Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the as-was-said dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side Stephen T. Stone with a comment about our latest example of brazen DMCA abuse:
To everyone who thinks AT&T dropping OANN is ?censorship?: No, this is censorship.
In second place, it’s Samuel Abram, with a comment about the cops who were fired for playing Pokémon Go:
I said this before?
It’s really sad (really more outrageous and infuriating) that playing Pok?mon GO! would cause cops to get fired as opposed to killing blacks and Latinxs in cold blood.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of comments from our post about the annoying DRM on Diablo 2: Resurrected. First, it’s That One Guy with the perennial bottom line:
And the ultimate punchline to this and all DRM:
Actual copyright infringers are, as always, completely unaffected.
Next, it’s PaulT with a response to some comments in the blog post that started the conversation about the issue:
“While I understand that this is a way to combat piracy”
But, of course, as already mentioned it’s really not. People wanting to pirate will still do so, and when they do they will still have a better product than the one bought legally. I fact, as often seen, the presence of this DRM is actually a driver for “piracy”, since some people who recognise this fact will download a cracked copy after they buy the legit version, safe in the knowledge that they’re not “stealing” since they paid for a copy, they just want access to the version that doesn’t try to stop them playing the game they bought.
“Or better yet, wasn?t there a better way of implementing it without restricting players who bought it legitimately?”
No, there isn’t. DRM is software whose entire purpose is to try the stop people from running the software it’s attached to. Like all software, it may have bugs or design issues that make it work imperfectly. It can never operate as well as it not being present in the first place for legal owners of the software it’s infected.
Over on the funny side, both our winners come in response to the post about the Pokémon-playing cops. David took first place:
You think firing those officers is a smart move?
Let’s see whether you still think that when Snorlax holds up a bank.
In second place, it’s an anonymous comment:
They’re even wrong about the pokemon
but they insisted they did so… to ?chase this mythical creature.?
Your honor, I can assure you that despite claims to the contrary, Snorlax is not a mythical pokemon.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out on our post about the legal fight over calling cheese Gruyere, where one commenter wondered if they could get away with making a “Champagne Gruyere cheese drink”, and Rocky had the answer:
No, but if you had called it Champagne Gruyere Monster cheese drink on the other hand…
And finally, we loop all the way back around to the beginning, where Toom1275 had a response to the Most Insightful winner:
Thst’s a bit of an awkward statement, seeing as how “AT$T dropping OANN is censorship!” and “thinks” are mutually exclusive.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
I support this as the new name for French onion soup.
Glad to see I'm in this week's winners.
Considering I won last week, and that Winnie-the-Pooh entered the public domain (as well as shitloads of recorded music and other great stuff from 1926), 2022 is starting out awesomely for me!
Thanks for everything you do, Techdirt! I love the community here!
Re: Glad to see I'm in this week's winners.
And here I thought Xi Jinping was still alive!
As to
Pokemon.
Would love our cops being this lazy, the real problem was they Didnt realize Where they were and respond to the call.
But I can Laugh at the idea, that a cop would enter the mall/building, with a Blowhorn, and declare, "OK Guys, drop what you got and leave now, and nothing will happen.", insted of having a shootout inside the building.
Did anyone goto the incident?
Copyrights
Long ago there was a game and Anime series called monster rancher, Digimon and cartoons as Fraggle rock, Little monster(BBC) BEFORE Pokemon which only means Pocket monsters. As well as a few After Pokemon was created.
There were quite a few.
And only a few Copyrights notices were ever used.
DMCA
Wow, and even our movies have it built in. You TV woulnt show the movie in full res, IF it dont have it. And the GREAT audio will be cut down to standard Stereo, if it Dont have the DMCA.
Its not that the hardware cant do it, it Just wont let it.
Re: As to
we call it HDCP.
Thoughts on OANN
In my opinion, AT&T removing OANN is a minor for of censorship. The real question is, should they be censored, or at least be deplatformed? I have not actually watched OANN but they have to be morons if they started a cable news network in 2020.
Re:
AT&T isn’t preventing any other cable, satellite, or livestreaming provider from carrying OANN; neither is the government. AT&T has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to carry OANN past the length of the original contract. Any DirecTV subscriber who wants to watch OANN can still watch it through KlowdTV or any other service that carries the channel.
Losing an audience is not the same as losing the right to speak. And no one is entitled to an audience or a platform at someone else’s expense.
Re: Re: Re:
Considering AT&T basically initiated OANN in the first place, it’s like AT&T finally choosing to shut their stupid gob.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it’s not, since they no longer have full ownership of DirectTV. It’s more like DirectTV wanted rid of the embarrassment, but had to wait till they were free of AT&T before they were able to do so.
