Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the a-passenger-train-filled-with-chemicals dept

Sun, Oct 21st 2012 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

This week was a good one for comment voting, with much more voting than usual. It's great to see so much participation. Leading the way (by a lot) on the "insightful" voting was nospacesorspecialcharacters with his comment responding to the story about how you don't really own what you thought you bought at Amazon.com when it comes to digital content. He thought that there need to be some new rules:

All online retailer should be specified by law to change the wording of their offerings.

If T&Cs call the media item a "license" then the button should say "License" rather than "Buy", and it should be clear to the purchaser they are buying a "license" from the the "owner" and nothing more.

That would not only solve much of the confusion and heartache, it might draw more mainstream focus on the whole issue of over-reaching copyright maximalism.

Coming in second was Tim K pointing to a bit of irony in Universal Music insisting that there's no real way for them to tell if a video they issue a takedown over is fair use or not. Considering what they seem to demand of Google, there's a big double standard:

So they don't know when things aren't infringing, they can't just throw videos through a filter to see if they are actually legal content, but Google should be able to do that, right?

Narrowing down to just two for editor's choice was really difficult this week, but let's start with James Burkhardt responding to someone insisting that the only way that Techdirt has suggested artists make money is through concerts -- and that it's wrong to say that we've suggested "many, many" ways to make money. Burkhardt did a nice job setting that person straight:

Lets see if I can think of some ways TechDirt has brought up that people make money outside of gatekeepers or other traditional means (and to keep it simple for you, I will at first limit it to examples In this article):
In order:
A) Offer a low-cost DRM-Free download with no hurdles (earned more then a million dollars in 12 days, rather then getting only one sale and being pirated)
B)Offer a pay-what-you-want product, with bonus content if you pay more.
C)Connect with fans and get them invested in your project/product (which is how Apple got big, BTW)
D)Use the power of the internet to find a niche and connect with fans without a record label
E)Connecting with fans, Touring
F)Connecting with fans, and get them invested in your project/product
G)Offer a pay-what-you-want product to encourage word-of-mouth sales growth
H)Connect with fans, get them invested in your project/product, have them directly finance your project
I)Connect with fans, get them invested..

Your right, there only seems to be one way to make money outside of a gatekeeper. Connecting with fans. You know what the funny thing is? In music, that is how you make money when you have a major label backing you. It often is the way in other industries as well. Why do movie/TV studios want Joss Wheadon or Tim Burton? They have fans, and its that connection that helps drive sales. You just have to be proactive about it when you are independent. You have to cultivate them, rather then flinging shit until the fans start appearing like mold. Joss Wheadon and Tim Burton have definite styles, which appeal to specific consumers and those consumers have networked a whole fan base.

Johnathan Coulton is the same way, but he cultivated his fan base like growing a Bonzai tree (ok, he likely didn't fight that hard). Once you have that fan base, there are many approaches to making money. And Gatekeepers are only one option.

For the second editor's choice, we'll go with PaulT's comment, responding to my post about how easy it is for people to miss disruptive trends:

I'd say part of the reason it's missed is that the fact that the initial capabilities of a device only hint at what will ultimately be possible. Take for example the telephone mentioned above. Yes, in terms of its initial capabilities, it probably wasn't that impressive. Most of the people you'd want to talk to would likely be close enough to visit, it would have been too expensive to say as much in a long distance call as you could in a letter and so forth. But, in the long term as things improved, it not only improved its own capabilities to a huge degree, it also made other things possible that nobody could have dreamed - from the internet to modern mobile communication.

That's where the real innovation comes in. Yes, the TV was unimpressive compared to a cinema screen, but it enabled not only its own evolution but the videogame industry as well. Gramophones were once a poor substitute for sitting around the piano with a group of friends, but now look what's happened. I bet the first cars seemed rather silly compared to a good old horse carriage in its early days, but would even recognise this world if it had never existed? I doubt it.

I think that's part of the reason why these innovations are so disruptive to begin with. They really do look like toys or fads to the unimaginitive, and by the time their true potential can be seen, it's often too late to catch up.

Excellent points. But were they funny? Hell, no. So let's move on to the funny comments. Leading the way is the excellently named Jeff_Vader_runs_the_Deathstar? who responded to my rhetorical question to people who think that me arguing for better business models means I'm against artists making money: "Is telling someone that jumping of a bridge is not a good way to fly mean that we're against people flying?" Jeff's response elicited one of those it's funny 'cause it's true feelings:

No but it likely could be construed as felony interference with the business model of doctors fixing broken bones of amateur super heros.

Coming in second was Bergman's response to a judge in the UK telling Apple it really needed to tell the world that Samsung didn't copy its products, in which the judge noted that "the acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth." Bergman took issue with part of that:

Obviously the judge is at least partially in error.

I wouldn't describe Apple as the horse's mouth. I'd describe them as the other end.

As for editor's choice, we have an Anonymous Coward pointing out that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's fear mongering over potential cyber attacks is so stupid, he can't even keep his trains straight:

I like the "derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals" part myself. Those are called freight trains and they typically don't carry passengers.

Perhaps Panetta should learn how trains work before going off the deepend with cybersecurity FUD.

And, finally, my last editor's choice comment of the week, which actually made me laugh the most, is a comment from one of our usual critics, apparently insisting that you can't complain about the massive expansion of IP laws over time, without also complaining about the "expansion of the First Amendment."

I'm just pointing out how silly it is that Mike rants about the expansion of IP, but he never complains about the similar expansion of the First Amendment.

Yeah, really not much to say about that other than to shake your head and laugh. Such people do exist in this world, amazingly.

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

136 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 12:06pm

"I'm just pointing out how silly it is that Mike rants about the expansion of IP, but he never complains about the similar expansion of the First Amendment. "

Average_Joe actually said that? He actually tapped at his keyboard and said Mike should complain about the expansion of the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 21 Oct 2012 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  It's an untenable statement to make if you approach free speech from a natural rights perspective. There can be no expansion of free speech, only less artificial restrictions on it.
  
  You have the right to free speech and that right can only be restricted when your practice of it violates the natural rights of others. Hence, not being legally allowed to falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theater because such an act would endanger the natural right of life belonging to anyone who might get injured in a stampede of evacuating theater patrons.
  
  This, however, doesn't work when you're talking about artificial "rights" such as copyright, which is actually just a government-granted monopoly and the use of the term "right" to describe it is inaccurate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 7:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, but copyprivilege doesn't roll off your tongue as nicely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Try copytheft.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cory of PC (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's also copyrestriction. It's longer, but it has its reasons to exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 12:53pm

"I'm just pointing out how silly it is that Mike rants about the expansion of IP, but he never complains about the similar expansion of the First Amendment. "

It's pretty obvious by now, these trolls are in the payline of the majors. If it were just the artists they were concerned about the topics they choose to infect would be different.

As typical with the myopic viewpoint expressed, they can't even distinguish between expansion and contraction in the real world, being off in their own where the same laws of economics and reality are...shall we say viewed differently?

I keep waiting for the day when I come here and some stupid superhero has taken down Techdirt for them. Then comes the thought of how did they bribe the superhero?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  average_joe (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 3:52pm
  
  Re:
  My point, which you would know if you followed the link provided, is that Mike's interpretation of the Constitution changes depending on his preordained, backwards-worked conclusion. When it's copyright, trademark, or any other IP, it's, "OMG! They've expanded it! Expansion is evil! It's not what it should be because it's not what it once was!" But when it's the First Amendment, it's "OMG! Thank goodness they've expanded it since expansion is great!" The joke's on Mike for working backwards like a zealot who is too ashamed of his own beliefs to talk about them directly and honestly with a critic. Ask yourself why Mike is so ashamed of his beliefs that he can't discuss them directly. That'll tell you everything you need to know about his mettle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beech, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That makes no sense. Are you saying someone either has to think that the whole of the Constitution should be expanded or not? So if I think that the 2nd Amendment is great I also need to think that the one on prohibition was too?
    
    For for the life of me I can't see why you think there's a conflict here.
    
    " When it's copyright, trademark, or any other IP, it's, "OMG! They've expanded it! Expansion is evil! It's not what it should be because it's not what it once was!"" But when it's the First Amendment, it's "OMG! Thank goodness they've expanded it since expansion is great!""
    
    Well, yeah. When there's a dumb part of the Constitution that you think is at best poorly implemented and at worst a total clusterfuck, you would be upset that it's getting expanded. That doesn't mean you also need to think the amendement about prohibition needs to expanded too. The constitution isn't an "all or nothing" kind of document. There's LOTS of parts to it, you can easily pick parts you like and parts you don't like without contradiction.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 21 Oct 2012 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except that copyright, trademark, or any other IP aren't in the Constitution, so his interpretation of the Constitution is irrelevant to his opinion of IP issues.
    
    That's like attacking Mike for complaining that soda companies could do more to help America's children from becoming obese because Mike isn't also complaining that aid organizations feeding starving kids in Africa are taking money away from the soda companies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 10:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    My point, which you would know if you followed the link provided, is that Mike's interpretation of the Constitution changes depending on his preordained, backwards-worked conclusion. When it's copyright, trademark, or any other IP, it's, "OMG! They've expanded it! Expansion is evil! It's not what it should be because it's not what it once was!" But when it's the First Amendment, it's "OMG! Thank goodness they've expanded it since expansion is great!" The joke's on Mike for working backwards like a zealot who is too ashamed of his own beliefs to talk about them directly and honestly with a critic. Ask yourself why Mike is so ashamed of his beliefs that he can't discuss them directly. That'll tell you everything you need to know about his mettle.
    
    I've suggested in the past that you stop arguing with the strawman in your head that you think is me, and perhaps focus on what I actually say.
    
    I see that you have chosen to ignore that advice.
    
