Your question, if you'd actually read and understood the article, should be "How dare they claim year after year that piracy is killing the movie industry, while revenues increase year after year".
"You demand proof that this capability is needed, but then set an impossible standard for that proof - show us a case where you couldn't break the encryption on a phone, but whatever was on the phone was vital to solving the case."
Fair enough, let's flip it around. Law enforcement keep banging on as if they're losing something important to them, but this is a fairly recent change from Apple and Google so there must be a history they can present where having access to phones solved lots of horrible crimes. But I don't see any of those stories being talked about. Instead we get weak hypothetical scenarios that are easily shot down. Doesn't seem like they have a strong case at all.
"These officers just did what their supervisor told them to do. They are pawns in a chess game."
You're wrong. They may or may not have had approval or encouragement from supervisors, but they did want they did because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it. No decent human being would follow orders to do what they did. They're thugs with no respect for the laws they've been entrusted to uphold. This incident reflects terribly on the processes for vetting police candidates and monitoring ongoing behavior.
Re: I blame pirates while Techdirt blames creators. But then I'm reasonably moral, not a pirate who gains the unearned and whose thefts create the very problems that they then use to justify more piracy.
"It's always decent people who pay the price for thefts by moral lepers."
Ignoring your obvious ignorance of leprosy and resulting failed analogy, there is simply no good reason why there needs to be a tax on the possibility of infringement occurring. This method does absolutely nothing to benefit content creators; it is simply a money grab by people with absolutely no claim to any moral high ground.
Re: Yet again, problem is simply lawyers, the cockroaches of civilization. They'll do anything for hire.
"By the way, who is Jared Lota? You're publicizing him to people who otherwise didn't know even the name..."
Why would you leap to such an inane assumption? A lot of people with an interest in modern rock music and/or movies will recognize him. Your own ignorance doesn't undermine the article one bit.
"Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so "new and innovative" that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators?"
What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn't actually make it right or even smart.
"Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?"
This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike's comments on them?
Don't worry, we know you're a hypocrite who won't answer.
Re: It's the same move repeated over and over again by pirates: rather than pay the producers a pittance, they use technology to evade clear law and then don't understand why people get pissed off and try to stop their thefts.
"Now, I've provided a button nearby for pirates to click so they can make clear their intent to continue stealing."
I looked but couldn't find it, so I just hit 'report' instead.
"Instead of answering free speech with more speech, just censor away, kids."
The long list of comments answering you bears a striking resemblance to "more speech"...
"Yes, but you seem to be taking this from the attitude that every Web site should have comments."
I disagree, I think the criticism here is aimed squarely at the lame and disingenuous claims of improving the community by killing comments. I don't see anything above saying websites must have commenting.
Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"
"It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content."
If you want creators to have sole control of copies (yes, SOLE control!) of their creations, perhaps you should turn your attention to the fact that the first thing most creators have to do when publishing their work is to completely relinquish that control to industry gatekeepers. There are few "actualities" in your claims of creator control.
"Yeah, it's so hard to find actual infringers that they must be making it up."
No, it's hard to profit from actual infringers, which is what these clowns are trying to do. Try to look beyond your usual "dirty pirates!" schtick and take note of the fact that this purely abuse of the copyright system for profit. If you're really so sure copyright is the only thing preventing total cultural meltdown then you should be equally outraged against it's abuse by people who have zero interest in actually protecting artists or their output.
Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.
"Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?"
So do you think people selling houses or cars or every used item on eBay have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations either? Would you like to tax every single person selling something they bought? You're right that's another topic, but one you'll never discuss because you know such sheer idiocy would have you mocked clean off the internet.
It's still grandstanding. He's warning about an action that is extremely unlikely to happen. Nothing in the recent stories about drones around fires even hinted at deliberate malice towards aircrew.
You're talking about two types of vehicle both referred to as 'drones', but are almost completely unrelated otherwise. Any comparison between the two as you've done just sounds silly.
On the post: Hollywood Keeps Breaking Box Office Records... While Still Insisting That The Internet Is Killing Movies
Re:
Reading comprehension fail. Again.
Your question, if you'd actually read and understood the article, should be "How dare they claim year after year that piracy is killing the movie industry, while revenues increase year after year".
On the post: Hollywood Keeps Breaking Box Office Records... While Still Insisting That The Internet Is Killing Movies
Re: Re: Re: @ "call your customer base thief's and assign blame,"
...he says while blindly ignoring multiple studies that show that pirates are in fact damn good customers.
On the post: Manhattan District Attorney Ratchets Up The 'Going Dark' FUD; Leaves Out Its Connection To Shady Hacking Team
Re: Mission Impossible ?