Re: Context matters, as what rights you actually have
If I run a store and offer people a corkboard that they can leave messages/advertisements on am I ‘censoring’ someone if for whatever reason I decide not to allow one or more people to continue to use it?
There’s an important difference between ‘you’re not allowed to speak’ and ‘you’re not allowed to speak on/using my property‘, and one of the problems with mixing the two is that it waters down the definition of ‘censorship’ to the point where it loses all impact and people simply don’t care any time it’s brought up because they’ve been conditioned to associate it with ‘someone suffered consequences for their actions and they’re throwing a fit over it’ rather than ‘the government and/or a similarly powerful group is trying to silence someone and prevent them from speaking not just via a particular outlet but at all‘.
Re: Thoughts on OANN
"In my opinion, AT&T removing OANN is a minor for of censorship."
Then, you don’t know what censorship is.
"The real question is, should they be censored, or at least be deplatformed?"
No, the real question is should a private company be forced to do business with another private company against their wishes, even if doing so harms their business elsewhere? Most sensible people would say no.
"I have not actually watched OANN but they have to be morons if they started a cable news network in 2020."
Then, you should be happy to learn that they started in 2013, and that’s one reason DirectTV have opted not to renew their contract, since the contract was up for renewal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
So most sensible people would be fine with "we don’t serve blacks" signs in Alabama as long as that helps maintaining business with their preferred clients?
It’s, apologies, not a matter as clearly black-and-white as you want to paint it. The brush you choose to paint it with is actually too broad.
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
"So most sensible people would be fine with "we don’t serve blacks" signs in Alabama as long as that helps maintaining business with their preferred clients?"
I wonder how stupid you’d have to be to think this is a good analogy, but I am tired of arguing with you online. I don’t know if you deliberately say things that are so stupid in a single sentence that it would take paragraphs to explain everything wrong with what you said, or if you accidentally do it, but it does become tiresome for the adults in the room.
Re: Re: Re:2 Thoughts on OANN
So you say this case would not fall under
Because that is what you state as your general premise, and I continue maintaining that this premise is too broad to apply without further reservation.
Words have meanings. If you want to make categorical statements, you better get your categories right.
Re: Re: Re:3
Too bad nobody is actually talking about applying that premise outside of the premise itself. AT&T dropping OANN from DirecTV is not the same thing as a bar owner in Alabama saying “no n⸻s allowed” to a Black man who walks in the door, you damn well know it isn’t the same thing, and you’ll be lying if you say otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Sigh. I brought this example exactly because it significantly isn’t the same thing. But it also falls under the overbroad definition that PaulT stated as a generally desirable principle.
That is what is known as a counterexample.
Re: Re: Re:5
The problem with trying to contrast your “counterexample” with the OANN situation is that nobody’s rights are being violated with the OANN situation. OANN doesn’t have the right to make force AT&T/DirecTV carry OANN, nor should it have that right. But in your hypothetical situation, Black people would have their civil rights curtailed by being refused a place in the public sphere—by being refused the same right to participate in society that white people have.
When you step into the public sphere, you make an implicit compromise with everyone else: Your rights end where another person’s rights begin. When the right of association clashes with one’s right to enter and participate in the public sphere, the first one must generally give way. Only through such a compromise can we have a functioning society.
If you could show me how OANN being dropped from DirecTV violates anyone’s civil rights, you might have a point. But you can’t. So you don’t.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
And yet both fall under the overbroad definition of PaulT of what should purportedly be desirable.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, they don’t, unless you actually believe a satellite provider choosing not to renew the contract of a network it carries is actually the same thing as a white business owner putting up a “no Blacks allowed” sign in his window. They’re not the same thing, they’re not even remotely analogous, and you’ve done nothing to explain the similarities between a business dispute (one in which nobody’s civil rights were violated!) and an undisputable case of racial discrimination.
PaulT’s post asked about whether an entity like AT&T/DirecTV should be forced to do business with an entity like OANN. Any attempt to force that association by law would be both anathema to the “free market” concept and a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against compelled association.
If you have any other questions, I don’t give a fuck. As far as I’m concerned, you can go lurk about in a mausoleum, seeing as how you seem to enjoy acting like a bonehead.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
So please explain how one of those cases would not fall under PaulT’s definition
Could you please read what the person you are defending with a vengeance actually wrote? Or will you continue inventing and beating strawmen?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
OK, I’ll add the caveat of "where the potential business party is not being excluded because they are part of a protected class".
Happy? Or, do we need to keep explaining why the only person who erected a strawman was you, and it’s a very poor construction at that?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"But it also falls under the overbroad definition that PaulT stated as a generally desirable principle."
