This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Damien with a simple summary of the lack of logic behind link taxes:
You know, I have yet to see a single source explain how a snippet tax is anything more than trying to charge people for talking about a news story and directing others who are interested to the original source. Apparently “on the internet” really does change everything.
In second place, we’ve got a response from That Anonymous Coward to the FCC’s aggressive demands for personal info from someone who made a pseudonymous FOIA request for information about Ajit Pai’s Reese’s Pieces mug:
“In order to proceed with your request, please provide us with your name, your personal mailing address, and a phone number where you can be reached….”
Aren’t these the same assholes who had no problem with letters of support submitted in the name of the dead, people who submitted nothing, people who knew nothing about net neutrality, and people who opposed what the FCC was doing but someone used their names to give glowing copypasta support?
Also can someone cite the part of the FOIA law that demands all of this information be turned over on demand?? Or is the FCC still making shit up as they go…
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got ArkieGuy with a take on the link tax’s cousin — the snippet tax — inspired by German publishers comparing quoting to stealing a pound of butter:
The snippet tax is like wanting to charge cookbook publishers for recipes that call for butter. If you start charging people to recommend butter in their recipes, you won’t sell as much butter.
Next, we’ve got a comment from any moose cow word about the absurdity of the EU Copyright Directive’s upload filtering requirements:
There’s no centralized database of copyright licensees, only copyright holders have access to those records. Yet, not even the largest copyright holders are able to verify which users were granted permission with the accuracy they demand be enshrined in law. How do they expect anyone else to do something only they have the capacity to do, and even they are incapable of doing?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Ehud Gavron responding to the FCC’s FOIA resistance with a bit of a low-blow that is hard not to giggle at:
Yes, Ajit Pai has a stupid mug.
He also has a funny coffee cup :)
E
In second place, we’ve got an anonymous response to a commenter who tried to portray our criticism of Google’s recent patent attempts as further proof that we are Google shills:
Mike: “Google should be shot in the head.”
You: “Look at Masnick wanting us to donate bullets to Google as if they don’t have enough. Shill!”
Also you: “Corporations are bad…unless they’re intellectual property maximalists who have cheated actual artists and creators out of the fruits of their labors since the time of Queen Anne.”
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from tanj about a South Carolina drug task force serving regular warrants like no-knock warrants:
They did knock. Once, with a battering ram.
They did announced their presence, quite loudly.
Finally, we’ve got a comment from Ninja confessing to an appropriate misreading of something in our post about the FCC’s fake DDoS attack:
“There’s likely several more layers to this story”
At first I read LAWYERS instead of layers. Which would be pretty accurate as well.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon