Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the slow-and-steady dept
The voting was somewhat slow this week, especially on the funny side, but that's no reason to ignore the great comments that rose to the top. After we noted that, despite the positive trend of increased exposure of police abuse, there doesn't seem to be any decrease in the abuse itself, That One Guy won first place on the insightful side by exploring the big reason for that:
They remain 'oblivious' to it for the simple reason that it doesn't matter. Sure they got recorded macing someone for talking back, or beating someone, or robbing someone. What happens when that recording goes public?
Nothing.
They aren't fired, they aren't shifted to a desk-job to account for their inability to act like an adult around other people, any 'investigation' inevitably clears them, and if that doesn't work their union will almost always fight to get their job back, no matter what they were charged with.
They don't care because even when people record their abuses of authority and criminal actions, they are never held accountable for them.
Once they see their own paychecks docked, their own pensions reduced to pay out settlement funds...
Once they start getting fired or demoted for their actions...
Once they are held accountable and charged with the crimes they commit under the 'authority' of their badge...
Only then then will care, but not a second before.
Meanwhile, federal law enforcement has apparently been scrutinizing its applicants' downloading habits in recorded job interviews. This spurred Michael to win second place for insightful with a simple question:
So they can record interviews, but they are unreliable for interrogations?
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start with the shortest and simplest of many responses to the ludicrous notion that questioning the government's claims about Kim Dotcom, while giving Dotcom the benefit of the doubt in his statements, shows a "pro-piracy bias". RD said what everyone with a basic sense of justice was thinking:
Wrong.
Taking everything Dotcom argues at face value, while being skeptical of everything the government argues, shows a *pro due process* bias.
This week, we also criticized (with some reluctance, and a great hope that he'll rethink his opinion) Neil deGrasse Tyson for some of his views on technology, startups and innovation. Hij expanded on our point, noting that Tyson's comments display exactly the kind of shortsightedness that scientists so often face:
What I find sad about this is that there is no shortage of people who look at what physicists and mathematicians do and use this same argument. I can easily go to the local uni, pick out a random physicist and make fun of his work saying it has no bearing on the things that matter to me.
Dr. Tyson has been tireless in trying to combat this argument, and now here he is using it on someone else. He should be celebrating everybody who creates new ideas no matter how small or shallow. The problems start when we start pointing at "the other" and denigrating their work.
Dr. Tyson of all people show understand this.
With that, we head over to the funny side, where are top two comments are neck-in-neck, separated by only a single vote. In first place we've got beech, with his proposed reason for USTR secrecy surrounding the TPP agreement:
Uhh, is it because if the terrorists find out we'll all be dead? That seems to be the usual reason.
Just barely in second place we've got ChurchHatesTucker, who balked at how relaxed we were about the release of Keith Alexander's financial disclosure documents:
Oh, sure. Today it's Alexander's self serving investments, but tomorrow it'll be the US' nucular launch codes. And then where will you be, hippy?
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start with a comment about Aereo — or rather, about the judge who asked them "just as a matter of finality, how many bites at the apple does one get?". One anonymous commenter seemed just as confused by this question as we were, and attempted to clarify:
Judge, are you saying that you only take one bite of an apple and throw the rest out?
That seems like a huge waste of apples.
And finally, we've got a comment that I enjoyed primarily because I'm always happy to know that people are aware of how broken the premise of Lucy is. After we took a look at ways of harnessing energy from the sun in one of our DailyDirt posts, Zonker was inspired:
For some reason this makes me think of taking the (flawed) concept of the recent movie "Lucy" and applying it to the plant kingdom: what happens when plants achieve 100% energy capture from sunlight?
Come on Hollywood, let's make this happen.
...Actually, I think they pretty much did:
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
Wrong.
Taking everything Dotcom argues at face value, while being skeptical of everything the government argues, shows a *pro due process* bias.
This seems pretty silly. One can be skeptical of Dotcom's self-serving arguments yet still be quite supportive of due process. Give me a break. That doesn't explain why Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any of the skepticism he shows at other times. It's not because Mike is pro-due process, and being pro-due process means that everything Dotcom argues should be repeated without question. That's not an insightful comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And when those who are supposed to uphold the rule of law ignore it, then they're criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First and foremost they are not doing their job. And what they are doing instead is in direct conflict with their job description and ethics.
Basically, they are like church workers spending their company time surfing for porn. Or like priests who use their position for getting sexual favors.
Of course, their pope is akin to Alexander VI of the Borgias, so it's not like they have much to fear from their ultimate superior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain how anyone in the U.S. government is not doing their job in prosecuting Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is that pretextual? The servers were indeed in the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And when those who are supposed to uphold the rule of law ignore it, then they're criminals.
