Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the bad-quotes-and-bad-scripts dept

Sun, Jun 7th 2015 12:00pm — Leigh Beadon

This week, the New Zealand government stepped in to stop the US from seizing all of Kim Dotcom's assets, prompting a lot of reactions from every corner. Both our top comments on the insightful side come in response to that story, the first from PRMan with a simple but distressing observation:

Hmmm

It seems that New Zealand follows our constitution more than we do...

In second place we've got jupiterkansas with a response to the old argument that Dotcom's behaviour warrants this treatment:

Does not matter what Kim Dotcom did - it's no excuse for the U.S. government to break the law and resort to stealing just to to stop him or any other criminal, and seizing his assets is closer to piracy than anything Dotcom has done.

For editor's choice, we'll start it with one more comment along those lines that also questions the supposed magnitude of his "crimes":

Again your understanding of the facts leaves much to be desired. He didn't "produce nothing", he created a platform. He made money by selling access to that platform. He hosted content others uploaded to his platform. He didn't use any products others made in any infringement. The people who posted the material are at fault.

I want the US government to abide by due process. And not horsetrade with Dotcoms rights and legal avenues. Playing games with his ability to mount a defense is not exactly going well for the US Government, if you hadn't noticed.

Of course, it's hard to see Dotcom as a hero — but the same is not true of another one of the government's overseas targets, Edward Snowden. Our second editor's choice comes from David in response to yet another government comment about his serious crimes, and the need for him to face them:

Would that be before or after Clapper faces lying under oath to Congress about commandeering the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution by criminally reinterpreting his mandate?

As long as none of the criminals uncovered by Snowden's actions faces the music and instead stays in office without retribution, it is entirely silly to go gungho on the person uncovering the crimes.

Oh by the way: who is going to get prosecuted for the CIA torturing people to death for fun (as it has been clearly established that at the point of the killing no information was to be gained any more)? Obama has stated emphatically that those "heroes" and "patriots" would not be facing the music. Including the armchair psychologists directing the torture "experiments" and receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for their "expertise".

I'm all for a punishment proportionate to the crime. If we take the punishment of those criminals as guidance, the punishment of Snowden would probably be a daily banquet in the Washington D.C. market place for the rest of his life.

Which is more or less what Sokrates pleaded as punishment for his "crimes" when dragged before a court about equally likely to deliver justice as a U.S. court.

Hopefully Snowden will spare the American people at least the shame of a mock trial and will refrain from returning while the current criminals are in office.

But, more so than any one statement about Snowden this week, we were shocked by the sheer number of them that referred to him as "Eric". Our first place comment for funny comes from Chris Brand and suggests a possible explanation:

Could be a printing error

in the script they're all reading from.

Speaking of scripts, we also got two strange, identical comments whining about something to do with the New York Times this week, prompting one anonymous commenter to to deliver our second-place winner for funny:

Hint: When shilling, try not to post identical comments twice in two minutes with different IPs.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we return to the story of "Eric" Snowden, where Baron Von Robber put on his best government-official voice:

Erik Snowden! A name that will live in infamy with the likes of Jody Stalin, Adam Hitler, Charlene Manson and The Rock Obama!

But of course, he missed one — and for that we go to our final (anonymous) editor's choice:

Erik Snowden is a regular Bernard Arnold.

That's all for this week, 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

35 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Spaceman Spiff (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 2:14pm

Sheesh
And I thought I had some funny/insightful comments this week! Oh well, I'll have to do better... :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
West of the Equator, 7 Jun 2015 @ 3:18pm

Funny: Future of Spotify is turn "free users" into "paying subscribers"!!!
From The Guardian:
Spotify will have to win over its doubters first, including convincing them that it can turn more of its 45 million free users into paying subscribers -- it has 15 million of the latter"

Oh, so "free" means "paying"! No wonder Masnick is confusing!

Daniel Ek says "free music" isn't profitable with three-fourths listening to advertising. There's no such thing as free streaming. Spotify has to somehow get more people to directly PAY.* -- Oddly, that sounds like what reasonable people have for years said is the key -- and intractable -- point: someone has to pay for content, and if piracy or given free increases without limit, the whole system is simply NOT viable.

