Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Posted May 14, 2007 5:47 UTC (Mon) by wilreichert (guest, #17680)Parent article: Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
FUD from a rat backed into a corner. Guess they didn't learn anything from SCO.
Posted May 14, 2007 6:06 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (19 responses)
Hope PJ is rested. This could get far more interesting than SCO ever was.
Posted May 14, 2007 9:30 UTC (Mon)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (18 responses)
PJ's star is falling and fading, with only the faithful (admittedly a large group due to the global reach of the website) following her.
For those of us who don't want to deal with an FSF mouthpiece, we're going to have to find someone else, perhaps using Groklaw as a tool, but not a driver.
Posted May 14, 2007 10:39 UTC (Mon)
by briangmaddox (guest, #39279)
[Link] (2 responses)
THAT's what is not being reported fairly. What normally gets reported is that Google is helping piracy by hosting these videos. No one seems to remember that Viacom is complaining about having to follow the law they helped pass.
Posted May 14, 2007 11:59 UTC (Mon)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 14, 2007 20:31 UTC (Mon)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
> some of Viacom's behaviour stinks, but I don't think GooTube is
no, GooTube is whiter-than-white alright. why? because they are only the
Posted May 14, 2007 13:23 UTC (Mon)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link] (2 responses)
YouTube is also plain competition for the established entertainment networks. If they can taint YouTube's reputation to the point of it going away, they will do it. Now or later.
(Says one who has decidedly not participated in any such filesharing to this day, no time for that)
Posted May 14, 2007 13:58 UTC (Mon)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 14, 2007 14:08 UTC (Mon)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link]
Posted May 14, 2007 13:28 UTC (Mon)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
It looks like either jealousy or a grudge to me.
Posted May 14, 2007 14:14 UTC (Mon)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 14, 2007 17:23 UTC (Mon)
by markhb (guest, #1003)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 14, 2007 19:25 UTC (Mon)
by b3timmons (guest, #40286)
[Link]
Posted May 17, 2007 9:15 UTC (Thu)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link] (7 responses)
(Your tendency to sling personal insults remains contemptible, of course. I'm especially amused by your apparent notion of the FSF as a dangerous secret conspiracy, with puppets and spies lurking in every corner and goals to which no free person in their right mind could possibly subscribe. Hmm... that sounds familiar, actually...)
Posted May 17, 2007 14:30 UTC (Thu)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (6 responses)
Non-infringing videos on GooTube are irrelevant to Viacom's case. How can they be? Viacom have no claim to them, and neither do they make a claim.
PJ's highlighting the fact that there are non-infringing videos on GooTube, implying that weakens Viacom's case, is a strawman.
And, BTW, just because someone has legal training doesn't automatically mean that their stated position is correct. There are lawyers on both sides of any case.
Posted May 18, 2007 4:53 UTC (Fri)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link] (5 responses)
Hypocrite.
Posted May 18, 2007 5:08 UTC (Fri)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link] (4 responses)
You describe me as "one of the faithful". Which is funny, because I don't know the first thing about this case, and I very seldom actually read Groklaw. About the only thing I do know for sure is that you despise the FSF and everyone who has anything to do with them with an almost evangelical fervour; and now I learn that you'll slander anyone who disagrees with you at the drop of a hat.
Fine. Drop me a line at lwn.id@tierveil.co.uk and give me something I can check out, and I'll do the same. Hey, I'm just some clueless nobody; I have nothing to hide. But dammit, you owe me an apology; and I think it's high time you put your cards on the table and told us who NigelK *really* is.
> just because someone has legal training doesn't automatically mean that their stated position is correct.
But it does make their opinion rather more likely to be correct than that of some random layperson, doesn't it? Which is why I asked for your qualifications to speak authoritatively about the US legal system. We already know PJ's. Without such disclosure, the only available conclusion is that the full extent of your qualification to speak on this case is your certainty that anyone criticised on Groklaw must be in the right.
Posted May 18, 2007 9:28 UTC (Fri)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 18, 2007 13:11 UTC (Fri)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 18, 2007 13:29 UTC (Fri)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 18, 2007 23:59 UTC (Fri)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link]
My problem isn't with your opinions; it's with your reduction of the world to a couple of either/or choices, your apparent refusal to consider that there might be shades of grey or perspectives that haven't occurred to you, your tendency to treat your fallen idols in a manner I can only term despicable, and your dismissal of those who criticise you as "one of the faithful", or the like, apparently unaware that all you are dismissing is your own reflection.
So I'll try this once more, and after this I'm done. Listen, and please try to understand. *These people are not my heroes*. (I don't *have* heroes, as such - never have.) Where I think they're wrong, I'll say so; where I think they are right, it's because they are voicing my principles, not because I've adopted theirs; where I don't know enough to comment, I'll (try and) keep my mouth shut. My respect for the goals and actions of the FSF, and for its founder, is premised only on the fact that they seem to value freedom as much as I do, and if I thought that they were faltering in that I'd say so; as I've mentioned, I don't even pay much attention to Groklaw or PJ. If I wanted to put in the effort, I might be able to compile a list of mistakes I think they've made, or of points of disagreement - but *they're just not that important to me*.
