or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › American Internet Censorship
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

American Internet Censorship - Page 2

post #51 of 85
post #52 of 85

But isn't Megaupload's stock in trade looking the other way?  I mean, it's not like the accusation is invalid.

post #53 of 85

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171060611948408.html

 

By the way, the fact that criminal copyright infringement is a predicate offense for RICO (meaning that the government can use copyright infringement as the criminal activity that activates the anti-racketeering law originally meant for breaking up organized crime syndicates) is way scarier than SOPA.

 

Whoever got that little amendment onto the RICO statutes deserves a ton of money.

post #54 of 85

So I know it's basically always been the case, but has there been a more blatant open attempt by an american industry to simply buy legislation the vast majority of americans don't want?

 

It's not the best look for the worlds light-on-the-hill alpha-democracy really is it.

post #55 of 85

 

Megaupload latest casualty in new round of cyberwars

 

Quote:

In a dramatic response to the increasingly sucessful internet campaign to halt the draconian SOPA and PIPA bills before Congress, US authorities have targeted one of the major filesharing sites in an international operation.

Overnight, the Megaupload site and related portals were taken down by the Department of Justice after a grand jury indicted the company. The charges against Megaupload are extensive and reek of overkill; they include racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering and copyright infringement, with the indictment terming it all “Mega Conspiracy”. Four people were arrested in New Zealand, including millionaire CEO Kim Schmitz (AKA “Kim Dotcom”), a convicted embezzler and inside trader. Assets worth $50 million are said to have been seized as well.

In response, the websites of the Department of Justice, the Universal Music Group, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America were all taken down in a denial-of-service attack. At the time of writing, the Department of Justice site was still down. The attack, using a newer version of the LOIC software, appeared to have been coordinated by Anonymous, and was said to have been even bigger in user numbers than the attacks that took the Visa, Mastercard and PayPal sites down in response to the financial blockade of WikiLeaks in 2010.

A number of prosecutions are still pending in the US from those 2010 attacks. This time around, LOIC users are being told of the need to protect their IP addresses, and being offered legal services in the event they’re arrested.

Megaupload isn’t a torrent-based site like, for example, Pirate Bay(linking to which, incidentally, would be illegal in the US under SOPA) but an open file-sharing site used for uploading and downloading large files — which inevitably includes copyrighted content as well as legitimate content for corporate and personal use. The company behind it has long insisted it operates legally by complying with the requirements of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but it is a major target of the copyright industry, and has also been blocked by China, Saudia Arabia and Malaysia.

US authorities insisted the takedown and arrests were unrelated to the SOPA debate, a claim made all the harder to believe given the US Department of Justice’s recent history of attacks on the internet. It is the DoJ that demanded confidential information from social media companies and Google about WikiLeaks supporters, and tried to keep it secret; it is the DoJ that brought together the parties that plotted an effort to destroy WikiLeaks and smear journalists and activists; it was the DoJ that proposed in November to criminalise breaching internet companies’ terms of service (you know, those 20,000 word screeds none of us ever read?).

The interesting thing about the raids, however, is that they demonstrate the remarkable power the copyright industry has under existing law to attack those it deems its enemies. The cartel was able to rely on the US Department of Justice and an international police operation to attack a company over what, before the internet, was a purely civil matter of copyright breach. In a world where the New Zealand police readily do the bidding of the US copyright industry, the provisions of SOPA are far beyond overkill.

 

post #56 of 85

If they can do all that without SOPA, what's the point of SOPA?

post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMR View Post

If they can do all that without SOPA, what's the point of SOPA?


 

Exactly.

 

This is the old paradigms trying desperately to control the new ones. Nothing more.

post #58 of 85

Reid has officially shelved PIPA.

 

Which caused Patrick Leahy to produce this gem:

 

Quote:

Somewhere in China today, in Russia today, and in many other countries that do not respect American intellectual property, criminals who do nothing but peddle in counterfeit products and stolen American content are smugly watching how the United States Senate decided it was not even worth debating how to stop the overseas criminals from draining our economy.

