Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the funny-stuff dept
Since we're taking the day off for Labor Day today, we pushed our usual weekend posts out a bit, so this is appearing here on Monday.This week we wrote about a crazy law proposed by Rep. Mike Honda that would make merely possessing or buying "body armor" a crime that could result in 10 years in jail. His theory was that this armor makes it easier for people to commit crimes and thus harder for the police to shoot them down. But That One Guy got the most insightful comment of the week by pointing out how ridiculous that logic is:
So if his justification for this is 'armored assailants', one would assume they are, I don't know, maybe breaking other laws while 'armored', laws already on the books that can be used to charge them? If someone is already breaking laws, and serious enough laws that they expect to come under fire, I don't think an additional 10 years, on top of what is likely a good string of other, quite serious charges, is going to be any sort of deterrent to them.Chances are the bill never even comes close to being debated, but if it does come up, one hopes this kind of response is put in front of Honda (or other members of Congress).
They are willing to put themselves in a position where they expect to be shot, I don't think the threat of a little extra prison time is going to matter to much to someone like that, especially considering it would come down to 'wear body armor, get shot, survive, get additional 10 years' or 'don't wear body armor, get shot, die, not have to worry about prison'.
Adding a prison term for merely owning body armor, just because criminals might use it, is pretty much like adding a prison sentence for those found in possession of a gun, or a car, or any number of other items, because they might be used by a criminal, and I hope someone points this out when the bill is being debated.
Coming in second was Chuck Wegrzyn on our story about Keurig's DRMing its coffee pods, reminding everyone of a key case involving attempts to use DRM (and the DMCA) to keep out competitors:
Seen this before...Thankfully, the big lawsuit over that case actually found against Lexmark, and said that circumventing such hardware restrictions did not violate the DMCA. Green Mountain Roasters (makers of Keurig) haven't gone down the Lexmark legal path yet, so we don't know if it'll try such a plan, but there's a good precedent against that interpretation on the books should it try a DMCA claim (though I doubt the company would).
This seems a lot like Lexmark adding DRM to its printer cartridges. Little consumer value other than to lift more money from our wallets.
For editor's choice, we've got mcherm's response to our article on police body cameras, which noted that police had a habit of not turning the cameras on when necessary. Here's an easy solution:
Button Press Too Hard? Try This One Easy Fix!And finally, going back to that story about banning body armor, an Anonymous Coward responded to Honda's argument that "the bill is designed to stop "armored assailants" whom he claims are "a trend" in recent years." The AC notes that Honda is right, but perhaps not in the way he thinks:
Seriously, just record ALL audio and video for the entire time that the uniformed officer is on duty. The chips needed to store this weigh just a few grams. We could save the records for 1 week, with automatic holds on anything that the officer flags as important, as well as in response to any citizen complaint or request. Then there's no pesky button push to distract the officer ... or for the officer to forget.
If you really think it is necessary, a button press to SUPPRESS the recording might be acceptable, for when an officer is using the restroom, intimidating a witness, or engaging in any other action requiring privacy.
He's right, it is a trend. They're called SWAT teams.Moving onto the funny side of the ledger, leading the pack (by a wide margin) was this Anonymous Coward responding to George Lucas' refusal to release a version of the "original" 1977 version of Star Wars by arguing that it was only a "half-completed" film. AC feels ripped off:
Unfortunately, from the sound of it, his bill will not actually address the problem.
If we watched only a half-completed film, why did we pay full price to see it?Coming in second on the funny side was Michael, commenting on the fact that police had lost some Humvees that the Pentagon had handed out as a part of its "militarize all domestic police" program.
See? That $500k for the camouflage paint is TOTALLY worth it.For editor's choice, we'll start with an Anonymous commenter rightly mocking the (very mockable) idea of news publications colluding to set up a "global paywall" and putting all their content behind it:
And the first story behind the paywall: A government investigation of massive collusion and price-fixing by online media.And, finally, we've got sorrykb responding to the ridiculous (and totally unsubstantiated claim) that "piracy is killing movie franchises." He points out that if that's true, perhaps the same folks who keep saying that we need more "original" content should be happy about piracy:
There will be no second story.
Wait....It's a good point. You'd think that the people who push for copyright maximalism via the claim that it's necessary to encourage originality wouldn't be so infatuated with keeping up clearly derivative "franchises." But, contradictions of logic go hand and hand with maximalism quite frequently.
If piracy kills movie franchises, wouldn't that mean that piracy promotes creativity by encouraging the making of original films? Wouldn't that make it a good thing?
