ramblings is a privilege, not a right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the point is that we have all the distributions systems already in place - just impatient people who just can't wait that are knocking themselves out to pirate stuff because, well, they are clueless.

Worse, they will "cut the cable" and then subscribe to multiple services and end up paying more to people who aren't paying to use the content (you know, that Mega download pass), and away they go.

It's self defeating, but they can sit back in their hipster glasses and post facebook updates claiming to be a cool kid because they "cut the cord".

Yeah, I just don't get it, right?

Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn't it ironic, they want to remove several constitutional amendments to save their business model, and then they won't have the right to insult us anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other AC (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you completely and willfully ignorant and stupid? I would categorize you with Westboro Baptist and the similar "churches" in Florida who spew ignorant and hate filled drivel. You obviously have no life, you troll this site and who knows how many others looking for an opportunity to spout ad hom attacks and attempt to derail actual intelligent commentary. I would rather see comments from Pay Wall Bob than the inane(insane?) garbage you spew. I remember seeing comments bitching about censorship due to your(or similar comments) being flagged. 1, they are hidden but not removed and 2, we hide them because they bring nothing substantive to the conversation(s) at hand.
You need(in a bad way) serious psychiatric and social assistance. Hell, I would rather debate Lamar Smith or Chris Dodd. At lease they could be counted on to bring basic social etiquette to the table. My eleven yr old and hell, even my 6 yr old, can produce better reasoned arguments and refrain from name calling. Please seek professional help. I am seriously worried about the level of harm you can do to yourself and anyone near you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They won't have a right to insult us anymore because it'll be written into the laws they want.

It's just like darryl's response to the guy who paid Rupert Murdoch three times for access to his empire's content, and pointed out that it wasn't quite fair. darryl called the guy an idiot for doing things legitimately.

We're idiots if we pay for content and scumbags if we don't. Regardless of whether we actually peruse said content; the laws/IP addresses/lawyers/random number generator said we're guilty and so we must be.

Fortunately most people aren't this atrocious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Truth be told people like the troll we are chatting with are doing more harm than good to their cause. The more they show up and spout their bullshit, the more we resent the entire industry. It is self defeating.

Read this ...
http://www.hephaestusproject.com/blog/2012/01/25/why-internet-trolls-are-a-good-thing/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, how dare people not wait several months or years before they get content that was rightfully denied from them because they live in a completely different country. It's their fault for not living in America, the losers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Re:
So the big blue box that rebuts all of your points is what? A decoration? Comments on an unrelated argument? A brief history of scientology?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the point is that we have all the distributions systems already in place"
Did you even read the article?
point 1 - "all the distribution systems" - when only 1 is needed.
point 2 - that STILL DON'T SUPPLY THE MARKET!

You are barely coherent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cory of PC (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe that people who cut the cord are clueless about what they are doing, nor are they that impatient about getting their content. Just because they found something cheaper online that provides them what they want at that price as opposed to what cable and satellite is providing, then that doesn't mean they aren't that stupid, impatient or clueless.

And, just an example, with Viacom acting like a whining and crying spoiled brat for not getting any more money from DirectTV's costumers (when are they going to whine to Dish and everyone else about that?), many DTV subscribers might start looking for other sources to make up for the loss channels, which might include illegitimate methods. Viacom is driving away these viewers from their shows over their spoilage and they will continue their whining because they are the ones who made these people find other sources to fix their Viacom-related needs. Yes these other sources could be illegitimate sites, but if Viacom wants these people back (and I HIGHLY doubt that), they need to win them back by making an agreement with DTV and issuing out a deal that's fair with everyone. If they can't get everyone back, then they need to compete against these sites instead of playing the "Whining about Piracy" card they are overplaying.

I know I might be missing my point, but I will say this: you can't be clueless if you are thinking. The only way you can be clueless if you aren't listening or reading to everything. Now if you excuse me, I need to go get a pair of Kamina-styled "cool kid" glasses and log onto Facebook to chat about my awesome "piracy" lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:58am

Re: Re: Re: And hell
Yar har fiddle de de, being a pirate is alright to be!

But Mike's not a pirate!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Hahaha it took you several hours to come up with THAT as a response?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Er, which debate point did he run from?

You seem to be the one running. You asked Mike why he doesn't debate you, and he told you. Instead of responding to a single one of his points, you try to brush it off.

