By the way, how to you propose to verify identity without a photo ID?
The better question is: How does verifying identity make flying safer? Furthermore, when I was 17 I had a fake ID. If *I* can do it, you think it will be tough for a well-funded and motivated terrorist organization to get one? Really?
By the way, if I was standing in line at security and ended up missing my flight because of some smart aleck in front of me trying to prove a point, I'd be pretty pissed. Not that it happened in this instance, but just saying, in case a significant number of you are getting any bright ideas about trying this.
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"-- Mario Savio's Sproul Hall speech December 3, 1964.
First off, distributed DNS is a fail - you use the same pipes, the same networks. Unless you are going to run all your own fiber, and set up your own alternative network, you are still on the same pipes. Doesn't matter how you try to hide.
I don't think you understand what Distributed DNS is supposed to prevent. It's not meant to hide anything at all, in fact, it's meant to help things *stay visible*. Sorry to ruin that argument, though. You've used it before at it seems like you really liked it.
If anything, using it shows a guilty mind, a desire to hide something. It's a big loser all around.
Ignoring the fact that the subject that spawned this gem of a statement was based on incorrect information, wishing to hide does not prove guilt. It proves fear. It can be a fear of being caught, yes, but it also can include a fear of being wrongly accused, or persecuted unjustly, etc.
Sneakernet? Knock yourself out. I will be particularly interested to see which idiots are paid to swim the atlantic to take things to Europe.
These idiots will do it. You fail at understanding what a "sneakernet" really is. (Hint: It doesn't involve actual sneakers.)
Darknets? Please... go now. Go hide, and don't tell the rest of the public how to get in. That would resolve much of the piracy issue immediately.
You also fail to understand the term "Darknet". My my, you certainly have a loose grasp of these things!
Who are you to demand this stuff?
Since every so-called "anti-piracy" law and every "piracy" lawsuit is *based* on the "fact" that filesharing hurts artists and will ruin creative sectors of the market, I think everyone has a right to demand it. Do you disagree?
PS- You should cut out all that "freetard" stuff, it has the opposite effect you're hoping for.
If you're here for a discussion, have one. If you're here to cause trouble, aka to troll, then you *really* need a hobby. If trolling *is* your hobby, well, you need to apply yourself, because "freetard" is just as pathetic as people who would call Pro-IP people "sheeple".
It's fun to watch the trolls play with each other. I would *love* to know what makes them so happy that we now have a lawyer on our payroll whose claim to fame is failing. Twice.
What confuses me (about the trolls *and* Mike) is why it is assumed that the cases he has worked on reflect his personal feelings on the matter. I'm probably being naive, but taking those cases was just a job, right? He was told to sue these people, and paid to do so, so he did.
Although I usually notice when someone other than Mike is the author, I feel that most people (and all trolls) fail to notice it. Perhaps TechDirt should make the author's name flash and be in all caps when it's not Mike. It would bring an early 90's flavor to the site!
Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
The forgiving part of me wants to say that these TSA officers and Law Enforcement Officers were simply ignorant of the law, or confused at what the law really says-- I mean, they can't know the ins and outs of every law. Then, I recall what *every* cop and lawyer and judge will tell you if you break a law you didn't realize you were breaking: Ignorance of the law is no defense. If I, as a non-lawyer, non-law enforcement functionary, am expected to know the laws that bind me such that *not* knowing is a fault on my part, then surely we can hold the very people who are binding us to these laws to the same standard.
I say they should be held accountable, to the maximum extent of the law. They'd do the same to me.
Your entire post, just as Mike said, focuses on how piracy is "wrong" instead of looking at the overall impact. What would the graph of people who clicked on the app, read the description, and then decided not to buy be? Way higher than the piracy graph, yet people never seem to moan about *those* "lost potential sales", do they? Yet, if I look at an app and decide not to buy or look at an app and decide to pirate, the developer has to do *zero* extra work. He has lost nothing.
Now, if piracy results in doubling his sales, with him having to do *zero* extra work, then it would be wise to focus on the money you're getting for doing zero extra work instead of the money you aren't getting for doing zero extra work. Only a very bad businessman would complain that income has increased without extra work being done.
