Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Techdirt

from the funny-stuff dept

Since we’re taking the day off for Labor Day today, we pushed our usual weekend posts out a bit, so this is appearing here on Monday.

This week we wrote about a crazy law proposed by Rep. Mike Honda that would make merely possessing or buying “body armor” a crime that could result in 10 years in jail. His theory was that this armor makes it easier for people to commit crimes and thus harder for the police to shoot them down. But That One Guy got the most insightful comment of the week by pointing out how ridiculous that logic is:

So if his justification for this is ‘armored assailants’, one would assume they are, I don’t know, maybe breaking other laws while ‘armored’, laws already on the books that can be used to charge them? If someone is already breaking laws, and serious enough laws that they expect to come under fire, I don’t think an additional 10 years, on top of what is likely a good string of other, quite serious charges, is going to be any sort of deterrent to them.

They are willing to put themselves in a position where they expect to be shot, I don’t think the threat of a little extra prison time is going to matter to much to someone like that, especially considering it would come down to ‘wear body armor, get shot, survive, get additional 10 years’ or ‘don’t wear body armor, get shot, die, not have to worry about prison’.

Adding a prison term for merely owning body armor, just because criminals might use it, is pretty much like adding a prison sentence for those found in possession of a gun, or a car, or any number of other items, because they might be used by a criminal, and I hope someone points this out when the bill is being debated.

Chances are the bill never even comes close to being debated, but if it does come up, one hopes this kind of response is put in front of Honda (or other members of Congress).

Coming in second was Chuck Wegrzyn on our story about Keurig’s DRMing its coffee pods, reminding everyone of a key case involving attempts to use DRM (and the DMCA) to keep out competitors:

Seen this before…

This seems a lot like Lexmark adding DRM to its printer cartridges. Little consumer value other than to lift more money from our wallets.

Thankfully, the big lawsuit over that case actually found against Lexmark, and said that circumventing such hardware restrictions did not violate the DMCA. Green Mountain Roasters (makers of Keurig) haven’t gone down the Lexmark legal path yet, so we don’t know if it’ll try such a plan, but there’s a good precedent against that interpretation on the books should it try a DMCA claim (though I doubt the company would).

For editor’s choice, we’ve got mcherm’s response to our article on police body cameras, which noted that police had a habit of not turning the cameras on when necessary. Here’s an easy solution:

Button Press Too Hard? Try This One Easy Fix!

Seriously, just record ALL audio and video for the entire time that the uniformed officer is on duty. The chips needed to store this weigh just a few grams. We could save the records for 1 week, with automatic holds on anything that the officer flags as important, as well as in response to any citizen complaint or request. Then there’s no pesky button push to distract the officer … or for the officer to forget.

If you really think it is necessary, a button press to SUPPRESS the recording might be acceptable, for when an officer is using the restroom, intimidating a witness, or engaging in any other action requiring privacy.

And finally, going back to that story about banning body armor, an Anonymous Coward responded to Honda’s argument that “the bill is designed to stop “armored assailants” whom he claims are “a trend” in recent years.” The AC notes that Honda is right, but perhaps not in the way he thinks:

He’s right, it is a trend. They’re called SWAT teams.

Unfortunately, from the sound of it, his bill will not actually address the problem.

Moving onto the funny side of the ledger, leading the pack (by a wide margin) was this Anonymous Coward responding to George Lucas’ refusal to release a version of the “original” 1977 version of Star Wars by arguing that it was only a “half-completed” film. AC feels ripped off:

If we watched only a half-completed film, why did we pay full price to see it?

Coming in second on the funny side was Michael, commenting on the fact that police had lost some Humvees that the Pentagon had handed out as a part of its “militarize all domestic police” program.

See? That $500k for the camouflage paint is TOTALLY worth it.

For editor’s choice, we’ll start with an Anonymous commenter rightly mocking the (very mockable) idea of news publications colluding to set up a “global paywall” and putting all their content behind it:

And the first story behind the paywall: A government investigation of massive collusion and price-fixing by online media.

There will be no second story.

And, finally, we’ve got sorrykb responding to the ridiculous (and totally unsubstantiated claim) that “piracy is killing movie franchises.” He points out that if that’s true, perhaps the same folks who keep saying that we need more “original” content should be happy about piracy:

Wait….

If piracy kills movie franchises, wouldn’t that mean that piracy promotes creativity by encouraging the making of original films? Wouldn’t that make it a good thing?

On a related note, I guess I’d better start pirating movies, if only to prevent “Expendables 4” from becoming reality. (Please tell me I don’t have to actually watch the first three if I download them.)

It’s a good point. You’d think that the people who push for copyright maximalism via the claim that it’s necessary to encourage originality wouldn’t be so infatuated with keeping up clearly derivative “franchises.” But, contradictions of logic go hand and hand with maximalism quite frequently.