Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?
from the legal-long-shots dept
We've already covered the bizarre story of Homeland Security effectively working for Disney in seizing some domains of sites that were used to file share movies (way, way, way outside of Homeland Security's mandate), and covered the sneaky attempt to defend those moves by conflating copyright infringement online with counterfeit drugs being sold online. It's also still not clear that Homeland Security even has the legal right to seize those domains as it did. Now, one of those sites targeted by Homeland Security, NinjaVideo is trying to fight back, and appears to be trying to crowdsource a legal defense fund to handle the fight. I honestly don't know anything about NinjaVideo or what the site did, so I have no idea if it has a strong or weak case. I also do wonder how many people will really step up and support the site -- though if many do it could make for an interesting case study on its own as well. Either way, it's worth watching to see how successful the site is in raising money for its fight -- and then in the legal fight itself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, crowdsource, homeland security
Companies: ninjavideo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/viewtopic.php?id=35777
There were already quite a few pledges of support and donations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All content was stored externally, usually on the likes of Megaupload. Using some fancy schmancy tricks (a java applet), the streaming they provided could get the content from there.
There may have been a more direct relationship with uploaders, especially due to the higher effort they put in to getting shows up as quickly as possible and in good quality, but it may be better to ask them directly if they're able to talk about it.
The site had advertising on it, and accepted donations from users (who would then get special mention and higher priority in the forums with site isues, and they're user name turned yellow).
The site branched out into other areas - they actually promoted a few artists through the site (one called Lowkey in particular I think), produced a comic via its forums and held one or 2 other forum focused things.
That's AFAIK. There's a whole bunch more stuff around what's going on now here: http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/viewforum.php?id=71
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope people will read this and consider donating a $ or two,
I just wanted to add that there was lots more going on on ninja, we had the artists spotlights as you mentioned, mostly hiphop artists like Lowkey or Immortal Technique but also other non music related stuff, there was a ninja magazine published every few months, a twin site with original content 'lostcitizen', ninja radio, art competitions, a photoclub, movie and documentary clubs, poem and short fiction competitions, not to forget all the political, cultural, philosophical, theological, scientific debates, you name it
everybody who ever used the mainsite or the forum benefited from ninja in many ways, now would be a good time to give something back, even if seems like a drop in the ocean
http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/page.php?id=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
either way... have fun in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like it's time to fire up the old PayPal account. I've been wanting to help fight the government in some way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punishment without trial
The middle ages and witch hunts come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We've already covered the bizarre story of Homeland Security effectively working for Disney in seizing some domains of sites that were used to file share movies (way, way, way outside of Homeland Security's mandate), and covered the sneaky attempt to defend those moves by conflating copyright infringement online with counterfeit drugs being sold online."
Why do you think DHS works for Disney? Isn't it more likely they work for intellectual property rights holders in general against pirates and counterfeiters? Exactly which part of Homeland Security's mandate are you referring to? I'd like to see the exact verbiage of the mandate that you think they are working outside of. Why does DHS's IPR website distinguish between piracy and counterfeiting when you say they conflate the two? Can't they be against both? Isn't this sort of thing exactly within their mandate? Please explain your side, thoroughly, and with well researched arguments.
"It's also still not clear that Homeland Security even has the legal right to seize those domains as it did."
Please explain this claim in detail. Which part of civil forfeiture concurrent with a criminal investigation don't you get? Please cite authority for your position that this legal right is unclear. Please explain exactly how you've decided that it's violative of due process. Have you read what the courts have to say on the issue? Please explain what the courts say and then explain how they're wrong and you're right.
You've insulted me and questioned my intelligence and understanding of the law. Somehow you think the fact that I'm in law school means I know less about the law than you.
I'm calling you out, Mike. Back up your arguments.
I'm back to hitting the books, but I'll check in later to see what you have to say. I'm sure the peanut gallery will chime in too, but I can almost guarantee no one will have anything substantive to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Department of Homeland Security was created for the express purpose of protecting America from terrorist threats. How does shutting down sites that link to copyrighted movies fall within the scope of protecting America from terrorists.
Please explain this claim in detail. Which part of civil forfeiture concurrent with a criminal investigation don't you get?