    Also, whatever happened to your promise to leave this site for the rest of the year? That lasted what, all of 30 seconds?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When you're ready to discuss your beliefs frankly and honestly, let me know. I won't hold my breath.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh get bent, you're just begging for more ammunition to attack the guy with. You don't give one shit about an "honest and frank" discussion. You don't want a mature debate, you never did. You've made you mind up about the guy and just want as much as you can scrape together, or invent, to lambast him incessantly for being some supposed demagogue for the "pirates".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude, how long till you stop thinking of yourself as the master genius Mike is oh so afraid to debate when everyone else is dissing your so-called points as incoherent, overblown and generally false? Just so you know, building and knocking over straw men isn't considered smart anywhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Repost against censorship:
    
    My point, which you would know if you followed the link provided, is that Mike's interpretation of the Constitution changes depending on his preordained, backwards-worked conclusion. When it's copyright, trademark, or any other IP, it's, "OMG! They've expanded it! Expansion is evil! It's not what it should be because it's not what it once was!" But when it's the First Amendment, it's "OMG! Thank goodness they've expanded it since expansion is great!" The joke's on Mike for working backwards like a zealot who is too ashamed of his own beliefs to talk about them directly and honestly with a critic. Ask yourself why Mike is so ashamed of his beliefs that he can't discuss them directly. That'll tell you everything you need to know about his mettle.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Repost against censorship:
      
      While I agree that this particular post shouldn't have been downvoted, I must point out - again, like everyone else has - that this is not censorship.
      
      The speech is not removed. It is not blocked. It is available with a simple click of the mouse. Reposting it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
      
      It would be closer to censorship if Mike only allowed posts he agreed with. Like what happens on, say, Trichordist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Karl, when people use the report button not to remove a spam post or to flag a post as offensive (such as links to porn) then it is being used as a tool of censorship. You may not feel so, but anything that makes it harder to free speech to happen or to be heard is censorship.
        
        It may be subtle, but those who abuse the reporting system to try to should someone down should be ashamed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I find this logic amusing. Mike has zero control over what get's flagged. There's a whole other discussion to be had on whether the community's right, but the fact is that the community have spoken on this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      REPORTED AGAIN. TO PREVENT STUPIDITY/CONFUSION OVER THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE WORD CENSORSHIP. I'm not going to keep explaining it to you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 1:14pm

The problem with all the alternate ways for artists to make money is that they all involve the artists actually getting the money themselves.

That sort of thing makes it really, REALLY hard for all those unproductive people (who would normally get paid just for hanging around claiming to be important) to earn a living.

It's kind of like back when slave owners had to start paying their slaves instead of keeping all the money for themselves. Actually it's even worse since this time the customers are able to get the product straight from the slaves and the would-be slave owners don't even get to keep SOME of the money. The last time public opinion turned against the slave owners they lost the ensuing battle - despite the best efforts of well paid lobbyists.

Does history really have to repeat itself? Won't SOMEONE think of the poor executives?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

average_joe (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 3:45pm

And, finally, my last editor's choice comment of the week, which actually made me laugh the most, is a comment from one of our usual critics, apparently insisting that you can't complain about the massive expansion of IP laws over time, without also complaining about the "expansion of the First Amendment."

I'm just pointing out how silly it is that Mike rants about the expansion of IP, but he never complains about the similar expansion of the First Amendment.

Yeah, really not much to say about that other than to shake your head and laugh. Such people do exist in this world, amazingly.

Cute, Mike. Of course you're to intellectually dishonest to admit that I was pointing out that you change your method of constitutional interpretation as it suits you: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/01151320714/dancing-baby-video-fight-heads-back-to-court-w ill-bogus-takedown-finally-get-punished.shtml#c714

Get your stupid digs in, but you and I both know that you won't have a serious discussion with me on the merits of a copyright issue because you're too scared to have an "open, human, and awesome" discussion with a critic. Nothing desperate about that fact. Keep pretending like you're not a pretender. I'll be here ready to go any place, any time. You'll be hiding like a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re:
  And once again, it's "Why won't you debate me?!?!?"
  
  Give it up dude. You're not worth debating.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 3:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What bullshit. Mike (and his sock puppets) always pretend like I'm just not capable or able to debate him. The truth, which obviously hurts severely, is that Mike doesn't discuss his true beliefs with detractors. Nothing desperate or dishonest about that. You've backed the right horse, AC! Why explain yourself when you can just whine about the party asking for an explanation. That's so much easier than just having an honest discussion and being an honest person. Good on ya.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're not capable of having a shite without someone drawing you a blueprint. If what Mike writes offends you so, why not just stop reading it instead of being a petulant child?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        average_joe (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ROFLMAO! The lengths you guys will go to protect Mike is hilarious! Sure, Mike won't have a frank and honest discussion with me (or anyone else who challenges his fundamental beliefs) because we're just not able to have that discussion. It's certainly not Mike! No, Mike's not at all a coward for running away. That's brave!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 21 Oct 2012 @ 5:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike can and does defend himself when he chooses to (or, I imagine, when he has time to since he seems to be a very prolific writer who turns out a lot more researched and thought-out articles than I could in the amount of time he does). He doesn't need our assistance, but that doesn't mean we can't argue with someone who is trolling our community.
        
        That's what you keep losing sight of. This is a community and you're, at best, the village idiot. If you want to attack Mike and have only him respond, you should send him an email instead of posting on an open forum. Otherwise, it looks like you're just looking for attention and calling Mike out with your entitled demands for his attention are just your pet method of doing so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "ROFLMAO!"
        
        Do you see the irony in responding with that after being called childish?
        
        "Sure, Mike won't have a frank and honest discussion with me (or anyone else who challenges his fundamental beliefs) because we're just not able to have that discussion."
        
        So you're just going to keep lying to yourself and everyone else on this one? That's some good delusion there.
        
        "No, Mike's not at all a coward for running away."
        
        Where exactly do you think he's run away to? I find him in the same place several times a day. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who've dealt with you who also decided you're just not worth the effort. I bet they all "ran away" too right? It's them, not you!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The lengths you guys will go to protect Mike is hilarious!
        
        Again, dude. Noone needs protection from morons like you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What bullshit."
      
      Yeah, most of your comments are. Your point?
      
      "Mike (and his sock puppets) always pretend like I'm just not capable or able to debate him."
      
      No, that's not at all what anyone says, thinks or feels about you. The point, as has been made by Mike himself on multiple occasions, is that he has better things to do than debate YOU. He's even gone on to list others he will debate with, most of whom are just slightly more important and credible than yourself.
      
      Secondly, debating with you, as has been proven, is like caving in to a two year old throwing a tantrum. It's pointless to say the least and leads to nothing but further headaches and tantrums.
      
      "The truth, which obviously hurts severely, is that Mike doesn't discuss his true beliefs with detractors."
      
      See previous response (mine and Mike's) about debating with other more credible and worthwhile people than you.
      
      Also, you've obviously never read a thing on this site. That or you completely suffer from the ability to comprehend what you read. Else you'd realize that Mike's beliefs and thoughts on various matters are quite clearly laid on in any given article on any given issue.
      
      "Nothing desperate or dishonest about that."
      
      Yeah, nothing desperate or dishonest about saying, "Why won't you debate me" over and over again, then proving you're definitely worth debating when you start launching ad homs if you don't get a response within seconds.
      
      You're definitely not a child. /s
      
      "You've backed the right horse, AC!"
      
      The AC actually has.
      
      On one side, we've got Mike. Who we know quite a bit about and who we've seen through his actions can have reasonable discussions with others. On the other hand we've got YOU (average_joe), who has shown that he can derail threads like no other, goes back on his word incessantly, and a plethora of other things that DO NOT make you look like someone any REASONABLE person would want to side with in an open discussion/debate, which isn't of course counting the fact that we know nothing about you (minus what we can infer based on your rantings and behavior, which definitely doesn't help your case).
      
      Hmm. Who to choose?
      
      "Why explain yourself when you can just whine about the party asking for an explanation."
      
      Hmm. So basically, "Why debate when we both know I'm not going to care for what you say and will continue hounding you and this site anyway."
      
      "That's so much easier than just having an honest discussion and being an honest person."
      
      See previous point about debating with a two year old/average_joe.
      
      "Good on ya."
      
      Ya know, if you just tried to act like an adult, even once, you might get your point across and MAYBE get a reasonable response. Sadly, you're incapable of such. And your response's to others for calling you out and for pointing out your ridiculous behavior show you will do anything but. In fact, that last response is par for the course with you. It reeks of contempt and immaturity.
      
      So again, you prove Mike right about you. Nice.
      
      Basically, at the rate you're going, you'll have everyone hating you and seeing you for the troll you are. And no, someone with a differing viewpoint is not a troll. Someone who derails threads, name calls, and demands others pay attention to him IS a troll. Joe Troll. That's what we should start calling you. Has a nice ring to it. It'd look good on a t-shirt, which if any TD staff is reading this, feel free to use. I bet that'd really send him off the rails. Joe Troll t-shirts. I'd buy one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        average_joe (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bottom line: Mike has excuses followed by more excuses, but he won't ever just have a direct discussion with me on the merits of his personal beliefs about a copyright issue. Why? Because he's a coward par excellence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 21 Oct 2012 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike has an entire website that you're currently visiting that substantially seems to involve expressing his personal beliefs about copyright issues...or have you not been reading the articles you comment on?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I...I...could have sworn that there's this site Mike owns, a site called Techdirt, where, among other issues, Mike does discuss his personal beliefs on copyright.
        You might have heard of this site, given you COMMENT ON THIS SITE ALL THE TIME. So you can kindly fuck off when you accuse Mike of not discussing his beliefs. He does nothing but discuss his beliefs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 9:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What bullshit. Mike (and his sock puppets) always pretend like I'm just not capable or able to debate him. The truth, which obviously hurts severely, is that Mike doesn't discuss his true beliefs with detractors."
      
      Mike is very careful to select his times to swoop in and shit all over you. Rarely is anything direct, and most of the time it's "you clearly don't understand my point" or "that isn't what I said at all" without much more added in.
      
      The reality is that Mike is the ultimate fence sitter, rarely committing his opinion 100% to one side or the other, so that he always has ways to plausibly deny his support of X or Y. His most common excuse is "that wasn't me, that from something someone else wrote" without explaining why he posted it up and added supportive sounding comments around it.
      
