Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the heard-it-through-the-grapevine dept
This week, after we talked about a worrying DMCA ruling for Zazzle, one commenter suggested that selling merchandise eliminates safe harbors, and compared it to an anime fan site. An anonymous reply won most insightful comment of the week by laying out the problems with that comparison:
Your comparison is a little silly, Zazzle isn't a "fan site" where the material has an obvious source.
A user uploads an image to Zazzle, claims to have the right to use that image, and requests that Zazzle prints that image on a mug, all through an automated process.
You then expect Zazzle to be liable down the road if it turns out that the user did not, in fact, have the proper rights?
That's an untenable position.
Of course, the original commenter there was clearly trying to be thoughtful and polite. Not so with a response to our post about ICE's order to remove all undocumented immigrants, where a commenter whined about us "lefties" saying "to hell with the law" — leading Roger Strong to win second place with what I believe qualifies as an "epic smackdown":
In 1990 President George H.W. Bush’s "Family Fairness" policy gave deferrals to 1.5 million spouses and children of immigrants given amnesty by Reagan in 1986.
In 2003/2004 it was Bush II's turn to push for immigration amnesty. Almost half the Republicans in the US Senate were public supporters of AgJobs bill.
The Republican platform committee independently made immigration amnesty part of the Republican platform in 2004. (PDF link to the platform. Refer to the "Supporting Humane and Legal Immigration" section, where they say "We don't support amnesty" while describing their amnesty.)
Bush II tried again in 2007. ("Republican former President George W. Bush's effort to create a path to legal status for immigrants in the United States unlawfully failed in 2007")
In the 2008 election it was McCain that wanted immigration amnesty.
In July 2010 it was Sarah Palin's turn on the Bill O'Reilly show. Her plan was to make all illegal immigrants register. Those that don't would be found and deported. Those that DO register would be allowed to continue to work in the US.
Rick Perry wrote an op-ed in the newspaper saying that he was open to Amnesty. He's given speeches supporting an open border. "We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, 'we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.' And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers." [...] "President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it."
In 2012 New Gingrich favored an amnesty for illegal immigrants who "may have earned the right to become legal."
In 2013 Ted Cruz fought for legalization (work permits and green cards but not citizenship) for 11 million illegal immigrants.
Oh, those gosh-darned lefties.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we've got a response to the Australian prime minister's word salad on the subject of encryption backdoors and our own not-quite-right thoughts on it, with an anonymous commenter drawing a critical distinction:
Definition of backdoor
"A back door is typically a flaw in a software program that perhaps the -- you know, the developer of the software program is not aware of and that somebody who knows about it can exploit" [...] That bit of word salad suggests that at least a tiny smidgen of actual knowledge made it into his brain. A backdoor is an exploit.
That's not true. "Backdoor" normally refers to something that was known to the developer, and intentionally coded. What he's describing is a bug (and an "exploit" would be a program that takes advantage of that bug). One could say that's a de-facto backdoor but it would be at least a little unusual.
Next, in response to the FCC's claim that it can't do anything about impostors or bots submitting comments on net neutrality, ThaumaTechnician wondered how they could be so inept:
Clueless/lying politicians demand that cryptographers perform magic and defeat mathematical laws by creating mischief-proof crypto back doors, meanwhile they claim that it's impossible to perform standard, run-of-the-mill zombie hunting that's been standard practice as far back as at least the old BBS days.
Well, nerd harder yourselves.
Over on the funny side, our first place comment comes in response to Rob Reid's new book being half-released for free on Medium. One anonymous commenter felt this kind of strategy might be too much of a good thing:
No, absolutely not. I refuse.
My to-be-read list contains more than 500 books right now, and hasn't actually gotten any shorter since high school when I was reading close to a book per day. Do you have any idea what will happen if I have access to a large number of convenient, but not finished books? I'll go insane and never finish anything ever again...