The part where they don't actually file any charges, but rather just seize the person's assets without ever having to show any proof whatsoever.
Please cite authority for your position that this legal right is unclear. Please explain exactly how you've decided that it's violative of due process. Have you read what the courts have to say on the issue? Please explain what the courts say and then explain how they're wrong and you're right.
The very concept of asset seizure and forfeiture without a criminal conviction, violates due process. If a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, how can the government legally seize their property? Such an action is punitive, but if the person is innocent, why are they being punished? Don't even get me started on the ridiculous idea that the property is being charged with a crime. If property can now be treated like a human being, where are its rights? Why isn't it appointed a public defender and given a fair trial?
Asset seizure and forfeiture laws are nothing more than legalized stealing. I don't care how many courts have given this travesty their approval. Being able to take someone's property without ever charging the owner with a crime, or having to show any real proof that the property is the result of a criminal activity violates everything that America is supposed to stand for. It just goes to show how corrupt the courts are that they let the politicians pass a law that allows them to just take whatever they like with nothing more than a statement, and no oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DHS represents a consolidation of many agencies that previously operated autonomously or were secunded to other agencies where their "fit" was not altogether apparent. From the INS, Customs, SS, USCG, etc., the DHS has a very broad spectrum of responsibilities and oversight that extent well beyond matters pertaining to terrorism.
The very concept of asset seizure and forfeiture without a criminal conviction, violates due process.
The matter here is one of civil law, and not one of criminal law. It would be helpful if you would elaborate further on why the relevant law fails to satisfy "due process".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The Department of Homeland Security was created for the express purpose of protecting America from terrorist threats. How does shutting down sites that link to copyrighted movies fall within the scope of protecting America from terrorists."
Please cite your authority for this position. Without citation, it appears as if you are just making this up. You will need to explain the scope of DHS's mandate, and then explain how this doesn't fall within that scope. An analysis of competing interpretations with your own analysis on top would be even better.
"The part where they don't actually file any charges, but rather just seize the person's assets without ever having to show any proof whatsoever."
Do you have the least bit of an understanding of how these forfeitures work? Your statement indicates otherwise.
The very concept of asset seizure and forfeiture without a criminal conviction, violates due process. If a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, how can the government legally seize their property? Such an action is punitive, but if the person is innocent, why are they being punished? Don't even get me started on the ridiculous idea that the property is being charged with a crime. If property can now be treated like a human being, where are its rights? Why isn't it appointed a public defender and given a fair trial?
Asset seizure and forfeiture laws are nothing more than legalized stealing. I don't care how many courts have given this travesty their approval. Being able to take someone's property without ever charging the owner with a crime, or having to show any real proof that the property is the result of a criminal activity violates everything that America is supposed to stand for. It just goes to show how corrupt the courts are that they let the politicians pass a law that allows them to just take whatever they like with nothing more than a statement, and no oversight."
The constitutionality of such forfeitures has been challenged for decades--and to no avail. The very nature of your questioning shows your complete lack of understanding of the substantive issues at hand. You seem to just be stating your off-hand opinion on the matter with absolutely no research into the substance of the debate. There's little need to debate with a person who hasn't made a showing that they even understand at a basic level the issues being discussed.
Feel better, Modplan? I took on thye AC. Yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually it would be better to say the white house staff, DOJ, and office of IP enforcement all work or used to work for Disney and its ilk. DHS is just carry out the orders from above. I hope that clarifies things for you.
Big Ole GRIN
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about you reply to the AC above which the techdirt community has deemed insightful?
C'mon, man! I'm waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Glancing at the AC's post, I notice it's just opinion without a single citation to authority.
And you're missing the point. Mike has made useveralnsubstantiated claims, and I'm calling him out on it.
I want Mike to make real arguments, backed by citations.
Unsupported opinions passed off as facts do not interest me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most people don't care what you think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most people don't care what you think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
God forbid you be an AC and say something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of that changes the fact that I'm calling out Mike. He's been making claims that I think are biased and baseless, and he should be the one to back up his assertions. I've noticed a tendency for him to try to turn the argument around so the other guy is on the defensive. I won't let that happen here. Mike made the claims, and he's the one to defend them if he's to be taken seriously. Argue with me all you want, Modplan, but none of that will take away the fact that I'm calling out Mike for his statements, and I will continue to do so. This is between me and Mike. I'm ready, willing, and able to back up my arguments. I've yet to see Mike do the same.
