Rico R. 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (317) comment rss

  • On the post: CrowdStrike DMCA’d A Parody Site In Wake Of Update Outage

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2024 @ 06:34pm

    Putting the legal issues in terms Crowdstrike can understand...

    A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer. The problem seems to be caused by the following file: DMCA512F.SYS COPYRIGHT_CLAIM_IN_NONINFRINGING_AREA If this is the first time you've seen this stop error screen, restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps: Check to make sure any usage of your copyrighted content is not authorized by you, your agent, or the law. If this is something that could be arguably be fair use (such as criticism, educational use, or parody), you must consider if it is before proceeding. If problems arise because this isn’t really a valid copyright claim, back down or fire any legal counsel who said this takedown request was a good idea. Continuing anyway opens you up to liability under section 512(f) of Title 17, U.S. Code. If your customers need to use Safe Mode to remove or disable a Windows Signed Driver you assured your investors was 100% safe when it really wasn’t, re-evaluate your priorities and fix your own problems before taking down lawful parodies. Technical information: **** STOP: 0x00000451 (0x00001C3, 0x00000001, Ox00002121, 0xFFFFFFFF) **** DMCA512F. SYS - Address FFFFFE3C base at FFFFDEDE, Datestamp 669a3667

  • On the post: Judge Says Rapper Needs To Turn Over Any New Rap Lyrics To The Feds

    Rico R. ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2024 @ 11:25am

    Great malicious compliance idea!

    That's how he should do it. Register his lyrics with the copyright office, and force his probation officer or whoever to pay the copyright office for a copy of the deposit submitted with the registration. As long as he gives the copyright office permission to do so, they can send a copy to them... for a fee. Once they start having to pay a fee for each copy of the lyric, it will add up, fast! Then, they might finally come to their senses with how ludicrous this all is.

  • On the post: Elon Says ExTwitter Will Sue The Group ExTwitter ‘Excitedly’ Joined Just Last Week

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2024 @ 10:27am

    Not gonna lie, the last line sounds like an apt slogan for a lot of articles here... BestNetTech: "I should have stayed off the internet even longer."

  • On the post: Apple’s New Emulator Policy Is, For Some Reason, Only For Consoles And Not Retro PC Games

    Rico R. ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2024 @ 09:03pm

    Apple Silicon's x86-64 emulation (NOT Rosetta) sucks...

    A virtual machine or emulator running a modern PC operating system under iOS could theoretically offer some generalized competition for the apps Apple offers in its official App Store.
    I own a couple Apple Silicon Macs: An M1 Mac Mini, and an M1 Max MacBook Pro. Not the newest generation, but the M1 Max is certainly more powerful than the processor in iPhones. An emulated x86-64 system running a modern operating system is unusably slow. And the framework that makes ARM64 virtualization possible isn't even available on M-series chip iPads. That framework is exclusive to Mac. So, I doubt that this rule, at the current time, could possibly be done to prevent competition in certain apps. That's not to say that it couldn't change in the future. But my take? I'm not a fan of all of Apple's decisions, but this seems less like a legal one and more of a private policy decision. It's Apple's right to decide to not allow certain apps on the app store. While technologically and legally, emulating a PC and emulating a game console is not all that different, if Apple wants to make that distinction and allow one and not the other, that's legally within their rights.

  • On the post: Free Speech Absolutist Elon Musk Removes Tweets Revealing Ted Cruz Fundraising Notes

    Rico R. ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2024 @ 01:26pm

    I was about to post something similar. In the mind of today's average Republican, exposing private information about leftists and democrats are investigative journalism. But when it's right-wing conservatives and Republicans, it's an invasion of their privacy and their rights, and they will not stand for it!

  • On the post: Warning: Believing The Surgeon General’s Social Media Warning May Be Hazardous To Teens’ Health

    Rico R. ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2024 @ 10:42am

    Bullying somewhere does not make that place bad for kids

    Surgeon General Warning: Enrolling your child in a public school can increase issues with your child's mental health due to peer pressure and bullying. Homeschooling is advised.
    See how ridiculous that sounds? I was bullied WAY more in school than I was on social media growing up, and yet I don't see the Surgeon General demanding warnings on school enrollment forms. And if some troll says, "School is mandatory, but social media is not," let me ask you why is school mandatory? Because of its net benefit to society. A good quality education is important. Yet, whenever someone points out how social media can be beneficial to teens (i.e., helps them express themselves, get help when needed, feel like they belong, etc.) and research backs up that this is the case, such studies are hand-waved away as irrelevant. Social media isn't the boogeyman many claim it is. It reflects real life, and real life has good and bad things about it. It can build people up or bring people down. So can social media. So don't write it off as "all bad" for kids.

