"Sorry, I have icons and a whole bunch of other stuff blocked, because without a proper privacy police, I have no idea what my personal information is being used for, and who it is being given to, and how it is being tracked."
Maybe you don't use Firefox, but I find the RequestPolicy addon much more effective and manageable than a host list.
"Able doesn't mean doing. Google doesn't allow third level domains on their sites controlled by users."
I referenced Google for the fact that they host third party content, which is separate from the issue of domains. Though I believe they also host third party domains as part of their Google Apps service.
"Google doesn't publish the content. They link to it (which is a different can of worms)."
I was referring to the fact that Google owns YouTube and various other hosting services.
"No, third levels are not domains, they are not subject to the same registration requirements"
Registration requirements don't determine what is or isn't a domain. It's a valid distinction, but it's nothing to do with what is or isn't a domain. I'm not saying this just because you're wrong, but because you can't possibly make your point properly if everyone has to guess what you're referring to.
In light of that, why are the registration requirements an issue here? Aside from the semantics.
"the difference is that a third level domain isn't any different in reality from a folder site or an old style user site (you know ~Username). "
They are very different. Try setting up email for a 'folder site'.
"moooo.com is the "smallest set" that could be seized in this manner. Seizing the entire .com registry would knock out millions of sites, and would be the proverbial "burning down the house to get a flea". In the case of a single domain, the focus is as narrow as the technical limitations of the internet provide for. We don't register third level domains, they are controlled internally. Therefore, there is no simple way to "pull a third level", without the help of the domain holder."
The last line of that paragraph pretty much sums the issue up. If they had asked for the help of the domain holder then there are absolutely no technical limitations to stop a third level domain being seized. Can you provide a reason why they could or should not have contacted the owners of moooo.com to seize the third level domain?
"Technically, it's a whole different world."
I'm unsure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that we don't understand how the domain name system works? Because you'll have to do better to convince me that you know more on the subject.
"how about admitting that unlimited free speech has unleashed a tidal wave of hate groups onto the net in numbers never before seen."
What makes you think that free speech has been the cause of hate groups? Sure, it's the reason they're allowed to have websites, but then it's the reason we're allowed to tell everyone why what they say on those websites is wrong.
"dance choreography is subject to copyright protection."
You're right. I had thought the protection wasn't the same but apparently it's just not used much.
Still, I think there's an interesting issue here of why musicians seem so sue happy compared to dancers. Mike suggests in the article that her use of moves learnt from various schools is kinda like remixing, but perhaps the key difference is that she is performing dance moves rather than using excerpts from other dancers videos. The issue of royalties remains though, shouldn't dancers have a royalty system like musicians do? Shouldn't every establishment with a dance floor be required to pay an agency in case a copyrighted dance be performed?
"Who's complaining about Girl Talk? No one. Masnick made it up. He linked back to his own story, and there's nothing in that story about anyone complaining."
Did you read the comments section?
"But apparently we now know Mike enjoys highly derivative music."
Why am I not surprised that you jumped to that conclusion despite Mike starting a paragraph with: "Even if you're not a fan of Girl Talk's music".
There's a really good point about the inconsistencies in intellectual property. As far as I can tell there is no comparable intellectual property 'protection' for dance moves compared to music scores. Even if Girl Talk merely covered parts of songs then they would likely be liable for royalties. I have to wonder if anyone who claims to understand why royalties are needed for cover versions of songs would be able to explain why the same doesn't apply for dancing.
I guess in this case it wouldn't make a difference either way, as her style is a bit like free jazz, but it brings up an interesting issue. I would like to hear reasons from pro-IP people as to why dance should or shouldn't be protected by intellectual property law.
"First off, if there were any users of Moooo.com that were pushing child porn (or other illegal acts), then it is hard to claim the government's actions to be entirely unjustified."
By that logic they could 'justifiably' shut down Google or as much of the internet as they are able. If it effects one instance of illegal content then you seem to suppose the collateral damage to be meaningless.
"there was only one domain taken down"
You're still refusing to acknowledge the simple technical fact that a sub domain is still a domain. Yes, the distinction is important, but it cuts both ways. Taking down .com could be interpreted as 'just one domain'. The fact that it's a top level domain makes it no less a domain than the fact that these were sub domains. You may have a valid reason for the distinction, but use of the word domain isn't it.
"Those 84,000 people have a contract with moooo.com, and the liablity goes there."