In the past few days, I've called Mike out three times without a single response from him. I'll start keeping tab so we can all play along. Here are my posts calling him out:
(1) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/11055510215.shtml#c355
"Mike,
I thought the recurring complaint on Techdirt was that copyright wasn't designed primarily to benefit the author. Is the complaint now that it doesn't serve the author enough?
And isn't copyright doing its job? It seems to me that authors are all producing plenty of works. Whether or not an author has contracted/licensed away his rights has little to do with whether or not the works are benefiting the public, right? How are middlemen interfering with copyright's aim?
If authors weren't being stimulated by copyright to create their works, then why are they choosing to copyright their works? They don't have to copyright their works, right? But they choose to.
And didn't the Statute of Anne seek to break up a publishers' monopoly by offering, as an alternative, an author's monopoly of limited duration?
I think you misunderstand the Statute of Anne: "Probably the only feature of the Statute of Anne that pleased the booksellers was the grandfather clause that continued the old copyrights — the stationers' copyrights — for a period of twenty-one years. Otherwise, the statute was designed to destroy the booksellers' monopoly of the booktrade and to prevent its recurrence. Thus, the statute provided for a highly sophisticated copyright that made the author the initial owner of copyright (relegating booksellers to the statute of assignees), made the creation of a new work a condition for copyright, and limited the term of copyright — formerly perpetual—to two terms of fourteen years each." 47 Journal of the Copyright Society 365."
(2) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100723/15141110344.shtml#c117
"Let's see.
"We've already covered the bizarre story of Homeland Security effectively working for Disney in seizing some domains of sites that were used to file share movies (way, way, way outside of Homeland Security's mandate), and covered the sneaky attempt to defend those moves by conflating copyright infringement online with counterfeit drugs being sold online."
Why do you think DHS works for Disney? Isn't it more likely they work for intellectual property rights holders in general against pirates and counterfeiters? Exactly which part of Homeland Security's mandate are you referring to? I'd like to see the exact verbiage of the mandate that you think they are working outside of. Why does DHS's IPR website distinguish between piracy and counterfeiting when you say they conflate the two? Can't they be against both? Isn't this sort of thing exactly within their mandate? Please explain your side, thoroughly, and with well researched arguments.
"It's also still not clear that Homeland Security even has the legal right to seize those domains as it did."
Please explain this claim in detail. Which part of civil forfeiture concurrent with a criminal investigation don't you get? Please cite authority for your position that this legal right is unclear. Please explain exactly how you've decided that it's violative of due process. Have you read what the courts have to say on the issue? Please explain what the courts say and then explain how they're wrong and you're right.
You've insulted me and questioned my intelligence and understanding of the law. Somehow you think the fact that I'm in law school means I know less about the law than you.
I'm calling you out, Mike. Back up your arguments.
I'm back to hitting the books, but I'll check in later to see what you have to say. I'm sure the peanut gallery will chime in too, but I can almost guarantee no one will have anything substantive to say."
(3) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/03152710320.shtml#c152
""This is, clearly, a blatant abuse of copyright law, and not at all what the law intended to do. Between this and the shenanigans of US Copyright Group, is it really too much to ask that the courts or Congress recognize that copyright law is being blatantly abused in a quasi-shakedown system?"
What exactly is copyright law intended to do? Exactly how is this an abuse of copyright law? Use citations and authorities to back up every aspect of your arguments. Point us to scholarly sources. Give us a detailed, thorough analysis of the issues. Leave your unsupported opinions at the door.
"Again, this is not what copyright law is supposed to be for."
Again, please explain this in detail using several different sources as authority. Can you make arguments that would hold up in a court of law?
I really wonder about you, Mike."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only citation I've seen from you is one other people pointed you to, which you then quoted but did so in a way to suggest that this backed the idea that copyright was needed and was somehow reputable research, when it was a simple statement from a judge that had no relation at all to any research or historical insight that suggested copyright was needed.