  • On the post: Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2024 @ 10:18pm

    AFAIK, it can't be appealed. The CJEU is essentially the SCOTUS of the European Union. This is the final ruling. Online privacy is dead in the EU because some corporations are scared their bottom line will be harmed by a few people who dare copy a digital file without permission.

  • On the post: YouTuber Has Video Demonitized Over Washing Machine Chime

    Rico R. ( profile ), 29 May, 2024 @ 10:58pm

    Isn't copyright ironic?

    Copyright defenders will claim that the law incentivizes creativity and ensures creators get paid fairly. But this situation makes a mockery of that claim. I'm sure many small online creators (like myself) make next to nothing from our content. Yet, scammers can abuse YouTube's copyright-policing bots to passively make money from 6-hour videos they didn't make just because the video featured a 3-second jingle they don't own that was played on one of the newest music players: Washing Machines! But go on, copyright maximalists, tell me how this is a one-in-a-billion chance story over all the piracy that's being stopped by laws you insist still aren't strong enough.

  • On the post: Was There A Trojan Horse Hidden In Section 230 All Along That Could Enable Adversarial Interoperability?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 02 May, 2024 @ 10:03am

    Wait a dang second...

    I’ve been talking to a pretty long list of lawyers about this and I’m somewhat amazed at how this seems to have taken everyone by surprise. Normally, when new lawsuits come out, I’ll gut check my take on it with a few lawyers and they’ll all agree with each other whether I’m heading in the right direction or the totally wrong direction. But here… the reactions were all over the map, and not in any discernible pattern. More than one person I spoke to started by suggesting that this was a totally crazy legal theory, only to later come back and say “well, maybe it actually makes some sense.”
    Are you saying that, perhaps you, Mike, are, gasp, wrong about a part of Section 230? That other tech industry lawyers you know are also wrong? What topsy-turvy world did I just wake up in?

  • On the post: ‘Lol, No’ Is The Perfect Response To LAPD’s Nonsense ‘IP’ Threat Letter Over ‘Fuck The LAPD’ Shirt

    Rico R. ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2024 @ 04:17pm

    After reading this response letter and the other response letters you linked to, it got me thinking: The past brief humorous responses were perfectly summed up in this newest one. But, is there a way to sum it up so it's even shorter? I think the answer to this question can be best summed up with the wise words of Mike Dunford:

    LOL, no.

  • On the post: The US Banning TikTok Would Play Right Into China’s Hands, And Destroy Decades Of US Work On Promoting An Open Internet

    Rico R. ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2024 @ 12:22pm

    Get the line veto, or Paragraph Veto...
    Congress once passed a law allowing the President to line-item veto, and the Supreme Court quickly ruled it unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.
    ...or JUST VOTE ON 1 THING PER BILL
    Smart idea. Just one problem. House takes up TikTok ban bill independently. It passes the House. It passes the Senate. Biden signs it into law (as he said he would). The TikTok ban would become law even if it was voted on independently.

  • On the post: Pokémon Co. Is Now DMCAing Years Old Videos Showing Pokémon Modded Into Other Games

    Rico R. ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2024 @ 08:47am

    Pokémon Company's new catchphrase:

    Instances of copyright infringement? Got to catch 'em all!!

  • On the post: Pokémon Co. Is Now DMCAing Years Old Videos Showing Pokémon Modded Into Other Games

    Rico R. ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2024 @ 08:45am

    Precedent, but with a new limit

    I'd argue that the Campbell precednt is at the very least limited by the recent SCOTUS precedent set by Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. That case has upended fair use precedent as we knew it. In fact, I've seen recent fair use decisions that cite that for the first factor before or even instead of Campbell. As I best understand this problematic decision, transformative use is determined by asking, "Why are you using it?" and not "What new meaning or message have you added?" In Campbell, Pretty Women was used as a parody to mock and criticize the song. It doesn't matter what the critical commentary actually said, but rather the mere fact that it was used for criticism at all. In some cases, it's a distinction without a difference, but in other cases, there is a difference. For example, consider the contrast with Andy Warhol Foundation, where the painting of Prince was "licensed to a magazine to depict Prince in an article about Prince." It didn't matter how different the aesthetic was, or the fact that there was a new meaning or message in Warhol's work not found in Goldsmith's photograph. That purpose, the court deemed, was not transformative and therefore favored a finding against fair use. To be clear: I vehimentally disagree with the majority opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, but unless and until Congress passes a change in copyright law to overturn this harmful precedent (which seems unlikely, given their current priorities), this decision remains the law of the land. Now, I haven't seen the original video described in this article, so I can't comment on how likely fair use would apply in this case. However, your suggestion that showcasing a Pokémon mod to comment on "the wholesome feel of the games" points to a transformative use of the mod, not Pokémon itself. As far as I can tell, the mod's use of Pokémon points more towards a derivative work than a fair use, because as the SCOTUS has said in the Andy Warhol Foundation case, a new meaning or message must go beyond what is required for a derivative work for it to count as transformative within the meaning of fair use. That isn't the case here, and so the mod itself and videos showing its use can constitute copyright infringement.