Spotify claims paid out over $3 billion to rights holders! That shows copyright and the studio system works much better than independents, let alone "give away and pray".**

BUT (at least according to its own "Hollywood" accountants) Spotify isn't making a profit! -- "Spotify reported revenues of 1 [billion Euros] in 2014 ... Spotify reported a loss of 165 [million Euros] in 2014".

At bottom are two paragraphs with the payload, the quote just above and this GEM:

"Yes, obviously it's easier if they [Apple and Google] want to absorb the costs into other places. But we believe in the business model of Spotify, and believe that ultimately we'll become profitable at some point," said Ek.

Advertising just isn't enough to support LEGALLY streamed audio! Even this optimistic Ek states practical facts that Masnick just handwaves.

Also proves that Tidal is right to FIRST get PAYING subscribers! Jay Z is due apology from Masnick and Geigner for their ignorant sneers.

And by the way, what's so uniquely innovative about Spotify that Masnick repeatedly features it while omitting all mention of the former download.com music section hosting indepedents, or the dozens of sites that list tens of thousands actually free streams? (Many of the most popular have started running ads, though.)

*: OR reduce amounts paid out. That's already met stiff resistance and catalog removal so appears Spotify is stuck.

**: I think the studio system kinda works even with focus on a few stars who get obscene amounts: to some extent, studios select, train, and subsidize the rest, which does cost some... If you're against the mediocre few promoted to "stars" like Britney Spears or the "fat cat" executive parasites, attack that/them directly rather than attack copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

West of the Equator, 7 Jun 2015 @ 3:19pm

Funny: Future of Spotify is turn "free users" into "paying subscribers"!!!
From The Guardian:
Spotify will have to win over its doubters first, including convincing them that it can turn more of its 45 million free users into paying subscribers -- it has 15 million of the latter"

Oh, so "free" means "paying"! No wonder Masnick is confusing!

Daniel Ek says "free music" isn't profitable with three-fourths listening to advertising. There's no such thing as free streaming. Spotify has to somehow get more people to directly PAY.* -- Oddly, that sounds like what reasonable people have for years said is the key -- and intractable -- point: someone has to pay for content, and if piracy or given free increases without limit, the whole system is simply NOT viable.

Spotify claims paid out over $3 billion to rights holders! That shows copyright and the studio system works much better than independents, let alone "give away and pray".**

BUT (at least according to its own "Hollywood" accountants) Spotify isn't making a profit! -- "Spotify reported revenues of 1 [billion Euros] in 2014 ... Spotify reported a loss of 165 [million Euros] in 2014".

At bottom are two paragraphs with the payload, the quote just above and this GEM:

"Yes, obviously it's easier if they [Apple and Google] want to absorb the costs into other places. But we believe in the business model of Spotify, and believe that ultimately we'll become profitable at some point," said Ek.

Advertising just isn't enough to support LEGALLY streamed audio! Even this optimistic Ek states practical facts that Masnick just handwaves.

Also proves that Tidal is right to FIRST get PAYING subscribers! Jay Z is due apology from Masnick and Geigner for their ignorant sneers.

And by the way, what's so uniquely innovative about Spotify that Masnick repeatedly features it while omitting all mention of the former download.com music section hosting indepedents, or the dozens of sites that list tens of thousands actually free streams? (Many of the most popular have started running ads, though.)

*: OR reduce amounts paid out. That's already met stiff resistance and catalog removal so appears Spotify is stuck.

**: I think the studio system kinda works even with focus on a few stars who get obscene amounts: to some extent, studios select, train, and subsidize the rest, which does cost some... If you're against the mediocre few promoted to "stars" like Britney Spears or the "fat cat" executive parasites, attack that/them directly rather than attack copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

West of the Equator, 7 Jun 2015 @ 3:25pm

>>> Hint: When shilling, try not to post identical comments twice in two minutes with different IPs.