I don't know if you forgot to read the article or if you are ignoring everything in the article, but here goes:
you should be able to reasonably expect that an established journalist will not go to lengths to track you down and confront you.
I find this statement puzzling. Are you suggesting that there should be no consequence for insulting someone? If I go up to someone and tell him his mother is a dirty whore, I would not be at all surprised to find a fist headed my way. This is what some people call "consequences". Every action has them and they're not always good.
Should we not reasonable expect that our guests will at least moderately follow the rules of polite society?
This, I think, is the most confusing part of what you said. Did you read the article? After flinging insults at Mr. Pearlman, a commenter tweeted "I got caught up in the anonymity of the internet. I'm sorry and here is a legit post with my criticisms." The pasted link was to hardcore porn, and according to Mr. Pearlman: "When I later noted to Matt, via Twitter, that my 7-year-old daughter happened to be next to me when I clicked on the picture, he wrote: "lmao. You're so full of ----."
There certainly does seem to be a lot of broken rules for a polite society, but I can't find any from Mr. Pearlman. Can you?
This is the online equivalent of going 10 miles out of your way to follow someone home who has cut you off in traffic, so that you can scream and shake your fist at them face-to-face.
Again, from the article: "I aspired to know why Matt, cloaked in the anonymity provided by the internet, felt the need to respond in such a way to, of all things, a Jeff Bagwell post."
To use your analogy, it would be like following someone home who has cut you off in traffic to calmly ask them what was so important to endanger your life and the life of your family in your car and having them, shamefully, mention not wanting to miss the new episode of Jersey Shore.
Only in this case, it has the potential to impact his job as he risks alienating readers.
This, also, goes both ways. Mr. Pearlman states: "Quite frankly, I wanted to hate him. I wanted to bash him. I wanted to plaster his name, address and personal information atop a column on CNN.com, so that when someone Googled his name for future employment, they'd find the words 'Sent me a link to pornographic material.'"
Yet, in the article, Mr. Pearlman only uses first names and does not vilify the commenters, instead portraying them as real people who were ashamed at being called out for their behavior. I find it difficult to find even one fault on the part of Mr. Pearlman, who appears to have conducted himself quite honorably, and find it very puzzling that you do.
(720 ILCS 5/14‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14‑2)
Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended;
For purposes of this Article, the term electronic communication means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, where the sending and receiving parties intend the electronic communication to be private and the interception, recording, or transcription of the electronic communication is accomplished by a device in a surreptitious manner contrary to the provisions of this Article. Electronic communication does not include any communication from a tracking device. (All emphasis is mine!)
=======
Do you consider your eyes a "photo optical system"? If so, then maybe. :)
Not only does it not prohibit it, but if you recall the Freedom of the Press portion of the first amendment, a savvy lawyer (IANAL) could spin it in such a way that the First Amendment *protects* gathering news, allowing for public recording without consent from all parties.
Yeah, now I notice that they do, however, from what I can make out through the legalese, it requires a judge's approval beforehand, with some exceptions that still require a judge's approval after the fact.
It's also worth noting that the definition of "eavesdropping device" is very broad.
I'm also sad to learn that my state of Massachusetts is one of the 12 states that require all parties consent to record a conversation-- but is singled out with Illinois as the only two states that don't have an exception to this law for public conversations where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Very disturbing. I'm going to have a tough time boycotting my state of residence. :/
Also, one has to wonder if this would ever make it past a jury. They just need *one* person in the jury who thinks cops have too much power and, let's be honest, they do. Seems like a bad law and a waste of taxpayer money.
It is curious that this law also applies to law enforcement. I doubt it's quite as aggressively enforced going the other way.
Luckily, The ACLU are on this. Further reading from digging around links from the article are about Micheal Allison and Chris Drew. I do find it off that the law is max 3 yrs for first offense, and 5 for more than one *unless* you're recording a judge, attorney or a cop-- where it's 15 years max. So, if I record a cop without consent while that cop records me without consent, I'll go away for a max of 15 years and he'll get a max of 3. For recording the same exact conversation. That seems fair, right? :/
Ignoring the fact that proving a negative is very difficult: We have buttons that say "Insightful" "Funny" and "Report". Occam's Razor says that we should tend to the simplest answer until we can trade simplicity for a more thorough answer. Thus, the simplest answer is that the buttons are there to allow us to vote.
