Alana's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the stories-galore dept
It's that time of the week again! Yes, the time where a lucky person gets to list their favorite Techdirt articles of the week. Well, it's my turn at the bat, so no time for dilly-dallying, let's hop to it!The first post is a rather interesting one. The internet never ceases to amuse, in this particular case it managed to outwit a political movement by registering the URL of their website before they did. I suppose this is a good lesson to teach movements and new businesses; register your URL's before you advertise them! (You'd think this would be common sense by now...)
While this member of the German Pirate Party has elected to shield her work under the DMCA, an independent game developer is thrilled to share his game online. This is quite an amusing flip side of what we normally see, if nothing else.
While the RIAA have not been innovative in the way they should be, they have certainly been innovative in ways of pushing customers AWAY from their services by way of DRM, region-locking, and high prices.
In a sign of bad news that everyone saw coming, the TPP 'treaty' still refuses to be exposed. However, it does not take a genius to know that anything that is completely withheld from the public for no good reason is automatically bad news. I have no good feelings about this bill, and everything about it leads me to believe that it should be shut down, or exposed, and properly debated. If one does not allow the latter, then nefarious intentions can easily be assumed.
In the modern age, it isn't unheard of to have a smartphone. So I was rather shocked, and slightly confused, at this particular decision to arrest an activist merely for having a live-streaming app installed on his phone. As they so often spout to us, "You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide"-- now, while I don't agree with that statement... why are they trying to hide from us, when it is perfectly legal to have these things? It seems like they're just fabricating excuses in order to arrest people they just simply don't like. And that isn't good news for ANYONE.
The copyright maximalists never cease to befuddle me. In an exceptionally odd turn of events, the Royal Canadian Mint tried to force an artist to pay them royalties... over using pennies on his album cover. Now, this is just my 2c, but isn't that a little absurd? It makes little sense outside of someone being jealous of small cents. ...Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go find a hammer to whack myself with for that pun.
And last but not least, where would we be without a post about the MPAA/RIAA? They seem to think that having people able purchase *gasp* second hand content, would make the entire US economy collapse! It's almost like we're in a bad comedy of errors. I mean, it's not like people own the copy they purchase any more, right? Of course, that'd be ridiculous. I mean, think about it... People selling what's theirs. Absurd! This could be the end of the country as we know it! Quick! Call the police -- that person is selling a CD they bought! Terrorists! Anarchy! Won't someone think of the children!
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
uh, nowhere? This is a piracy apologist blog, after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Quality King Distributors v. L'anza the Supreme Court faced a similar issue, except in that case the copyrighted work was created within the US. There the court unanimously held that the First Sale Doctrine, codified at 17 USC 109, did apply. However, and as Justice Ginsburg noted in a concurring opinion, the court's decision was not dispositive in cases where the copyrighted work was created outside the US, citing the treatises by Patry and Goldstein that US law was not extraterritorial, and that a work made outside the US is not a work "made under this title".
If the decision in Quality King is applied without the court's introduction of some as yet unknown nuance, it seems likely that the Petitioner/Defendant will not prevail in his quest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol
nah, this is known as "pest control".
The same way an exterminator returns to a house, is like us returning here: making sure the roach has been neutralized and continues to stay in that state.
Now go have yourself a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no legitimate business here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The example that jumps to mind as unambiguous was in a favourites post, and the author posted mike's reply in the comments?
Yes, here it was: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110916/10510215982/freaks-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml
T here've been many other examples, but this was unambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll make a prediction. You'll reply to this comment claiming that Mike is a dishonest demagogue and that I'm a short-sighted kool-aid drinker. You'll go at length to point out how I'm blind and mistaken about my assertion, that you're the only person seeking an honest debate and you're not some narcissistic parasite looking for more ammunition to lambast Mike with more accusations of moral depravity and dishonesty. How am I doing? It's people like you that make me wish there was an "ignore" option so that I don't have to listen to your constant prattling and moral absolutism.
If you want an "honest" debate, leave your chain gun full of ad hominems at the door. Stop trying to discredit people in a vain attempt to negate the argument. You're not doing yourself any favors and you're not serving any supposed moral justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically, when a new issue comes out, Mike tends to take up sides, but often through third parties. His initial posts tend to be "here's someone else's opinion" entries, with some nice wishy-washy wording that means he doesn't come straight out and agree or disagree, but he is presenting this one sided opinion anyway.
If the masses (comment writers) generally agree with the slanted view, he tends to adopt it and expand it further. If the comments call the original poster out for being an idiot or poke holes in it, the entire topic falls of the radar and gets no more coverage on Techdirt.
It was more blatant back in the days when Mike was giving more public presentations and was trying to build up material for his "show". Since he sold out to Google (oh sorry, an industry group that Google mostly dominates and pays for) with his entirely misleading "Sky is Rising" pseudo-science report, he has gone quiet on much of it.
At this point, many of the posts are Wyden-PAC material, which makes me wonder if Mike hasn't either started to work for Wyden directly or has been hired on as a consultant in some manner. Wyden passes gas, and we get a post on Techdirt.
The anti-IP thing is basic to his nature. Mike really believes it, the same way that some people are Scientologists. The rest of us shake our heads and wonder what they are thinking of as they proudly declare themselves "clear".