As I've told you pirates, Masnick is blocking my home IP address (two whole 16-bit ranges, apparently), so I have to use TOR, which is also semi-blocked, so ANY DOUBLE POSTING IS SOLELY DUE TO TECHDIRT'S CENSORSHIP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo, 7 Jun 2015 @ 3:28pm

Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn "free users" into "paying subscribers"!!!
I could take the time to debunk what you said, but I won't. Instead, I'll ask this:
Since when has anybody on this site, whether Masnick, his employees or any of the long time users here, advocated "give away and pray"?
That's a term that YOU use. I want you to give us a direct quote, time stamped and linked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 3:35pm

Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn "free users" into "paying subscribers"!!!
Almost every single thing you've observed is the fault of the record labels. If you can't see that, you're even more hopelessly naive than I thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo, 7 Jun 2015 @ 3:39pm

Re:
Didn't I once offer to do a live Skype call, with video of your desktop being streamed, so that you could prove these allegations of yours? And you went nuts over it, and refused to do so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 4:08pm

Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn "free users" into "paying subscribers"!!!
Please explain how radio and brodcast television can thrive on advertising but for some reason that just won't work for streaming music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 4:12pm

I would like to add to the list of criminals not prosecuted the names of retired government officials.

Keith Alexander
Eric Holden
George Bush
Dick Cheney
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 4:42pm

Re:
If you want to go down that route you will have a long long list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 7 Jun 2015 @ 5:22pm

Simple explanation:

Hint: When shilling, try not to post identical comments twice in two minutes with different IPs.

Dialup or other dynamic IP and the connection broke down after first posting attempt was accepted but the acknowledgement did not make it to the browser.

No, I did not actually check whether we are talking about two IPs from some dialup IP block. Just wanted to point out that the listed facts alone still may claim a "natural" explanation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 5:35pm

Re: Re:
Because it's on a computer, and someone has the patent for that.

Or something. I dunno, you could pull any flimsy excuse our of your ass, and it'd still be more coherent than out_of_the_blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

East of the Equator, 7 Jun 2015 @ 5:38pm

Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
>>> Please explain how radio and brodcast television can thrive on advertising but for some reason that just won't work for streaming music?

FIRST READ THE ARTICLE. Daniel Ek SAYS SPOTIFY IS NOT MAKING A PROFIT. So ask him.

PS: intentionally no link! Google it. I'm done even giving Techdirt credit for a referral!

PPS: I had to try twice previously! If doesn't appear immediately, you can't rely on it EVER, so I just go ahead and get a new IP address, try again. -- Point is, double posts are my evidence, kids, not yours!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

East of the Equator, 7 Jun 2015 @ 5:47pm

Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
>>> Almost every single thing you've observed is the fault of the record labels.

EXACTLY! Here's what I wrote:
Spotify claims paid out over $3 billion to rights holders! That shows copyright and the studio system works much better than independents, let alone "give away and pray".

Uh, I guess you only read far enough to figure out: "Dissenter from Masnickism! Exterminate!"
OR you don't view $3 billion dollars going to those who deserve it as a good thing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:21pm

Re: Re:
Rikuo... Knew I recalled that name. Your memory is inventive and false. Here's where I noted your name:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/17080722714/eff-isohunt-bad-facts-make-bad-law.shtml# c165
Gee, blue is just a glutton for punishment isn't he? I wish I could be like Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and be told there's a mad dog in the street, whereupon he calmly takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger.

I view that as threat of doing violence to person with firearm. But comments by fanboys are NEVER even admonished by the site administrators (who for purpose of evading responsibilty pretend the Techdirt blog is actually a "platform"), while those who simply disagree receive such threats, get their posts hidden, and their IP address banned.

Don't "call me out" any more "Rikuo". You've made me think you're an actual physical danger to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
You can do that? Well why didn't anyone tell me that before? In that case you're wrong, as evidenced by another article that I'm not going to link to because I'm just too freakin' lazy, but trust me, it absolutely shows why you're wrong, and if you doubt me, you're free to look it up yourself.

As for profits, well gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the labels are constantly demanding as much money as they think they can get away with, leaving almost nothing for the actual service? /s

Hard to make a profit when you've only got 30% of your revenue to work with, because the other 70% is paid out to others either too greedy to care about the long-term profitability or possibilities, too stupid to even realize what they're doing, or intentionally trying to kill off the competition.