Thanks internet. Thanks a lot.
In second place, we've got a brief anecdote from Carrie underlining just how much the norms of television are changing:
True Story. My friend's 5-year-old, raised on iPads with Netflix, said this yesterday:
"You know how Grandma's TV has something called...channels? Yeah, I think it's called channels. And there are breaks where they play commercials?"
That comment came in response to our post about NBC intentionally misspelling the names of shows in order to hide bad ratings from Nielsen, which is where we'll remain for our editor's choice on the funny side — a one-two punch from a pair of anonymous commenters, starting with:
Are you saying
that NBC has been caught with "fake views"?
...followed by:
alternative ratings
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No, FUNNIEST is: "I'm saying this as a news publication that is concerned about Google and Facebook's power in the market" by The Masnick!
Second, why I call it The Masnick; what a DETACHED, even INHUMAN perspective: "I'm saying this as a news publication". -- Has ANY prior "editor" mixed personal pronoun with collective term? Did he just forget the editorial "we"?
Third, what exactly does it mean? Is Mike Masnick, IF there is a "natural" person who wrote by typing on a keyboard, not a bot as I often suspect, leading us to take that as his personal view but not necessarily that of Techdirt, or indicating it's NOT personal but only a public position that Techdirt takes? (To give the appearance of objectivity, though Masnick's Copia "think tank" is sponsored by Google.)
Fourth, as ever for Techdirt, it doesn't actually state anything! "Concern" needs a qualifier: you're just taking it one way. Is The Masnick slyly stating right out in public that it's worried Google and Facebook don't YET have quite enough power to flout the laws of Canada and Spain, and to get away with staggering tax evasion and anti-trust violations? -- While I fear that they've already too much.
In any case, can enjoy the sum as MAJOR HOOT because contrary to the clear history of Techdirt. Only after The Masnick starts calling for rigorous tax and anti-trust enforcement to break up those globalist monopolies will I start to believe it has "concern" about their power.
However, since FUNNY is caused by surprise twist, for effect of making me laugh I have to say that quote has seldom been surpassed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, FUNNIEST is: "I'm saying this as a news publication that is concerned about Google and Facebook's power in the market" by The Masnick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
That's an untenable position."
And "automatic" does not mean "immune to law"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
'Some' being tens or even hundreds of thousands of impossible to perform checks(and if you can spot the difference between an infringing and non-infringing work offhand then you're wasting your time commenting here when you could be making vast sums elsewhere), unless you think that Zazzle employs not only mind-readers, but people that can read minds through an internet connection.
Tweaking your own comment for accuracy in this case, 'automation that results in a physical products does not mean the current law regarding liability does not apply'.
If a user posting content that turns out to be infringing after-the-fact does not mean the site is liable, then it's beyond absurd to claim that adding an automated step to turn that content into a physical item magically means that they are liable because they didn't know the user was lying at the time they claimed that they had the rights to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Patent law figured this out a long time ago. When a product infringes a patent, only the designer of the product is liable for patent infringement, not the contractor nor any subcontractors. And Zazzle, in this case, is very clearly just a specialized low-volume contractor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Don't see what's even arguable in UNTENABLE FOR ZAZZLE. Here's a decided court case, and you're STILL not convinced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
News for you: if a print shop duplicates copyrighted text -- and doesn't at all bother checking -- it's liable for the resulting infringement.
That bald assertion was made in the comment section of original article too, and given there doesn't seem to have been any backing evidence for it I'm going to go with a [CITATION NEEDED] there, given the same comments section had someone who actually worked at a sign shop saying that no such requirement existed.
Don't see what's even arguable in UNTENABLE FOR ZAZZLE. Here's a decided court case, and you're STILL not convinced
Convinced that the judge was so dazzled by the word 'physical' that they made a stupid and logically inconsistent judgement? Yes, that I'm absolutely convinced of. Beyond that, not so much.
