Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the anonymous-comments-are-insightful dept
First place in the voting for most insightful this week went to an Anonymous Coward (how many times do we need to point out that anonymous commenters can be good too?) who responded to some copyright maximalists bitching that it was somehow unfair that YouTube named them for sending DMCA takedowns. The AC points out that their argument makes no sense:If you're embarrassed about sending a takedown notice, stop sending takedown notices. If you truly feel you're standing up for your copyright, you shouldn't feel any guilt.Coming in second was "Another AC" (see note above) talking about New Zealand law enforcement officials trying to defend the "over the top" raid to apprehend Kim Dotcom:
Maybe the most damning part... Is that the main objective was to arrest Kim DotCom to prevent destruction of evidence... except that NZ police had already seized all of MegaUpload's servers *before* the raid even happened.For editors choice, we'll actually go with two more comments from Anonymous Cowards. First up is a response to the same article that the first comment above was responding to. Part of the complaint was that artists were embedding these videos on their own sites, and then they looked silly for having videos of their own music on their own sites showing a takedown notice. As one AC pointed out, why were they embedding videos that they thought were infringing?!?
Sickening indeed.
Any idiot who embeds "illegal" copies of his own videos and then complains when the embeds don't work after he himself requests them taken down does not deserve the consideration it took to write this article.And, finally, we have another AC responding to someone bizarrely claiming (contrary to nearly every bit of actual evidence) that used sales harm the sale of new products. The AC pointed out that this argument doesn't make much sense:
As much as I hate car analogies... you better not be driving around in a used car with that philosophy, or buying used furniture, or accepting it from family or friends. Think of the new sales!!!Moving over to the funny side of things, I'm pretty sure this next comment scored better in the voting than any comment ever. If not at the top, it's very near the top. It was on our story about the Olympics getting upset about non-sponsors' condoms being used by athletes at the games. Jay made the connection that got many of you to laugh:
Personally, I'm a late adapter and I'm the kind of people the game companies will say "good-bye" to if they continue down their current path. The Wii may be my last console purchase. No console sales = no sales period. I'm not interested in any system that requires an internet connection or that only sells part of a game on disc and makes you download the rest. I don't care how awesome the graphics are. I won't buy the damn system new or used!! Eventually something newer and better will come along, the online networks will go down, or the company will just go under, and I'll be left with a pile of trash that I can't sell or even throw in the garbage nowadays. I WILL however continue to enjoy my older systems, of which I have plenty, to keep my busy until I'm so old that I'm physically unable to play anymore.
Sex in the Olympics…I'll admit that made me groan, not laugh, but it got the votes.
I have to wonder: do you still get a gold medal if you come in first?
Coming in second was another Anonymous Coward who responded to another Anonymous Coward who argued (really) that anonymous comments "are a real problem" and "should always be removed" with even "the weakest" of complaints. This other AC highlighted the irony:
Can we remove this comment? It's anonymous so he doesn't deserve to get to post things.For editor's choice, we'll start with JMT responding to one of our most regular critics who tried to argue that perhaps the takedown of the NASA video of Curiosity's landing was legitimate because we don't know "as a fact" that the video was NASA's to upload. Yeah. The obvious response:
NASA is pretty sure they put it up. Nobody else has gone to Mars recently. Are you suggesting they're wrong and it really is someone else's Mars movies?And, my final editor's choice comment of the week is an all around epic win by Vog. You see, Tim Cushing, in one of his posts, posed a hypothetical math question as part of his sarcastic way of denouncing a ridiculous premise:
If a premise leaves the train station [Point A] at 10AM riding a bicycle at 3 mph for the first hour and increasing speed by .25 mph every hour for the first four hours before decelerating at a rate inversely proportionate to the incline of the grade [17%], at what time will the bicyclist's speed be exactly 1/4 the average flight speed of the Africanized honey bee? Show your work.Here's the thing. Vog actually answered the math question. And showed his work.
Assuming top flight speed for a honey bee is 12 - 15 mi/h (www.houstonbeekeepers.org/ahbfaqs.htm) and the average may be represented as 13.5 mi/h;Note to Cushing: you need to come up with more challenging math problems next time.
Assuming the rate of deceleration is, literally as stated, inverse to the grade of 17%, and may be assumed to be in miles per hour squared;
We have:
10 AM - 11 AM: 3 mi/h
11 AM - 12 PM: 3.25 mi/h
12 PM - 1 PM: 3.5 mi/h
1 PM - 2 PM: 3.75 mi/h
2 PM - 3 PM: 4 mi/h
After 3 PM, the velocity in mi/h may be represented as v = 4 mi/h - (1/0.17) mi/h^2 * t, where t is the fraction of the hour since 3 PM.
Using v = 3.375 from (0.25 * 13.5 mi/h), we have:
3.375 = 4 mi/h - 5.882 mi/h^2 * t
t = (4 - 3.375) mi/h / 5.882 mi/h^2
t = 0.10625 h
This decimal is equal to 6 minutes, 22.5 seconds. Thus the answer is 3:06:22.5 PM.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's weird: it's a nice little honor, but I'm also feeling a bit disappointed, like I'll never be able to live up to what was only my seventh comment. I feel kinda like I blew my load with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Older Lesson In Copyright Maximalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An Older Lesson In Copyright Maximalism
And how can you 'copyright' a simplified subset of an existing language?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought languages were immune to copyright, being 'factual'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation is not causation, just as assumptions are not facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correlation is not causation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correlation is not causation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correlation is not causation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correlation is not causation, just as assumptions are not facts.