  • On the post: Roku Will Brick Your Streaming Devices If You Don’t Agree To Binding Arbitration

    Rico R. ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2024 @ 11:42am

    Rule #1:

    Not too surprisingly, Roku is refusing to respond to press inquiries as to why it thought being a restrictive and obnoxious jackass was a great business decision.
    Don't you know? The first rule about enshittification is you don't talk about enshittification, especially with the press!

  • On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:51pm

    Can the 5th Circuit ever do anything not crazy?
    What are you talking about? They issue the crazy decisions only on days that end in a "Y"!

  • On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:46pm

    So, when you try to access BestNetTech in Texas, are you prompted to verify your age before accessing content? What about YouTube or Facebook? ExTwitter? Google? No? Of course not, because this law only targets age verification on porn sites. In other words, if PornHub was only hosting court documents or any other type of content, this law puts them in the clear. But as soon as they host pornographic content, this law kicks in and requires age verification. If your age verification requirement is only required for certain types of speech and not others, that's content-based restrictions in violation of both the First Amendment and Section 230. So, yes, seeing as the state can take legal action for failure to implement age verification and hold them liable, this is very much being held liable for the content they host.

  • On the post: Two Congressmen Introduce Law To Grant Copyright To Golf Course Design

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2024 @ 04:42pm

    Golf is worthless... unless it has copyright protection!

    Copyright maximalism is a cult, and this bill proves it. It's like nothing has value to these people unless there is copyright protection. The inventor of the polio vaccine once said:

    Could you patent the sun?
    Patent, no. But to these people, it's only a matter of time until someone finds a way to copyright it! And when that happens, they'll go after all those dastardly sun pirates who dare manufacture light bulbs without getting permission from the sun's creator, who is... (checks notes) God!?!? You might say that's ludicrous, but then I never thought people would be demanding to grant copyright protection to golf courses. And yet, here we are!!

  • On the post: ExTwitter Accused Of Secretly Boosting Mr. Beast Video With Undisclosed Ad Placements

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2024 @ 09:52am

    A better ad?

    Come to ExTwitter, a serious video hosting site where:

    1. Elon boosts videos he likes as ads without saying they're ads.
    2. People can post full movies, including those that haven't officially come out yet.
    3. The site is guaranteed to work approximately 81% of the time.
    All for just $8 a month... Sounds like a bargain compared to Vimeo.

  • On the post: This Week In BestNetTech History: December 31st – January 6th

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2024 @ 11:03am

    About that Warner Music/YouTube story...

    I have one gripe with Amanda Palmer's quote, but it should be easy to fix... The actual quote:

    did i mention that being on a major label is starting to seem like...not such a grand idea?
    How it should read:
    did i mention that being on a major label is...not such a grand idea?
    FTFY, Amanda Palmer, albeit 15 years late.

  • On the post: Justice O’Connor’s Important Contribution To Copyright Law: Copyright Must Serve The Public First

    Rico R. ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2023 @ 05:03pm

    Partially true... RE: The Betamax Case

    It’s sad that the core underlying finding in that case, that technologies that have “significant non-infringing uses,” should be allowed, has been whittled away by court after court since.
    Yes, it's partially true that courts have since ruled in ways that put many constraints on the doctrine of "significant non-infringing uses", especially considering the finding in MGM v. Grokster. However, I'd argue that Congress has as much to blame for this (if not most of the blame), especially considering the DMCA. Section 1201 may be obvious. How to stop Betamax-like innovation in one step: Add DRM. Not only is it a technical barrier for people who want to innovate on existing tech, but breaking it is illegal even if the aim for doing so is not. DVD and Blu-ray rippers are capable of substantial, non-infringing uses. Still, the fact that they require removing CSS copy protection in DVDs and AACS copy protection in Blu-rays is enough to make distributing or even using them illegal under Section 1201 of the DMCA. However, I'd also argue that Section 512, while as beneficial as it is for the Internet, also restricts the reach of the doctrine of substantial, non-infringing uses. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, etc. aren't liable for copyright infringement done by their users because of section 512 of the DMCA, but it is contingent on them taking very specific steps to stop copyright infringement on their respective platforms. They must be unaware of copyright infringement on the platform, remove allegedly copyright infringing content upon request of a copyright holder, and ban users who are deemed to be repeat infringers. While not quite the same as policing the platform for copyright infringement, it's still not enough to simply say, "Our site is capable of substantial non-infringing uses" to escape liability. You have to do what the law requires. A true liability shield that upholds the ruling in the Betamax case would be more akin to Section 230: Simply say sites with user-generated content aren't liable for copyright infringement by their users, period. But unfortunately, that's not our current law.

Next >>