If you have proof that they do not work as expected, feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.
If clicking something has no measurable effect for you, it could be as simple as that comment did not get whatever arbitrary number of votes required to get the flag. See above for why this answer is the more likely answer.
So, no, some artists do very well on studio only music.
No, some people used to do very well on studio only music. Similarly, some people used to do very well delivering ice to people's homes. Then some asshole invented a way for people to make ice at home. If those ice guys were smart, they would have lobbied hard and made it illegal to make ice at home. Right?
Well-- and this is just a theory-- if one were paid to come troll here then one would be used to not having to troll on the weekends. Now, if TD suddenly starts posting on the weekends, one would be "forced" to come to TD.
On the post: Taking The Long View: App Developer Happy That Piracy Doubled His Sales
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you only read the title and then skip right to the comments. But, no one does that, right? :)
On the post: Man Acquitted In Lawsuit Over Filming The TSA And Not Showing ID
Re: from TSA website
The better question is: How does verifying identity make flying safer? Furthermore, when I was 17 I had a fake ID. If *I* can do it, you think it will be tough for a well-funded and motivated terrorist organization to get one? Really?
By the way, if I was standing in line at security and ended up missing my flight because of some smart aleck in front of me trying to prove a point, I'd be pretty pissed. Not that it happened in this instance, but just saying, in case a significant number of you are getting any bright ideas about trying this.
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"-- Mario Savio's Sproul Hall speech December 3, 1964.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you understand what Distributed DNS is supposed to prevent. It's not meant to hide anything at all, in fact, it's meant to help things *stay visible*. Sorry to ruin that argument, though. You've used it before at it seems like you really liked it.
If anything, using it shows a guilty mind, a desire to hide something. It's a big loser all around.
Ignoring the fact that the subject that spawned this gem of a statement was based on incorrect information, wishing to hide does not prove guilt. It proves fear. It can be a fear of being caught, yes, but it also can include a fear of being wrongly accused, or persecuted unjustly, etc.
Sneakernet? Knock yourself out. I will be particularly interested to see which idiots are paid to swim the atlantic to take things to Europe.
These idiots will do it. You fail at understanding what a "sneakernet" really is. (Hint: It doesn't involve actual sneakers.)
Darknets? Please... go now. Go hide, and don't tell the rest of the public how to get in. That would resolve much of the piracy issue immediately.
You also fail to understand the term "Darknet". My my, you certainly have a loose grasp of these things!
Who are you to demand this stuff?
Since every so-called "anti-piracy" law and every "piracy" lawsuit is *based* on the "fact" that filesharing hurts artists and will ruin creative sectors of the market, I think everyone has a right to demand it. Do you disagree?
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re:
PS- You should cut out all that "freetard" stuff, it has the opposite effect you're hoping for.
If you're here for a discussion, have one. If you're here to cause trouble, aka to troll, then you *really* need a hobby. If trolling *is* your hobby, well, you need to apply yourself, because "freetard" is just as pathetic as people who would call Pro-IP people "sheeple".
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Mr. Wolf.
What confuses me (about the trolls *and* Mike) is why it is assumed that the cases he has worked on reflect his personal feelings on the matter. I'm probably being naive, but taking those cases was just a job, right? He was told to sue these people, and paid to do so, so he did.
On the post: Taking The Long View: App Developer Happy That Piracy Doubled His Sales
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Acquitted In Lawsuit Over Filming The TSA And Not Showing ID
Re: Shouldn't the officers get in some type of trouble in fact breaking the law?
I say they should be held accountable, to the maximum extent of the law. They'd do the same to me.
On the post: Taking The Long View: App Developer Happy That Piracy Doubled His Sales
Re: Re: Re:
Now, if piracy results in doubling his sales, with him having to do *zero* extra work, then it would be wise to focus on the money you're getting for doing zero extra work instead of the money you aren't getting for doing zero extra work. Only a very bad businessman would complain that income has increased without extra work being done.
On the post: Sports Columnist Tracks Down Trolls And Calls Them
Re: Re: Re: Bad
you should be able to reasonably expect that an established journalist will not go to lengths to track you down and confront you.