I asked this before, and no one could give an answer. Can you point to any way in which Dotcom's due process rights have purportedly been violated in the U.S.? I don't think anyone can, because it hasn't happened. And this is why it's bogus to say that Mike is being pro-due process when he regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism. Given that some of Dotcom's arguments don't pass the laugh test, it shows a pro-piracy bias. Mike isn't defending due process, he's defending Dotcom--no matter how specious Dotcom's claims are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is utterly wrong-headed. The GCSB have already been called to task over their illegal actions; the FBI hyave refused to hand over their illegally-obtained copies of the data; the DoJ seemed to be using RICO to freeze the MU assets after telling MU that they needed to keep their data intact, then once the data suited to the DoJ case was taken, attempting to force the servers to be wiped.
Those are just three of the court-recorded things in the Dotcom cases. I'm not saying that Dotcom was in the right; what I'm saying is that you cannot commit a crime and claim to be lawful. Everything the Alphabetti Spaghetti has done has made Dotcom look more in the right.
IF the case had been tighter, then perhaps there would be less counter-skepticism of Dotcom's claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is utterly wrong-headed. The GCSB have already been called to task over their illegal actions; the FBI hyave refused to hand over their illegally-obtained copies of the data; the DoJ seemed to be using RICO to freeze the MU assets after telling MU that they needed to keep their data intact, then once the data suited to the DoJ case was taken, attempting to force the servers to be wiped.
Those are just three of the court-recorded things in the Dotcom cases. I'm not saying that Dotcom was in the right; what I'm saying is that you cannot commit a crime and claim to be lawful. Everything the Alphabetti Spaghetti has done has made Dotcom look more in the right.
IF the case had been tighter, then perhaps there would be less counter-skepticism of Dotcom's claims.
But the claim is that Mike was regurgitating Dotcom's arguments from the motion to dismiss in the forfeiture action. That's U.S. law exclusively. I'm trying to understanding how Mike is being pro-due process by being completely non-skeptical of Dotcom's arguments--even the arguments that have nothing to do with due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And worse yet, you are still advocating for the DOJ to continue to break the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US justice system is based on a very simple premise; the presumption of innocence. In other words those whom stand accused of a crime in the US must always be considered 100% innocent and treated as such, especially while being tried. It doesn't matter what the charges are because charges DO NOT equal guilt. Opinions as to guilt are likewise irrelevant. It's not up to the accused to prove their innocence, rather it's up to the justice system (i.e. a very hostile US government) to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt in front of a jury of ones peers, a constitutional right by the way. One cannot say a person is guilty of a particular crime until the trial is over, with the final verdict having been read in an official court of law.
Just imagine you're the accused and your fate rests in the hands of the average joe, some of whom may not be the brightest bulbs in the bunch, some of whom don't really care and would much rather be somewhere else (i.e. get it over with as quickly as possible), even some who would rather go by their opinion of a particular group of people instead of the testimonies and evidence presented during the trial. Then there are the jury members who continually wear the others down until they change their verdict, which they do just to make it stop. And lets not forget how a lot of people seem to be apathetic and/or sadistic these days. Scary thought, yes? Oh, and don't say it'll never happen to you because it really can at any time out of the blue, especially in a trigger happy country like America where incarceration is a multi-million dollar per year business. It's a proven statistic that inmate population is increasing even though crime has been decreasing. Just do a Google search, that and more is very easy to find.
Now don't get me wrong, my opinion of Dotcom as a person is probably similar to yours, antidirt, but I am also smart enough to know that he, like all others whom find themselves accused, deserve the benefit of the doubt regardless of who they are or what they've been accused of. While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that Dotcom hasn't really said or done anything which has been proven dishonest or unfair thus far. We can't make that same claim regarding the US government at all. So yeah, I believe Mike is quite honestly being "pro due process" in this case and that "pro piracy" has nothing to do with it.
