This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad, responding to Ed Sheeran’s stand against takedown bots with a good observation about the broken incentives of the DMCA:
One of the many problems with the DMCA is that it not only actively encourages hands-off, automatic takedowns, it actually encourages that the algorithms they’re based on be as dumb as possible.
Because if it can be proven that a rightsholder intentionally issued a false takedown, then the rightsholder is liable. But if it’s an accident, they’re not.
Next, we head to our post about Trump’s latest immigration order, where one commenter put forth the full lyrics to Al Wilson’s “The Snake” — Trump’s chosen anti-immigration (in his mind) campaign poem. But one anonymous commenter responded beautifully to the saga of the betraying serpent:
And yet we elected him president anyways.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with another response to the Ed Sheeran story, this time from That Anonymous Coward who dissected the motivations of the recording industry:
They fear the loss of control they imagine will destroy them as hundreds of kids cover a song & get record deals.
Only they can choose who will be the next star, and the serfs will pay us dearly for our picks.
You can not have anything we do not approve of, because we have stolen your culture for centuries and we will not stop now.
The serfs will be mad at the stars, and not us so we really don’t care. Someone hearing 15 seconds of something we ‘own’ lock stock & barrel and us not getting paid is the highest sin possible.
Someone smart should start courting acts, so that when it comes time to renew contracts they just go with the smart guy. Don’t need giant buildings full of lawyers taking a cut, wasting money on making sure that only corporate approved methods of showing support will be allowed. You just need to connect with your fans & have a good time… the money will flow. (And probably more than under the old deal where the labels sucked every cent possible out of everything.)
“It is a threat to society itself!” “Here’s twenty bucks.” “Enjoy your threat to society itself.”
So porn is such a huge problem in the state that it requires nothing less than mandatory filters to combat it’s vile evil, yet for $20 said vile evil can be enjoyed freely.
I’m going to second a comment made the last time this came up, and mentioned in the article itself, and say that this isn’t so much an ‘anti-porn’ bill as an ‘easy taxes’ one, where the ‘keep porn from corrupting the innocent youth’ is just the paper-thin justification for introducing a new stream of revenue, under the idea that no-one will be willing to publicly defend porn such that the tax will be implemented without any significant pushback.
They aren’t treating porn as a threat so much as a paycheck, a source of easy money.
Over on the funny side, our first place comment comes in response to the Sen. Ron Johnson’s silly “bridge” analogy for the internet. One anonymous commenter joined in on the fun:
I like this game. I’ll give it shot.
The internet is like a muffin with a series of pulleys attached to its gooey center. And at the end of these pulleys are antarctic monkeys eating your Cheetos. These Cheetos determine who gets what and where with the monkeys, and data makes laps around the muffin, but only two times, so it doesn’t get bunched up, because there’s only one muffin to do laps around. There’s also a crocodile somewhere.
How’d I do?
For second place, we head to our post about a driver who received a ticket for an “obscene” decal on his car. The conversation pivoted to the idea of watching porn in the car when other drivers can see it, and one commenters assertion that they don’t want their grandkids seeing “Debbie” performing various sex acts on a screen in an adjacent car. Roger Strong was sympathetic but curious:
While I fully agree with you, I can’t help but wonder: How did you know her name was Debbie?
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more nod to Thad, largely because nobody openly acknowledged the excellent TV reference he used in this comment, and I want to make sure he knows at least someone got it! It was a response to a commenter who accused us of changing our stance on Google Fiber since last year:
Just year and half ago, you stated “Google, which is spending billions on wireless service and fiber to the home”:
And a year and a half ago, it was.
“Last year, Abe claimed to be 15 years old. This year, he claims to be 16. Which is it, Abe?”
(He’d also like you to believe he’s not a baby eater.)
Finally, because it certainly doesn’t deserve to get off so lightly, we’ve got one more response to the internet bridge analogy, this time from Mark Wing:
That’s why I send all my internets before rush hour, when the tubes are empty and there are no trucks on the bridge.
That’s all for this week, folks!