Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Dec 2019 @ 1:30pm
Re:
Let's examine two scenarios. The first, as I stated above, it is perfectly legal to record broadcasts. The source does not matter, it could be TV (free over the air with ads), Cable (paid, but also with ads), or Satellite (also paid and also with ads), and I don't even have to be home during that recording. I can then, perfectly legally, edit out the commercials and save that file for future enjoyment (or torture depending on the quality of the program recorded). The rights holder received their compensation from whatever deals they made with the broadcasting entities and advertisers, whether I watch those ads or not.
The second scenario is a program that is downloaded via a torrent. The rights holder is in exactly the same financial position as in scenario number one.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Dec 2019 @ 9:06am
Not only not theft, but perfectly legal.
Recording broadcast programs is perfectly legal. That is in fact making a copy. It isn't theft and the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) that that was the law of the land. Now if one records a program and then tries to sell that copy, that would be wrong, and is definitely against the law. But this slogan 'Copying is not theft' says nothing about copying and then selling copies.
Conjecture, therefore leads me, for one, to believe that Teespring is bowing to pressure from some copyright maximalists who may or may not be threatening to remove their business from Teespring (or are pressuring them in some other way), and Teespring appears to value their volume of business (or fear whatever other threat was made) more than the volume of business from Techdirt. That tells us a lot about the integrity of the folks at Teespring.
I hope the new venue stands up better than the last one did.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Dec 2019 @ 9:49am
A rose by any other name
At a minimum there is a conflict as to what constitutes 'national security'.
For the DoJ it's anything they feel like pursuing or that they can't readily commit to surveillance within the bounds of the Constitution, or might make them work harder, even if the information they pass around is co-opted by those they pursue. For the DoD it is all the information they pass around that might benefit enemies of the United States, probably including but not limited to security arrangements, operational plans, etc..
I have heard some things being referred to as 'national security' or related to such that I have a very hard time discerning what it is about those things that is in fact related to our 'national security'. Some of our post WWII conflicts meet this criteria, depending upon how one feels about the domino effect. Many of our state department/CIA interventions in foreign countries meet this criteria. Some law enforcement actions (the sale or gift of military equipment to local law enforcement departments) definitely meet this criteria. Calling some definitely criminal actions 'terrorism' when it is merely criminal might meet that criteria.
In the end, the term 'national security' really depends upon the intent of the speaker, no matter how much their rhetoric attempts to lead one in another direction. Too often that phrase is wielded to achieve ends that don't require the means.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Dec 2019 @ 9:12am
Re:
"[D]raft a 2,000-3,000 word essay on the following subject: “Respect for the Court System is Essential to the Fair Administration of Justice,” forward the essay to Judge Coward for approval"
I know reading is hard, and comprehending even harder, but this is rather explicit.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Dec 2019 @ 7:02am
Re:
"Why not just issue the dude a fine and get on with things?"
Insufficient retribution for a vexed judge.
What is the cure for impulsively vexed judges? Apparently appeasement by the state appeals court, though that does nothing for the rule of law or respect for the constitution (which does injury to respect for the courts themselves).
A more serious question might be, why the hell didn't he bring up the First Amendment issue at the appeal? That there is a bit of some very fine lawyering. /s
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Dec 2019 @ 11:28am
Re:
Why would they watch porn when they have unfettered access to hookers and blow (at least until they get caught at those behaviors)? Double standards is not a uniquely congressional thing, but there is significant precedent.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Dec 2019 @ 7:17am
Re: France: For when you thought it wasn't possible to screw up
I can't wait to see what Frances' reaction will be when their next upcoming generation finds out that some culture, culture they would like to be immersed in, exists outside of their country (I should live so long). Or worse, that the only culture they know, due to these restrictions, is what is produced in France and that it is less than compelling. (Makes one wonder what their history books will look like, or what students of say art or music history will or won't learn?)
Then, that generation will find out how hard it will be to change these laws as they will spend their next 20+ years gaining enough influence to have sufficient impact to overcome the entrenched bought and paid for positions currently being taken.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 11:45am
Re: FBI Not Using This???
Could it be that they are upset that they don't have access to those feeds? We already know that they are very sensitive to butt hurt. On the other hand, maybe they found out that some of them own such TV's and are upset that THEY are being spied upon.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 11:41am
Re: Re: Fingerprint scan a spot not on your fingertip
I can see you now, walking down the street, phone rings and you whip off your shoe and sock and then drop you phone to the ground and press a toe to the sensor, just to answer a spam call.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 8:22am
Re: Re: There's other ways in and out of the country
I imagine the goal is to try to improve the technology (but only to appease the most strident objectors) enough to roll it out...everywhere. Every telephone pole, every stop light, every street light, every cop with a camera, every every etc..
The thing is, will it be used to catch more criminals, or terrorists, or objectors, or to hassle a sufficient number of people to put the rest of us in a more submissive state of mind?
I think the likelihood of that latter one is much too strong a possibility to be ignored.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 12:41pm
Re: Ah those silver linings...
When all the states, and the Feds have anti-SLAPP laws strong enough to deter Devin Nunes, he will become a libel tourist, just like Tony Robbins. Not that he will get any satisfaction there, either.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:12am
Re: Re: Re:
ISP's enable their customers to access the Internet and/or the WWW. Just to be clear, the Internet and/or the WWW are world wide thingy's. Now how is an ISP's gonna moderate the entire world and every site on those truly extensive networks?
You are conflating ISP and platform, and not for the first time. Like the idiot so called comedian in the extant article you think you deserve more than you actually deserve. If in fact if you did deserve something you would get it.
Oh, you do deserve something, the derision of every thinking human that visits this website, and to a large extent you are getting what you deserve. Derision.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:15am
The future of derision
In 2039, or there about, someone will be discussing some huge scam being pulled by some industry very publicly and on a website like Techdirt, or maybe even Techdirt itself, someone will snort "Yeah, they're trying to pull a 5G on us".
Whether that future post wins an insightful vote or funny vote, or both remains to be seen.
On the post: Teespring Takes Down Our Copying Is Not Theft Gear, Refuses To Say Why
Re:
Let's examine two scenarios. The first, as I stated above, it is perfectly legal to record broadcasts. The source does not matter, it could be TV (free over the air with ads), Cable (paid, but also with ads), or Satellite (also paid and also with ads), and I don't even have to be home during that recording. I can then, perfectly legally, edit out the commercials and save that file for future enjoyment (or torture depending on the quality of the program recorded). The rights holder received their compensation from whatever deals they made with the broadcasting entities and advertisers, whether I watch those ads or not.
The second scenario is a program that is downloaded via a torrent. The rights holder is in exactly the same financial position as in scenario number one.
So, who lost money?
On the post: Teespring Takes Down Our Copying Is Not Theft Gear, Refuses To Say Why
Not only not theft, but perfectly legal.
Recording broadcast programs is perfectly legal. That is in fact making a copy. It isn't theft and the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) that that was the law of the land. Now if one records a program and then tries to sell that copy, that would be wrong, and is definitely against the law. But this slogan 'Copying is not theft' says nothing about copying and then selling copies.
Conjecture, therefore leads me, for one, to believe that Teespring is bowing to pressure from some copyright maximalists who may or may not be threatening to remove their business from Teespring (or are pressuring them in some other way), and Teespring appears to value their volume of business (or fear whatever other threat was made) more than the volume of business from Techdirt. That tells us a lot about the integrity of the folks at Teespring.
I hope the new venue stands up better than the last one did.
On the post: Defense Department To Congress: 'No, Wait, Encryption Is Actually Good; Don't Break It'
A rose by any other name
At a minimum there is a conflict as to what constitutes 'national security'.
For the DoJ it's anything they feel like pursuing or that they can't readily commit to surveillance within the bounds of the Constitution, or might make them work harder, even if the information they pass around is co-opted by those they pursue. For the DoD it is all the information they pass around that might benefit enemies of the United States, probably including but not limited to security arrangements, operational plans, etc..
I have heard some things being referred to as 'national security' or related to such that I have a very hard time discerning what it is about those things that is in fact related to our 'national security'. Some of our post WWII conflicts meet this criteria, depending upon how one feels about the domino effect. Many of our state department/CIA interventions in foreign countries meet this criteria. Some law enforcement actions (the sale or gift of military equipment to local law enforcement departments) definitely meet this criteria. Calling some definitely criminal actions 'terrorism' when it is merely criminal might meet that criteria.
In the end, the term 'national security' really depends upon the intent of the speaker, no matter how much their rhetoric attempts to lead one in another direction. Too often that phrase is wielded to achieve ends that don't require the means.
On the post: Judge Orders Man Who Violated Recording Ban To Publish An Essay About Respecting The Court AND To Delete All Negative Comments From Readers
Re:
I know reading is hard, and comprehending even harder, but this is rather explicit.
On the post: Judge Orders Man Who Violated Recording Ban To Publish An Essay About Respecting The Court AND To Delete All Negative Comments From Readers
Re:
Insufficient retribution for a vexed judge.
What is the cure for impulsively vexed judges? Apparently appeasement by the state appeals court, though that does nothing for the rule of law or respect for the constitution (which does injury to respect for the courts themselves).
A more serious question might be, why the hell didn't he bring up the First Amendment issue at the appeal? That there is a bit of some very fine lawyering. /s
On the post: Four Congressional Reps Ask Bill Barr To Restart His War On Porn
Re:
Why would they watch porn when they have unfettered access to hookers and blow (at least until they get caught at those behaviors)? Double standards is not a uniquely congressional thing, but there is significant precedent.
On the post: France, As Promised, Is First Out Of The Gate With Its Awful Copyright Directive Law: Ignores Requirements For User Protections
Re: France: For when you thought it wasn't possible to screw up
I can't wait to see what Frances' reaction will be when their next upcoming generation finds out that some culture, culture they would like to be immersed in, exists outside of their country (I should live so long). Or worse, that the only culture they know, due to these restrictions, is what is produced in France and that it is less than compelling. (Makes one wonder what their history books will look like, or what students of say art or music history will or won't learn?)
Then, that generation will find out how hard it will be to change these laws as they will spend their next 20+ years gaining enough influence to have sufficient impact to overcome the entrenched bought and paid for positions currently being taken.
On the post: Attorney General To Law Enforcement Critics: Good Luck Getting A Cop When You Need One
Respect
Barr doesn't know what it is.
Many cop's don't seem to know what it is.
Neither of them appear to know how one achieves it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0
It's earned, not given.
On the post: It Doesn't Take A Genius To Recognize How Dumb Genius' Lawsuit Against Google Is Over 'Stolen' Lyrics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Watermark removal
Not like WordPerfect did. Word only shows some codes, WordPerfect showed EVERYTHING.
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
It appear that DHS has dropped this strategy
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-12-05/trump-administration-drops-plans-for-m andatory-face-scans-of-citizens
On the post: The FBI Says Your TV Is Probably Spying On You
Re: FBI Not Using This???
Could it be that they are upset that they don't have access to those feeds? We already know that they are very sensitive to butt hurt. On the other hand, maybe they found out that some of them own such TV's and are upset that THEY are being spied upon.
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Compelled Production Of Fingerprints To Unlock A Phone Doesn't Violate The Constitution
Re: Re: Fingerprint scan a spot not on your fingertip
I can see you now, walking down the street, phone rings and you whip off your shoe and sock and then drop you phone to the ground and press a toe to the sensor, just to answer a spam call.
On the post: It Doesn't Take A Genius To Recognize How Dumb Genius' Lawsuit Against Google Is Over 'Stolen' Lyrics
Re: Watermark removal
I miss WordPerfect and its 'reveal codes' function.
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
Re: Re: ALREADY DONE
I know California offers ID's via the DMV rather than Drivers Licenses that qualify for 'Real ID', and I imagine that other states do as well.
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
Re: Re: There's other ways in and out of the country
I imagine the goal is to try to improve the technology (but only to appease the most strident objectors) enough to roll it out...everywhere. Every telephone pole, every stop light, every street light, every cop with a camera, every every etc..
The thing is, will it be used to catch more criminals, or terrorists, or objectors, or to hassle a sufficient number of people to put the rest of us in a more submissive state of mind?
I think the likelihood of that latter one is much too strong a possibility to be ignored.
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
Re: Sneaky sneaky
Where did you get the willingly part? To some extent if the choice is to give in or not fly, it isn't always 'willingly'.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Virginia SLAPP Suits Causing Virginia Legislators To Consider A New Anti-SLAPP Law
Re: Ah those silver linings...
When all the states, and the Feds have anti-SLAPP laws strong enough to deter Devin Nunes, he will become a libel tourist, just like Tony Robbins. Not that he will get any satisfaction there, either.
On the post: AT&T Says The Real Problem With The Internet Is We Pay Too Much Attention To Giant ISPs
Shut up and serve my Internets
ISP's should be dumb pipes. Please let them be dumb, in all the varieties of definition that word allows.
On the post: Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...
Re: Re: Re:
ISP's enable their customers to access the Internet and/or the WWW. Just to be clear, the Internet and/or the WWW are world wide thingy's. Now how is an ISP's gonna moderate the entire world and every site on those truly extensive networks?
You are conflating ISP and platform, and not for the first time. Like the idiot so called comedian in the extant article you think you deserve more than you actually deserve. If in fact if you did deserve something you would get it.
Oh, you do deserve something, the derision of every thinking human that visits this website, and to a large extent you are getting what you deserve. Derision.
On the post: T-Mobile's 'Nationwide' 5G Isn't Nationwide, Only Slightly Faster Than 4G
The future of derision
In 2039, or there about, someone will be discussing some huge scam being pulled by some industry very publicly and on a website like Techdirt, or maybe even Techdirt itself, someone will snort "Yeah, they're trying to pull a 5G on us".
Whether that future post wins an insightful vote or funny vote, or both remains to be seen.
Next >>