      When it comes to the first amendment, Mike is still feeling the pain for his hero Lessig, who pretty much has seen his every Copyright v. First Amendment arguments laughed out of courts (last time I think it was 9-0 or 8-1 or similar). Generally, they are of the ilk who think that the first amendment trumps everything else, and that any rights granted anyone else under the constitution can be usurped by the first amendment, no matter what. First Amendment rights are already expanded to fill every possible nook and cranny that exists, yet somehow they think there is more.
      
      Thankfully, the courts disagree almost without exception, and these argument always fail most completely.
      
      The Dancing Baby case is interesting only because the anti-copyright / anti-DMCA / pro fair use crowd tend to what to put a burden on rights holders that essentially would make it impossible for them to ever claim ownership rights. Their argument is that if there is even a marginal potential case of fair use, then the DMCA notice is somehow fraudulent, even if that is not what the law says. They want rights holders to have to somehow magically guess what the courts would rule in a fair use case, and then err on the side of caution and just never issue DMCA notices.
      
      It's sort of like playing the game with zoning laws to get rid of adult bookstores. The law says they are legal, so cities end up writing zoning restrictions with minimum distances from churches, schools, parks, and other areas that effectively rules out 99% of the city territory as potential legal zoning for those stores. It places an incredibly burden on them. Making rights owners have to pre-judge fair use is similar in nature, it limits and restricts the use of the DMCA because also every online use of material (outside of a direct commercial use) would have at least a 1% chance of being fair use.
      
      Anyway, all this to say that there are plenty of smart people here, and Mike certainly isn't stupid. He's very sneaky and very sly about his stance and his position on most things, and trying to nail him down on them is almost impossible. If you try to get him involved, you get snarky answers from Mike (if at all) and rude comments from other posters here, especially the small group of toadies who just can't help themselves.
      
      It's an uphill battle, but it's also incredibly interesting to watch them tie themselves in knots trying to excuse their own bad behaviors.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The Dancing Baby case is interesting only because the anti-copyright / anti-DMCA / pro fair use crowd tend to what to put a burden on rights holders that essentially would make it impossible for them to ever claim ownership rights. Their argument is that if there is even a marginal potential case of fair use, then the DMCA notice is somehow fraudulent, even if that is not what the law says. They want rights holders to have to somehow magically guess what the courts would rule in a fair use case, and then err on the side of caution and just never issue DMCA notices."
        
        Because, as the theory goes, the right to free speech is critical to the existence of a healthy, functioning democratic society.
        However, when you write a law (DMCA) that allows private parties to demand of third or fourth parties to delete speech of other parties...that's when you MUST MAKE SURE. You must make sure that the most critical component of a democracy, free speech, is protected, and not destroyed by those who have ulterior motives.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the right to free speech is critical to the existence of a healthy, functioning democratic society."
        
        That right doesn't overrule everyone else's right. You don't get unlimited free speech without restriction, that does not exist.
        
        "However, when you write a law (DMCA) that allows private parties to demand of third or fourth parties to delete speech of other parties...that's when you MUST MAKE SURE. You must make sure that the most critical component of a democracy, free speech, is protected, and not destroyed by those who have ulterior motives."
        
        Again, you are talking in absolutes that are just not there in law. DMCA puts an incredible burden on rights holders already to police the online universe for their content to protect their rights (those granted by law, as a result of the terms of the constitution and the laws passed by the congress. If you try to impose the additional burden of being judge and jury on the grey area of fair use, you make it all but impossible for them to ever ask for their rights.
        
        In fact, it seems to be the goal: newter DMCA and copyright by making it impossible for rights holders to ever claim their rights. How nice of you to only be interested in your rights, without considering anyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA puts an incredible burden on rights holders already
        
        LOL, you're so full of it, it's funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "LOL, you're so full of it, it's funny."
        
        This from someone who looks at 4-5 paragraphs and comes back with nothing but an insult. Showing your flaws again, I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This again? Seriously with all you foulmouthed ACs it's hard to keep track of those thinking they are oh so original commenting on nicknames. Hint: you're not.
        
        Also, NOTHING in your 5 paragraphs is more telling than the totally and verifiable WRONG statement of an incredible burden that is the DMCA. No need to dig deeper when you're so blatantly wrong. My "insult" summed that up nicely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You want an explanation of why you're full of it? OK.
        
        That right doesn't overrule everyone else's right.
        
        But the "right" you're talking about, copyright, isn't really a right at all, it's a utilitarian temporary monopoly. If it were a right, it would be unethical to abridge it by letting copyrights expire.
        
        DMCA puts an incredible burden on rights holders already to police the online universe for their content to protect their rights
        
        Firstly, the DMCA makes it far, far easier for them to do that than it would be without it. Secondly, if that burden should not rest with the copyright holder, who do you believe should have it, and why?
        
        If you try to impose the additional burden of being judge and jury on the grey area of fair use, you make it all but impossible for them to ever ask for their rights.
        
        All the law says is that they must make a good faith consideration of fair use, not that they have to be right about it. Since even that is never enforced, I don't know what you're complaining about.
        
        In fact, it seems to be the goal: reform DMCA and copyright by making it possible for ordinary people to use their fair use rights without being stifled.
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But the "right" you're talking about, copyright, isn't really a right at all, it's a utilitarian temporary monopoly. If it were a right, it would be unethical to abridge it by letting copyrights expire."
        
        Incorrect. The copyright regime is defined in general in the US constitution, and the "right" of control is granted by law, in the same manner that the "right" to drive a car or the "right" property is created. Outside of the "right" to breathe, pee, and poop, everything else isn't "natural", it's all man made.
        
        Copyright is a right granted in the same manner as a UK leasehold property. You have it, you control it, it's yours... until the leasehold expires.
        
        "Firstly, the DMCA makes it far, far easier for them to do that than it would be without it. "
        
        Nope. DMCA creates the ability for those who infringe to get off freely, without an liability for violating copyright. DMCA creates a system where widescale copyright infringement can occur, where the rights holder must diligently police the entire internet to try to track down and stop misuse of their works, and they have absolutely no get back when they do it - except to retain the rights already granted to them by law.
        
        "Secondly, if that burden should not rest with the copyright holder, who do you believe should have it, and why?"
        
        By law, the burden of proof of fair use is generally with the user. It's a "yes I infringed but..." situation. The rights holder, when it's 100% absolutely clear that it's fair use probably shouldn't send a notice, but honestly, they are still well within the law when they do.
        
        "All the law says is that they must make a good faith consideration of fair use, not that they have to be right about it. Since even that is never enforced, I don't know what you're complaining about."
        
        Good faith is simple, they looked, they don't see any claim of fair use, they don't have anything to work with, and since fair use is entirely a judgement call, they are erring on the side of caution to issue a DMCA. The real issue is that the site that gets the DMCA should work with their end user to assure that they reply in a reasonable time to the notice claiming fair use, and at that point the video / music / whatever can stay in place at the end users risk - and the site is out of the game. The real issue in many of the cases discussed on Techdirt revolves around the ISPs and "service providers" failing to deal with their clients in a timely manner, and instead just shutting things down, and often on a massive scale for absolutely no reason.
        
        "FTFY"
        
        You fixed nothing, you just perpetuated a lie. Congrats for showing your true colors. Perhaps you should try understanding DMCA (and try looking at it from the other side) before you try to slant things.
        
        BTW, your free speech rights don't extend to my private property. You don't have fair use of my pool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The copyright regime is defined in general in the US constitution
        
        No, it isn't. The ability of Congress to create such law is the only thing defined in the Constitution, which makes it quite different from the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
        
        and the "right" of control is granted by law, in the same manner that the "right" to drive a car or the "right" property is created.
        
        The ability to drive a car on public roads is also a privilege. The right to private property isn't created by law, it's a natural right that's recognized by law.
        
        DMCA creates the ability for those who infringe to get off freely, without an liability for violating copyright.
        
        Now you're just making stuff up. The DMCA formalizes rules of liability that ensure third parties aren't held responsible for the actions of others. Anyone who infringes copyright can still be held accountable, and in addition the DMCA grants additional tools to rights holders.
        
        By law, the burden of proof of fair use is generally with the user.
        
        You said "DMCA puts an incredible burden on rights holders already to police the online universe for their content to protect their rights". That isn't about fair use. So I ask again, who should have the burden of policing for copyright violations?
        
        Good faith is simple, they looked, they don't see any claim of fair use, they don't have anything to work with, and since fair use is entirely a judgement call, they are erring on the side of caution to issue a DMCA.
        
        Sometimes, yes. Other times it's quite obvious there was no consideration of fair use.
        
        You fixed nothing, you just perpetuated a lie.
        
        In a tongue in cheek manner, I clarified the position of myself and many others with respect to the DCMA and copyright. I don't know why you feel the need to label that a lie.
        
        BTW, your free speech rights don't extend to my private property. You don't have fair use of my pool.
        
        What's your point? Is there someone arguing that I do? Or are you claiming that copyright is equivalent to physical property?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, someone else explained to you why you are full of it. Happy now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        BTW, your free speech rights don't extend to my private property. You don't have fair use of my pool.
        
        Yet another reason that copyright is not like most private property rights.
        
        If you want to make a "property" comparison, copyright would be closer to privately-owned property that is open to the general public. (It is not, but that is the closest real-property comparison.)
        
        And in that case, my free speech rights can extend to your private property. Historically, it did; see Marsh v. Alabama (1946). Since then, First Amendment rights have contracted, and now the Federal government has no obligation to protect free speech rights on privately-held public forums. See Hudgens v. NLRB.
        
        State laws, however, may (and often do) protect free speech rights, above and beyond the First Amendment. And some states do, in fact, have limited protection of free speech rights in privately-owned public spaces. See e.g. Robbins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (California; upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins), New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp. (New Jersey), or Block v. Westminster Mall Company (Colorado).
        
        So, my free speech rights might extend to your private property.
        