On a related note, I guess I'd better start pirating movies, if only to prevent "Expendables 4" from becoming reality. (Please tell me I don't have to actually watch the first three if I download them.)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also easier to convince lawmakers in the myth of bogeymen-pirates than it is to convince them to just give you money because...you deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, that seems to be the rub. Communication with your audience is key, and big businesses have a tendency to be like autistic kids living in a basement who have never interacted with another human being before. It's an open, connected world, so you have to be open and connected to survive in it. Rare is the business that can be aloof, mysterious, and yet maintain enough of a hardcore following that its fans won't mind if some DRM is slipped into its products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A potential problem is that 3 businesses, which are increasingly important to people, Apple, Microsoft, and the smart phone industry, are strong proponents and users of DRM. The problem for many people will be avoiding having someone else control the core technology in their lives. Secure boot and trusted platform technologies could be used to prevent people taking control of their devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I think the reverse is true. The more niche and nuanced you are, the greater the chance that piracy will be a boon, since it will widen your net allowing people who may never have heard of you to experience what you have to offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note that I'm handily side-stepping any discussion of how to handle or prevent piracy, just demonstrating how piracy could be a killer for a niche market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I think that is just a psychological effect. It may be the case that the smaller your turnover the more likely you are to look at the "lost sales" as a problem but the reality is just as for the bigger business - the "lost sales" would just translate into "no sales" and "lost publicity" if piracy were impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of feminists already think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Very Peculiar Responses ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Very Peculiar Responses ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's why you aim for the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Very Peculiar Responses ...
I'd also say that in general we shouldn't ban stuff on speculation that someday it might become a problem. Especially stuff like "body armor" that's hard to define - I think the bill just refers to some ballistics specifications and says you can't wear anything that protects against that. So if I'm playing the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, do I have to make sure my metal costume is not bulletproof to be able to legally wear it? If I invent a shark-bite suit, will I (and all my customers) go to prison if it turns out to also stop bullets? If I wear a motorcycle helmet that's too good (helmets are specifically mentioned by the bill) should that mean I get put away for ten years?
And the point made by That One Guy is a good one. This has zero deterrence value. If someone is wearing body armor to commit a crime, arrest them for the crime. Anyone wearing body armor to commit a crime is almost certainly going to have some sort of gun violation (stolen gun, felon in possession of a gun, or just turning "robbery" into "armed robbery") which you can already use to put them away for a long time. If a criminal is in the position of actually NEEDING their body armor, then they're almost certainly shooting at people who are shooting back - probably the police - in which case they're already going to jail for as long as you like. Ten extra years is superfluous.
But if by some chance there's someone using body armor who hasn't committed any major crime... then who cares about the body armor? He's just trying not to get shot, and that shouldn't be illegal even for someone who's breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some Very Peculiar Responses ...
The true target of this law is Bruce Wayne! They don't want Billionaire playboys to get it into their heads that body armor & a mask would let them do a better job at stopping crime than the police. Just imagine how much looting would've happened in Ferguson if they had their own Batman patrolling the streets! The Government can't let that happen, because they'd look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we shouldn't ban stuff on speculation that someday it might become a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we shouldn't ban stuff on speculation that someday it might become a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The armor didn't appear to have had an impact on how many he shot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The armor didn't appear to have had an impact on how many he shot
This is why gun advocates should be supporting a ban on body armour: it renders your “self-defence” weaponry useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The armor didn't appear to have had an impact on how many he shot
Like, I suspect, most people, I'm a selfish bugger who'd rather survive even if that means my attacker gets away than end up with us both dead. When what you're protecting is someone else's not very hard-earned cash, I suspect that's even more true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except body armour increases their own protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except body armour increases their own protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually in significant danger of being shot at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Very Peculiar Responses ...
However, you are wrong. I own several rifles that will shoot right through most body armor (I say most because I'm sure there is some out there that I don't know of, but everything I have seen or hear of, I could shoot through from 20-30 yards). The available body armor will stop handgun rounds, shotgun pellets, and small rifle rounds, but high-powered rifles will go through it. Oh - and if you are wearing body armor and I shoot you in the chest from close range with a large-caliber handgun, you may find yourself more than a little winded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some Very Peculiar Responses ...
I would say that 90% of the time, self-defense is the big reason people cite for why they want to have guns. This includes the "so we can revolt against the government" contingent.
I suspect they're being a little disingenuous, though, in that they're trying to come up with an objective reason for gun ownership that they think will sway others. In other words, it's a bit like the "because terrorism" argument that the government loves to make.
I think that more often the real reason they want guns is because they really like guns. This by itself is a perfectly acceptable argument already. No need to gussy it up with a weird fear argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I own several rifles that will shoot right through most body armor
Do you carry a rifle when you’re on the town, just in case you run into an Aurora-type situation?
Just wondering what you consider a practical application of the “self-defence” philosophy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I own several rifles that will shoot right through most body armor
I own guns because I hunt, enjoy shooting, and like them.
They all stay locked in proper safes when not in use - under the pillow seems like a great way to blow your own head off. I used to live just outside of Aurora and never felt that movie theater required me to protect myself (damn Hollywood studios making those violent movies though...).
My point was not that self-defense was a useful argument for gun ownership, it was just that a crim comes at you in body armour, none of the weaponry you’re legally allowed to have at home is going to take them down is faulty - many guns can be effective against someone wearing body armor. They may be less lethal to someone in armor, and some guns are rather ineffective against someone in body armor, but I personally own some that would go through a chest plate, a chest, the back plate, and a cement wall behind the person - and these rifles are completely legal, safe, and have practical hunting applications right here in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]