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100720/17383310297#c868
Not to mention your repeated reliance on circular logic and requiring other commentators and Mike to act as your dancing monkey because you're bored and want some help with your IP law studies but can't be bothered to do the research yourself. Instead, demand other people always give you citations even if you never give any yourself and make what are obviously incorrect assertions even without appeals to authority, citations and only a basic knowledge in copyright history.
a) Mike does this as part of a job.
http://www.floor64.com/
b) It's the weekend. Like a lot people on the weekend, Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays are days off work and to do other things than your job, especially if they involve bowing to demands by random commentators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't choose to. A work is copyrighted as soon as it is created. If content creators had to choose to copyright works (through registration for example), it would solve a lot of problems.
Furthermore, the second argument has no value. You could give me an incentive to breath by paying me a dollar for each breath I take, and I would gladly take you up on that offer, but the whole arrangement misses the point because I was breathing before you made the offer and I would have continued to breath even if you hadn't. There is no justification for providing incentives that go beyond the minimum necessary to spur progress in the arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, for someone who in other comments threads totally failed to respond to comments that blatantly proved him false (for examples Karl's recent total debunking of the core argument you made), for you to then mock the fact that I failed to reply to you in a timely manner is particular ridiculous and insulting.
I'm sorry, but I spent the weekend with my family rather than spending time doing your homework for you.
I will respond to your silly questions just this once, because if I don't, you will falsely claim that I chose not to answer them because I could not. I can and I will, but only this time. I have better things to do with my time then respond to folks like you. In the future, if you wish to have a serious discussion, rather than the pedantic obnoxious one you have started here, then I may respond to you. But if you ever pull this kind of crap again, don't expect a response.
Why do you think DHS works for Disney?
You should try clicking on the link provided in the article (this is the internet, you know), where we explain stuff. Homeland Security announced the raid and seizures from Disney's headquarters. This is highly questionable. As I noted at the time, if the FTC announced antitrust actions against Google from Microsoft's headquarters people would obviously speak out in protest. No different here. Homeland Security should never act to protect a particular company's business model.
Exactly which part of Homeland Security's mandate are you referring to? I'd like to see the exact verbiage of the mandate that you think they are working outside of.
Homeland Security's stated mission, found on their website, reads:
"We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the Nation. We will secure our national borders while welcoming lawful immigrants, visitors, and trade."
A bunch of forums linking to movies that are available on the internet is not a terrorist attack and is not a "threat and hazard to the nation." It's not even a threat or hazard to Disney if they knew how to respond properly with better business models. But the point is that it is not even close to Homeland Security's mission. It has nothing to do with terrorism or securing our borders.
Why does DHS's IPR website distinguish between piracy and counterfeiting when you say they conflate the two? Can't they be against both? Isn't this sort of thing exactly within their mandate?
Again, your failure to click the link says a lot about why you have trouble understanding basic concepts. In the recent testimony before Congress, John Morton repeatedly conflated the two, talking about protecting against "health and safety" issues, which only came about when talking about counterfeit drugs -- but then lumped in internet file sharing as if it also caused health and safety issues. This is not new. I recognize you just discovered copyright law a year ago, but some of us have seen how this game has been played for a long, long time. A few years back the Rand report which the entertainment industry loves, did this over and over again in trying to make the case that file sharing supports terrorists, when all it could sorta/barely/kinda show is that some counterfeit CD/DVD operations (which, by the way, are also facing competition from file sharing) were backed by organized crime.
Please explain this claim in detail. Which part of civil forfeiture concurrent with a criminal investigation don't you get?
I understand civil forfeiture just fine. I question whether it is appropriate in the case of domain names, which is a different category of asset than typical property. I also question whether or not this was appropriately categorized as a criminal, rather than civil situation.
You've insulted me and questioned my intelligence and understanding of the law. Somehow you think the fact that I'm in law school means I know less about the law than you.
Yes. When you get stuff wrong, as you did regularly in past threads, it was only right to call you out. When you stood by totally false claims (such as copyright being natural and the public domain being unnatural), it was totally right to question your understanding of the law. Karl thoroughly debunked your statements, and you have yet to respond to them in any serious manner.
I did not insult you or question your intelligence because you're a second year law student. We have many 1Ls or NoLs on these boards who have a clear and competent understanding of the law. You rushed in with little understanding, got called on it, and refused to admit you were wrong.