 

Fucking douche.

post #59 of 85

The level of hyperbole surrounding this bill is astounding.  Have you guys read it?  It's like 5 pages long and it does nothing of the sorts of things that people accuse it of doing.

post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

The level of hyperbole surrounding this bill is astounding.  Have you guys read it?  It's like 5 pages long and it does nothing of the sorts of things that people accuse it of doing.

 

Why don't you summarize what it does *now*? Because I know very well what it was going to do before the scraped the horribly stupid DNS stuff these guys put in there. I'm still confused, after they stripped the DNS stuff what value this bill really has anymore and why it should be considered.

 

For example, how is it going to shut down thepiratebay.org

 

Also, why is it needed when megaupload was shutdown without it.

 

Let's start from there.

post #61 of 85

The MU raid, while impressive, took years and years of planning.  Plus, that was a criminal operation.  I don't doubt that the timing of the raid had something to do with the floundering support of SOPA/PIPA in Congress, but the grand jury who issued the indictment had been empaneled for quite some time.  Let's put the MU raid aside for that reason.

 

As I understand it, the point of the bill (SOPA/PIPA) is to financially starve websites that traffic in copyrighted material.  The bill works this way: if the attorney general or a private copyright holder finds a foreign website whose sole purpose is to traffic in copyrighted material, either one of them has the right to petition a court for a restraining order shutting down access to that foreign website from within the United States.  The DNS resolving issue was tabled because that created problems for DHS's DNSSEC project.  In addition, either the AG or the private plaintiff can take the court order to ad networks and other revenue providers to shut down the website's revenue stream until such time as the website complies with the order and removes the infringing material.

 

So, say Universal Music wants to shut down a website that allows for the downloading of music published by its labels.  UMG has to go to court and prove that what the website is doing is illegal, i.e., it's not fair use--it's actionable copyright infringement.  You have to convince a judge of that.  There's due process.  And a lot of judges are suspicious of the expansive view that content companies have of copyright protection.  This isn't like a DMCA take down notice, which doesn't require intervention of a court.

 

There's some problems with the actual mechanics of the bill, but this wasn't going to shut down the internet.  What it was going to do was make it harder for websites who traffic in stolen goods to make money.  Why should Google profit from people downloading material illegally?

 

Good take on it from a former professor of mine: http://www.mediainstitute.org/new_site/IPI/2011/122311.php

 

Good primer: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/randy-picker-discusses-sopa-chicago-tonight


I think the internet is apoplectic about this because, at the end of the day, people like their free shit on isohunt.

post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post


I think the internet is apoplectic about this because, at the end of the day, people like their free shit on isohunt.


Yeah, I'm sure those pirates at the EFF, that Tim Berners Lee asshole, and that criminal copyright violator Vinton Cerf just want to make sure they can download the latest warez and get their Ke$$ha music for free.

 

You can't really put aside the megaupload stuff, I don't care about the timing, if they can do that I don't see the need for these bills. Specially when these bills claim to apply to sites in "foreign domains" but its insipid definition puts piratebay.ORG (and megaupload.ORG) as domestic sites and supposedly outside their jurisdiction.

 

The DNS problems weren't only going to mess up DNSSEC, they were going to mess up DNS now *AND* undermine the DNS system by making the US have a partial view of it, and encouraging the rest of the world to setup another alternative that is not so dependent on ICANN.

 

The irony is the DNS stuff wasn't going to solve anything, because the sites would still be VERY accessible.

 

The DMCA has lots of unintended consequences, like the whole DeCSS fiasco ... (and for a time not being able to legally play DVDs in Linux, or legally BACKUP your copy of a movie).

 

I love how this is framed, if you oppose it it you must be a pirate, yeah right.

post #63 of 85

Am I alone in thinking that this "war on illegal downloads" mirrors the supposed "war on drugs" that the US has been unsuccessfully administering for the last few decades?