If you(or the judge) can't see what's problematic for a site and/or the company they use to create the products to do the impossible, determine the copyright status regarding a given use for millions of items('funny t-shirts' alone had just over 1.3 million entries as of this comment) then you clearly are either a mind-reader and need to stop wasting your time here/in court, or you're demanding something that can't be realistically accomplished without a care as to that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Yeah, that's about what I expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Australia begs to differ.
Anyway, you are just a firm believer which means you don't understand but you accept it. This is called faith. And it seems faith is the basis of everything you say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So 'do the impossible' and 'get users to do what they already do'?
Umm...no. Please cite a source if you have actual reason to be true, but a print shop does not have to check if material is properly licensed. I can take a picture of Mickey Mouse to a print shop and make 10,000 T-Shirts and start selling them on the street - the print shop would not get sued, I would.
And in the case of Zazzle - the print shop didn't get sued. Zazzle did. The print shop received an order and printed it. Zazzle had an image uploaded to it's website and was then asked by a user to print it on something and Zazzle forwarded the image and the order to the printer.
Holding Zazzle liable for infringement makes about as much sense as holding UPS liable for infringement for delivering the t-shirts once they were printed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
They do, but the problem is that the users do not have much in the way of money, while Zazzle has quite a bit. Therefore it is not worth suing the individual users, but there is a chance of a good payout from Zazzle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
BTW, all: I don't see this getting overturned: if Zazzle's "automatic" publishing defense was allowed, it'd undermine ALL copyright! One would only have to set up a cut-out to take the blame, copy madly until busted, tie the shell up in legalities, and continue; easy to come out way ahead on movies especially since the cost of product would be near zero. Producers can't compete when others get to duplicate their work for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
If you know how Zazzle can police for copyright infringement on every user upload without the foreknowledge of licensing agreements, copyrights, and context (e.g., parody), I bet they would love to have that knowledge.
As would the rest of us, since you would have stumbled upon the kind of information and knowledge that has thus far eluded everyone else in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
His position that a court ruled fails to take into consideration that there is a reason Appeals Courts exist. Judges screw up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
BTW, all: I don't see this getting overturned: if Zazzle's "automatic" publishing defense was allowed, it'd undermine ALL copyright! One would only have to set up a cut-out to take the blame, copy madly until busted, tie the shell up in legalities, and continue; easy to come out way ahead on movies especially since the cost of product would be near zero. Producers can't compete when others get to duplicate their work for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
If copyright can be destroyed by one simple notion—in this case, “Zazzle cannot know before the upload that a piece of media has been uploaded illegaly”—it deserves nothing less than destruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
That's a problem with its "business model". Similarly, I'm sure that you hold Megaupload couldn't "police" its 16 petabytes of mostly infringed content. Dotcom is ignorant of what millions of users knew, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A 'problem' with YOUR 'business model' does not mean a problem with THEIR'S
As I've noted before, 'inability to know whether or not something is infringing' is not a 'business model problem' unless 'spotting infringement' is a company's business model.
If a company sets up a service to vet content for possible infringement and they can't keep up with the load, then they are facing a problem with their business model.
With the law being rather clear that sites are not liable for user submitted content unless they are specifically informed about a particular infringing work('there is infringing content somewhere on the site' doesn't cut it) the fact that a given site cannot magically do the impossible and know what is infringing before notified of such is not a problem with their business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
I can be reasonably sure that Dotcom knew the service was used for copyright infringement. But knowing something and proving something are two different things—and there is no way Dotcom could prove that a specific file was being shared illegally.