You got what you deserved, but rather than deal with it, you come back with these pedantic comments "calling me out." Get over yourself, kiddo.
I can almost guarantee no one will have anything substantive to say.
Funny. Good luck Joe. You are going to need it. But that's it from me. Others can and will respond to you. I may choose to chime in on key points if I think they can help, but I will never respond to some bogus and childish "demand" that I answer your questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ummm, don't bother. I honestly don't care what you think.
You think I'm wrong, and I think you're wrong. You think I'm stupid, I think you're stupid. You think I got called out, I think you got called out.
Whatever. I've got better things to do with my life than debate an idiot like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've seen Mike change his mind in these forums after a good argument. You simply fail to provide one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike talks down to me to try and make it seem like he's got it all figured out and I'm a Johnny-come-lately. I don't appreciate his tone. Nobody here has convinced me of anything. I see unsupported arguments that are all over the place. I don't think Mike's got it all figured out. I think he's totally confused. And for the record, he was the first to make it personal.
I'm not surprised that people here don't agree with my views. That's OK. I sleep well knowing that my views hold water in a court of law. I'm at the top of my class, law review, moot court, etc. People can think I'm stupid all they want, but there are lots of people who think otherwise.
The comment section here has nothing to offer me. I'm sure people think the feeling's mutual. So be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
GET OUT OF THE WAY LAW WORLD, AVERAGE JOE IS COMING THROUGH!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Joe. I responded to your questions. Rather than admit you were wrong, you did "LOL". And then you complain when I treat you as a child?
I did not call you out because I thought you were "young." There are high school kids on this site who appear to have a better grasp of copyright law than you do. Age has nothing to do with it. And nice bragging about your house and car. No one cares if you were Bill Gates and went to law school for the sheer joy of it (yeah, right). The simple fact is that you came barging in here with a bunch of claims that displayed an ignorance of copyright law, economics, business models and history. And people called you on it.
Whatever. I've got better things to do with my life than debate an idiot like you.
Funny statement from someone who demanded I write law school final exam essays on all of his questions, and when I didn't do so within a few hours (even as he has been unable to respond to detailed critiques of his own false claims -- again, I point you to Karl's comments on this post: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100715/17561610237.shtml), to then respond to me answering your questions by saying you have better things to do with your life than debate an "idiot" like me, displays a really impressive level of hubris.
You may discover, when you get into a real court room, that judges and opposing counsel don't respond well to calling them idiots or statements like "snore" and "LOL." If I call you kiddo it's for your behavior, not your age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whether or not it is wise to lump these and other groups into a single agency is something over which reasonable minds can differ, but it does fairly point out that the DHS is involved in far more activities than merely terrorism.
BTW, the word "homeland" has always troubled me. In my view it closely resembles "motherland", a term associated with a country that for decades has not exactly been our "best friend".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And?
All of those organizations are involved with protecting against and responding to threats and hazards to the Nation and/or securing national borders...which is exactly what the mission statement states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm all verklempt now.
Honestly, I once believed as Joe did about copyright (legally, not ethically). Then I did research, which led me to more research, and I realized that I was completely wrong. If it worked for me, maybe it can work for others.
Also, debating this stuff really makes you learn a lot about it. I like to learn stuff, I like to share that learning.
I also like to hear myself talk, of course.
So, to Joe: I'll keep debunking your claims, or I won't, and we'll both learn stuff. But no more venomous posts about how we're all just a bunch of worthless thieves. Deal?
(I'd also say something like "leave Mike alone," but that would probably give you a mental image of me in mascara, under a blanket, sobbing into a webcam. That's a mental image we can all do without, so good thing I didn't say it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See NinjaVideo as it was May 18th., 2008
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grins and giggles in the land of government oppression ... or ... The US government -vs- the little guy
In the past this propaganda technique actually worked really well. With access to the news being limited to newspapers, radio, and TV. One minor problem, at this point in history, we are no longer limited to a media system spoon fed information by the government. We have the internet and all the applications that allow us to communicate and find what we are looking for, twitter, facebook, e-mail, IM, websites, blogs, google, etc.
