Wargazm’s Comments

• Sep 7th, 2016 @ 6:59am

  (untitled comment)

  on Hillary Clinton Thinks Real-World Military Responses To Hacking Attacks Are A Nifty Idea
  Are we just going to gloss over the idea that she thinks a *hack of the DNC* is grounds for introducing a new doctrine for dealing with cyber attacks?! Last I heard the DNC is NOT a government agency.
  
  What exactly does she propose we defend here? If Russian hackers go after a grandmother's bank account, are we going to put boots on the ground? Or is the goal just to prevent Democrats from being embarrassed during an election year?
  
  One more thing: How the hell does she look at the DNC hack and not immediately change her position on encryption? If we had strong, encrypted email services readily available and easily used by anyone...bam, no DNC hack. Instead, she talks about using the military to respond. Christ.
• Aug 29th, 2016 @ 1:21pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
  I agree with this entire post, but playing devil's advocate: With the t-shirt issue, Techdirt has leverage that many small-time graphic designers simply do not have. It's all well and good to say that copying is not theft (and its not). But that is small consolation if, for example, I create a design for a tshirt that proved popular, only to have Hot Topic take it, throw their manufacturing muscle behind it, and sell them without attributing me.
  
  Copying may not literally be theft, but it's still immoral. And in certain cases, it should be rightfully attacked as a crime (not "theft") in and of itself.
• Jan 14th, 2016 @ 12:05pm

  Re: Re:

  on Metallica Sends 41 Page Legal Threat To Canadian Cover Band [Updated]
  In the update, they essentially said the lawyer had been fired.
  
  True, it was said in a joking manner ("We sent him to Alaska, lol") so perhaps he wasn't actually fired. But no reason to think he wasn't reprimanded at the very least.
• Jan 14th, 2016 @ 12:04pm

  Re: Re:

  on Metallica Sends 41 Page Legal Threat To Canadian Cover Band [Updated]
  "two decades of behavior." Nonsense. Put the butthurt about Napster aside for one second and think logically about this. Metallica has never taken action against a cover band before. Why would this be anything other than a mistake?
• Jan 14th, 2016 @ 12:01pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Metallica Sends 41 Page Legal Threat To Canadian Cover Band [Updated]
  Their prior actions when it comes to cover bands is pretty well documented: they support them wholeheartedly. They've take cover bands out on tour, for example. If I recall correctly, Lars even played a few shows with Beatallica.
  
  There's hundred, maybe thousands of Metallica cover bands. If they really wanted to stomp them out, you'd see stories like this all the time. The fact that you don't means this is a one-time mistake that was quickly resolved.
• Jan 14th, 2016 @ 11:27am

  Re: Re:

  on Metallica Sends 41 Page Legal Threat To Canadian Cover Band [Updated]
  as I said elsewhere...the tone of that update is needlessly negative and cynical. "Oh, of *course* that now that there's backlash, the band is backpedaling hard! But we know the truth, right guys?"
  
  Is there no room in this situation to allow for an honest mistake that was quickly resolved to the satisfaction of every party involved?
• Jan 14th, 2016 @ 9:03am

  (untitled comment)

  on Metallica Sends 41 Page Legal Threat To Canadian Cover Band [Updated]
  the wording in your update is pretty snarky. I see no reason to not take the band at their word: a lawyer thought he was doing his job right, the band walked it back, apologized to the cover band personally, and apparently disciplined the lawyer. What else can they do?