Talking About Why The PROTECT IP Act Is Bad News...
from the talking-heads dept
Yesterday, I went on The Alyona Show on RTTV (which I've appeared on a few times in the past) to discuss some of the problems in the PROTECT IP Act. Not much new if you've been following the debate, but glad to see that some TV programs are concerned about this:
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: censorship, free speech, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bizarre
Have you seen this Guardian article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/01/malware-cyberplague-internet-meltdown
"Most importantly, malware found a business model in the late 1990s. The fragility of the monoculture could be exploited for profit. Spamming – junk emailing – could now be done on a truly gigantic scale. Hitherto, it had required identifiable servers with broadband access to the net. But the new broadband environment offered a better infrastructure. All you had to do was find machines with fast connections, unpatched security vulnerabilities and non-savvy owners and infect them with a Trojan that would turn them into relay stations for spam (and which could be turned off just as easily, to avoid detection)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre
IP: Internet Protocol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre
Now that we've cleared up the acronyms, do you have a relevant comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bizarre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bizarre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bizarre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bizarre
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bizarre
I'm all for protecting privacy and rights, too. PROTECT-IP does neither.
In fact, most copyright maximalists aren't big fans of privacy, e.g. allowing FBI wiretaps of suspected "infringers," massive "John Doe" lawsuits, demanding ISP's keep a log of users for the purposes of suing, etc. Nor are they fans of individual rights, like the First or Fourth Amendments.
In fact, the RIAA/MPAA has a lot in common with the malware folks. These are the same people that put "rootkits" on legally-purchased CD's, put out "poison" torrents, etc.
So, if you're really about protecting privacy and rights, you're on the wrong team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre
Have you seen this Guardian article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/01/malware-cyberplague-internet-meltdown
I am at a total loss as to what this has to do with the PROTECT IP act. Care to explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting comments on the breadth of the definition of a rogue site. Care to offer up one of your own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike, next time, go to Al-Jazeera (seriously). It's better to get an international perspective than one clouded by lobbying money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Emmy award winning journalist Dave Marash, who served as a veteran correspondent for ABC's Nightline, resigned from his position as Washington anchor for Al Jazeera English in 2008. Dave Marash cited "reflexive adversarial editorial stance" against Americans and "anti-American bias". [97] "
In 2004, Accuracy in Media, a non-profit media watchdog group, also criticized Al Jazeera for its "anti-American" stance. [99]
The fact that everyone in the mainstream news universe from Rachael Madow at one end to Glenn Beck at the other treats Masnick like a leper is telling. His obsequious apologist shuck-n-jive on behalf of those companies and individuals that profit from infringing behavior is laughed at in serious journalistic circles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"On 4 March 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Al Jazeera provided more informative news coverage than the opinion-driven coverage of American mass media.[87] Most American media outlets declined comment. Michael Clemente of Fox News called the comments "curious," while not directly refuting them. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So tell me - what colour is the sky in your world?
You keep saying these things that are not only provably false, but proven false - you obviously have no connection with the real world.. so I was wondering if the sky there is a different colour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhm... is that an appeal to authority fallacy or a no true scotsman fallacy?
Seriously, what does who covers his opinion have to do with the validity of his opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a no true scotsman fallacy because he arbitrarily defines the journalists that do cover his opinions to be non-reputable.
It's an appeal to authority fallacy because he appeals to the authority of those who agree with him, claiming them to be reputable.
Wow, two fallacies all in one sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did I say that? Reading comprehension fail. Seriously, are you that illiterate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Blue."
Wow, did you figure that one out all on your own? I'm impressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So let me get this straight, if he suddenly appeared on BBC, would that satisfy your neurotic need for "mainstream" acceptance?
I'd say "go where the story goes". So if you need an international perspective, link up with Al-Jazeera and discuss the effects of piracy with them and see how they feel. Hook up with BBC, see how the Digital Economy Act is affecting the local populace.
If NBC can stop taking corruption money, hey, talk to them and see how much crap they're spewing. Odd for you to try to discredit Alyona, but hey, she has some decent news and she's doing a lot better than PBS and the American broadcasters that are "reputable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those (and other) news organizations are staffed by professional journalists and editors with decades of reporting experience. Their creditability is evidenced by the millions of viewers who rely on them to get their news. A 24 year old Russian kid with a freshly minted poly sci degree is hardly in the same league.
"So let me get this straight, if he suddenly appeared on BBC, would that satisfy your neurotic need for "mainstream" acceptance?"
That would be a start
"I'd say "go where the story goes". So if you need an international perspective, link up with Al-Jazeera and discuss the effects of piracy with them and see how they feel. Hook up with BBC, see how the Digital Economy Act is affecting the local populace."