PS: Yes, I am fully aware of how you have it in for Mike, so much so that intervention might be warranted. I'm not saying this to be rude or attack you, but as a genuinely concerned reader. Your obsession with Mike, particularly your many attempts at forcing him to say what you want him to, even in spite of it not being remotely true, cannot possibly be healthy over the long term. Those who say they don't need help are usually the ones most in need of it, so please do yourself a favor by taking a timeout to honestly consider just how much of your life you're willing to waste on what is clearly a fruitless endeavor. Same goes for all the hate and vitriol you've filled yourself with. Speaking from experience here, I can honestly say that it's not conducive to good health at all, not just mentally but physically as well. It will take it's toll on you in the long run, mark my words. Well, unless it's just a job and you're being paid to continually flood the comments section with your rantings. Which motivation is it that drives you? I genuinely would like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*Not available in all areas. Some exceptions apply. May be withdraw without notice. Not applicable in cases involving children and sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's because so far all of the violation of due process rights has taken place in NZ by the police, GCSB and FBI. The list of violations is embarrassingly long. If you want to see such violations happen in the US you'll have to wait for a successful extradition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also find him ultimately innocent though, and it's very telling how law enforcement has taken what should have been an easy target like him and elevated him into folk hero status instead. You also abandoned any pretense of wanting a thoughtful conversation when you accused Mike of simply regurgitating Dotcom's arguments, so I'm afraid you're getting reported. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In that post, Mike just regurgitates Dotcom's arguments without any skepticism as to their validity. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Rather than "reporting" me, why not engage me on the merits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did in the comments to that post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141011/07242628799/megaupload-say-us-govt-is-trying-to-steal-ass ets-based-crimes-that-are-figments-govts-boundless-imagination.shtml
I talked about how silly Dotcom's/Mike's argument is that there's no such thing as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement (Mike's *really* touchy about that one). I discussed Dotcom's/Mike's argument that the court doesn't have constructive possession of Dotcom's assets. I discussed the fact that aiding and abetting liability can attach even if the principal is not identified or charged. I'm happy to discuss these things on the merits and to back up what I say with citations. It's hilarious that you're calling me out for this when I think I do this more than anyone else on Techdirt--including Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom et al. are charged with (1) conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, (2) criminal copyright infringement of a work being prepared for distribution, which includes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement, and (3) criminal copyright infringement, which includes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. (2) is for the film "Taken," which the indictment claims Van Der Kolk uploaded to the servers in Virginia. (3) is for all of the other works mentioned in the indictment, such as the videos the group allegedly scraped from YouTube and the works their users uploaded/downloaded. The third parties that they allegedly aided and abetted aren't mentioned by their real names, nor do they have to be. The government just has to show that they criminally infringed and that Dotcom et al. helped them.
The superseding indictment is here if you want to read it: http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/victimwitness/mega_files/Certified%20Mega%20Superseding%20Indictment %20%282-16-2012%29.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, really? With that being repeated over and over again, it reads like a cheap action movie script straight out of hollywood itself(not overly surprising given who was calling the shots, but still).
'Megavideo.com does purport to provide both browse and search functions, but any user’s search on Megavideo.com for a full length copyrighted video (which can be downloaded from a Mega Conspiracy-controlled server somewhere in the world) will not produce any results.
Similarly, browsing the front page of Megavideo.com does not show any obviously infringing copies of any copyrighted works; instead, the page contains videos of news stories, user-generated videos, and general Internet videos in a manner substantially similar to Youtube.com'
I like how they're trying to have it both ways here. Earlier they try and spin MU not having a search function as a desire to 'hide infringement', but with MegaVideo they're throwing a fit because while it does have a search function, it doesn't return results for possibly infringing videos.
So the idea is that MU was intentionally pointing people to all the infringing content(a claim made almost as much as 'Conspiracy' is mentioned), to increase profits by... not showing potentially infringing results?
Oh yes, clearly those fiends behind MU were doing everything they could to drive traffic to infringing files/videos, by using reverse psychology and not pointing people towards them. /s
'On or about June 24, 2010, members of the Mega Conspiracy were informed, pursuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting, a hosting company headquartered in the Eastern District of Virginia. A member of the Mega Conspiracy informed several of his co-conspirators at that time that he located the named files using internal searches of their systems. As of November 18, 2011, more than a year later, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing motion pictures were still being stored on the servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy.'
Now this is pure slime. If they're talking about what I believe they are, then yes, MU staff were told about the infringing files and left them on the servers. What they ever-so-conveniently left out is that MU was told to leave the files there, because they were evidence in another case.
So MU was pretty much screwed either way there. Either delete the files when they were pointed out, and be charged with destruction of evidence/obstruction of justice, or leave them there and have the files used against them as 'evidence' that they knowingly leave infringing files up.
If crap like this is among the 'samples' the DOJ took from the servers before allowing them to be wiped clean, it's no wonder they're so against allowing Dotcom's legal team to have a crack at them, they'd demolish the 'evidence' presented in short order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and antidirt has the balls to whine about "regurgitating arguments without any skepticism as to their validity"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's what the RIAA/MPAA believe - everyone who's ever purchased, used or looked at storage media from cassettes to hard drives must be guilty of copyright infringement. But they'll only ever go after low-hanging fruit they can intimidate. Anything more, and they have to line pockets so judges can look the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have a house that you rent. You rent to an individual who promptly uses the kitchen in your rental house to cook meth. Should you be sent to prison for conspiracy to manufacture meth?
You might say that convicting you is unfair; that you didn't have anything to do with the meth. But you provided the house, so you're guilty, aren't you?