 

While I am completely behind the idea of protecting an individuals' right to copyright their intellectual ideas, the old paradigms have shifted and we need a new way of looking at it.

 

Look at the iPhone/iOS....it's released, it get's jailbroken....the software is updated, it's gets jailbroken again....etc.

 

Where there's a will, there's a way OR to put it in geek-speak "you can't stop the signal"

 

 

 

post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post


Yeah, I'm sure those pirates at the EFF, that Tim Berners Lee asshole, and that criminal copyright violator Vinton Cerf just want to make sure they can download the latest warez and get their Ke$$ha music for free.

 

You can't really put aside the megaupload stuff, I don't care about the timing, if they can do that I don't see the need for these bills. Specially when these bills claim to apply to sites in "foreign domains" but its insipid definition puts piratebay.ORG (and megaupload.ORG) as domestic sites and supposedly outside their jurisdiction.

 

The DNS problems weren't only going to mess up DNSSEC, they were going to mess up DNS now *AND* undermine the DNS system by making the US have a partial view of it, and encouraging the rest of the world to setup another alternative that is not so dependent on ICANN.

 

The irony is the DNS stuff wasn't going to solve anything, because the sites would still be VERY accessible.

 

The DMCA has lots of unintended consequences, like the whole DeCSS fiasco ... (and for a time not being able to legally play DVDs in Linux, or legally BACKUP your copy of a movie).

 

I love how this is framed, if you oppose it it you must be a pirate, yeah right.


EFF does great work and TBL is TBL.  The arguments they make are reasoned and thought out.  But you really think the guys on Gizmodo and Anon with its LOIC really give a rats ass about the integrity of the internet?  For them I feel it's really about isohunt.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Am I alone in thinking that this "war on illegal downloads" mirrors the supposed "war on drugs" that the US has been unsuccessfully administering for the last few decades?

 

While I am completely behind the idea of protecting an individuals' right to copyright their intellectual ideas, the old paradigms have shifted and we need a new way of looking at it.

 

Look at the iPhone/iOS....it's released, it get's jailbroken....the software is updated, it's gets jailbroken again....etc.

 

Where there's a will, there's a way OR to put it in geek-speak "you can't stop the signal"

 

 

 

 

Agreed that there needs to be a new business model for distribution of TV shows, but that's easier said than done.  You think ABC/NBC/CBS don't want to give you TV everywhere?  They'd love to!  They can serve more ads to you that way.  A lot of times the big holdouts for digital distribution aren't the big networks.  It's the talent who wants astronomical fees to allow online distribution.  I mean, people are in this to make money, not solely for the love of the game.

 

I think you'll see this slowly solve itself as more and more TV shows are made with the expectation that they'll be distributed everywhere.  It's taken a long time to get to that point, but I think the tide is turning.

post #65 of 85

The industry efforts are futile and counter productive, DRM in PC games actually encourages people to download pirated versions of the game even if they've bought it. And again the DMCA has been used to justify idiotic abusive behavior.

 

It's also a waste of time, what was the result of the industry suing Johansen over DeCSS, aside from terrorizing him for a couple of years with the threat of jail time (case was dropped at the end)?

post #66 of 85

Again, why should we even be talking about this law when from a plain reading it wouldn't touch thepiratebay.ORG, and megaupload.com has been dealt with without it?

 

The answer is not, we need to pass something. I find their claims of how much money they've lost to be ridiculous and impossible to back up by any means.

 

I find it more obscene that our congress is UNITED in this issue with obvious $$$ from the entertainment industry, more than people being against this law for whatever selfish reasons.

 

So gizmodo is against SOPA, who cares? I didn't even check their site that day, who cares when you have wikipedia, google, and more important and valuable organizations and individuals opposing it?

 

Hey the proponents are the ones that have a long hill to climb, they're basically big money entertainment industry types and politicians and that's mostly it. The last people you want regulating anything on the internet.

post #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

Agreed that there needs to be a new business model for distribution of TV shows, but that's easier said than done.  You think ABC/NBC/CBS don't want to give you TV everywhere?  They'd love to!  They can serve more ads to you that way.  A lot of times the big holdouts for digital distribution aren't the big networks.  It's the talent who wants astronomical fees to allow online distribution.  I mean, people are in this to make money, not solely for the love of the game.

 

I think you'll see this slowly solve itself as more and more TV shows are made with the expectation that they'll be distributed everywhere.  It's taken a long time to get to that point, but I think the tide is turning.


It's somewhat simplistic, but it really does come down to greed.

I used to work in the music industry (thankfully, I got out before it more or less collapsed) and I saw the change when everything switched over from vinyl to CDs. Once the major record companies got their CD production up and running, the $$ cost of producing a CD came down exponentially (compared to producing a vinyl record)....but did the record companies lower their prices...some did, but most of the major companies raised their prices.

$ 20 for a single CD that costs a couple bucks to make was bullshit...sure some of the cost is for promotion and crap like that, but the majority of it was pure profit for the companies. Alot of artists were REALLY getting screwed. (personally, I wouldn't have a problem paying $20 for a cd from an artist I liked IF that artist was getting most of that $20....more power to people like Prince and Trent Reznor for saying FU to the record companies)  

I wasn't in the least bit surprised when 'napster' took off the way it did.

IMO, if the record companies had lowered their prices ($5.99 or less for older albums, $9.99 for a single 'new' cd), they may have been able to save themselves from an early death.

 

Now move forward 10 years +/- and the same thing is happening with books and video...and the TV/Movie/Publishing companies still seem unable to let go of the old way of doing things...partially because, I think,  they won't be making as much profit as they have in the past, and that freaks them out.

 

I see Apple is trying to get into the textbook market now as well. It's about time as I never understood the ridiculous prices being charged for school textbooks.

 

I do realize there are many other factors to consider with regards to the above ideas but, the bottom line is that it always comes down to maximizing profits at the expense of everything else.

post #68 of 85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spook View Post
Agreed that there needs to be a new business model for distribution of TV shows, but that's easier said than done.  You think ABC/NBC/CBS don't want to give you TV everywhere?  They'd love to!  They can serve more ads to you that way.  A lot of times the big holdouts for digital distribution aren't the big networks.  It's the talent who wants astronomical fees to allow online distribution.  I mean, people are in this to make money, not solely for the love of the game.

 

In fairness I think that's because one of the major ways content makes money up front is territorial licensing, not advertising.  Advertising is a crap shoot and everyone knows it (except advertising people, to hear them tell it anyway.  No real surprise there), that's why content is usually sold in package deals.  You got to buy a few dud shows to get a hit one if you're a foreign network.  So those crap shows may sit on the shelf until 2AM dead time four years later, but they at least made some money along the way.

With internet distro everyone assumes they're going to lose those royalties (and probably assumes they'll undercut territorial value as well), plus no package deals,  and so ramps up their rights fees accordingly.

People will tell you piracy is to blame for this and it's easy to see why.  But as with the music industry it's a combination of things (you likely agree).  Direct service could undoubtedly work but no one really knows how much or for what.  Meanwhile there's a lot of well worn old deals, channels and relationships that aren't going to be all that cheerful about losing their cut along the way, or just their place in the world. So for now shows still have to crawl around the planet at their industry designated speed while everyone who might be interested has already heard about them and downloaded them as soon as they aired in the home country.

 

As much as it's annoying and stupid and largely their own fault, I can see the problem, and how just digging your heels in seems an equally reasonable option next to leaping headlong into fundamental and potentially suicidal reform.  But no doubt this last bit has been covered before....

 

 

Oh yeah, what I going to say was: if the megaupload case took so long to to get together we can expect to see more brutal stuff being tabled more often I think.  Because no one cares that much about megaupload, from what I gather.  Right now I expect Rapidshare are doing backflips making sure the same thing won't work on them though

post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post


EFF does great work and TBL is TBL.  The arguments they make are reasoned and thought out.  But you really think the guys on Gizmodo and Anon with its LOIC really give a rats ass about the integrity of the internet?  For them I feel it's really about isohunt.


It's really not. The hardcore pirate types don't even use the web depositories like isohunt, The Pirate Bay, etc. They hang out in the IRC chatrooms where those torrents originate, and there is really no way to regulate those. The people who use the sites are the more casual pirates, and their the ones who are most likely to also be purchasing legitimate copies. Not necessarily of the stuff that they pirate, but of other things.

 

post #70 of 85

wow, Chris Dodd is quite the hypocritical asshole...

I know, I know....I shouldn't really be surprised.

 

Quote:

Chris Dodd to Obama: Hollywood will stop supporting you because you were soft on SOPA and PIPA

 

Former Senator Chris Dodd, now head of the MPAA, is pissed at Obama. He's threatened to withhold entertainment lobbyist money from Obama's upcoming re-election war chest over the administration's lack of support for SOPA and PIPA. As an ex-Senator, Dodd is prohibited from directly lobbying Congress for a couple more years, and some insiders tell me he feels that this hamstrung his efforts because he couldn't sit down over lunch with lawmakers who directly owed him personal favors and demand that they stay firm on SOPA and PIPA.

 

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

 

Quote:

Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist

 

One of the worst kept secrets in DC and Hollywood over the last month or so is the news that former Connecticut Senator and failed Presidential candidate Chris Dodd is set to become the MPAA's new boss (salary: $1.2 million per year). This came after a failed attempt to get former Senator (and failed presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey to take the role last year.

Assuming Dodd takes the role, he's already proving himself to be perfect for a Hollywood job, because it makes him a blatant liar. Last summer, Dodd insisted that he would not become a lobbyist. He made this abundantly clear. When asked what he would do, he was explicit: "No lobbying, no lobbying." Yeah, apparently a million dollar plus salary makes you a liar barely a month after leaving the job. Of course, technically, Dodd is also barred from becoming a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but there's a kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* trick that Dodd and others use to technically claim they're not lobbyists while merely running one of the bigger and most high profile lobbying organizations around.

Of course, it'll also be interesting to see if Dodd sells his soul and changes some of his professed principles. For example, he was a big supporter of "net neutrality." But the MPAA has come out against net neutrality, claiming it would hamper its efforts to "fight piracy." He was also against ISP data retention, which the MPAA has supported (again as a way to fight piracy). On copyright he was somewhat non-committal, but did talk about how fair use rights are important. I imagine that will disappear once he takes the role formerly filled by Jack Valenti -- the man who once declared that fair use doesn't exist.

Anyway, I guess it shouldn't surprise us that a politician lied and went back on his basic principles in favor of a huge check from industry. It happens all the time. The real question is why anyone would take Chris Dodd seriously in this role going forward after proving that he's in it for nothing more than the check.

 

 

post #71 of 85


Chris Dodd can suck my dick.

post #72 of 85

Government has been coming down hard on certain notorious streaming and file-sharing sites since MegaUploads.  Among them, piratebay.org just switched TLD to .se to avoid seizure.

 

What does it all mean?  Not sure.

post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

Government has been coming down hard on certain notorious streaming and file-sharing sites since MegaUploads.  Among them, piratebay.org just switched TLD to .se to avoid seizure.

 

What does it all mean?  Not sure.



What would you personally like to see these laws achieve Judd?

post #74 of 85

Here's the way I look at it.  Piracy is ubiquitous and socially acceptable across demographics.  This milieu has its genesis with Napster, when I feel like most of us didn't even think about what we were doing.  Somehow that initial pique metamorphosized into the feeling, if not belief, that it's ok to download protected content so long as no one is looking.  I don't have a single friend or acquaintance under the age of 30 that doesn't deliberately seek out pirated content on a regular basis.  Including folks who can afford to do otherwise.