Moooo.com presumably have a contract with a registrar, who presumably has a contract with VeriSign. Is there a legal basis for the liability stopping with moooo.com rather than the registrar or VeriSign? Again, why stop at moooo.com rather than .com?
"I, for one, am Anonymous because I want my comments to be judged by the strength of their arguments, not by who I am or what I might have said in the past."
I think posting as Anonymous Coward is fine, it's just important to understand that those without a pseudonym are likely to be perceived differently due to the lack of individual identity. People are already asking for an option to hide Anonymous Coward comments unless marked insightful, which is evidence of that perception bias.
The upshot of posting as Anonymous Coward may be that people are less likely to blindly agree with you or dismiss you based on an individual identity. But then they may be more likely to dismiss you because you have the shared identity of Anonymous Coward.
"There's a lengthy discussion over at the law blog"
The most interesting point I've seen so far in that discussion is the issue of discretionary powers. Some are arguing that given the discretionary powers afforded elsewhere in the system that it makes sense for jurors to be allowed to exercise discretion too.
Whatever way I consider the issue I cannot see how the right solution is to rely on keeping jurors uninformed. If knowledge of jury nullification is an issue then the system is flawed, as it cannot reasonably rely on ignorance.
"No, I generally am logged in when I decide to post a comment. There have been a few that I wasn't, but the overall tone of those comments were about the same as the one above."
Apologies. I wasn't suggesting you were the same anonymous coward, but that the anon you were replying to might be.
"Pvt Manning is a vigilante that illegally stole state secrets and tried to play god (little "g") for political or personal reasons. You�re love relationship with a state traitor is concerning in itself, but is your right. It was not his right to decide to release classified information and deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest. "
It wasn't anyone's right to torture people or send them away for other countries to torture. Can I suppose that you support prosecuting those responsible for torture to the fullest?
"don't seem to know or care what Pvt Manning's motivation was"
Why do you get the impression that people don't seem to care about that? We've been discussing it here.
"When people are telling the truth, they look directly at you when speaking. When they start moving their eyes, or shifting, or moving microphones around, it shows they're trying to remember what they've been told to say, or what they've convinced themselves is the truth."
The esteemed Rep. Lofgren made less eye contact in any specific direction and had a microphone which appears to have been fixed to her desk. Plus, she apparently wasn't having to turn to be able to look at Espinel directly. How did you conclude from what you've stated about her body language that Espinel was being any less honest than Lofgren?
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an interesting notion of shorthand.
On the post: No Surprise: Senate Approves Useless Patent Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you don't use Firefox, but I find the RequestPolicy addon much more effective and manageable than a host list.
On the post: Where's A Business Method Patent When You Need One?
Re: Re: Re:
Your opinion might exceed negative weight if you gave us some examples of what you consider to be good humour.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe they're implying the offence is that of separating the copyrighted material into categories.
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Re:
I can't find any evidence supporting this story either.
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Re:
Wasn't this covered on the last Lady Gaga story that came up? Feel free to maintain that she has no talent. I'll just claim that you have no taste.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I referenced Google for the fact that they host third party content, which is separate from the issue of domains. Though I believe they also host third party domains as part of their Google Apps service.
"Google doesn't publish the content. They link to it (which is a different can of worms)."
I was referring to the fact that Google owns YouTube and various other hosting services.
"No, third levels are not domains, they are not subject to the same registration requirements"
Registration requirements don't determine what is or isn't a domain. It's a valid distinction, but it's nothing to do with what is or isn't a domain. I'm not saying this just because you're wrong, but because you can't possibly make your point properly if everyone has to guess what you're referring to.
In light of that, why are the registration requirements an issue here? Aside from the semantics.
"the difference is that a third level domain isn't any different in reality from a folder site or an old style user site (you know ~Username). "
They are very different. Try setting up email for a 'folder site'.
"moooo.com is the "smallest set" that could be seized in this manner. Seizing the entire .com registry would knock out millions of sites, and would be the proverbial "burning down the house to get a flea". In the case of a single domain, the focus is as narrow as the technical limitations of the internet provide for. We don't register third level domains, they are controlled internally. Therefore, there is no simple way to "pull a third level", without the help of the domain holder."
The last line of that paragraph pretty much sums the issue up. If they had asked for the help of the domain holder then there are absolutely no technical limitations to stop a third level domain being seized. Can you provide a reason why they could or should not have contacted the owners of moooo.com to seize the third level domain?
"Technically, it's a whole different world."
I'm unsure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that we don't understand how the domain name system works? Because you'll have to do better to convince me that you know more on the subject.