I find this statement puzzling. Are you suggesting that there should be no consequence for insulting someone? If I go up to someone and tell him his mother is a dirty whore, I would not be at all surprised to find a fist headed my way. This is what some people call "consequences". Every action has them and they're not always good.
Should we not reasonable expect that our guests will at least moderately follow the rules of polite society?
This, I think, is the most confusing part of what you said. Did you read the article? After flinging insults at Mr. Pearlman, a commenter tweeted "I got caught up in the anonymity of the internet. I'm sorry and here is a legit post with my criticisms." The pasted link was to hardcore porn, and according to Mr. Pearlman: "When I later noted to Matt, via Twitter, that my 7-year-old daughter happened to be next to me when I clicked on the picture, he wrote: "lmao. You're so full of ----."
There certainly does seem to be a lot of broken rules for a polite society, but I can't find any from Mr. Pearlman. Can you?
This is the online equivalent of going 10 miles out of your way to follow someone home who has cut you off in traffic, so that you can scream and shake your fist at them face-to-face.
Again, from the article: "I aspired to know why Matt, cloaked in the anonymity provided by the internet, felt the need to respond in such a way to, of all things, a Jeff Bagwell post."
To use your analogy, it would be like following someone home who has cut you off in traffic to calmly ask them what was so important to endanger your life and the life of your family in your car and having them, shamefully, mention not wanting to miss the new episode of Jersey Shore.
Only in this case, it has the potential to impact his job as he risks alienating readers.
This, also, goes both ways. Mr. Pearlman states: "Quite frankly, I wanted to hate him. I wanted to bash him. I wanted to plaster his name, address and personal information atop a column on CNN.com, so that when someone Googled his name for future employment, they'd find the words 'Sent me a link to pornographic material.'"
Yet, in the article, Mr. Pearlman only uses first names and does not vilify the commenters, instead portraying them as real people who were ashamed at being called out for their behavior. I find it difficult to find even one fault on the part of Mr. Pearlman, who appears to have conducted himself quite honorably, and find it very puzzling that you do.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re:
Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended;
For purposes of this Article, the term electronic communication means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, where the sending and receiving parties intend the electronic communication to be private and the interception, recording, or transcription of the electronic communication is accomplished by a device in a surreptitious manner contrary to the provisions of this Article. Electronic communication does not include any communication from a tracking device. (All emphasis is mine!)
=======
Do you consider your eyes a "photo optical system"? If so, then maybe. :)
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Free press
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: 12 Monkeys
It's also worth noting that the definition of "eavesdropping device" is very broad.
I'm also sad to learn that my state of Massachusetts is one of the 12 states that require all parties consent to record a conversation-- but is singled out with Illinois as the only two states that don't have an exception to this law for public conversations where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Very disturbing. I'm going to have a tough time boycotting my state of residence. :/
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
12 Monkeys
Also, one has to wonder if this would ever make it past a jury. They just need *one* person in the jury who thinks cops have too much power and, let's be honest, they do. Seems like a bad law and a waste of taxpayer money.
It is curious that this law also applies to law enforcement. I doubt it's quite as aggressively enforced going the other way.
Luckily, The ACLU are on this. Further reading from digging around links from the article are about Micheal Allison and Chris Drew. I do find it off that the law is max 3 yrs for first offense, and 5 for more than one *unless* you're recording a judge, attorney or a cop-- where it's 15 years max. So, if I record a cop without consent while that cop records me without consent, I'll go away for a max of 15 years and he'll get a max of 3. For recording the same exact conversation. That seems fair, right? :/
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
If you have proof that they do not work as expected, feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.
If clicking something has no measurable effect for you, it could be as simple as that comment did not get whatever arbitrary number of votes required to get the flag. See above for why this answer is the more likely answer.
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketing?
No, some people used to do very well on studio only music. Similarly, some people used to do very well delivering ice to people's homes. Then some asshole invented a way for people to make ice at home. If those ice guys were smart, they would have lobbied hard and made it illegal to make ice at home. Right?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Vote? What Vote?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Again, just a theory. :)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Re:
Now, here he is, practicing what he preaches and you act like he's doing something *bad* by adding value to his fans?!
..and like a lightbulb going on, it is obvious to me that you aren't a troll, you *honestly* don't understand what Mike is talking about. Very sad.
Next >>