 

Sure, you can bitch all you want that Hollywood et al. are suffering the consequences of overpriced, unappealing content, and I tend to agree.  Going to the movies today costs too much.  DVDs cost too much, at least when uncoupled from new entitlement systems (i.e. Ultra Violet and whatever Disney is cooking up).  But whatever content creators might do to lower costs to the consumer, ultimately they can't compete with free.  As bandwidth has widened, streaming of pirated content has become more sophisticated/of better quality, and it's readily available with minimal effort.  I don't think this is an inevitable state of affairs.  While I do think any legislative effort should be careful to avoid creating barriers to innovation on the Internet, I don't think the Internet should be immune from regulation.  And you shouldn't either.

 

I believe any potential legislative effort should:

 

a) Push some of the burden of IP protection onto other beneficiaries of the e-commerce ecosystem like advertising services and payment providers.  They call this "following the money".  Most of these sites are supported by ads or subscriptions.  A site like Piratebay cannot exist without advertising revenue.  It simply costs too much to maintain its servers.  And Google, or whomever provides those ads, shouldn't benefit from the enormous traffic a site like that generates.

 

b) Make it burdensome enough for your average consumer to find infringing content that they won't bother.  You're never going to be able to stamp out piracy completely.  It's too difficult to police on the user-end (and too much of a PR nightmare), and people will always find a way.  I suspect, and this is admittedly conjecture, that there's a psychic threshold beyond which your average person is going to find it too cumbersome to bother.  What makes copyright infringement so ubiquitous is that it is so readily available.  I have one friend who is currently streaming Breaking Bad season 4, after having caught the first three on Netflix.  I can almost guarantee that she would buy it via iTunes if the streaming site she uses were suddenly shut down.  I have another who, instead of going to see The Descendants at the theater down the street from his apt, stayed in and watched it on some Romanian streaming site (in DVD quality... Oscar screeners having been ripped and all that).  Nothing but laziness kept him from shelling out $10 to see it on the big screen.

 

I don't know that (a) is enough on its own to achieve (b), but it's worth an argument.

 

post #75 of 85

Attacking advertising is an interesting idea.

I've always thought that there's going to be some sort of revenue sharing system.  Basically ISPs become content providers;  you pay your monthly fee and a certain amount goes to royalties  (kinda like the way there is/was a tax on blank media that went as damage control to media companies, but better hopefully), then they become TV stations, radio stations, if not directly hosting the stuff themselves (or even making it, in my wildest dreams) then getting into close deals with the Hulus, the Netflixes and what have you and sell that to people.

Most of this stuff is my idea of an augmentation of the way things are done in Australia now.  Bandwidth has been so scarce and expensive that some major ISPs have done things like host content and provide content, particularly games, so users don't jam up their servers and blow out the international bandwidth rates.

The royalty system is pretty much the way it's done here now too;  the APRA goes around and gets everyone's blanket license fees for playing music in public etc and shares it around.

 

It'd work great, I think. But it's a bit too neat and small.  The 'net hasn't really developed in that direction anywhere else in the West because of the vast competition and generally better bandwidth availability.  So I don't know.  Things properly going cloud based may make this even less likely too.

 

Part of B) is how Steam has won the day with games.  It's cheap and convenient.  There's some inconvenience to pirate things, but if you're not young and poor and take that delight in beating the system (man) who can really be bothered.  Five bucks, ten bucks.  It's not too bad for a good game.  As Gabe Newell himself said, it's all about providing a better service than the pirates.

(that said there is, therefore, some need for anti-piracy inconvenience for practical and some would say moral reasons, but the question is always how much.  Security companies hold a lot of sway out there I think.  With their scary numbers they can send ignorant investors running and they know it)

post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post


They won't even bother doing that. The big torrent sites are already switching to magnet links rather than torrent ones. Good luck doing DNS blocking to tracker-less torrents. With magnet links I could load the entirety of thepiratebay into I think a 4GB usb drive. The concept of The Big Bad Server that you can block and stop piracy is even more of a joke now than it's ever been. The law makers are so hopelessly clueless in these things it's kind of tragic watching them try.