        Just FYI.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike is very careful to select his times to swoop in and shit all over you. Rarely is anything direct, and most of the time it's "you clearly don't understand my point" or "that isn't what I said at all" without much more added in.
        
        The reality is that Mike is the ultimate fence sitter, rarely committing his opinion 100% to one side or the other, so that he always has ways to plausibly deny his support of X or Y. His most common excuse is "that wasn't me, that from something someone else wrote" without explaining why he posted it up and added supportive sounding comments around it.
        
        ***
        
        Anyway, all this to say that there are plenty of smart people here, and Mike certainly isn't stupid. He's very sneaky and very sly about his stance and his position on most things, and trying to nail him down on them is almost impossible. If you try to get him involved, you get snarky answers from Mike (if at all) and rude comments from other posters here, especially the small group of toadies who just can't help themselves.
        
        It's an uphill battle, but it's also incredibly interesting to watch them tie themselves in knots trying to excuse their own bad behaviors.
        
        Very observant. I'm glad you see it too. Mike will go to the ends of the earth to insult other people's beliefs about IP, but he won't ever just have a frank and honest discussion about his own beliefs about IP. It's all very calculated--and dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 22 Oct 2012 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand why you might think that Mike "won't ever just have a frank and honest discussion about his own beliefs about IP." To be able to see his beliefs, you have to read all his articles, which he's been posting on this website for years. I understand you're too lazy or disinterested in finding evidence that disproves your assertions, especially when you don't care about the truth and only want to grab attention by making inflammatory statements, but you being all ADD and tl;dr doesn't mean that Mike hasn't written a virtual compendium on this website about his beliefs regarding IP.
        
        Until you've gone through the years and years worth of content on this website using at least a few good keyword searches and a lot of [red bull/ritalin/adderall/starbucks/5 hour energy/etc.] for being able to actually read through the full articles and comments where Mike has enumerated his beliefs regarding copyright, your claim that he refuses to do so is just laughable.
        
        But why ruin a good trolling with an actual resolution to your disingenuous criticism?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's really simple. Mike won't discuss certain issues directly because he doesn't want to be pinned down to specifics about his beliefs about certain issues. For example, if you ask him directly whether he personally thinks it's immoral for someone to commit a simple act of infringement, such as downloading an MP3 for free from a rogue site rather than paying for it on iTunes, he won't answer that question directly (just like he won't answer hundreds of other questions directly). The fact that he tears apart other people's beliefs for a living, yet refuses to discuss his own beliefs directly, is amazing and amusing. It's also dishonest as clearly he's hiding something (and it's not real hard to figure out what that is).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cinatown, 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "... immoral for someone to commit a simple act of infringement"
        
        It's only simple when it's assumed morality is contingent on a solely econometric understanding of social relations. Cultural progressives are not so much tearing apart culturally conservative *beliefs* as they are attempting to balance (the normalization of) econometric conclusions about civilization with a civilized working of economic processes.
        
        This is likely why certain issues can not be 'directly' discussed: the language of social cohesion, which perpetually changes, conflicts with the universalizing of private property and the end of history that it implies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "For example, if you ask him directly whether he personally thinks it's immoral for someone to commit a simple act of infringement, such as downloading an MP3 for free from a rogue site rather than paying for it on iTunes, he won't answer that question directly"
        
        I can't speak for Mike, but at least I couldn't answer that question succinctly because I'm not a reductionist or moral absolutist. That's a whole book topic right there that you're asking about. In some circumstances, it could be moral, amoral, and/or immoral, and it all depends on context. In some contexts, buying a song on iTunes could be considered immoral. In some contexts, copyright infringement could be amoral. In some contexts, there could be nothing unlawful with violating copyright laws of certain countries, depending on where you live and what laws are perceived to apply to you. Outside of copyright law specifically, violating a law is not inherently immoral and following a law is not inherently moral, and vice versa.
        
        So you're asking for a simple answer to a complex question. That's like saying, "explain the concept of god in one, short sentence."
        
        "just like he won't answer hundreds of other questions directly"
        
        Why exactly do you think he should have to respond to hundreds of interrogative questions from you in the first place?
        
        "The fact that he tears apart other people's beliefs for a living,"
        
        That's a biased interpretation that only indicates that you disagree with him. Objectively, he writes articles on a blog (as only one part of his living) about technology, law, business, and current events. Some of those articles express disagreement with some approaches to these topics. Others express agreement with some approaches to these topics. Just because you're only interested in and troll on the articles where he mentions what he thinks is wrong with some approaches to IP doesn't mean that he doesn't do anything else but that.
        
        If you want to discuss honesty and hiding from something, tell me, what is your full name? Who do you work for? Why do you troll here? Am I not entitled to harass you for these answers as you harass Mike? How long do I have to wait for you to respond before I get to accuse you of being dishonest and hiding something because you won't answer my questions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed, AJ needs his own blog. That's a different set of responsibilities than a commenter has.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's really simple. average_joe and his anonymous doppleganger, won't discuss certain issues directly, because he doesn't want to be pinned down to specifics about his believes about certain issues. For example, if you ask him directly why he stopped beating his wife, he won't answer that question directly (just like he won't answer with a single citation for where his bogus claims about what he thinks my beliefs are). The fact that he vandalizes comments in an off-topic way, after promising to stop posting here, is amazing and amusing. It's also dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's really simple. average_joe and his anonymous doppleganger, won't discuss certain issues directly, because he doesn't want to be pinned down to specifics about his believes about certain issues. For example, if you ask him directly why he stopped beating his wife, he won't answer that question directly (just like he won't answer with a single citation for where his bogus claims about what he thinks my beliefs are). The fact that he vandalizes comments in an off-topic way, after promising to stop posting here, is amazing and amusing. It's also dishonest.
        
        The words of a desperate man. Too desperate to EVER just have a frank and honest discussion about his own beliefs. Keep telling your followers that you won't discuss your own views frankly and honestly because of some bullshit problem with the person who wants to have that frank and honest discussion with you. I'm sure there's at least one or two stupid people who believe you. At the end of the day, the FACT remains that I'm ready and willing to have a frank and honest discussion with you, but you will go to the ends of the earth to make excuse after excuse after excuse, anything to get out of a frank and honest discussion about the issues.
        
        Want to prove me wrong once and for all? Have a frank and honest discussion with me. You and I both know that you won't. You'll have another excuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You must have graduated at the top of your class from the Glenn Beck School of Trolling. Just keep asking questions regardless of the response you receive and continue to insist that you have to keep asking because there's clearly some conspiratorial secret that the person you're interrogating doesn't want revealed.
        
        Is this one of your chief weapons, which also include fear and surprise...and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope...oh, and ruthless efficiency?
        
        In the end -
        
        1. Mike has made a lot of statements regarding his thoughts on IP. Read the articles on the blog if you actually care to know them. Cite them and share them with your troll friends. Trade hyperlinks like baseball cards if you like.
        
        2. Mike doesn't have to answer your questions, regardless of whether you want to claim that you're sincere in your desire for such a dialogue, though I doubt many, if any, members of this community actually believe you're sincere at all since you're trolling and provide no good faith gestures to indicate that you plan to speak to anyone who disagrees with you with anything less than contempt and derision.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 1:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1. Every time you try to tie Mike specifically to one of his posts, he comes up with a weasel word excuse as to why it's not an absolute statement. His most common one is to highlight someone else's post somewhere, add words of support, and then later deny he really supports it, he just that the blog post was made.
        
        2. Mike doesn't have to answer any questions, ever. But like anything, it goes to credibility. Example, he supports the rights of pirate sites, he supports the people who ignore copyright, he is against any legal action against these sites, he comes up with (already killed in court) first amendment arguments to support them, encourages people to both use the infrastructure created by piracy as well as to profit from piracy... but doesn't support piracy? Something doesn't add up, does it? Perhaps it's because most of the business models he pushes here don't add up to much compared to the incumbent business models, unless you first decimate them with piracy. Who knows? Mike sure isn't talking about it.
        
        The problem is that for you (and people like you) you believe Mike's message 100%, so you aren't questioning anything else. You are too busy knodding your head (like the dittoheads listening to Limbaugh) to notice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 5:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1. Every time you try to tie Mike specifically to one of his posts, he comes up with a weasel word excuse as to why it's not an absolute statement. His most common one is to highlight someone else's post somewhere, add words of support, and then later deny he really supports it, he just that the blog post was made.
        
        2. Mike doesn't have to answer any questions, ever. But like anything, it goes to credibility. Example, he supports the rights of pirate sites, he supports the people who ignore copyright, he is against any legal action against these sites, he comes up with (already killed in court) first amendment arguments to support them, encourages people to both use the infrastructure created by piracy as well as to profit from piracy... but doesn't support piracy? Something doesn't add up, does it? Perhaps it's because most of the business models he pushes here don't add up to much compared to the incumbent business models, unless you first decimate them with piracy. Who knows? Mike sure isn't talking about it.
        
        The problem is that for you (and people like you) you believe Mike's message 100%, so you aren't questioning anything else. You are too busy knodding your head (like the dittoheads listening to Limbaugh) to notice.
        
        Yes. This. A thousand times this.
        
        The fact that Mike refuses to have a frank and honest discussion about his personal beliefs indicates that he's hiding something.
        
        The man whose job in life is to tear apart the beliefs of others refuses to discuss his own frankly and honestly. Those are not the actions of an honest person.
        
        And pretending like I'm a child for calling him out on this stuff is just sad. Excuse after excuses, but never just a frank and honest discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 4:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Time to do some baiting...
        
        "The fact that Mike refuses to have a frank and honest discussion about his personal beliefs indicates that he's hiding something."
        
        Oh yes, I'm fairly certain Mike is hiding something... something in these over 40,000 posts! I'm fairly certain that Mike has talked about his views in these posts pretty clearly, but it appears you whole-heartily refuse to see this. I also know that Mike won't go into more personal details with his personal life, since none of those things belong on this site unless there's something in the topic of the post that has something to do with him personally (like some posts with his father.) I could care less about Mike's personal life unless I see something that has connections to mine own, but upon seeing all of your comments towards him... that makes you look like a stalker waiting for the moment to deliver the final strike to his prey than some person looking for an educated debate.
        