"ROFLMAO haha yeah whatever" (we can all hear the sobs behind those keystrokes, friend)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:19am

And the most liberal use of the "report" button...
And the most liberal use of the "report" button on techdirt goes to....THIS ARTICLE! Thank you idiotic ShillTroll(tm) AC for allowing me to save massive amounts of time and reduced blood pressure by being able to just skip down the page hitting "report" on every moronic thing you post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
LMAO!

Thanks for proving yet again, you're stupid just like the folks who believe in the Mayan calendar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re:
Too scared by morons like you? Priceless indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want Mike to debate you bring up an actual point withhout all the ad hom and childishness
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:08am

Re: Re: Re:
Now I know you're just trolling.

He has debated others and would bebate you if you bring up something relevent to the techdirt article you commented on.

But you're too much of a child for that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never underestimate the lazy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sevenof9fl (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:09am

Re: Before Who Could Reply?
Before you could reply? Angry? LMAO! Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why? Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says. Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong. Two years, and you won't even debate me on the merits even once. What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.

*Sigh* I like to come here to read the intelligent articles and often insightful and hilarious comments.

And then there's YOU.

I guess as far as trolls go, you're not bad, because you certainly end up sucking all the air out of this room and I can't believe the intelligent contributors herein continue to fall for your schtick.

It's old, it's tired, it's lame, and it's the oldest trick in the cyber-world but it sure still works.

Yep, 12-year old name calling, diatribe, ad hominem attacks, distortion and dodging the point, I think I'd call you the Anonymous Coward Troll.

What I hate about it is that the conversation strays so far from topic and of course becomes all about you, which is the point of any troll, instead of about the topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord of the Files, 16 Jul 2012 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never underestimate the lazy

So true lol. I'm not surprised he didn't reply either. I'm sure he knows it all comes down to credibility. Mike has it, the coward doesn't. If he signed up using his real name and was willing to have all the posts he makes attributable to him, I'm sure Mike would be more than happy to answer his questions and publicly debate him. Until such time he is just a troll, one who is clearly terrified that his chosen position is wrong and fears being called out on it when the evidence of that fact becomes undeniable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(we can all hear the sobs behind those keystrokes, friend)

And I bet his tears taste like sour grapes (not that I really want to find out).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 10:17am

Re: Re:
Very well and succinctly put. I've seldom seen it explained better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 10:52am

Re: Re: Re:
ROFLLMAO @ Pirate Mike. Excuses, excuses, excuses. But never any actual debate. Anytime, anyplace, Pirate Mike. Fact is, you're too scared to have an actual debate. Priceless.

I will repeat my original comment, which addressed your fallacious assertion:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120714/02175519699/funniestmost-insightful-comments -week-techdirt.shtml#c147

That you choose to ignore the response and continue throwing around ad hominems only serves to bolster what I said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 10:56am

Re:
Where have you ever raised actual points? The last time I saw it happen your point was:

how you can use a site without being bound by the terms of use of that site?

An the point was addressed thusly:

Simple: the site allows you to use it without having ever seen or agreed to those terms - often without them having even been made prominent in any way. And, since the terms are hosted on the site itself, it's impossible to even see them without first making use of the site. That's not an enforceable agreement.

And the only thing you had to say to that was:

Obviously you've never studied contract law, and you have no idea what you're saying. The never seems to stop you from acting like you're an expert, though. I'm happy to bust out the case law and prove you wrong, but what's the point? You'll run away just like Pirate Mike always does. Speaking of Pirate Mike, funny how he doesn't have any time to defend his silly post.

