This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Eric Clapton pretending to regret his lawsuit against a random woman in Germany who listed a bootleg CD on eBay. As it happens, the first place winner is a reply to the second place winner, so we’re going to present them in reverse order. So, in second place, it’s TFG with a response to someone who claimed this wasn’t about copyright, but about some cryptic other thing:
…No, no, this is entirely about copyright, and suing, etc.
Eric Clapton is a rich musician who came down like a ton of bricks on a random German woman because she listed a CD for sale to the tune of $12.
Copyright law makes this possible, and results in oppression of the general public by the copyright holders, especially those who decided to be assholes about it, like Eric Clapton and his legal team decided to be.
I haven’t the foggiest what the Greenpass oppression is, but in this particular case, Clapton decided to be the oppressor, and the oppressed is the German woman. Anything else is a red herring.
I was similarly unfamiliar with that term, but thankfully an anonymous commenter arrived to supply an explanation, and won first place for insightful:
FYI: “Greenpass repression” is code for anything that might make anti-vaxx morons face consequences for their dumbfuckery.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Thad about one particular line in Norton’s description of its new crypto-mining features:
“Currently, Norton Crypto is limited to users with devices that meet the required system requirements.”
Aside from everything else that’s wrong with this, that sentence is a crime against the English language, logic, and common sense. Never mind “required requirements”, what the fuck does it even mean? It’s only currently limited to users with devices that meet the system requirements? In the future, is it not going to be limited to users with devices that meet the system requirements? And wouldn’t that mean that, you know, they’re not actually requirements?
Next, it’s an anonymous comment about the attacks on SciHub by academic publishers, accusing the site of gaining unauthorized access to research:
The academic publishers do not wish to admit that many papers are sent to Sci-Hub by the academics that wrote them. Is that because while declaring war on the public will have almost no impact on their profits, while declaring war on the academics that create their value would just turn the drift to open access into a sprint.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is That Anonymous Coward with a response to our post about a federal court telling Proud Boys defendants that raiding the Capitol building isn’t free speech:
They are proud boys…. not smart boys.
One also has to wonder what 1st Amendment lawyers are calling the idiot who filed this thinking it would work.
In second place, it’s K`Tetch with a comment about the condition invented by cops to justify their misbehavior:
Oh no, Excited Delirium IS a thing.
When cops see a ‘perp’, they get all excited then they get delirious about things like laws, and rights, and how to act. That’s what excited delirium is.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous response to Thad’s earlier comment about Norton Crypto:
I think that sentence translates to “Required requirements are required”.
And finally, we head back to the post about Eric Clapton where Samuel Abram swooped in with the very first comment:
You either die a Hendrix…
…or live long enough to see yourself become a Clapton.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon