Re: Re: Re: HOLY CRAP! Another of Techdirt's startling REVERSES!
"Other people's content" is what Apple is stealing.
It's obvious that you either didn't read the article or didn't understand it. As Mike Ash put it (which is quoted in the article):
After all, having an RSS feed in the first place is an implicit opt-in to that sort of thing.
Putting your material on a RSS feed has already been established as an implicit opt-in to have your material republished elsewhere on the web. If you don't want it used - don't put in an RSS feed.
This article is complaining about Apple trying to force additional terms when they use the material from RSS feeds, which isn't cool.
There is no contradiction in Techdirt's view, except the one you've made up in your head.
Re: Re: Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"
He's suggesting that since TD has a spam filter, they've given up their 230 protections.
Yeah, he also thinks that Techdirt "censors" him because the spam filter is probably setup to blacklist IP addresses that get huge amounts of "report" clicks.
Re: Response to: Chronno S. Trigger on Jun 17th, 2015 @ 9:51am
Therefore, I've won.
Actually, your comment is the one that is unwittingly revealing, Blue.
That you view Techdirt's comment section as a battlefield where the exchanges must be "won" says quite a bit about your character and morals.
Most everyone else is here to have thoughtful discussions and to possibly learn from opposing viewpoints and for the occasional laugh.
BTW, in my humble opinion, I would have to say that your actual debate winning percentage over the years here on Techdirt is somewhere around 2 or 3%. Making a comment then ignoring each and every rebuttal to that comment that shows how wrong you are is an overall loss in my book.
Re: Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
Lol. Nice try Blue.
You are pretty much the only one who uses the greater than symbol instead of quotation marks or italics when quoting someone (the only other person I know who does that is a Federal agent who's comments are infinitely more intelligent than yours).
At least you admit you are a troll though, that's a start.
Do you try and be ignorant or is it all just an act?
Ignorant of what exactly? Do you really think that he wouldn't have been charged under the Espionage Act just because he turned himself in? That sounds like an ignorant statement to me.
PS: I knew that eventually that Shindlerisms would come out in this thread.
You Snowden disciples crack me up, acting like he's a saint or martyr instead of a criminal who stole documents.
I regard Snowden for what he is - someone who exposed programs that two separate courts, two separate White House review boards and plenty of others have noted to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.
That sounds like the very definition of a patriot to me.
If he didn't want to be charged with espionage, he could have released the information to the press...
He did turn over all the information to the press.
...and turn himself in as a whistleblower instead of being a criminal and traitor.
You are making zero sense here. If he turned himself in as a "whistleblower" he would have been treated as a "criminal and traitor" just like the previous whistleblowers have been. What would have been gained by that?
Well, if nothing will happen then why is Snowden hiding in Russia?
Because the US is attempting to charge him under the Espionage Act, a law that effectively prevents the accused from making a valid defense of their actions.
Only a moron bets their life against the house when the house stacks the deck and only allows you to play the deuces from your hand.
No, it's not. Especially when in the full context of "and you die from old age". No moreso than "I wish you a long life" is any kind of threat to anyone, anywhere, ever.
Re: Re: Re: WHAT? After all this time, Masnick ADMITS common law copyright even exists!!!???
His writing style is so unique as to give him away each and every time.
There also the fact that Blue doesn't seem to realize that the phrase "common law copyright" has different definitions.
Blue use the term in the sense of a legal doctrine that is based on the contention that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property. Both the US (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834) and the UK (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) have rejected the "natural right" aspect of copyright.
Mike uses the term "common law copyright" to refer to state-level copyright which is preempted by federal copyright law. The only time state-level copyright is important is when it covered something that federal copyright law didn't cover at the time.
It's hilarious that on this site which rails at control by copyright and trademark, that one can't even use a screen name without being accused of infringing proprietary right to four characters.
Wait. Where did anyone accuse you of "infringing proprietary right to four characters."?
Hell, I've even given you permission to use mine a couple of years ago.
Under the rule of law, the photographer, since he or she are being paid for their services, is considered 'under contract' for producing those photographs. They do not own the copyright.
Wrong. A freelance photographer (ie: self-employed) only gives up the copyright when he or she signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire.
Here is what a lawyer for photographers has to say about it:
In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually. Source
I wish I could tell if Gwiz was playing along with you, or if he missed the entire point.
I missed the point, by a wide margin apparently.
I was having a bad day and was kind of grumpy when I wrote that. That's not really an excuse, but it did cause me to entirely miss the joke behind that comment.
Still using someone else's moniker? You filthy pirate, you.
What is even funnier is that in the past Blue himself has stated that he believes that someone commenting with his *unregistered* screenname is committing fraud and that Mike should *do* something about it.
Checkout this thread from when we had a couple of different people using the out_of_the_blue moniker just to annoy him:
On the post: Apple Informs Bloggers It Will Be Using Their Content In Its 'News' App Via An Opt-Out Only 'Agreement'
Re: Re: Re: HOLY CRAP! Another of Techdirt's startling REVERSES!
It's obvious that you either didn't read the article or didn't understand it. As Mike Ash put it (which is quoted in the article):
Putting your material on a RSS feed has already been established as an implicit opt-in to have your material republished elsewhere on the web. If you don't want it used - don't put in an RSS feed.
This article is complaining about Apple trying to force additional terms when they use the material from RSS feeds, which isn't cool.
There is no contradiction in Techdirt's view, except the one you've made up in your head.
On the post: Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments
Re: Re: Re: "exercised a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its portal"
Yeah, he also thinks that Techdirt "censors" him because the spam filter is probably setup to blacklist IP addresses that get huge amounts of "report" clicks.
On the post: Designer Knockoff Enthusiast Issues DMCA Notice Targeting Half The Internet, Fails To Remove A Single URL
Re: Response to: Chronno S. Trigger on Jun 17th, 2015 @ 9:51am
Actually, your comment is the one that is unwittingly revealing, Blue.
That you view Techdirt's comment section as a battlefield where the exchanges must be "won" says quite a bit about your character and morals.
Most everyone else is here to have thoughtful discussions and to possibly learn from opposing viewpoints and for the occasional laugh.
BTW, in my humble opinion, I would have to say that your actual debate winning percentage over the years here on Techdirt is somewhere around 2 or 3%. Making a comment then ignoring each and every rebuttal to that comment that shows how wrong you are is an overall loss in my book.
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
Re: Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
You are pretty much the only one who uses the greater than symbol instead of quotation marks or italics when quoting someone (the only other person I know who does that is a Federal agent who's comments are infinitely more intelligent than yours).
At least you admit you are a troll though, that's a start.
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments are reasonable?
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
Ignorant of what exactly? Do you really think that he wouldn't have been charged under the Espionage Act just because he turned himself in? That sounds like an ignorant statement to me.
PS: I knew that eventually that Shindlerisms would come out in this thread.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
I regard Snowden for what he is - someone who exposed programs that two separate courts, two separate White House review boards and plenty of others have noted to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.
That sounds like the very definition of a patriot to me.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
He did turn over all the information to the press.
...and turn himself in as a whistleblower instead of being a criminal and traitor.
You are making zero sense here. If he turned himself in as a "whistleblower" he would have been treated as a "criminal and traitor" just like the previous whistleblowers have been. What would have been gained by that?
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
Because the US is attempting to charge him under the Espionage Act, a law that effectively prevents the accused from making a valid defense of their actions.
Only a moron bets their life against the house when the house stacks the deck and only allows you to play the deuces from your hand.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not. Especially when in the full context of "and you die from old age". No moreso than "I wish you a long life" is any kind of threat to anyone, anywhere, ever.
Get a life, my friend.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You feel threatened when someone wishes you a long (albeit miserable) life?
Grow a pair, dude.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden
I doubt it. Based on the worn out arguments that keep getting repeated ad nauseam it sounds more like this idiot to me:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=john+schindler
On the post: Abbott & Costello Heirs Sue Play For Briefly Using 'Who's On First?' Routine
Re: Re: Re: WHAT? After all this time, Masnick ADMITS common law copyright even exists!!!???
There also the fact that Blue doesn't seem to realize that the phrase "common law copyright" has different definitions.
Blue use the term in the sense of a legal doctrine that is based on the contention that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property. Both the US (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834) and the UK (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) have rejected the "natural right" aspect of copyright.
Mike uses the term "common law copyright" to refer to state-level copyright which is preempted by federal copyright law. The only time state-level copyright is important is when it covered something that federal copyright law didn't cover at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright
On the post: Lawyer Stupidly Sues EFF For Defamation After It Called His Stupid Patent Stupid
Re: Need some serious research here...
My guess would be the Thomas M. Cooley Law School.
I heard somewhere that Suing Your Critics 134 is a pretty popular class.
On the post: Insanity Rules In Ireland: Media Ordered Not To Report On Parliamentary Speech
Re: Re: Enough sour grapes to start a whinery
Wait. Where did anyone accuse you of "infringing proprietary right to four characters."?
Hell, I've even given you permission to use mine a couple of years ago.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/14231422143/comcast-we-wont-terminate-your-account-un der-six-strikes-well-just-block-every-single-website.shtml#c1393
This probably has come up before. Did you back anyone previously objecting to "their" screen name being used by others?
It has come up before and you claimed it was (incorrectly of course) "fraud". Have you come to your senses nowadays or are you just a hypocrite?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/14231422143/comcast-we-wont-terminate-your-acco unt-under-six-strikes-well-just-block-every-single-website.shtml#c1562
GOTCHA, and QED.
Right back at ya.
On the post: CD Projekt Red Does Everything Right With Witcher 3 DRM & DLC...And Breaks Sales Records
Re: When Microsoft stops using mega-DRM, I'll believe that it doesn't work.
On the post: Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. A freelance photographer (ie: self-employed) only gives up the copyright when he or she signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire.
Here is what a lawyer for photographers has to say about it:
On the post: Book Publishers Whine To USTR That It's Just Not Fair That Canada Recognizes Fair Dealing For Educational Purposes
Re: Re: Techdirt Swearing stats
Blue asserts this like it's some sort of proven fact.
Personally, I'm not so convinced that Techdirt's female readers are so easily offended by a bit of salty language here and there.
However, I am curious, so perhaps some of you ladies could weigh in this issue?
On the post: Sony Uses Copyright To Force Verge To Takedown Its Copy Of Sony's Spotify Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I missed the point, by a wide margin apparently.
I was having a bad day and was kind of grumpy when I wrote that. That's not really an excuse, but it did cause me to entirely miss the joke behind that comment.
On the post: Book Publishers Whine To USTR That It's Just Not Fair That Canada Recognizes Fair Dealing For Educational Purposes
Re: Re:
What is even funnier is that in the past Blue himself has stated that he believes that someone commenting with his *unregistered* screenname is committing fraud and that Mike should *do* something about it.
Checkout this thread from when we had a couple of different people using the out_of_the_blue moniker just to annoy him:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/14231422143/comcast-we-wont-terminate-your-account-un der-six-strikes-well-just-block-every-single-website.shtml#c735
Next >>