Where you hilariously engage in an 'honest open awesome debate' by posting 'your wrong and I have sources but I'm not sharing them' and then having the suggesting, in your re to a post debating the merits of your post, that everyone else is running away from debate while actively avoiding a debate because 'what's the point.' If you don't see the point in actually debating by posting your sources and making actual points then why do you keep asking for debate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 11:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read the response. It's just a laundry list of excuses about why you won't/can't debate. I know you don't like being called out for your nonsense, Mike. That's why you run away from debates. You do it all the time with lots of people besides me. I'm sure you can find an excuse every time. But, of course, what you won't do is actually engage people in an honest and frank discussion of the issues. You'll pop in with an arrogant jab here and there, but you never stick around and have a substantive debate. Want to prove me wrong? Stop posting excuses and actually start being open, human, and awesome. You know, stop sucking. Am I total asshole to you? Yes, absolutely. I am so because I've seen you repeat the same half-truths for so long, all the time running from debate, without ever stopping to actually engage your detractors. You misstate so many things and twist things past the breaking point so often, that I can only conclude that you are deliberately lying and trying to manipulate people. Given your extreme, nonmainstream views on some issues, I suppose it's not surprising. But the fact that you run from criticism, when you yourself have made a life out of criticizing others, speaks volumes to me about your mettle. I think you're a snake oil salesman and a charlatan. And the fact that you won't even debate me or others only strengthens that opinion. You can dish it out (and boy are you a petulant asshat at times), but you can't take it. Glass houses and all that, Mikey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just a laundry list of excuses about why you won't/can't debate. I know you don't like being called out for your nonsense, Mike. That's why you run away from debates. You do it all the time with lots of people besides me. I'm sure you can find an excuse every time.

I repeat.

Here's me debating Jonathan Taplin: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience.shtml

Here's me debating Steve Tepp:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-hu man-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml

You're a liar.

Stop posting excuses and actually start being open, human, and awesome. You know, stop sucking.

Let me be pretty clear here: you're telling me to "fuck off and die" telling me that I'm going to die soon from being a "slimey liar" and a "lying sack of shit," and you're complaining that I'm not awesome to you?

Thing is, your comments get voted down. And people seem to keep visiting my site. Guess what, sparky? People seem to think that you're a jackass and I am being "open, honest and awesome."

And the fact that you won't even debate me or others only strengthens that opinion. You can dish it out (and boy are you a petulant asshat at times), but you can't take it. Glass houses and all that, Mikey.

I repeat.

Here's me debating Jonathan Taplin: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience.shtml

Here's me debating Steve Tepp:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-hu man-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml

You're a liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:11pm

amazing..
wow, hard to believe what a joke it's gotten to be, they must really be desperate, clinging for the last straws. They realize they're on an increasingly shorter end of the stick, but they're not smart enough to actually do something about it.

Maybe pretty soon everyone will think it's all a bunch of crap anyway and just move onto something else. Sort of like having 20 vendors fighting each other over trying to sell you a ticket to get in, and you and your friends end up getting bored and walking away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One more thing: "being open, human and awesome" does not mean giving in to obnoxious prick throwing temper tantrums. Often it means putting them in their place.

You've seen my response. You ignore it, but you've seen it. Everyone else can read them.

I assume, as you've done in the past, you'll now throw a temper tantrum. I will point people to this thread if you do, and they can see what kind of person you are, which explains why you never identify yourself. Perhaps, some day, when you start acting like an adult, people will take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you may have debated some people some other time. I didn't say that you've never debated anyone. I'm saying that in your comments, when challenged, more often than not you either give no response, or if you do respond, it's some arrogant quip without substance. Time after time after time after time after time you ignore people who point out the idiocy of your positions. Do you sometimes engage folks? Sure. But do you usually shy from debate? Absolutely. I mean, look right here. You have time to debate this nonsense, but you don't have any time to actually debate about something that matters. You pick the easy debates. You pick the silly debates. You run, though, from the tough stuff. And given all the nonsense you spout, there's lots of bones to be picked. I know you know this. I know you know that you're a coward and a fake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And as you've done in the past so many times before. You won't actually engage in a debate that matters. You'll have debates like this one that are stupid and pointless. But when the critics point out the flaws in the arguments you hold dear and true--when it's the stuff that matters--you're usually nowhere to be found. All the time in the world to explain why you won't debate, but apparently no time at all to actually debate things that matter. Sure, Mike. I'm sure they're buying it. No one can tell that you're just trying to make excuses for being the way you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone here can look at what I say and what I write and see that I engage substantively with people acting like adults all the time.

"Fuck off and die" and "why are you a lying sack of shit" is not a substantive debate topic, and it shows that you are no one worth talking to. I've answered you here. The answer is clear. Everyone can see it.