I said that a private company should be able to choose who is allowed to use its property to perform business, which is true. Then, you jumped straight to things that are both illegal and morally incorrect which have no relevance to the issue at hand.
"That is what is known as a counterexample."
No, a counterexample would be a right-wing platform that opted to not accept speech on their property that they viewed as left-leaning. What you constructed was a poorly erected strawman which has no similarity to what was being discussed.
Re: Re: Re:3 Thoughts on OANN
"Words have meanings."
Yes, they do. For example, "protected class" does not apply to political viewpoints as you tried to shoehorn in, especially when the example given is a single individual company that’s not had its contract renewed while other companies with similar viewpoints have not been affected. "Censorship" does not apply to a single private company choosing not to renew a contract with one of its suppliers, even if the reason for that decision is partly due to said political viewpoint.
"If you want to make categorical statements, you better get your categories right."
Mine seem fine.
Re: Re: Re:2 Thoughts on OANN
It isn’t an analogy at all. It is an example of what your statement would entail, to illustrate that your statement is too broad.
Re: Re: Re:3 Thoughts on OANN
Only if, like you, conflate violating the rights of people by being racists with a company not doing business with another company.
You are free to put into words why an example of racist behavior proves that his statement is too broad – you haven’t, you have only said that it does with no logical explanation how to get to point B from A.
Re: Re: Re:4 Thoughts on OANN
So please explain how one of those cases would not fall under PaulT’s definition
Could you please read what the person you are defending with a vengeance actually wrote? Or will you continue inventing and beating strawmen?
Re: Re: Re:5 Thoughts on OANN
"Could you please read what the person you are defending with a vengeance actually wrote?"
More to the point, can you?
Re: Re: Re:5 Thoughts on OANN
The context is that two companies can decide to do business or not, if they are forced it violates their rights, simple as that. Your underlying thought seems to be that the above is the same as someone who is racist is forced to do business with colored persons, which tells me you got it totally backwards because refusing to do business with someone on the sole criteria of their skin-color violates that person’s rights.
The only one inventing strawmen here is you, because it’s only you who think "forcing" a racist business to serve colored people is the same as forcing a private company to do business with another company.
I do wonder that goes through someone’s head when they think that a theoretical racist business in Alabama is suffering because they are racist is a counter argument in any shape or form?
Re: Re: Re:3 Thoughts on OANN
No, it’s an example of someone who missed the point and decided to jump straight to something that’s expressly illegal as if it’s even remotely similar.
Re: Re: Re:
otherwording (or in-other-wordsing) — noun
Example: You will often find the phrases “in other words” or “so you’re saying” at the beginning of an instance of otherwording.
See also: strawman; your post
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
And here we have a Poster Boy example of our public education hard at work. Sigh.
David, when you have learned the difference between "discrimination" and "censorship", then please return here and elucidate that difference for us. Whereupon I’ll really confound you with an instruction to read the 13th Amendment, and detail for us exactly how that applies to both the OANN brou-ha-ha, and to your "counter-example". (Put in quotes, because it’s about as far off the mark as one can get while still using the English language, however poorly.)
I’ll all but guarantee to the rest of the readership that you won’t be able figure out how 13A applies, but trust me, it does.
Re: Re: Re:2 Thoughts on OANN
"David, when you have learned the difference between "discrimination" and "censorship", then please return here and elucidate that difference for us"
Even that’s not directly relevant. It’s perfectly moral and legal to discriminate and/or "censor" someone if that is in response to their own individual actions and the person taking action is not part of the government. The target may not like it, but then quite often the people sharing that platform (as customers or as investors) may not like it if the rogue element is allowed to continue unhindered.
Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
There is something about TV and censorship from the past.
Its called, "Change the channel, or turn it off"
Топ 20 быстрорастущих Инстаграм бло
Sensitive touch rasprekrasnoy girls will flow through your body, dipping in depth boundless the ocean pleasure. In the quiet slip, donating your skin kisses, prelestress envelops the warmth of one's body. You will be surprised at, which sea bliss today it is possible to feel fromnude massage in Midtown.
Dear gentlemen!
And while, french massage and not violates practically any prohibitions, for the reason it's not about sexual contact.
The energy massage inSoho it today skill give away bliss. The Soapy massage – on the influence on clients is meant practically unlimited available opportunities actions on bodily, and consequently, and psychoemotional state of health friends.
In school sensual massage women will hold erotic 4hands massage. Similar swedish massage, as in principle, and relaxation, influences on some area human body, this give a chance male gain strength.
<a href=https://penzu.com/p/8bde7df1>LiveJournal Всё самое интересное в Живом Журнале Группа на</a>
[—-]