Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the 2017-starts-rolling dept
This week, the RIAA was pushing a lot of nonsense about the “value gap” in music and the need for laws to protect its business. Nasch won first place for insightful by reading things through a more sensible lens:
The funny thing is most of it makes perfect sense if you interpret it rationally rather than in RIAA crazy-talk.
Issues like the ?value gap?
The gap between what the labels take and what artists get
and obligations of intermediaries will continue to dominate the legal landscape.
Intermediaries meaning record labels – they’re between artists and audiences.
Ideally, the Byzantine legal structure today would give way to a system where creators are fairly compensated and competitors are on equal footing.
Sounds great!
Those who have an interest in music could come together to figure out solutions.
You don’t want a Byzantine legal structure? Go back to the original 1790 copyright law. Simple.
While litigation can be an important tool, it often takes a long time and the results are unclear.
This is harder to square. I haven’t seen much evidence that litigation is ever an important tool in this business, but the second part is certainly right.
Solutions between business and industry partners can clear a path through thorny legal issues.
Could be.
The combination of partnership and technology can go a long way to ensuring a healthy music ecosystem.
Absolutely agree.
In second place, we’ve got a second response to the RIAA — this time from DannyB, offering a simple distillation of the real question and its real answer:
Q. How can a musical creator be fairly compensated?
A. Don’t sign up with an RIAA record label!
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ll start out with one last tidbit from that post — this time another interpretation of the RIAA’s words, but one that’s a little less generous and sadly much more accurate:
“… competitors are on equal footing… ”
Translation… “We want our business model protected by law, so we can destroy any competition.”
Over on the funny side, we start out with the story of a man’s Smart TV getting hit by ransomware, where one commenter wondered if that doesn’t call the whole “Smart” label into question. Roger Strong won first place for funny with a truly excellent response:
Maybe it decided it was so smart that it didn’t have to listen to security briefings.
In second place, we’ve got a comment from our round-up of 2016’s top comments, where we were randomly yelled at to shut down this “stupif” blog, prompting an anonymous response:
Protip, when insulting people make sure to spell correctly or you will look stupif.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of quick quips in response to Sarah Palin’s recent about-face on Edward Snowden. The headline in full was “Sarah Palin Now Thinks Julian Assange Is A Really Nifty Guy”, the wording of which understandably tripped up David:
Sarah Palin Now Thinks
You almost had me there.
Finally, we’ve got a silly and pleasing anonymous gag:
I can see Russian hackers from her house.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
So, What Are Your Thoughts On SC 2334?
You may have heard that the UN Security Council passed a resolution recently, officially declaring that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian lands are illegal (something most of us knew already). The US normally vetoes this kind of thing, but this time it let it pass, with an abstention.
This has put Israel in a panic. It is lashing out at everybody, even accusing the US, its closest ally, of “abandoning” it. There have been countless General Assembly resolutions along similar lines before, but it has always managed to laugh them off. But the Security Council is different.
Speaking as someone who lives in one of the countries that sponsored the resolution, and who previously came from another one, I feel quite pleased at this. Some say it has purely symbolic value, nothing more. But Israel’s own reaction says otherwise.
In particular, paragraph 5 “Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”. There is this international movement called “Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions” (BDS) which seeks to put pressure on companies that have dealings with the illegal settlements. SC 2334 not only provides a firm legal justification for BDS, it makes it mandatory.
We don’t object to the existence of Israel, just as we didn’t object to the existence of South Africa; we just seek regime change. International sanctions played their part in getting rid of the Apartheid regime in the latter; they can also help get rid of the Zionist regime in the former.
Re: So, What Are Your Thoughts On SC 2334?
_ You may have heard that the UN Security Council passed a resolution recently, officially declaring that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian lands are illegal (something most of us knew already). The US normally vetoes this kind of thing, but this time it let it pass, with an abstention.
This has put Israel in a panic. It is lashing out at everybody, even accusing the US, its closest ally, of “abandoning” it. There have been countless General Assembly resolutions along similar lines before, but it has always managed to laugh them off. But the Security Council is different.
Speaking as someone who lives in one of the countries that sponsored the resolution, and who previously came from another one, I feel quite pleased at this. Some say it has purely symbolic value, nothing more. But Israel’s own reaction says otherwise._
I used to think like this.