        "The man whose job in life is to tear apart the beliefs of others refuses to discuss his own frankly and honestly."
        
        Seriously? Who wants to have a job that is nothing but talking down to people over the Internet? ... Well, I could see a few people, but I don't think anyone else other than you and your kind would want to do that. I certainly don't, and I don't want to get paid to do that either. Also I don't see you wanting to get into a "frank and honest" debate with Mike. You just want to get ammunition to make yourself look bigger and better than someone who has more knowledge than me and you.
        
        "And pretending like I'm a child for calling him out on this stuff is just sad."
        
        To be fair, we pretend since we have absolutely no idea who you are on the other side of the screen. But since I'm in a place where men in their early 20s behave like middle-schoolers, we can call you a child for just acting like one. And sure it's good to point out something, but not in a way it's insulting the writer because you disagree with his views. Doing so doesn't really help in your image or trying to get what you want. If your comments have a little more maturity in them, then maybe there might be some discussions. But for the time being, you're going to continue with this campaign you have going for you and keep attacking this site with off-topic threads, trying to prove your point while throwing everything out the window.
        
        And to wrap this up:
        
        "Those are not the actions of an honest person."
        
        This says a whole lot about your kind. Well, I'll be honest, the word "honest" does have different meanings to different people and that is part of our views. If you really think you're such an honest person and Mike isn't, then why are you insulting him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 11:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact that Mike refuses to have a frank and honest discussion about his personal beliefs indicates that he's hiding something.
        
        I have frank and honest discussions all the time. The problem you seem to have is that when I have frank and honest discussions, I apparently prove you wrong, so you go batshit insane and lash out like a troubled child.
        
        And pretending like I'm a child for calling him out on this stuff is just sad
        
        Hahahahahahahahahahah.
        
        No.
        
        Wait.
        
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
        
        You've never called me out on shit. I call you out for acting like a child... because you act like a child.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 5:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have frank and honest discussions all the time. The problem you seem to have is that when I have frank and honest discussions, I apparently prove you wrong, so you go batshit insane and lash out like a troubled child.
        
        Yep, you love to claim that you have these frank and honest discussions all the time, but, of course, you won't just have a frank and honest discussion with me.
        
        All we get are post after post like this one, where you talk about talking about it, but you don't actually talk about it.
        
        You tell me when and where you want to prove me wrong by having a frank and honest discussion. I'll be there.
        
        You've never called me out on shit. I call you out for acting like a child... because you act like a child.
        
        Your errors get pointed out all the time. You usually don't respond at all. Sometimes you pop in with a silly zinger. But the one thing you never do is just have a frank and honest discussion about the issue at hand.
        
        Want to prove me wrong? Then do so by having a frank and honest discussion with me. You know you won't/can't.
        
        Don't you get tired of just making excuses?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are, once again, attacking a straw man.
        
        Example, he supports the rights of pirate sites,
        
        He supports the rights to free speech and due process of everyone, "pirate sites" or not.
        
        he supports the people who ignore copyright,
        
        He supports artists who make money without relying on copyright, because he supports artists making money, and relying on copyright to make money is usually a bad business decision. He also supports artists being able to create their art freely, without being sued or silenced by rightsholders.
        
        he is against any legal action against these sites,
        
        He has never, ever said this. He is against taking legal action against these sites when there is collateral damage to other people and other sites that are not pirates.
        
        he comes up with (already killed in court) first amendment arguments to support them,
        
        He does not "come up with" those arguments, and they were never "killed in court." For example, just because a First Amendment challenge to copyright extension was rejected, does not mean that ex parte seizures of domain names can survive a First Amendment challenge. Such a challenge has not been allowed to be made, and with the dropping of charges against Puerto 80, it might never be made.
        
        In any case, "the court" is not the source of free speech rights; it is entirely possible that the court (even the Supreme Court) can get it wrong. We should then do whatever is appropriate for citizens to do when faced with government encroachments of our rights. It doesn't matter if "piracy" is involved or not.
        
        encourages people to both use the infrastructure created by piracy as well as to profit from piracy...
        
        He has never, once, encouraged people to "profit from piracy." He has encouraged artists to use file sharing infrastructures legally, to promote themselves and/or earn money. That is not piracy. That is authorized distribution.
        
        In any case, if rightsholders do end up profiting from the "piracy" of their own works... well, what's wrong with that? Why is it worse than fighting a costly, and losing, battle that will ultimately end with the rightsholders losing money and alienating their customer base? Finding a way to deal with piracy that earns rightsholders money is not "supporting piracy."
        
        but doesn't support piracy?
        
        Yep. You can believe all of the above, and still not support piracy. Most people do exactly that. This is something you can't seem to comprehend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe that it is impossible for Mike to ever assuage your hostility towards him. You will never be satisfied. You are not interested in having an honest conversation. You can't see past your own bias to even use neutral terminology in reference to anything. You keep using the term pirate to describe anything you disagree with, whether even the most propagandist use of the term pirate would be appropriate to describe. You classify people as either content producers or pirates, instead of the often-overlapping categories of producers, middlemen, artists, customers, and copyright violators, among others.
        
        You keep talking about his support of piracy but that's only because you see piracy everywhere, regardless of whether it actually involves copyright violation. Any time someone makes money that you think the big media companies used to make or should be making, you call it piracy, even if it's a legitimate business model. You have an expansive and biased definition of piracy.
        
        Analogy:
        
        Joe Smith defines speaking to other people as violence.
        
        John Doe says, "I like talking to other people."
        
        Joe Smith, logically, wants to know why John Doe advocates for violence and decides to call him out on it continually. Why won't John Doe answer the question? What does he have to hide?
        
        Your perspective is so out of touch with the reality of the world that you can't see anything but your own perspective. This mirrors the entire problem with the big media players. They used to make money by buying laws and monopolizing content production, so they can't see any good in not continuing to do the same thing. You have the same problem with trolling. You think you're right and so your trolling is justified because you think that Mike is in the wrong. But you're an IP fundamentalist on a crusade/jihad who doesn't care who you attack or insult as long as your propagandist message is spread.
        
        I love that you think I agree with Mike's message 100%. I have actually disagreed with Mike several times. We may agree on a lot, but I don't always agree with him on everything. Sometimes I mention my disagreement. Sometimes I don't care about the topics on which he and I disagree and so I don't comment. Did you know that you don't have to comment every time you disagree with Mike? There's no mandate that says you have to comment at all, much less read Techdirt. Or are you getting paid to troll here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 3:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You will never be satisfied. You are not interested in having an honest conversation.
        
        I'm here, right now, right here, ready and willing to have a productive and substantive discussion with Mike.
        
        And he's nowhere to be found.
        
        If he wants to prove that I'm incapable, then he should prove it by attempting to have a frank and honest discussion with me. He won't. Why? Because Mike is neither frank nor honest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 11:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm here, right now, right here, ready and willing to have a productive and substantive discussion with Mike.
        
        And let's be clear about this: you have NEVER been interested in "a productive and substantive discussion." What you have been interested in is asking pointless, meaningless questions that are "wife beating" fallacies, in the hope to "trap me."
        
        That's not a productive and substantive discussion. That's being a dick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 5:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And let's be clear about this: you have NEVER been interested in "a productive and substantive discussion." What you have been interested in is asking pointless, meaningless questions that are "wife beating" fallacies, in the hope to "trap me."
        
        That's not a productive and substantive discussion. That's being a dick.
        
        More talking about talking about it. More excuses.
        
        Doesn't it ever get old? Instead of pretending like it's me that's incapable of having this discussion, why not prove it? Have the discussion. And if I prove you right by being unproductive, you can link to this thread 'til the end of time.
        
        I have no interest in catching you in some silly "wife beating" argument. I want to have an actual, frank, substantive, honest discussion about your beliefs about copyright.
        
        Why so scared?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Doesn't it ever get old? Instead of pretending like it's me that's incapable of having this discussion, why not prove it? Have the discussion. And if I prove you right by being unproductive, you can link to this thread 'til the end of time.
        
        How's about I just link to the last time we tried this, and you went fucking ballistic in the most unprofessional and unproductive ways, and we assume that you'll do the same thing yet again -- as you've done every single time I've tried to have a serious discussion with you.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week- techdirt.shtml#c1210
        
        Oh hell. Why not post this one too:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell -white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#c986
        
        Or here:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120714/02175519699/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-tech dirt.shtml#c147
        
        So you're claim that after I prove you being a nasty, ridiculous child, I can just point to "this thread 'til the end of time" doesn't hold much weight. We've done this before. And those are just from the past few months, but you know damn well that you've acted this way for years.
        
        I've tried. You act out. I've given you at least half a dozen chances to engage legitimately and Every Single Time it results in you throwing a temper tantrum.
        
        So, playing the card of "why won't you discuss this with me" is pretty silly. We've tried that. You failed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 7:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh. Yes, as I've admitted and apologized for many times, I've lost my cool. I'm not a perfect person by any means. I have several faults. I make many mistakes. I am by far less than perfect.
        
        You, on the other hand, never admit fault. And you've been incredibly rude and mean to me. I'm not going to pull out the links to those times, just like I'm not going to pull out the links to the hundreds of times you've refused to engage me OR OTHER DETRACTORS when they call you out on your bullshit.
        
        Snore.
        
        The fact remains that you're a coward and a liar, and the ONLY reason you won't discuss your beliefs with me OR ANYONE ELSE is because you don't want to be pinned down on your positions.
        
        Stop being such a douchebag manipulator, man up, and actually engage your detractors.
        
        The excuses are just sad. Seriously. Just have a normal conversation for once in your life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh. Yes, as I've admitted and apologized for many times, I've lost my cool. I'm not a perfect person by any means. I have several faults. I make many mistakes. I am by far less than perfect.
        