In the end, there is a very good reason why Mike's actual life / career are not seen on this blog, and why his personal opinions rarely come out directly: He wouldn't be as widely loved if people knew how he felt or what he actually did for a living, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people don't need to know who Mike Masnick is and will generally think that the RIAA's operations were, and are, way over the top. Do you really think everyone who isn't in agreement with the RIAA is a Masnick/Google/buzzword shill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have watched Mike's blog for 5+ years now. You can go back further in the history of the site. Mike's process has always been about the same - trial balloon, refining through repetition, and finally finished thesis of the time period. Some of it was done for speaking presentations, where his use of short duration slides is intended to keep the audience from thinking too hard - it tends to get them to swallow the message whole. It's also been the basis of the whole CwF thing (which seems to have died off of his talking points list) and the infamous "not directly paid by Google" masterpiece of number play called "The Sky Is Rising". It's pretty much always the same process.
"You can't refute the argument, so you instead try to wave the bloody shirt? You are the very soul of dishonesty."
Can you please point me out where you actually asked the question? All I see is generalized suggestions that the topic we are discussing will happen, and then you act like we are talking down to you.
I followed this thread all the way back to the root, and you don't ask a single question. Can you please either participate in the discussion or at least try to add something?
All you anger about people lashing out, but this entire thread seems to be nothing but you lashing out without provocation. Maybe you need to join RD taking meds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And somehow I'm missing the impact of your sarcastic "infamous ... masterpiece" line. Maybe a few italics might help, maybe a /s tag might do... no wait, that won't work.
We act like you're talking down to us? Boy, that seems like a understatement. We don't act like it... we KNOW it! The thing is, whenever I check any of your comments out, I see that you are attempting to make yourselves look bigger in the process, talking down to even Mike because how your views are radically different from his, and you're bullying him to get a "direct" answer to a loaded question that has been answered several times already! And for what? To make yourselves look better even more? As far as I know, you keep on attacking TechDirt with some personal intentions, ignoring answers so you can get a "simple" and "direct" answer, all for what goal? If it is to make you look better, you have a far, far way to go.
Of course Greevar asked a question... but that was for Joe about how he normally behaves in these comments. And he only commented three times in this particular thread, two are to Joe while only one is to you. In fact, most of his questions are to Joe, not you. (or are you Joe?) How can you ask a question to him when he's not asking you anything? And... this got started when you commented on Alana's comment, not what Greevar said first...
Though I have to disagree with Greevar on this: you're not the very soul of dishonesty. Don't get me wrong, you're completely dishonest, but not the very soul of it! Plus there are other factors that makes you up, like thick-headed, stubborn and arrogant, and there are many more other words that could be use to describe you!
"All you anger about people lashing out..."
First off, what are you saying right there?! No matter how many times I read it, it doesn't make any sense with that wording! And now I'm going to paraphrase Greevar's comment below this one:
"Lashing out? Some random, angry Anonymous Coward is accusing us of 'lashing out'? You are a hypocrite and a liar. If you actually believe what you say, you're delusional. If not, you're the saddest and most obsessed troll I've ever seen. Even if you do 'take him down', what have you really accomplished? You get some smug self satisfaction and everyone else, including Mike, goes about their lives just as they did before you became the persistent pain in the ass you've made yourself into."
(P.S: Sorry Greevar for taking your comment!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Boy, that's a laugh. Sure one way to avoid problems is ignoring your kinds' comments, but the others here will point out the inconsistencies in your logic, kindly telling you that your views are flawed. 'Course you will try to get the last word in, attacking the commenters with insults, only trying to get personal information that could make you look like a better person in comparison.
I have a personal belief going for me, stating "if it's not a problem, don't make it one. If it is a problem, don't make it a BIG one." I don't find any problems with the stories, other than a few typos here and there, but I don't come here to bash the writers because my views are different from them. I like to read some articles that do catch my interest and skip over the ones that don't, all while checking out comments made by others and see if there's something worth interesting to me. However, when you come here, you come in expecting that the writer will take a moment of his personal time to discuss ideals/beliefs/morals/views/etc, when in reality you're trying to attack them for having different views, and collecting personal info so you can use that for more attacks all to make you look better in appearance.
If you have a problem with this site, then either calmly address your views and don't bash everyone that tries to talk to you, or (an easier thought) leave. Continue to comment here with this same pattern, and not only is it going to be hard to make you leave, but you're not going to be treated with any respect than... well, any of the other negative ACs that comment on this site.
The door is open; please kindly step out.
(P.S: is calling someone a "nerd" that bad of an insult?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reality is a global economy, no matter how much studios, labels etc try and carve it up into nice little chunks (except when they benefit from it of course).
To have something like first sale doctrine then say it doesn't apply to things made elsewhere is just a little silly. I could kind of understand if it had been bought outside the country (though for digital goods that's a pretty silly distinction too), but
A/ Damn near everything is made outside the US these days 'coz it's cheaper (global economy and everything) so effectivly you've gutted a perfectly reasonable (and obvious not to mention natural) right that just happens to be codified
and B/ It encourages any manufacturing the US has left to leave the country to get around the particular law (and no I'm not saying a company would move their base on the strength of this alone, but it is an incentive to go).
I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream, and I hope you don't find this too absurd, is that one day soon there will be a realisation that most laws were written in a time that couldn't possibly imagine the world we live in and trying to inteperet them literally in this day and age is little short of insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dakdurieux.be/platte.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]