Update: I was both right and wrong. TPB did indeed do the switch to magnet links. But I was wrong about the size of the site. It's now actually 90MB. Good luck shutting that down. And there's more, even less centralized stuff in the pipeline. I know piracy is bad but as a tech guy watching this is like watching a three year old with throwing a tantrum and trying to beat up his dad. So funny.

 

post #77 of 85

Soooo, Google basically supports SOPA minus the DNS blocking provision which every sponsor agreed to remove anyway... ok:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406603,00.asp

post #78 of 85

The European Parliament just murdered ACTA. Voted 478-39 against and rejected it outright and permantly. I love it. Doubly so because the douche commissioner that brought it up said that he'd keep putting it up for vote until it passed.

 

You're welcome, US citizens.

post #79 of 85

Megaupload founder goes from arrest to cult hero

 

Quote:

This month, Mr. Dotcom’s U.S. lawyers are set to appear before a Virginia judge in a bid to have the criminal case against the company dismissed. According to a document on his lawyers’ Web site, they will argue, among other points, that the indictments are invalid because they must be submitted to a company’s U.S. office, which Megaupload has never had.

 

...

 

Two helicopters and 76 heavily armed officers to arrest a man alleged of copyright crimes — think about that,” he wrote. “Hollywood is importing their movie scripts into the real world and sends armed forces to protect their outdated business model.”

 

In February, the New Zealand police defended the operation, saying it had been in line with a risk assessment and there had been only “20 or 30” officers involved in the raid on the mansion.

 

....

 

The biggest victory came last Thursday, when a High Court judge ruled the New Zealand police had used the wrong type of search warrant, so the entire raid had been illegal. Mr. Dotcom’s lawyers are due back in the Auckland High Court on Wednesday, seeking the return of seized assets and data.

post #80 of 85

_attachments_sizemore_hotfuzz_poultry-tm.jpg

"What's the situation?"

"One bloke and a fuck load of Cheese Doodles"

post #81 of 85

The fact that Kim Dotcom, one of the most notorious weirdos in a medium full of them, is being played as a folk hero, as the internet's own Jesse James, is absolutely emblematic of its qualities.

 

I love it. 

post #82 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

The fact that Kim Dotcom, one of the most notorious weirdos in a medium full of them, is being played as a folk hero, as the internet's own Jesse James, is absolutely emblematic of its qualities.

 

I love it. 

 

"Weirdo" is probably to kind a word.

post #83 of 85
Quote:


      

         Two helicoptors and 76 armed guards? Whatever happened to undercover cops? This is for tracking down drug cartels, not video pirates.

post #84 of 85

Why are you such an authoritarian douche, Obama?

 

Quote:
The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

 

 

Quote:
While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders.

 

 

Quote:

Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement that the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials’ longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court’s permission.

 

“This doesn’t create any new legal surveillance authority,” he said. “This always requires a court order. None of the ‘going dark’ solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.”

 

Yeah, sure. Whatever. We believe you this time. rolleyes.gif

 

Quote:

Foreign-based communications services that do business in the United States would be subject to the same procedures, and would be required to have a point of contact on domestic soil who could be served with a wiretap order, officials said.

 

Albert Gidari Jr., who represents technology companies on law enforcement matters, criticized that proposed procedure. He argued that if the United States started imposing fines on foreign Internet firms, it would encourage other countries, some of which may be looking for political dissidents, to penalize American companies if they refused to turn over users’ information.

 

We’ll look a lot more like China than America after this,” Mr. Gidari said.

post #85 of 85
Apparantly with the prosecutions argument in the Bradley Manning case if now you post anything on the Internet that the government dosent approve of it could be seen as "aiding and abetting the enemy" that is beyond insane. And people still have the gall to criticize Edward Snowden for fleeing? I totally don't blame him this is ridiculous!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3543592
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › American Internet Censorship