        Translation: "Sure, every other time you've tried to engage me, I've turned into an insufferable douchebag. But this time is different, I swear!"
        
        Sorry, dude.
        
        The fact remains that you're a coward and a liar, and the ONLY reason you won't discuss your beliefs with me OR ANYONE ELSE is because you don't want to be pinned down on your positions.
        
        Point proven. Thanks.
        
        I discuss my beliefs every day. You act like a jackass no matter what. When you act like an adult, I'll discuss things like an adult with you. But, given how you act, there is no reason to, since we all know exactly how you'll respond. As you do in this very post.
        
        The excuses are just sad. Seriously. Just have a normal conversation for once in your life.
        
        Hilarious. In the very post where you admit that every time I've tried to have a normal conversation with you, you turn into a total fucking douchebag.
        
        Incredible. You have no self reflection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Snore. Talking about talking about it sucks. If you "discuss [your] beliefs every day," then prove it. Engage me and the other detractors on the merits. When asked about your personal beliefs about a topic, just give a straight answer. Don't be so standoffish and fickle. Want to prove me wrong? Prove me wrong by actually doing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Want to prove me wrong? Prove me wrong by actually doing it.
        
        I have proved you wrong. Time and time again. The links above show that.
        
        And what we got for it was you repeatedly throwing childish temper tantrums. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME that I "engage" with you on a copyright issue, you ask logical fallacy questions and then go nuts when I point that out or answer a way that you don't like.
        
        It's been proved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LMAO. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Remember how many months it took me to get you to answer the simple question of why you thought piracy was not OK? What was that, two years? Two years to get a direct answer to a simple, direct question. You are obviously not an open and honest person, Mike.
        
        I can list hundreds of simple questions that you refuse to answer. And they're not just questions from me (so that SHREDS your silly deflection that your inability to be honest and open is somehow *my* fault). All prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that you aren't honest.
        
        It's just sad that you can't be forthright and honest, Mike. Seriously. I often wonder if you're not *the* most dishonest person I've ever come across. Seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        [citation needed or GTFO], 26 Oct 2012 @ 8:28am
        
        I'm sorry, Mike.
        But it's the constant trolls that you argue with that turn me away from even bothering to look into the comment sections anymore. Now I just bookmark profile pages to look at replies instead of wading through AC posts that seem to spend their petty existences refreshing TechDirt pages just so they can call you out, rant about paywalls, or believe they're freakin' Hitler-Socrates with their holier-than-thou attitudes on Every. Single. Article.
        
        I'm not as strongly infected by the stupid that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        [citation needed or GTFO], 26 Oct 2012 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've admitted and apologized for many times.
        
        [citation needed or GTFO]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        FACT
        
        Hey, I just figured something out. Average_joe is, in actuality, Dwight Schrute.
        
        Explains a lot, don't you think?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Honestly, Karl, I'm sure you see it too. Mike refuses to discuss his personal beliefs directly. If it were me being so evasive for so long, you would call me out on it. Why do you give Mike a free pass?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Honestly, Karl, I'm sure you see it too.
        
        No, I don't, because it's not there.
        
        Everyone here can see what AJ is doing. He's trying to turn this into a moral debate, for the sole purpose of "proving" that his opponent (in this case Mike) is "evil." It's not a debate, it's an argument ad hominem, an attempt to poison the well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        No, I don't, because it's not there.
        
        Everyone here can see what AJ is doing. He's trying to turn this into a moral debate, for the sole purpose of "proving" that his opponent (in this case Mike) is "evil." It's not a debate, it's an argument ad hominem, an attempt to poison the well.
        
        Of course it's there, Karl.
        
        Here's a question Mike won't answer: Mike, you mentioned that you would like to change the bad parts of copyright law. I'm curious. Do you think there are actually any good parts? If so, what are they, and what should be down to enforce them?
        
        He won't answer that just like he won't hundreds of other direct questions about his personal beliefs.
        
        All he ever does is swoop in and pretend like the problem is with me and that I'm being a baby, etc. But that's all just deflection from the fact that Mike won't discuss his own beliefs directly.
        
        What kind of a man tears apart the beliefs of others but refuses to discuss his own beliefs? A dishonest one.
        
        Instead of making excuse after excuses, Mike could simply have a frank and honest discussion about his beliefs. He's been avoiding that with me for years, as I suspect he will continue to avoid.
        
        The ONLY thing I want is that frank and honest discussion. The fact that he goes so incredibly far for so incredibly long to avoid having that conversation should tell you all you need to know about him.
        
        He knows that with just a few simple questions, I can make him address the very issues that he avoids the most. Rather than risk it, he just makes excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why do you care AJ?
        
        If Mike is as dishonest as you claim, (not sure why 40,000+ blog posts of Mike spelling out his views are not enough for you, but whatever) why does it matter to you? What do you gain from all this silliness of trying to call Mike out in the comment section of his own blog?
        
        You could start your own little Trichordist blog or something if you are really that opposed to Mike's views. That way you could counter-argue Mike's views all day, every day to your little heart's content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 2:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The words of a desperate man
        
        Apparently you didn't notice that I was just copying your words.
        
        Hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 5:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently you didn't notice that I was just copying your words.
        
        Hilarious.
        
        Of course I noticed. It's desperate and pathetic.
        
        Instead of playing games, why don't you for once just have a frank and honest discussion about the issues?
        
        Seriously, what are you so scared of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm certain he's not afraid of anything. I'm going to take a wild guess to say that you're afraid that your high horse is smaller to Mike's and you want to make it bigger by having these "frank and honest" debates.
        
        ... It's a guess, nothing more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 11:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Instead of playing games, why don't you for once just have a frank and honest discussion about the issues?
        
        I've done so. Many times, and it all ends up the same: you going batshit crazy when I don't answer the way the strawman Mike in your head answers in your delusions.
        
        Last time I had a "frank and honest discussion" with you, you promised to leave the site until next year.
        
        And look where that got us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 5:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've done so. Many times, and it all ends up the same: you going batshit crazy when I don't answer the way the strawman Mike in your head answers in your delusions.
        
        Last time I had a "frank and honest discussion" with you, you promised to leave the site until next year.
        
        And look where that got us.
        
        You love to make such unsubstantiated claims, pretending like you're frank and honest with me. But, of course, you offer no link or evidence.
        
        Stop playing games. Stop making excuses. Just have a frank and honest discussion with me.
        
        Seriously, Mike. Stop being so evasive and so childish. Just have a discussion like a real grown up.
        
        Want me to stop reminding the world that you won't
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and just to respond to this malarkey:
        
        Keep telling your followers that you won't discuss your own views frankly and honestly because of some bullshit problem with the person who wants to have that frank and honest discussion with you.
        
        I do discuss my own views frankly and honestly ALL THE FUCKING TIME. I've done so with tons of people, including you.
        
        But your response is to throw the most fucked up temper tantrum imaginable, when the REAL me doesn't match up with the strawman Mike you've built in your head.
        
        And, rather than accept reality that I am not the person you think I am, your response is to whine like the most entitled, idiotic 2 year old ever, that I must absolutely be the guy you think I am.
        
        I engage with lots of people. I tried to engage with you, and you've proven to be a dishonest, assholish, liar.
        
        This is a perfect example. You promised to leave the site for the rest of the year, but you did no such thing. You promised to stop bothering us in the comments, but you did no such thing.
        
        You promised to show where I said the things you insisted I said (but never did) and you've refused to do so. Though, every time I call you on that bullshit, you throw one of your temper tantrums to distract.
        
        Let's face facts. I discuss my points honestly with tons of people.
        
        Everyone seems to recognize that but you.
        
        Want to prove me wrong once and for all? Have a frank and honest discussion with me. You and I both know that you won't. You'll have another excuse.
        
        Bullshit. I've done it. Many times. And every single time it ends in you throwing one of your fucked up temper tantrums, when I don't answer the questions the way you want me to.
        
        Would you finally live up to one of your stupid promises, and go the fuck away?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2012 @ 5:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I told you that if you directed a post to me, I would respond. You called me out in an article, so I responded.
        
        Just have a frank and honest discussion with me about the issues. No excuses.
        
        Here you are, yet again, just making excuses.
        
        Are you simply not able to discuss your personal beliefs frankly and honestly?
        
        Seriously, Mike. What's wrong with you?
        
        I'm not playing games or acting like a child. I'm simply trying to get you to have a frank and honest discussion. The one playing games is you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 23 Oct 2012 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm not playing games or acting like a child. I'm simply trying to get you to have a frank and honest discussion."
        
        Did it occur to you that you've poisoned the well for having a frank and honest discussion by acting like a child in order to (supposedly/disingenuously) attempt to get one? If you have to ask a hundred times and won't relent, you're being a child. Rational, sincere people realize when they're not going to get what they want, what they've already admitted is not required by the person of whom they are making demands, and they let it go and move on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 11:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I told you that if you directed a post to me, I would respond. You called me out in an article, so I responded.
        
        No. That is what you said AFTER I called your bluff. Prior to that there were no conditions. But good to know, once again, that you're a liar. Every time I've "given in" to one of your childish demands you prove it again. This time it was the promise to leave the site. Last time it was the promise to point out where I'd said the bullshit things you made up about what I said.
        
        Instead... you lie and throw temper tantrums.
        
        And then you wonder why everyone thinks you're insane here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. That is what you said AFTER I called your bluff. Prior to that there were no conditions. But good to know, once again, that you're a liar. Every time I've "given in" to one of your childish demands you prove it again. This time it was the promise to leave the site. Last time it was the promise to point out where I'd said the bullshit things you made up about what I said.
        
        Instead... you lie and throw temper tantrums.
        
        And then you wonder why everyone thinks you're insane here.
        
        Temper tantrum? LOL! Hardly. I'm pointing out the fact that you won't discuss your personal beliefs frankly and honestly.
        
        Watching you squirm as that fact is pointed out over and over is priceless.
        