Fair enough, let's flip it around. Law enforcement keep banging on as if they're losing something important to them, but this is a fairly recent change from Apple and Google so there must be a history they can present where having access to phones solved lots of horrible crimes. But I don't see any of those stories being talked about. Instead we get weak hypothetical scenarios that are easily shot down. Doesn't seem like they have a strong case at all.
On the post: Cops Caught Misbehaving During Pot Dispensary Raid Sue Police Dept. To Prevent Recording From Being Used Against Them
Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice
You're wrong. They may or may not have had approval or encouragement from supervisors, but they did want they did because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it. No decent human being would follow orders to do what they did. They're thugs with no respect for the laws they've been entrusted to uphold. This incident reflects terribly on the processes for vetting police candidates and monitoring ongoing behavior.
On the post: Belgian Collection Society Wants To Extend Its 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax To Cover All-In-One Printers
Re: I blame pirates while Techdirt blames creators. But then I'm reasonably moral, not a pirate who gains the unearned and whose thefts create the very problems that they then use to justify more piracy.
Ignoring your obvious ignorance of leprosy and resulting failed analogy, there is simply no good reason why there needs to be a tax on the possibility of infringement occurring. This method does absolutely nothing to benefit content creators; it is simply a money grab by people with absolutely no claim to any moral high ground.
On the post: Belgian Collection Society Wants To Extend Its 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax To Cover All-In-One Printers
Re: I'm not sure your characterization is correct
Why on earth should anyone be taxed for making legitimate private copies?
On the post: Jared Leto's Lawyer Sends Ridiculously Bogus Cease & Desist, Calling Lots Of Attention To Statements About Him
Re: Yet again, problem is simply lawyers, the cockroaches of civilization. They'll do anything for hire.
Why would you leap to such an inane assumption? A lot of people with an interest in modern rock music and/or movies will recognize him. Your own ignorance doesn't undermine the article one bit.
On the post: US Pushing To Kill Any Future Aereo With TPP
Re:
What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn't actually make it right or even smart.
"Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?"
This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike's comments on them?
Don't worry, we know you're a hypocrite who won't answer.
On the post: RIAA Asks BitTorrent Inc. To Block Infringing Content With A Hash Filter
Re: It's the same move repeated over and over again by pirates: rather than pay the producers a pittance, they use technology to evade clear law and then don't understand why people get pissed off and try to stop their thefts.
I looked but couldn't find it, so I just hit 'report' instead.
"Instead of answering free speech with more speech, just censor away, kids."
The long list of comments answering you bears a striking resemblance to "more speech"...
On the post: Daily Dot Latest To 'Keep Conversation Moving Forward' By Not Letting Site Visitors Comment At All
Re: A Sense of Strategy
I disagree, I think the criticism here is aimed squarely at the lame and disingenuous claims of improving the community by killing comments. I don't see anything above saying websites must have commenting.
On the post: Judge Curious If Malibu Media Is Seeding Its Own Files And Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"
If you want creators to have sole control of copies (yes, SOLE control!) of their creations, perhaps you should turn your attention to the fact that the first thing most creators have to do when publishing their work is to completely relinquish that control to industry gatekeepers. There are few "actualities" in your claims of creator control.
On the post: Judge Curious If Malibu Media Is Seeding Its Own Files And Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Re:
No, it's hard to profit from actual infringers, which is what these clowns are trying to do. Try to look beyond your usual "dirty pirates!" schtick and take note of the fact that this purely abuse of the copyright system for profit. If you're really so sure copyright is the only thing preventing total cultural meltdown then you should be equally outraged against it's abuse by people who have zero interest in actually protecting artists or their output.
On the post: Taylor Swift's Streaming Rant Nearly Identical To Garth Brooks' Used CD Rant
Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.
So do you think people selling houses or cars or every used item on eBay have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations either? Would you like to tax every single person selling something they bought? You're right that's another topic, but one you'll never discuss because you know such sheer idiocy would have you mocked clean off the internet.
On the post: DA Claims He'll Charge Drone Operators Near Wildfires For Murder
Re:
On the post: DA Claims He'll Charge Drone Operators Near Wildfires For Murder
On the post: DA Claims He'll Charge Drone Operators Near Wildfires For Murder
Re:
On the post: Vizio Latest Manufacturer To Offer More Ways For TVs To Watch Purchasers
Re: Re: Bogus Instructions
That's what this guy thought...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131119/06503625288/lg-smart-tv-caught-collecting-data- files-stored-connected-usb-drives.shtml
On the post: Topsite Operator, Who Admitted To Operating Servers With Tons Of Pirated Movies, Gets Off With Just Probation
Re:
I also find it strange that someone convicted for a crime is not being named. Do I trouble you greatly too?
On the post: Topsite Operator, Who Admitted To Operating Servers With Tons Of Pirated Movies, Gets Off With Just Probation
Re: Re: You're just wrong, Masnick
On the post: Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Via Today Show And WSJ
Re:
Next >>