the defenestrator’s Comments

• Nov 19th, 2013 @ 1:45pm

  and now for something completely different...

  on Google Announces More Child Porn Blocking Efforts While David Cameron Offers To Throw The GCHQ At The Problem
  Of course, the copyright maximalists are spinning this their own way, saying that this "proves" that Google could stop piracy if they wanted to right now.
  
  Oh, and the fact that Google hasn't done this also "proves" that all Google cares about is making money off of piracy...
• Aug 17th, 2012 @ 3:34pm

  Re:

  on Band Calls 1st Amendment A 'Buzzword' In (Plagiarized) C&D To Mitt Romney Over (Licensed) Use Of Song
  Ah, so you know Ermintrude Inch, too!
• Jul 27th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

  (untitled comment)

  on RIAA's Backdoor Plan For Using 'Six Strikes' Plan To Cut Off Internet Access For People
  This is something I've seen spouted more and more by copyright maximalists over the last few months...basically a variation of "ISPs need to follow the law and terminate repeat infringers!"
  
  And of course, since they're not doing it - or so the maximalists believe - ISPs are also profiting from piracy.
  
  I understand that the DMCA (sorry, don't know which part) requires that service providers have a repeat infringer policy, but is there something in the law that says that infringers MUST be disconnected? I mean its just a policy, right?
  
  Also, could the RIAA take the ISP to court for not terminating somebody? Is this why so many ISPs agreed to this "voluntary" plan (Yes, Mr RIAA, don't sue us and we'll disconnect whoever you want. Sure, we'll lose them as a customer but we'll sure save on those legal bills!)?
• Jan 18th, 2012 @ 5:03am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
  I've wondered about this too, but then I saw an answer on another blog that went something like this:
  
  "technology made this (infringement) happen, so it's technology's resposibility to fix it"