Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the boy-are-my-arms-tired dept
As we learned (though were hardly surprised by) this week, the MPAA doesn't take kindly to the suggestion that it should have to consider fair use when sending DMCA notices. The irony of this was not lost on anyone, and indeed both of our most insightful comments of the week came from that post, both of them making the same point. First up, Tim K's opening salvo:
Difficult for MPAA to differentiate between infringing and non-infringing material, but everyone else should still easily be able to know immediately what's infringing.
And not far behind, reinforcements from Jesse:
Interesting. If it's ISPs magically waving away infringement, it's really easy to figure out infringement from non-infringement. If they have to do it, it's too hard.
It's certainly a point that bears repetition. But there's another important point to be made on that same story, in response to the MPAA's claims that they need to send millions of DMCA notices. So our first editor's choice goes to Rikuo for covering that base:
No they don't. There's a myriad of other tactics they can use. There is no requirement that they absolutely, positively have to send DMCA notices.
For our second editor's choice, we head to our post about Eric Holder, who is also making bold statements about intellectual property. This time, it's the idea that piracy funds terrorism, which made a different Eric (I assume) wonder what exactly he's saying:
So if I understand this correctly:
1) Infringement is all over the place, thus making it difficult to monetize content, which leads to the need for these laws
2) Terrorist are able to fund themselves via monetizing this infringing
3) Which leads to the final logic that terrorist are able to monetize content that is available everywhere better than the producers of the content???
On the funny side, we've got a pair of winners from two different posts about major players in the Prenda saga. First up, when we asked whether Paul Duffy's wife admitted that he was engaged in interstate extortion, Arsik Vek anticipated Duffy's response:
Duffy's next comment: "I'm not sure who that woman is. She may or may not be my wife, but I have no direct knowledge of any relationship."
That would be true to form. Up next, in response to Mark Lutz's ongoing evasion in the face of scrutiny, an anonymous commenter was inspired to put Prenda's tenacity to good use:
You know, I've always wanted to dig to China. I think I'll hire these guys.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with our post about the new and disappointing live streaming service from Disney's ABC. An anonymous commenter summed up the likely customer response to this lacklustre offering:
"Where can I sign back up for my monthly $50-80 cable bill so I have access to these wonderful services"
-No one. Ever.
And finally, since we've been oh so serious and scathing today, we'll finish things off with something a bit sillier. In response to our post about people not turning off their devices when they fly, one anonymous commenter dissented, but for pragmatic reasons:
I generally do. I just don't have the coordination to flap my arms and mess with my smartphone at the same time.
This is the way the post ends: not with a bang but a groan. See you tomorrow, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I finally made it on the list! XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric's comment
Not having to pay for things, but still charging something for them is the basics of profit. It's how criminals have done it since the start of time, and the virtual criminals are doing to today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eric's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eric's comment
A: Infringement is not theft. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with infringement.
B: IP law, like prohibition, is what enables terrorists to use infringing content to fund themselves. IP law is the basis of how these terrorists are being funded and so IP law is responsible.
Making infringement even harder for the average person will do little to make it harder for these terrorist organizations who can now make more money off of it by selling it at an even higher price. See, for example, the war on drugs. and running an infringement cartel and getting away with it is a thousand times easier than doing the same with a drug cartel. So I say we just abolish IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eric's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eric's comment
You are actually as bad as Eric. You understand that your example only works where there is no legal product, available, at all, ever and no legal alternatives? If there was a legal alternative for weed at $1 a pound, do you honestly think anyone would line up to be illegal $1000 an ounce stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
If that were true then how the heck are terrorists already benefiting from infringement when there is already a legal product available. That's the whole point Congress is making. A legal product is available and here we have terrorists benefiting from the existence of IP law. Legalize infringement, abolish IP law, and terrorists can no longer benefit.
You contradict yourself and have no idea what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
They benefit because they have no costs related to creating the product. They are the ones selling cheap as a result.
Why terrorists all of a sudden? Are you calling Kim Dotcom a terrorist now? After all, he has profited grandly from selling access other people's work without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
According to congress terrorist organizations are benefit from infringement. I already hate IP law and so the takeaway I get is that, like with prohibition, IP law is responsible for them benefiting because without IP law they would be unable to profit from infringement. This just gives me even more reason to hate infringement.
You state that the difference here is that there are legal alternatives. That statement means absolutely nothing and is irrelevant if terrorists are still benefiting from infringing works because, like with prohibition, if you abolish the restrictions (IP law) terrorists can no longer benefit (because people will just seek legal free alternatives instead of funding terrorists to pay for infringing works).
If anything, what congress needs to do to completely stop these terrorists from benefiting from infringement is, according to your logic, ensure that legal alternatives are available. It is the unavailability of legal alternatives, according to you, that enable terrorists to benefit from infringement. Otherwise, if they were available terrorists would be unable to benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric's comment
A: the existence of legal alternatives doesn't matter and so you bringing up the difference is irrelevant.
IOW, the argument that abolishing IP law would stop terrorists from benefiting from infringement still holds. Adding stricter IP enforcement or stricter laws, like with prohibition, would simply reduce competition for the terrorists which make it even more profitable for terrorists to use infringement to support themselves (econ 101, less competition, more profits).
B: There are situations where legal alternatives are unavailable (ie: Orphaned works) and that's where terrorists are benefiting.
The solution here is for congress to pass laws ensuring that legal alternatives are always available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
Now that's the funniest comment of the week by far. You are assuming learning where clearly none is evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]