Historically the US government -vs- the little guy took a long time to cause enough dissent for the government to take the hint and back off. Right now we are at a point where a sizable chunk of the population feels the government is only interested in big business, doesn't care what the citizens of the US think, is becoming oppressive, and is trampling on our constitutional rights. This give the population of the US a very short fuse. Combine the short fuse, with our ability to communicate, two years left on a one term president, and you have a disaster waiting to happen for the office of IP enforcement and the content providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grins and giggles in the land of government oppression ... or ... The US government -vs- the little guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grins and giggles in the land of government oppression ... or ... The US government -vs- the little guy
Right now its not the next election cycle, it is just a blatant chicago IL style abuse of power in front of the public.
I am not worried about this. I spent a couple days after work going through surveys that are being or have been done by the IP industries over the past 6 months. They all have the same we are asking questions on behalf of the monopoly media industry feel to them. Basically talking at consumers and not worrying about what consumers want. They are asking all the wrong questions.
This not wanting to hear what consumers want is going to lead to poor planning on the part of DOJ, dept of IPE, and the white house staff.
"The cynical abuse of power is a cornerstone of "the American way"."
Yeah I agree ... esp for chicago politicians.
On a side note. I am not sure if obama has lost control of the people he put in place, is on Xanax and being led around by the nose by California based interests, just plain self defeating, or if he is trying to destroy the media and content industry. Perhaps its a combination. Only time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grins and giggles in the land of government oppression ... or ... The US government -vs- the little guy
He's listening to Joe Biden, who has a terrible record regarding technology, copyright and privacy rights:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
My favorite factoid: If it weren't for Biden being so anti-privacy, we wouldn't have PGP now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I know is that since they were formed I can no longer get a copy of my Birth Certificate from Los Angeles where I was born. No birth certificate and you can't get a job, move to another state and get a drivers license or get a passport. There are no exclusions for the loss of a birth certificate information by the government. I have lived here my whole life and once had a copy of my birth certificate, but lost it. Who cares I thought I could get another one. I have a Social Security Card (showed my birth certificate to get it), and am currently on Social Security Disability. I have had a California Drivers License for 40 years (showed my birth certificate to get it). But none of that matters to Homeland Security! To them I am a non-citizen and trapped in California or any other state that is sympathetic and will issue me a drivers license. I cannot leave the country. I am being punished for the city of Los Angeles failing. The old way worked way better for me. Every time the government changes things we get screwed more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DHS Mandate
"We've already covered the bizarre story of Homeland Security effectively working for Disney in seizing some domains of sites that were used to file share movies (way, way, way outside of Homeland Security's mandate), and covered the sneaky attempt to defend those moves by conflating copyright infringement online with counterfeit drugs being sold online."
Perhaps the DHS feels that enforcing IP laws is pertinent to their mission since the US produces little else anymore, so protecting our only export other than dollars is essential to national security, inasmuch as a functional economy is essential to upholding the imagined value of a dollar.
We're essentially a service economy now, which amounts to a humongous circle-jerk. I pay you so you can pay him so he can pay his supporter so his supporter can pay me, with the government in the middle every step of the way brushing off crumbs into their accounts. Nobody produces anything, they just do things, like mainly think. Lose grip on your thinking, and you're all done.
Back when we made things like cars, trucks, chemicals, furniture, food, clothing, consumer goods, etc., we had things to sell to other countries. Now? Not so much. We got movies and music of questionable value, but certainly of greater value than what most other countries produce. Problem is, it's just thought. Nothing tangible, or scarce enough to raise its value. Other countries produce tangible goods, so they have something to trade.
It's a sad state of affairs we're in. I'm almost glad I'm dying soon. Ain't no flying cars anyway [grin]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Birth Certificate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Da*n studios, actors, performers, pro sports players, etc., etc. make too much money, charging the public prices beyond what many of us are able to afford (or want to pay). Since we are $$ limited we will just take what we want and the heck with all the money grubbers.
Yeah, there is lots of stuff out there where the creators encourage us to download copies and share those copies with anyone and everyone. We really appreciate their generosity, but we still want the stuff we would otherwise have to pay to receive. It's not like we would have bought it anyway.
By the way, it's not as if we are stealing anything. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]