This is the theory behind the prosecution of Dotcom. He had a web site. Someone uploaded something to his web site. The law says he can only be held liable for that if he doesn't take it down on demand; if he follows DMCA requests he is not liable. The government is asserting he is liable anyway.
For someone else's upload. Even though he followed the law.
Back to you and your rental house. You want to prove you didn't have anything to do with it. You want to show receipts for all the rentals you did, where no one cooked meth. You want to show that you didn't give any money to the renter for cooking meth. You want to show that your phone records prove you didn't call the meth cook or any of his customers. You want to show your GPS records that prove you never even went near the house after renting it out.
Unfortunately for you, the government destroyed all your receipts, destroyed your bank account records, destroyed all your phone records, destroyed your GPS records, destroyed your rental house, and, to make sure they didn't miss anything, now they want to destroy the house you live in.
This is the government's action with Dotcom: He needs records from his system to show that he did what the law required him to do. The government has destroyed (or at least tried to destroy) that data utterly, on the grounds that it's not relevant to the government's case.
I repeat: The government destroyed/is destroying evidence...an action which is not dependent on the evidence supporting the governments case. Evidence is evidence, whether it supports the prosecutor or the defense.
If you claim your rental house example is a persecution instead of a prosecution, based on innuendo rather than evidence, well, you are Dotcom.
In fact, pretty much the only thing the government has not done in this case is extraordinary rendition Dotcom to Syria so he can be taught how confession is good for the soul. (They're probably kicking themselves now because, with the ISIL thing in Syria, they missed their best chance.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you're not addressing the allegations of direct infringement. One of the charges is over the film "Taken" which one of the alleged conspirators personally uploaded. And then the indictment discusses other files that they uploaded, for example, the alleged conspirators scraped YouTube to get ALL of the content offered there. Those weren't the actions of others. But as far as the actions of others is concerned, the indictment alleges that they KNEW that certain infringing works were being uploaded by users and then knowingly paid them as part of the rewards program and assisted them by hosting the material. That's knowingly aiding and abetting. The DMCA, if it even applies here, doesn't protect against knowingly helping others to infringe. Mike never mentions any of this because he's protecting Dotcom et al., but you should read the indictment. You won't get anything close to the truth from Mike. He's apparently unable to be critical of Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personal question here - do you not think the the DOJ's actions have been a bit over the top on this case. Freezing assets to prevent mounting a defense, objecting to the defense's choice of lawyer, swat style raids, etc., etc...
Would you feel it's appropriate if the MPAA was charged for perjury and conspiracy when filing DMCA notices for material that they have no rights or claim to?
And if they were charged with such crimes should all of their assets be frozen? Should swat teams rain down upon the CEO's house? Should their business be taken from them without recourse? Should the evidence against them be cherry-picked and all the rest of the evidence destroyed?
If you don't, then why the double standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm talking about points of law, such as whether it's a crime to aid and abet criminal copyright infringement. Whether Dotcom is guilty of this crime or not, I think Mike is wrong to say that it's not even a crime. It's ludicrous to say it's not a crime. Yet, Mike keeps saying it. And he won't back it up, I assume, because he can't. And he's so sensitive about this one point that he tried to ban me for even bringing it up. I'm going to continue to bring it up, regardless. I won't be bullied by Mike's insecurity and inability to take criticism.
Personal question here - do you not think the the DOJ's actions have been a bit over the top on this case. Freezing assets to prevent mounting a defense, objecting to the defense's choice of lawyer, swat style raids, etc., etc...
I think alleged criminals have their assets frozen as a matter of course. Why should Dotcom get special treatment? As far as the raid goes, I don't have an informed opinion because I don't know what factors go into making that kind of decision and I don't know what information they had. It seemed over the top, but I don't really know. As to your other points, I think everyone should be treated the same. This applies to the MPAA and Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Therefore your entire argument is specious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not the way companies are prosecuted here in the United States: What happens here is the company is fined (rarely even charged with a crime); maybe occasionally one or two officers will be charged with a crime.
"39 infringing copies" a civil theft; is a $6 million fine in this country. In civil court, with the company hopefully learning its lesson at the end.
That is not what we see.
What we see in the prosecution of Megaupload and Dotcom is equivalent to a scorched earth campaign: The utter destruction of a company with its resources and stockholders; already accomplished before even the court case is heard. Combined with a frantic effort to assure that the prosecution of Dotcom and the other officers takes place in a true kangaroo court, without defense evidence or even a defense attorny; and, no doubt, with firing squad at the end if only they can argue the court into it.
This is not what is done for copyright infringement; this is something else entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps ... fields of "sunflowers" burning inertia-drive vehicles out of the skies of Ringworld?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]