It's not about them, or me - it's about *you*. These people are *your* heroes, and your behaviour toward them is that of the celebrity-stalker - irrational, creepy, manipulative, dishonest, self-abasing; ultimately the actions of someone who has no existence of their own. If you have a shred of empathy inside you, or an ounce of insight into your own soul, please consider what I've said, mourn the loss of your role models, and let them pass from your life. Because right now, your obsessions are consuming you; if you don't escape them, there will soon be nothing left... but I fear you have already passed that point. Delight me - prove me wrong.
But you gotta admit, it's nice to see Microsoft preparing to do its own dirty work this time.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Don't put all your hopes in PJ - she's now showing her lack of business and legal acumen by ranting against anyone who has any dealings with Microsoft, together with siding with Google in the Verizon lawsuit (already we have her FUDing by implying that Verizon is claiming *all* of YouTube's contents infringes Verizon's IP, and after setting up that strawman publishes a "YouTube of the Day" feature to "prove" that not everything on GooTube has anything to do with Verizon - Verizon might have questionable business practices, but here they have a case and it deserves to be reported fairly).Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
You mean the Viacom lawsuit? If so, I'd argue that Viacom does NOT have a case. Viacom was one of the companies that pushed hard to get the DMCA passed. When Google gets DMCA takedowns, they comply. What Viacom wants is for Google to spend their time and money to do Viacom's work for them. I'm sorry, but Viacom got the law they wanted (at the expense of people's legal rights like make backups of certain media). All Google legally has to do is remove videos when they get a takedown notice. Although if you want to do away with things like safe harbor then Verizon would be involved and fight on Google's side :)Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
My bad, Viacom it is. And, yes, some of Viacom's behaviour stinks, but I don't think GooTube is whiter-than-white here, either. This case really is two pigs fighting in the mud and, IMHO, could go either way - both sides make good points.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong:Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
> whiter-than-white here, either. This case really is two pigs fighting
> in the mud
enablers of a _whole_ _awful_ _lot_ of video-communications. Suing them
because some user put up one of Viacom's films is like suing the phone
company if I connect my answering machine to my CD player and put it to
play Metallica. In the latter case, Metallica should/could sue _me_ for
the unauthorized public performance of their work; in the former, Viacom
should/could sue _the_ _user_ for the unauthorized public performance (or
copy) of their work. But GooTube has *absolutely* *nothing* to do with
it. The work of policing all of GooTube to see if users are not
infringing my copyrights is _my_ work, not GooTube's. Period. Once I see
someone doing something murky, I alert GooTube and they put the offending
video down at once. So, yes, they are whiter than white.
Substantial non-infringing use has to be proven somewhere, whether questioned in the suit or not. Napster et al could not credibly demonstrate this, I believe. PJ has a point
Proving substantial non-infringing use is a slam-dunk here. It's the substantial infringing use that Google has to worry about.PJ has a strawman
I respectfully submit that I am not a strawman. If you wish to stir trouble, please find another forum. PJ has a strawman
Your rants against PJ would be more impressive if you didn't follow up to every message on LWN that mentions PJ with another rant.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
I'm not sure about the Verizon lawsuit details, but as for the rest of your words--they don't seem to make any sense. Why are you looking for a "driver"?Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
I think he's referring to the way that PJ and Groklaw essentially "drove" the FLOSS community opposition to SCO v IBM, and saying that the community needs a different person / site to collate and coordinate the response to the MS allegations.
Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Thanks for the translation. Since a driver against the Microsoft patent threats would be defending free software, I am mystified why anyone would _not_ want the driver to be sympathetic to the organization that promotes free software. Moreover, PJ already has had a warmup with the SCO case and is good at it.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Please outline your qualifications with regard to American law, with particular reference to why you feel able to state so categorically that PJ - who has many years as a paralegal under her belt, let's not forget - is incorrect in her interpretation of the Google-Verizon case.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
One of the faithful speaks... and quickly demonizes the critic, too, swiftly distorting the opposing view.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
> One of the faithful speaks... and quickly demonizes the critic, tooMicrosoft takes on the free world (CNN)
No, actually, I want to expand on that.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
As much as I'd like to exchange emails with an angry loon with a bruised ego, poor reading comprehension skills, and the urge to protect FSF-related personalities at any cost, I think I'll pass. I have more important things to do with my life, like clipping my toenails.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
...I've been eaten by a troll, haven't I? Sorry, LWN.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
Sigh... no... You just have to accept that the people you respect are wrong sometimes.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)
But the problem I have with you is that you've reduced that to a binary choice. You think your former heroes are wrong, so you attack them without pause or mercy, or necessarily even consideration, making exactly the same accusations in thread after thread, regardless of circumstance. When someone disagrees with your assessment of their faults, you charge them with being an unthinking supporter. That's how you're coming across.Microsoft takes on the free world (CNN)