Also, just in case you missed it, Rikou asked, and I will as well, for a citation for TD saying that 'Give it away and pray' is a valid business model. If you're going to make claims about what someone else has said, it's up to you to provide citations backing up those claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:26pm

Double standards
You know the same exact argument could be made against the very existence of the internet. Is it not the platform in which all of this is possible?

Semantics, I know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo, 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
I always thought blue and AJ were different people...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pouar (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:41pm

Re:
Just checked. I can login using Tor just fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
Uh, do you think record labels are "those who deserve it"?

Personally, I'm more concerned about artists making money -- but then, you have always been a huge defender of large corporations and their profits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
Jumping in on this conversation...

Spotify "We want to play your artists' music."
Label "Okay, here's a license."

Look at all that hard work the label did on behalf of the artist to deserve $3 billion in royalties!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
That's being incredibly generous -- you're ignoring all the hard work they did to make sure the artists didn't get any money out of it! It's more like:

Spotify "We want to play your artists' music."
Label "Not unless you sign this incredibly onerous contract and pay us huge advances. Don't worry, the artists won't see any of it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 6:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure they are. When he's not frothing at the mouth with his obsession regarding Mike, AJ can at times present well thought out arguments(even if people disagree with him, they do tend to be put together decently and he's usually pretty good at citing the sources he's basing his claims on), and engage in somewhat civil discussions.

Blue on the other hand... not so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 7:02pm

Minor addendum:
Spotify "We want to play your artists' music."
Label "Not unless you sign this incredibly onerous contract and pay us huge advances. Don't worry, the artists won't see any of it, and if they ask, we'll make sure to blame you for the lack of money heading their way.

Don't bother trying to explain where the money is actually going, or trying to point out that we're the ones keeping it from making it to them, they were stupid enough to sign with us, so odds are they'll be too thick to understand anything you told them."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 7:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
So if it's not making a profit why do you care? You hate Spotify.

And as for your footnote, you basically admitted to spamming the site. Congratulations, you just convinced everyone previously unconvinced to not take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's funny they've now both resorted to TOR - a tool that they've consistently painted as piracy-enabling technology and something you would never, never use if you weren't a pirate trying to hide your activity - in order to bypass the site's spam filters so they can spam the same insults over and over.

I can grant that they're probably two different people, but two different flavors of idiocy is still idiocy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 7:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, but not terribly surprising, hypocrisy seems to be a maximalist habit that they just can't stop themselves from engaging in.

Whether it's going on and on about the 'evils of large corporations' only to ignore or try and draw attention away from the wrongdoing of the labels and/or studios when they get caught doing something bad, decrying piracy for 'stealing from artists' only to defend labels or studios who do that very thing, declaring how abhorrent piracy is while engaging in it themselves, or as is the case here, constantly claiming that a particular program/tool is only used by criminals, only to then turn around and use it for their own gain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 8:00pm

Re:
Looks like a lot of people missed the "Funny" button and accidentally clicked report.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2015 @ 9:53pm

Re: Re:
There's nothing funny about spam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 7 Jun 2015 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
I view that as threat of doing violence to person with firearm.

Unnecessary. We already knew you were a raving lunatic and jackass, jeez.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
127.0.0.1, 8 Jun 2015 @ 2:38am

Re: Re: Re:
Unless you're a fan of Monty Python
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 8 Jun 2015 @ 6:00am

Re: Re: Re:
I dunno, you could pull any flimsy excuse ou[t] of your ass, and it'd still be more coherent than out_of_the_blue.

So you'd prefer out_of_the_brown to out_of_the_blue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2015 @ 9:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
Here's those citations, totally proving OOTB's point:

http://imgur.com/ac6AvYY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2015 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
Did you not even read the post you were responding to. It says

"a citation for TD saying that 'Give it away and pray' is a valid business model."

Now I know reading maybe not your strongest skill but if you read some of the links what do they say? Do I really need to spell it out for you?

Give it away and pray isn't a business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2015 @ 9:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny: Future of Spotify is turn
Just to clarify, I was being very sarcastic :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]