"Of course you do all of this using a sockpuppet so you can claim later that no one knows the real truth."
Whether or not this is actually Marc John Randazza, the guy is a real lawyer who has represented porn companies. I'm not sure why you call him a sock puppet, unless you're making a meta metaphor pointing out how obvious the connection is.
'Mike and I have reached an uneasy compromise on this. I will let him take the 'U's out of my posts for Techdirt, but he will not try to claim that his way is actually "more correct" :D'
I think he forgot to remove them from mine, though he did add at least one missing apostrophe (which wasn't a regional thing, just a me rushing things thing).
I had wanted to do mine as a poem but unfortunately it was also a somewhat last minute request.
"Rather than pick numbers out of a hat, I really wish we'd start looking at the actual data in terms of what creates the most incentives, but that seems unlikely."
This. Also, the data should be weighed against negative consequences. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create then we should measure that against restricting people's choice in what they can create. Or just in pure balance terms, whether more creation is discouraged than encouraged.
"The jokes are there but I don't want to come off as sexist in any way, shape or form."
I mean to be a pedant and choose to point out that sexist is different from homophobic. Unless you're making a subtle comment on the concept of gender roles, in which case: kudos!
"So the implication is plain here: If Mike is reading an article on that blog, he must be gay AND being gay is bad (otherwise what would be the point of pointing this out?)."
Thank you for beating me to that. Pretty much made my day.
"Usually we think of censorship as being for an unjustifiable moral, political, or reputational reason."
So, restricting your critics isn't an unjustifiably moral, political or reputational reason? Can you imagine a feminist having to ask a bunch of rap artists to use their works in a film criticising the portrayal of women in rap videos?
"All of the alleged infringements are for before February 21, 2011, except for the very last one listed, which is for February 22, 2011"
Scroll through the whole list. If you had bothered to do that instead of scrolling to the bottom and assuming I was wrong then you might have noticed that the list is sorted by ISP before date.
"I FUDed nothing out, vivaelamor. Try harder."
Please, don't try harder; you'll only embarrass yourself more.
"Without knowing the dates of the alleged infringements, your article is pure FUD. Have you considered pulling up the filing to see the dates of the alleged infringements?"
Have you? I've read the filing and know that the dates of the alleged infringements range between January and March this year. Rather than FUDing it out, you could actually do some research yourself to see if there's really an issue.
"What kind of world do we live in that I am legally prohibited from putting up a billboard of Einstein and his lifelong message of white supremacy and anti-Semitism?"
What kind of world do we live in that I am legally prohibited from putting up a billboard of Ghandi and his message of racism?
What kind of world do we live in that I am legally prohibited from putting up a billboard of Mother Teresa and her message of suffering, imposed on the poor and sick?
"I think the difference is that with a normal injunction, they'd be able to tell you who or what they can't talk about. With this gamma-ray enhanced injunction, they can't even tell you that much."
Wikipedia agrees with Jay, but I'm unsure if there is an official definition or if that is based on how the term was used in news stories (too lazy to read citations).
"So if they charge everyone with the negligence off the bat you pleading innocent to the infringement and saying someone else must have been it doing it means you are pleading guilty to the negligence."
But the point is that someone else could access a secured connection. I guess the question becomes one of whether you are you negligent if someone cracks into your secured connection.
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re:
Whether or not this is actually Marc John Randazza, the guy is a real lawyer who has represented porn companies. I'm not sure why you call him a sock puppet, unless you're making a meta metaphor pointing out how obvious the connection is.
On the post: Questions Asked About EU Appointing IFPI Lobbyist To Copyright Role
Re:
This article may provide the context you're looking for to understand her statement.
On the post: Marcus Carab's Favorite 'Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week' Posts So Far
Re: Re: U... U... U... yes U!
I think he forgot to remove them from mine, though he did add at least one missing apostrophe (which wasn't a regional thing, just a me rushing things thing).
I had wanted to do mine as a poem but unfortunately it was also a somewhat last minute request.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Incentives
This. Also, the data should be weighed against negative consequences. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create then we should measure that against restricting people's choice in what they can create. Or just in pure balance terms, whether more creation is discouraged than encouraged.
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
Like on top gear?
Here's a tip: don't make jokes where the punchline is that you're a bigot.
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
Me neither. Here's some Stewart Lee.
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re:
I mean to be a pedant and choose to point out that sexist is different from homophobic. Unless you're making a subtle comment on the concept of gender roles, in which case: kudos!
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re:
Thank you for beating me to that. Pretty much made my day.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
Re: Sensational headline
So, restricting your critics isn't an unjustifiably moral, political or reputational reason? Can you imagine a feminist having to ask a bunch of rap artists to use their works in a film criticising the portrayal of women in rap videos?
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re: Re: Re:
Scroll through the whole list. If you had bothered to do that instead of scrolling to the bottom and assuming I was wrong then you might have noticed that the list is sorted by ISP before date.
"I FUDed nothing out, vivaelamor. Try harder."
Please, don't try harder; you'll only embarrass yourself more.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe MLS refers to Michael L. Slonecker, an IP lawyer.
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently not quite so obsessed with paying attention to what's going on.
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re: Re:
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it still FUD if it's true?
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re:
Have you? I've read the filing and know that the dates of the alleged infringements range between January and March this year. Rather than FUDing it out, you could actually do some research yourself to see if there's really an issue.
On the post: Publicity Rights After Death Are Severely Limiting Culture
Re:
What kind of world do we live in that I am legally prohibited from putting up a billboard of Ghandi and his message of racism?
What kind of world do we live in that I am legally prohibited from putting up a billboard of Mother Teresa and her message of suffering, imposed on the poor and sick?
On the post: UK 'Superinjunction' Bans Anyone From Identifying Plaintiff In Libel Case
Re: Re:
Wikipedia agrees with Jay, but I'm unsure if there is an official definition or if that is based on how the term was used in news stories (too lazy to read citations).
On the post: Bizarre UK Free Speech Ban Bars People From Telling Anyone -- Including Elected Officials & Lawyers -- About Potential Toxic Chemicals
Re:
maybe free speech isnt made for the uk."
Point of note, England and the UK aren't interchangeable terms. It's like confusing Texas and the USA.
You might also want to read about John Milton, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Note which country they were from.
I hate nationalism, but the reverse is bad too.
On the post: Not Securing Your Internet Access To Block Infringement Is 'Negligence'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the point is that someone else could access a secured connection. I guess the question becomes one of whether you are you negligent if someone cracks into your secured connection.
Next >>