I also used to think that a one state solution (as in South Africa) was the most sensible – since the people have to live together and if they can’t live in one state then two states will most likely fight each other.
I used to think that all that was needed was a state which was secular – and belonged equally to whoever lived there and didn’t privilege immigration fro one particular religious group.
However – I looked at the reality of the surrounding Arab countries and realised that this is a pipe dream.
It is clear that the dominant (if not majority) opinion in the Islamic world rejects the existence of Israel – in fact if anything it goes even further than that. So Israel is probably right to see no solution that way. But then there is no solution their way either.
Face it there is no solution.
And for the remaining minorities in the region, who are neither Muslim nor Jewish the result of being in the crossfire between the two will be inevitable slow annihilation.
So I am not pleased at this resolution – because it will only act as a catalyst for further conflict. Israel will reject/ignore it and the terrorists will use it as an excuse for murder.
Re: Re: So, What Are Your Thoughts On SC 2334?
Sorry – first three paras should all be italic – markdown doesn’t work the same as html.
Sure, you don’t object to the existence of Israel, you only want to empower people who object to the existence of Israel.
Re: Sure, you don't object to the existence of Israel, you only want to empower people who object to the existence of Israel.
Interesting how, every time this issue comes up, any kind of objection to Zionism gets conflated with being “anti-Israel”. Is that a deliberate tactic to try to discredit any kind of criticism of the Zionist regime?
Re: Re: Sure, you don't object to the existence of Israel, you only want to empower people who object to the existence of Israel.
Do the math on how much land Israel has and how much the Arab countries have and tell me who should give up land.
Re: Re: Re: Do the math on how much land Israel has and how much the Arab countries have and tell me who should give up land.
So you favour a one-state solution, rather than two states, then? Remember John Kerry’s warning: such a state can be Jewish, or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both.
If you take their land, you have to accept the people, too.
Re: Re: Re:2 Do the math on how much land Israel has and how much the Arab countries have and tell me who should give up land.
Uh, that land has been in dispute for thousands of years. Somehow every other Arab nation is allowed to have a state of their own, but the only Jewish state in the world doesn’t have a right to exist.
Do you really think Israel can give up anything short of their entire nation to appease their neighbors?
Re: Re: Re:3 but the only Jewish state in the world doesn't have a right to exist.
So you favour a one-state solution, rather than two states, then? Remember John Kerry’s warning: such a state can be Jewish, or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both.
If you take their land, you have to accept the people, too.
Re: Re: Re:4 but the only Jewish state in the world doesn't have a right to exist.
Kerry is an idiot and I don’t take my advice from him. Maybe they should quit hiding purple who lob bombs into Israel?
Re: Re: Re:5 Kerry is an idiot and I don't take my advice from him
Idiot or not, he’s right. If you won’t give the Palestinians their own state, then they have to become part of your state. Then you are no longer a Jewish state.
Re: Re: Re:4 The final solution
The Amalakite genocide is a third option. Prolonged and semiannual or all out.
The Holocaust were absolute, not even children and infants were spared. The Jews even massacred livestock.
It is still very popular among religious Jews to utter noises when Haman is mentioned in a pro hate and pro massacre way. They are the archetype boogeyman.
From 1 Samuel 15
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
(Hebrew scripture)
Benjamin Netanyahu regards Iranians as Amalekites too, and have publicly said this at several occasions. He is also fond of regarding Jews criticizing the regime as self-hating-jews.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do the math on how much land Israel has and how much the Arab countries have and tell me who should give up land.
Israel wouldn’t be giving up anything, they’d be ceasing to steal and murder.
Re: Re: Re: Sure, you don't object to the existence of Israel, you only want to empower people who object to the existence of Israel.
How much land does Israel have and how much land does the rest of the world have? Surely Israel deserves it’s half of the world, right?
Re: Re: Re: Sure, you don't object to the existence of Israel, you only want to empower people who object to the existence of Israel.
“Do the math on how much land Israel has and how much the Arab countries have and tell me who should give up land.”
Sounds a lot like “Lebensraum” to me.
Re: Re:
THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!
Re: Re: Re:
So what do you think they will do when they get here?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK I found the answer…
Don Quixote, Swan Lake and Le Corsaire.
http://www.roh.org.uk/news/bolshoi-ballet-to-return-to-the-royal-opera-house-in-summer-2016
Is it me or did you forget the second editor’s choice for insightful?