As the Prendapocalypse and other such copyright trolling cases show, copyright owners (or licensed distributors) will often upload copies of their own material so they can sue whoever downloads it. In such cases, the copyright holder will see the download as an infringement despite literally giving away the file themselves. Why should we expect anyone at YouTube or Zazzle or even 4chan to know, with as much certainty as is possible for anyone who is not a god, whether an uploaded file is an illegal upload?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
Yeah; the FunnyJunk strategy didn't work out. (When the copyright owner points out the infringement, send a psychotic legal thug to extort tens of thousands of dollars from them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh? It's untenable for Zazzle, as the court case came down. Zazzle better do some checks up front, and get users to indemnify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans and democrats is bs for the fools who want to believe it.
The fact is, under both republicans and democrats, war has continued, illegal immigration has continued, the war on drugs has continued, income inequality keeps increasing, etc.
Those are facts, the rest is just TALK, despite what color talks it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRAP! I've made three or four comments, but some new sorcery is blocking my prepared comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CRAP! I've made three or four comments, but some new sorcery is blocking my prepared comment!
On the positive side:
ZOMBIE ATTACKS SUPPRESSED! No new sightings for a week. You're welcome.
For those who missed most exciting item on Techdirt in last two weeks, here's a review:
Noticed on 27 June: https://www.techdirt.com/user/andrewlduane -- On May 1st, 2017 pops up after SIX years before on Nov 23rd, 2010.
Another Wednesday 28 June: https://www.techdirt.com/user/slowgreenturtle Dec 15th, 2016, again SIX year gap from Jul 13th, 2009.
You DOUBLY can't explain that. TWO people after SIX years suddenly recall this minor little site on which made a FEW comments, user name, AND password? Baloney! -- Even if is a way to renew forgotten password, the urge to comment after so long is inexplicable.
Those both commented on Jun 28th, 2017: 7:35am and 1:30pm respectively, but NO attempt at explanation yet.
The huge gaps looks like computer flag up, or search for, accounts inactive over 2340 days, which is an "even" 6 years 5 months, so perhaps those numbers were entered into fields for search qualifier.
My guess is they're taken over for astro-turfing, but whether by "administrators", paid persons in India, or even "AI" is open. They're bland but supportive of TD, helpful for subtly presenting the illusion that reasonable persons habit the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CRAP! I've made three or four comments, but some new sorcery is blocking my prepared comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CRAP! I've made three or four comments, but some new sorcery is blocking my prepared comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CRAP! I've made three or four comments, but some new sorcery is blocking my prepared comment!
Why not? I've returned to a forum after more than six years, when something relevant showed up in a Google search. And you're saying that their returns came five months apart. That hardly sounds like a conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ "epic smackdown"
Title of my comment was "What do "lefties" not get about ILLEGAL?"
To start. lefties is in quotes, not too literal, so I'm not a partisan.
2nd, more important: "Republicans" at least made a show of LEGALIZING. I don't agree with that, but those were made "legal".
I just can't keep up with the endless gainsaying and seizing on imagined flaws here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "epic smackdown"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Epic smackdown" is also in quotes, so what's your complaint?
Obama's deferrals policy matched Bush I's "Family Fairness" deferrals policy. His DREAM act matches efforts by Gingrich and others. It was about legalizing. And yet Republicans declared jihad.
All those Republicans supporting amnesty were attempting one thing: Make the illegals legal. Give them a path to citizenship. Obama tried the same thing - on a smaller scale - and the same Republicans declared jihad. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if Obama tried to duplicate even Ted Cruz's amnesty?
But none of that matches what's happening now. Even when Republican AgJob amnesty efforts were shot down by their own party, those in AgJobs were relatively safe from deportation. From citizen children being separated from non-citizen parents. From being deported for reporting a crime.
Now even DREAMers - who played by the rules, registered and were made legal - are now made retroactively illegal and are being rounded up and deported.
And so now you have "Sanctuary cities." Republican and "leftie" alike, they are not supporting illegal activity. Just the opposite, they're forced to choose the lesser of two evils:
Decreeing that an entire class of people can't report a rape or other crime - can't be a witness to a crime - can't take their citizen children to school - without being detained and deported - inevitably leads to a lot more illegality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]