        Seriously, Mike, just be frank and honest about your beliefs. Why's that so hard for you? What are you scared of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 11:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's really simple. average_joe and his anonymous doppleganger, won't discuss certain issues directly, because he doesn't want to be pinned down to specifics about his believes about certain issues. For example, if you ask him directly why he stopped beating his wife, he won't answer that question directly (just like he won't answer with a single citation for where his bogus claims about what he thinks my beliefs are). The fact that he vandalizes comments in an off-topic way, after promising to stop posting here, is amazing and amusing. It's also dishonest."
        
        Classic Masnick. Way to NOT answer anything.
        
        The worst part is you think you are incredibly clever. Instead, you just come off as pathetic and vengeful.
        
        How petty!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Classic Masnick. Way to NOT answer anything."
        
        Well he is answering to your response, except you don't like it. So that does count as an answer, not "NOT answering anything." Not responding to your comment is "NOT answering anything."
        
        Here, have a treat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Instead, you just come off as pathetic and vengeful.
        
        Yeah, but only to you and the other 3 jackass AC's that claim bullshit like this. So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 12:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's really simple. You won't discuss certain issues directly because you don't want to be pinned down to specifics about his beliefs about certain issues. For example, if I ask you directly whether you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, you won't answer that question directly (just like you won't answer hundreds of other questions directly). The fact that you tear apart other people's beliefs for a living, yet refuses to discuss your own beliefs directly, is amazing and amusing. It's also dishonest as clearly you're hiding something (and it's not real hard to figure out what that is: the fact that you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990).
        
        Average_joe: when you are willing to have a frank and honest discussion about how you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, I will leave you alone on this website for a year. Promise.
        
        But you won't. Keep telling your followers that you won't discuss your own views frankly and honestly because of some bullshit problem with the person who wants to have that frank and honest discussion with you. I'm sure there's at least one or two stupid people who believe you didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. At the end of the day, the FACT remains that I'm ready and willing to have a frank and honest discussion about how you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, but you will go to the ends of the earth to make excuse after excuse after excuse, anything to get out of a frank and honest discussion about the fact that you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
        
        Want to prove me wrong once and for all? Have a frank and honest discussion with me about how you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. You and I both know that you won't. You'll have another excuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > They want rights holders to have to somehow
        > magically guess what the courts would rule in
        > a fair use case, and then err on the side of caution
        > and just never issue DMCA notices.
        
        And yet those same rights holders want YouTube and others to magically guess what is and is not infringing and bear responsibility when they guess wrong, despite the fact that-- just like fair use-- the issue of what does and does not infringe is often the subject of lengthy and contentious court proceedings.
        
        Amazing how the standards keep shifting when it comes to rights holders.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not at all, nice try though.
        
        Rights holders want YouTube to take responsibility for their content on their site, plain and simple. When bobby2434398743 uploads the latest Family Guy episode, it gets taken down. It's not hard. He doesn't have the right to post it, why is this such a big deal?
        
        With more and more "official" channels, it increasingly simple for Youtube to figure out. The 1001 rip off versions of a bands latest video aren't adding anything - just point them all to the real version on the band's official YouTube channel.
        
        Really, it's not hard. Nobody (and I mean nobody) is asking YouTube to be the absolute judge in all cases. With the fingerprinting system and such, they have taken big steps towards protecting rights holders, and that is the whole idea. It shouldn't be easy to infringe and massively complex to complain. That's just not fair, is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rights holders want YouTube to take responsibility for their content on their site, plain and simple. When bobby2434398743 uploads the latest Family Guy episode, it gets taken down. It's not hard. He doesn't have the right to post it, why is this such a big deal?
        
        The problem lies in actually knowing the copyright status of any given work and whether the rights holder permits sharing or not.
        
        Why are the rights holders not promoting and funding a one-stop database for this information to make it easier for sites like YouTube?
        
        With more and more "official" channels, it increasingly simple for Youtube to figure out. The 1001 rip off versions of a bands latest video aren't adding anything - just point them all to the real version on the band's official YouTube channel.
        
        YouTube basically does this. The Content ID system gives the rights holder a choice of removing the content or earning the ad revenue, even if someone else uploaded it.
        
        Really, it's not hard. Nobody (and I mean nobody) is asking YouTube to be the absolute judge in all cases. With the fingerprinting system and such, they have taken big steps towards protecting rights holders, and that is the whole idea. It shouldn't be easy to infringe and massively complex to complain. That's just not fair, is it?
        
        And YouTube has taken steps in this direction. My question is where are the steps being taken by the rights holders and their trade organizations? They seem to have an awful lot of cash to lobby and sue people, why isn't that money being used to actually earn artists money?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It shouldn't be easy to infringe and massively complex to complain.
        
        The problem is, it's easy to infringe, and there is really no way to change that. So the only way to balance the equation is to make it easier to enforce copyright privileges. If you can find a way to do that without infringing civil liberties or getting a large number of false positives, that would be great. Content ID is interesting; I would have to look into the details more to make a judgment of what I think about it.
        
        Just don't make it easy for copyright holders to crack down arbitrarily on anything they think might be infringement. This is exactly what they are pushing for, so we need to push back to make sure that doesn't happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > He doesn't have the right to post it, why is this
        > such a big deal?
        
        He very well might have the right to post it. Between potential license claims and potential claims of fair use, how is YouTube to know, absent a court ruling, that he doesn't have the right to post it?
        
        > With more and more "official" channels, it increasingly
        > simple for Youtube to figure out.
        
        Official channels have no impact on the availability of fair use claims.
        
        > With the fingerprinting system and such, they
        > have taken big steps towards protecting rights holders
        
        And if such systems result in the suppression of legitimate and legal speech, well, we have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The truth, which obviously hurts severely, is that Mike doesn't discuss his true beliefs with detractors. Nothing desperate or dishonest about that.
      
      Your going on about that again? Can do! Hey, Joe, tell us about how you willfully infringed on somebody's rights with your old Avatar.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm just not capable or able to debate him.
      What I don't understand is this. You seem to want to debate Mike. Mike is not the subject of this website; IP, copyright,etc. is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Togashi (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Christ, you're still on about this? I thought we were rid of the "Mike gave me an answer I didn't like" bullshit 2 months ago.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think Christ posted that. In fact, I'm not sure He's ever posted on Techdirt at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re:
  "Get your stupid digs in, but you and I both know that you won't have a serious discussion with me on the merits of a copyright issue because you're too scared to have an "open, human, and awesome" discussion with a critic. Nothing desperate about that fact. Keep pretending like you're not a pretender. I'll be here ready to go any place, any time. You'll be hiding like a coward."
  
  As someone else already pointed out, it's back to "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?!?! RAWR!"
  
  Way to stay classy, AJ. And nice to see you have gone back on your word. What was it you said, "Mike, apologize for being mean to wittle ol' me and I will NEVER bother you again." And what did Mike do? Oh, that's right. He apologized for hurting your little feelings. [Ignores the fact that AJ has an incredibly thin skin when it suits him. Decides to not make a joke about such, lest he has to apologize as well.]
  
  But yeah, way to prove Mike completely wrong about you. You're definitely not a 2 year old who throws temper tantrums. /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    average_joe (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And I told him that if he addressed me directly, I would take that as an invitation to respond. He addressed me directly in an article. So I'm here, responding. I'll discuss the issues with him directly at any time. He's got nothing but excuses, excuses, excuses. Funny that. Almost like he's hiding something.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "And, finally, my last editor's choice comment of the week, which actually made me laugh the most, is a comment from one of our usual critics, apparently insisting that you can't complain about the massive expansion of IP laws over time, without also complaining about the "expansion of the First Amendment."
      
      I'm just pointing out how silly it is that Mike rants about the expansion of IP, but he never complains about the similar expansion of the First Amendment.
      
      Yeah, really not much to say about that other than to shake your head and laugh. Such people do exist in this world, amazingly."
      
      I'm sorry, I DO NOT see where he addressed you directly in the article, nor in the portion that should concern you. What I do see is Mike quoting a certain someone, but not directly addressing them at all.
      
      What I do see is someone taking any mention of themselves to mean "hey, I was brought up for something retarded/ridiculous I said, that's an open invitation, per my definition of the words 'addressed me directly' and 'invitation' to derail yet another thread, woo!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Beech, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fun Fact: Apparently, average_joe is like Beetlejuice. Say his name a specified number of times and you summon him from his plane of indecipherable torment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 6:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wonder if sprinkling dust on his head also has the effect it had on Beetlejuice.
        
        Hmm...Now we have a voice to go along with the "Why won't you debate me?!?" rant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 7:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >I'm sorry, I DO NOT see where he addressed you directly in the article
        
        That's where you're wrong - who's to say it wasn't AJ posting without signing in?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 4:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I'm not wrong. The person who made the comment was AJ, but what I mean is that merely quoting AJ is not the same as directly addressing him. Nor was he directly addressed in the sentences leading up to and after the quote.
        
        Although, it is true AJ occasionally doesn't sign in and uses the AC moniker.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sorry, I DO NOT see where he addressed you directly in the article, nor in the portion that should concern you. What I do see is Mike quoting a certain someone, but not directly addressing them at all.
        
        Mike quoted one of my posts, verbatim, and then linked to it. And then he said about me: "Such people do exist in this world, amazingly."
        
        Of course, people such as himself, afraid to have frank and open discussions, exist as well. Funny how that works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beech, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:46pm
  
  Re:
  "You'll be hiding like a coward."
  
  Yeah Mike! Hide like a coward on your FUCKING WEBSITE WHICH IS VISIBLE TO DAMN NEAR THE ENTIRE PLANET, coward! I am totally with AJ here. Why won't the enigmatic super-Mike discuss his political views?! Maybe he should start a website on which he discusses various recent happening and his views on them, and then make that site VISIBILE TO DAMN NEAR THE....oh wait...he's already done that?
  
  AJ, maybe you should get on that Insider Chat thing on the right side of the screen. Seems like Mike and the Gang are chatting on there all the time. Maybe that's a better venue for debate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 8:40pm
  
  Re:
  You are nothing but a raving fool throwing a tantrum like a spoiled brat that has been denied his petty materialistic demands. You don't debate, "openly", "humanly", nor "awesomely"; you just go on the attack and claim victory in the face of utter defeat. You are delusional. Mike owes you nothing and you deserve nothing. You are a parasite on this community and nothing more.
  