On the post: How To Get Elected Officials To Actually Hear Our Worries About Censorship: Speak Up!
Re: free speech?
What makes you think that free speech has been the cause of hate groups? Sure, it's the reason they're allowed to have websites, but then it's the reason we're allowed to tell everyone why what they say on those websites is wrong.
On the post: Derivative Artwork Inspiring Derivative Artwork -- But Will The Lawyers Ruin It?
Re: Re: Dance moves vs music scores
You're right. I had thought the protection wasn't the same but apparently it's just not used much.
Still, I think there's an interesting issue here of why musicians seem so sue happy compared to dancers. Mike suggests in the article that her use of moves learnt from various schools is kinda like remixing, but perhaps the key difference is that she is performing dance moves rather than using excerpts from other dancers videos. The issue of royalties remains though, shouldn't dancers have a royalty system like musicians do? Shouldn't every establishment with a dance floor be required to pay an agency in case a copyrighted dance be performed?
On the post: Derivative Artwork Inspiring Derivative Artwork -- But Will The Lawyers Ruin It?
Re:
Did you read the comments section?
"But apparently we now know Mike enjoys highly derivative music."
Why am I not surprised that you jumped to that conclusion despite Mike starting a paragraph with: "Even if you're not a fan of Girl Talk's music".
On the post: Derivative Artwork Inspiring Derivative Artwork -- But Will The Lawyers Ruin It?
Dance moves vs music scores
I guess in this case it wouldn't make a difference either way, as her style is a bit like free jazz, but it brings up an interesting issue. I would like to hear reasons from pro-IP people as to why dance should or shouldn't be protected by intellectual property law.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re: Re: Re:
By that logic they could 'justifiably' shut down Google or as much of the internet as they are able. If it effects one instance of illegal content then you seem to suppose the collateral damage to be meaningless.
"there was only one domain taken down"
You're still refusing to acknowledge the simple technical fact that a sub domain is still a domain. Yes, the distinction is important, but it cuts both ways. Taking down .com could be interpreted as 'just one domain'. The fact that it's a top level domain makes it no less a domain than the fact that these were sub domains. You may have a valid reason for the distinction, but use of the word domain isn't it.
"Those 84,000 people have a contract with moooo.com, and the liablity goes there."
Moooo.com presumably have a contract with a registrar, who presumably has a contract with VeriSign. Is there a legal basis for the liability stopping with moooo.com rather than the registrar or VeriSign? Again, why stop at moooo.com rather than .com?
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures
Re: 84,000 wet panties
Huh? Who's suggested that apart from you?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think posting as Anonymous Coward is fine, it's just important to understand that those without a pseudonym are likely to be perceived differently due to the lack of individual identity. People are already asking for an option to hide Anonymous Coward comments unless marked insightful, which is evidence of that perception bias.
The upshot of posting as Anonymous Coward may be that people are less likely to blindly agree with you or dismiss you based on an individual identity. But then they may be more likely to dismiss you because you have the shared identity of Anonymous Coward.
On the post: ChurchHatesTucker's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Judge Says No Anonymity For Anyone Who Visited GeoHot's PS3 Hacking Website Or Watched YouTube Video
Re: No right violated and whys it a big deal
All the more reason not to allow the invasion of privacy, if the information isn't useful anyway.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: More at Volokh
The most interesting point I've seen so far in that discussion is the issue of discretionary powers. Some are arguing that given the discretionary powers afforded elsewhere in the system that it makes sense for jurors to be allowed to exercise discretion too.
Whatever way I consider the issue I cannot see how the right solution is to rely on keeping jurors uninformed. If knowledge of jury nullification is an issue then the system is flawed, as it cannot reasonably rely on ignorance.
On the post: Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apologies. I wasn't suggesting you were the same anonymous coward, but that the anon you were replying to might be.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: I hope he gets the max
It wasn't anyone's right to torture people or send them away for other countries to torture. Can I suppose that you support prosecuting those responsible for torture to the fullest?
"don't seem to know or care what Pvt Manning's motivation was"
Why do you get the impression that people don't seem to care about that? We've been discussing it here.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures
Re: Espinel - liar!
The esteemed Rep. Lofgren made less eye contact in any specific direction and had a microphone which appears to have been fixed to her desk. Plus, she apparently wasn't having to turn to be able to look at Espinel directly. How did you conclude from what you've stated about her body language that Espinel was being any less honest than Lofgren?
Next >>