I am done with this thread not because I am afraid to debate you, but because there is nothing to debate, and it is a waste of time to continue to point out why there's nothing to debate with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Classy move looking at IP addresses and cross-referencing anonymous posts for your readers. It's hilarious how much you don't respect your anonymous commentators privacy. I know, I know, you've got some excuse about how you're not violating privacy. But that's just slimy double-talk. You know you're being slimy, and you know it's wrong. Yet you do it. Lack of ethics much? Try not to run off next time someone calls your bluff, Mikey. And try not to use the "he called me bad names on the internet" excuse. Excuses you will have, though. In spades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 7:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's hilarious how much you don't respect your anonymous commentators privacy."

Mike still has no idea who you are, and none of the TD readers have any idea who you are, so exactly how was your privacy disrespected?

Are you basically admitting that you're terrified of having your completely anonymous comments connected together and held up against your other completely anonymous comments? Coward indeed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 10:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your modus operandi is a complete violation of your own piracy. Any fool with half a brain and a keyboard can key in "Pirate Mikey" in search terms and call you out on all the times you made "substantial debate" by insulting everyone.

My guess is that the only scissors you've been allowed near are the ones with rounded edges from kindergarten, without the blades, because the greatest danger you're posing right now is to yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2012 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: And hell
Which once again underscores how stupid the trolls are here.

You can purchase a legitimate copy of every bit of content on earth but if you didn't support SOPA you must be a filthy thieving pirate scumbag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 17 Jul 2012 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What debate are you expecting Mike to have exactly? You're just spewing the same bile and personal attacks. You haven't actually raised a debatable point in this whole thread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 17 Jul 2012 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just going to say this because it needs saying, but Mike in no way disrespected your right to privacy and he did not violate it. Your comments are pretty evident to those of us who visit this site regularly. You say the same two or three things in every single article pretty much. So you, despite being an Anonymous Coward, give yourself up pretty quickly. All Mike has done, thus far, is point out two examples of your more recent comments, which very much show you are not here to debate but here to make personal attacks.

Also, if you want to be debated, perhaps you can take a hint from Mike's comments thus far. Show us who you are and give him a reason to debate you. Pissing and moaning, like you've done so far, is certainly not going to make Mike want to debate you. Why would he? It'd be like debating a child, which you've so far acted like. Heck, he gave examples of people he's debated, actual people with actual reputations. Yet, you want him to drop everything to debate some moron (that'd be you) who refuses to take even a single still anonymous name and have his comments be linked, all the while insulting Mike and the other people comment on this site. Yeah, I wouldn't debate a douche like you either. More power/respect to Mike for not wasting his time on an idiot like you.

Now, perhaps you can do us all a favor, since you're privacy has been "violated" and you feel so horrible about what Mike did and are pissed that he refuses to debate you... perhaps you can fuck off. Your righteous indignation is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the fact that you're acting like a dick/an idiot and are better off being ignored. So, since you're not going to get your way, move on already. Geez.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord of the Files, 17 Jul 2012 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well said, Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style (and the comment above yours too). No one with an ounce of common sense should pay any attention to someone who is clearly:

A) Incapable of a real debate.
B) Insane, and dangerously so.
C) Utterly obsessed with Mike.
D) A proven douche bag.
E) A proven hypocrite.
F) A very hateful person.
G) A very childish person.
H) Unable to backup anything he says.
I) Intellectually dishonest.
J) Paranoid.
K) A coward of the lowest order.

The fact that he believes Mike invaded his privacy by cross referencing posts with IP addresses speaks volumes about his true state of mind. Only someone who has a very low IQ would fail to grasp just how easy it is to figure out which comments are his. They stick out like a sore thumb painted neon orange and oozing puss. He just says the same hatefully moronic things over and over repeatedly, all of which having nothing to do with what one would expect from a person who was honestly seeking a reasoned copyright debate.

If he spent half as much energy on his own business as he does here, it wouldn't be failing as badly as it is. The fact that he spends pretty much all his time on Techdirt waiting for that next article says a lot really. He's hooked on Mike just as badly as an addict is on meth. The best thing we could all do is simply mark his drivel using the report button and ignore him. Just like any other troll, he feeds on all this attention. Ignore him and he starves. At this point I feel we'd actually be doing him a favor considering just how negative is addiction has become. I wouldn't be surprised if he fantasizes about killing Mike too. Based on his posts, he sounds like the type. Sadly enough, it can and does happen. This makes it doubly important that we all do our best to ignore him from now on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]