  Nobody respects you, nobody agrees with you, and nobody wants to see your verbal diarrhea offending our eyes anymore. You never have a valid point and constantly twist everything to suit your own ends, ironically applying those actions to Mike instead of the person really committing them: you. You always make up negative labels and invent behaviors you can apply to Mike impudently and with impunity.
  
  You are a disease on this community. You lie, you attack, you shit all over everyone bold enough to have a dissenting opinion to yours. You are everything you claim Mike to be guilty of and more. You're never going to get what you want, so why don't you just be the "bigger person" here, give it up, and go back to trolling 4chan?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 11:05pm
  
  Re:
  Okay, please explain to us how Free Speech is expanding, and how it is a bad thing. Since Free Speech is a natural right, we do not see how it can possibly be expanded. IP, on the other hand, only expands only to make the first amendment suffer, as has been pointed out over and over, again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, this is so easy, I am amazed nobody answers you.
    
    Free speech is natural TO A POINT. If you don't think so, try walking up to the biggest guy in the bar and calling him a jackass, liar, and tell him you just did his girlfriend and his mom together in the bathroom. Then see how "free" your speech is.
    
    That's a dramatic way to say that your free speech is always with limits, those imposed by law, those imposed by intelligence, and those imposed by common sense.
    
    Free speech can expand and contract, it depends on how much of someone else's rights you are willing to take away to do it. If you got rid of the libel and slander laws, free speech would expand dramatically - but not in a good way. Make it okay to (proverbially) yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, and your free speech rights have expanded.
    
    See? Free speech isn't an absolute, it's all relative to the rights of others. It's an important lesson to learn in life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just so long as the dead have more rights than those of us who are actually alive.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You still didn't explain how free speech has been expanded recently.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:28pm

Exercising my 1st Amendment rights.
[quote]
And, finally, my last editor's choice comment of the week, which actually made me laugh the most, is a comment from one of our usual critics, apparently insisting that you can't complain about the massive expansion of IP laws over time, without also complaining about the "expansion of the First Amendment."
I'm just pointing out how silly it is that Mike rants about the expansion of IP, but he never complains about the similar expansion of the First Amendment.
Yeah, really not much to say about that other than to shake your head and laugh. Such people do exist in this world, amazingly.
[/quote]
Actually, I think their bodies are in this world, but their brains... ??? NASA is still trying to find the planet that is hosting that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re: Exercising my 1st Amendment rights.
  And when NASA figures that out, lets send their bodies there as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 4:52pm

If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that humans are the most dangerous chemical of all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 5:01pm

"So they don't know when things aren't infringing, they can't just throw videos through a filter to see if they are actually legal content, but Google should be able to do that, right?"

Too bad that Tim K is a bit of an idiot, not understanding the difference between the black and white of having the rights versus the grey areas of a multi-prong test and judgement system used for fair use.

It explains a lot about Techdirt when people find that funny rather than just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RonKaminsky (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 6:28pm
  
  Nothing in law is black-and-white
  the black and white of having the rights
  Yeah, totally trivial, that is.
  
  Just like in the UK, where recently a judge (using the force?) turned copyright law on its head by ruling that a photographer has rights over all black-and-white images with red double-decker buses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 9:15pm
  
  Re:
  "Too bad that Tim K is a bit of an idiot, not understanding the difference between the black and white of having the rights versus the grey areas of a multi-prong test and judgement system used for fair use."
  
  Fair use is when you don't have permission from the copyright holder (rights) to use a copyrighted work but the law says that in certain situations you can use it anyway.
  
  So yeah, it's always a grey area. THERE ARE NO black and white situations. Sure Random Artist X may not give me the right to review his latest video on Youtube, but fair use says I can make use of his work when commenting on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 5:39pm

The troll AJ has nothing better to do that come here after being paid to try and disrupt the ongoing conversation.

He conveniently disappears when the going gets sticky. Thin skinned? Nope, not a trace of skin. Plus he seems to grab out of the thin air his 'facts'.

It would be more productive to debate the wall. At least you'd have the satisfaction of hearing your voice bounce back on time.

It's very obvious he has no life...this troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 6:52pm
  
  Re:
  If you think he is getting paid, then you are truly an idiot.
  
  If you think he is just trying to disrupt the conversation, you are truly an idiot.
  
  If you are unwilling to consider the opposing view and debate it rationally, you are truly an idiot.
  
  Please note, there are a lot of idiots like you on Techdirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 7:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sorry, but that third sentence... oh the irony. The rest of it was funny, but that third 'point' was just sheer comedy gold.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 8:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, I appreciate that you have learned to laugh about yourself. Can you teach Marcus now?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cory of PC (profile), 23 Oct 2012 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What? Are you too busy with your schedule of taunting random people and attacking Mike to not "teach" Leigh about... whatever you're trying to get at, and placing responsibility in someone else's hands? Nice...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 9:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, we are unwilling to "debate" with Average_Joe because he has failed on countless occasions to have a civil and sane discussion.
    For Average_Joe to debate with us, he would have to stop calling on Mike to discuss his views (since that's what Mike does when he writes these articles). Joe has to stop whining like a lonely two year old.
    He also has to use rationality and logic when discussing his views. He calls copyright a moral right (it is not), he says Mike should complain about the expansion of the First Amendment (what?), he has conflated rape with violating copyright (only a horrible human being would do that).
    Simply put, not once has Joe "discussed". Nothing he has ever said has ever been able to sway me, one of the most anti-copyright folks on this site, over to the pro-copyright side. All he ever does is vomit verbal diarrhoea that makes no sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 12:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He's not civil because generally the replies to his comments start with "stupid troll" or some variation thereof. One basic thing I learned in life is that when you start a response with soemthing that reads like "hey asshole" they tend not to read the rest of the post.
      
      It's also hard when most of the answers given don't address the points (except to make crude comments), and rather spend a lot of time dealing with him as a person.
      
      It's not the best way to deal with him. Address him, say something, address his points. Prove him wrong, or accept him as he is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Beech, 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Address him, say something, address his points. Prove him wrong, or accept him as he is."
        
        Been tried. As with most trolls, I tend to see AJ sling ad homs and huge accusations everywhere. Then as soon as someone else in the comments points out that he's totally wrong and gives a good rebuttal of his points, he mysteriously disappears. POOF, off to make more accusations on another thread, "undeafeated," I'm sure, in his own mind. If he gave a nice, easy breakdown of his thoughts on whatever given article with some links to proof for the harder to believe stuff, people would be more likely to respond to him in kind. But when he says shit like "Mike is cute for trying to pull this shit! Look how he complains about copyright expanding, but he never complains about how the First Amendment is expanding!!!" How is that even an argument? How is that more than a blatant ad hom? How is that worth taking the time to seriously consider and respond to in a civil matter? IT's not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And if we're so constantly hostile and unwilling to debate with him, why does he constantly come back?
        Maybe he's a sadomasochist. Maybe he enjoys being outed as the idiot he is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Prove him wrong, or accept him as he is.
        
        Or make fun of him and of you. So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 21 Oct 2012 @ 11:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Try saying "idiot" more, it might be more convincing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 5:53pm

AJ gets his reality distortion field from the same suppier as the religious fundies judging from his posts here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 21 Oct 2012 @ 7:13pm

RE: did I miss something
When did "AJ" become an expert, on ANYTHING?? Hey I'd like to Debate Obama and Romney too, but I don't have backing of the public nor the qualifications to do so.

So AJ what makes YOU think that you are even qualified to debate mike ( or anyone else for that matter)

what the hell are your Credentials??

did you make a muti-million dollar movie? was it profitable??

did you write a story (other than the fiction you spew here)
did it make you enough money to live on?? (also who the hell would pay you?)

Seems you have no leg to stand on unless we (the public) see some form of credible evidence

maybe when you become Above_Average_Joe folks might take you more seriously. (average folks rarely make history)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2012 @ 10:58pm

AJ once again vomits his diarrhea and claims it to be rational thought and a valid stance. They have a place for people with delusions...did you escape?

The only one that thinks he has a valid ability to debate (which doesn't measure up high enough to even recognize) yet constantly runs away when the responses get uncomfortable is you.

Since you have little fact, no support in the community, and absolutely make a fool of yourself every time you arrive at this site, every one understands you are the village idiot.

Must be nice to know your place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2012 @ 2:21am
  
  Re:
  I disagree - when AJ actually gives cites, I often find that there are relevant points to his arguments. However, when he just turns into Average_Rottweiler, that's when he goes bugfuck crazy.
  
  More of the former, less of the latter, please, AJ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultra Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 5:30am

Sigh...
Wow, a massive amount of discussion all revolving around average_joe. He wants to be the center of attention while derailing all conversation, and he thrives on it! You're all giving him exactly what he wants FFS! Why is it so hard for all of you to just mark all of his troll bait posts using the report button, which every single one of them clearly is, ignore him, and move on? It's impossible to have an intelligent, enriching discussion on Techdirt anymore. I've been here a long time, but I'm tempted to leave and never come back. And it won't be average_joe's doing. No, it's all of you. He's winning, as this entire page shows, and all of you are the ones making it possible. Every last one of you should feel ashamed for letting him use you to ruin what used to be a really great site. His claims of wanting to debate are an outright lie. Why can't any of you see that? Why can't any of you see what he's managed to do here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 6:25am

Help keep the government hands off the internet! Vote Libertarian if after you do your research you agree. It wouldn't hurt to "Like" him on facebook either. Thank you

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/internet-and-technology
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryj ohnson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2012 @ 3:42pm

I don't understand why people respond so prolifically to AJ. Is it because people just like to have wrangling matches?

Please, no-one deserves to be shut out entirely, but how about just reduce the response rate to something more modest like 1K/hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2014 @ 1:56am

average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]