There's making assumptions... and then there's the point at which you know something is totally bogus.
You bizarrely claimed that the video NASA uploaded of NASA's footage of NASA's rover landing on Mars, might actually be someone else's copyright.
No reasonable human being would assume that "facts necessary to confirm this were notably absent."
You are not a reasonable human being. There were plenty of facts necessary to confirm what was stated. Just as there are plenty of facts to confirm that you are wrong again. You seem to be making a habit of it around here.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you bizarrely claimed that Bret Easton Ellis has no fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
yes, I heard you had that magic ability to create facts out of opinion. Nice!
"You bizarrely claimed that the video NASA uploaded of NASA's footage of NASA's rover landing on Mars, might actually be someone else's copyright."
No, that particular video is not copyright. However, framed into a video window broadcast with other material on the screen (even a logo) makes that particular PERFORMANCE copyright. That's the difference.
You are confusing part of the content with the rest of the content in a single video, and thus making a bit assumption which is just not true.
"You are not a reasonable human being."
I have already shown how you have made a notable error here, and drawn conclusions based only on assumptions, not facts. Yet you feel you are the reasonable one here?
"By the way, I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you bizarrely claimed that Bret Easton Ellis has no fans."
By the way, I am still waiting for you to stop violating anonymous cowards rights to post anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous != unaccountable
Without the contextual information available to us now, it is still possible, upon careful reading, to conclude that the Federalist was not one man. Similarly, a careful reader, by comparing writing styles, would be able to make a reasonable assumption of which articles were written by Madison. Without IP lookup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are aware you are still posting anonymously, right? And that no one has any idea who you are, right? And that Mike doesn't either, right?
In fact, all he's done is tie one of obviously your comments to another. You're still completely anonymous. Your "right" to post anonymously hasn't been violated in any way.
Stop grasping at straws and grow a back bone. Either be a man and come up with a username so we can track your comments (don't even have to register to do so) or realize that you are still commenting anonymously and nothing has been violated by Mike saying you were wrong and you've til now refused to admit so. In which case, boohoo AC. You got called out, deal with it you Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike does it by checking posting IPs and other information in the admin area. Sorry to burst your bubble, he's not that good.
You are even worse, because you haven't figured out I wasn't the original anonymous posted. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't need l33t admin hacks to see you're the same moron from all those other moronic posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If anything you're the one violating that right yourself by being an idiot. I can always tell it's you because you can't resist derping all over the comments. No mike needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second, slapping a logo on public domain content doesn't make the original content your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it absolutely does not.
If a work is in the public domain, then no copyright holder can ever claim rights to it. Framing it on screen with other material would not grant you, or anyone else, any kind of copyright on the public domain material ("performance" or not).
In fact, if anyone tried to claim copyright on it, then that would be copyfraud (a fraudulent copyright notice). This is a criminal act under 17 USC 506(c), and anyone using it in a DMCA notice is guilty of perjury under 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), and liable for damages under 17 USC 512(f).
The only possible claim would be a trademark claim (for the logo itself), which is not covered by DMCA notices.
And, in fact, I just watched the footage, and no such logo or "framing" appears at all.
So, your argument is totally, 100% bogus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article and comments simply assumed that the video maker was a NASA employee. While this certainly seems to be the most likely scenario, to draw this conslusion depends upon the existence of facts that are not presented.
More facts are needed to ascertain if this was in fact the case. Unfortunately, these facts are missing from the article. Hence my cautionary note that assumptions are not a substitute for facts, and that additonal information is needed to accurately determine the status under copyright law of who actually is the holder of the associated rights under copyright law, and that among such facts would be the provisions of the terms and conditions stated in a contract between NASA and a private contractor (which terms and conditions are governed by the Federal Aquisition Reglation, also know as the FAR).
Sorry, but in this case your analysis was incomplete.
Sorry, but in this specific instance relevant facts are needed to answer the question with any degree of accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correlation is not causation, just as assumptions are not facts.
Those of us who practice science know that "nature cannot be fooled", whereas those who practice law know that judges and juries can be.
I'll leave the neutral parties to judge for themselves who is most likely to respect the need for real evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So I'll repeat the question you were unable to answer the first time around. If the footage might not be NASA's, whose could it be? I'm perfectly willing to concede it might not be theirs if you can give me even one plausible alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No?
Mike trained you well. You have stopped thinking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you read the article?
If you had you would realize that you have just written a big load of rubbish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation is not causation, just as assumptions are not facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See that's the difference between having a normal conversation and having a staged re-enactment of a conversation that happened some time in the past when a law was written - and I'll be very clear about the next statement - and not all of the facts in a particular case were known (or even could be known).
Legal proceedings are always based on assumptions and arguments - in the old days we called this oratory...seldom do facts play a role. Just because you call them the "facts of the case" don't make them so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please excuse my complete surprise that anyone would even harbor your view that facts seldom play a role in contested matters. And to think that for centuries judges have been issuing legal decisions in civil cases comprising "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law". How they could misconstrue the first, which by your comment would be titled "findings of assumptions", eludes me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]