Except it doesn't appear that anyone other than the Russian kid thinks Masnick has any particular gravitas on the issue. Including Qatar's state owned news outlet, Al-Jazeera.
"If NBC can stop taking corruption money,"
Really, corruption money? [citation needed]
" hey, talk to them and see how much crap they're spewing."
Is it crap, or do you disagree?
" Odd for you to try to discredit Alyona, but hey, she has some decent news and she's doing a lot better than PBS and the American broadcasters that are "reputable"."
See earlier comments. She's a nobody like Masnick, masquerading as a journalist for the Russian propaganda machine. Obviously you know little of the state of independent news in Russia. Happy now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to pick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh that's right... I had forgotten you are paid to comment over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Debatable. Just because the ones I listed came first, doesn't mean they own a monopoly on reporting the news. Some people haven't heard of the Real News Network, but they arguably have decent news coverage of Afghanistan along with free speech issues. CNN might be "the world wide leader" but they get just as many stories from other news networks along with their other connections as the newcomers.
"Except it doesn't appear that anyone other than the Russian kid thinks Masnick has any particular gravitas on the issue. Including Qatar's state owned news outlet, Al-Jazeera. "
Oddly enough, she's the only one in Washington DC that seems to focus on issues that affect the nation, such as bad laws. Hmmm... Fancy that. Looking on the Al-Jazeera site, it seems they're currently looking at online censorship with Facebook right now. They're still effectively looking at the Egyptian revolution and its effects.
"Really, corruption money? [citation needed]"
Study up
"Is it crap, or do you disagree?"
When NBC has heavily biased opinions based on who gives them the most money, it's not journalism, it's crap.
" She's a nobody like Masnick, masquerading as a journalist for the Russian propaganda machine. Obviously you know little of the state of independent news in Russia. Happy now?"
Buck, you're a paid lobbyist, who comes on this site to get a rise out of people and to stir up trouble. Your arguments rely heavily on trying to ridicule opponents, or using dubious, even false information to back it up. If the only thing you can do is discount people more successful than you, it's not my problem. Hell, the Russian *President* has already come out looking more moderate with his view than what Alyona "the progagandist" has said about the messed up politics of this legislation. There must be something in the Russian water because they look a helluva lot more sensible than the RIAA or the MPAA and their need to break the internet.
After seeing how PBS has dealt with Bradley Manning, or what NBC does in regards to the domain seizures, I find their "reputations" circumspect. It goes without saying that you've got to build trust with your audience. NBC lost a lot of mine with their shenanigans. And the last thing that CNN is talking about is internet piracy when they are busy discussing the real thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Debatable. Just because the ones I listed came first, doesn't mean they own a monopoly on reporting the news. Some people haven't heard of the Real News Network, but they arguably have decent news coverage of Afghanistan along with free speech issues. CNN might be "the world wide leader" but they get just as many stories from other news networks along with their other connections as the newcomers."
Jay, we were discussing mainstream media vis-a-vis the Russian kid. Now you want to compare mainstream media to Real News Network. WTF? The discussion we'd been having was about HER journalistic credentials, not RNN or other small players. Absent a return to the actual subject at hand, I accept your surrender on that point.
"Except it doesn't appear that anyone other than the Russian kid thinks Masnick has any particular gravitas on the issue. Including Qatar's state owned news outlet, Al-Jazeera. "
"Oddly enough, she's the only one in Washington DC that seems to focus on issues that affect the nation, such as bad laws. Hmmm... Fancy that. Looking on the Al-Jazeera site, it seems they're currently looking at online censorship with Facebook right now. They're still effectively looking at the Egyptian revolution and its effects."
Try Politico, The Hill and the National Journal for starters. Al-Jazeera has some decent coverage of the Middle East, but with a blatantly anti-American bias.
"Really, corruption money? [citation needed]"
"Study up"
Fuck that. You make allegations of corruption and tell me to study up? Your statement is a deliberate lie, calculated to reinforce your argument. You've been called out on it and now what little creditability you had just evaporated.
"Is it crap, or do you disagree?"
"When NBC has heavily biased opinions based on who gives them the most money, it's not journalism, it's crap."
Another lie. I defy you to cite even an reported allegation (other than from you) of trading editorial integrity for money.
" She's a nobody like Masnick, masquerading as a journalist for the Russian propaganda machine. Obviously you know little of the state of independent news in Russia. Happy now?"
"Buck, you're a paid lobbyist, who comes on this site to get a rise out of people and to stir up trouble."
Bullshit
" Your arguments rely heavily on trying to ridicule opponents, or using dubious, even false information to back it up."
I only ridicule those who bring it on themselves, and I back shit up. I'm waiting for proof of corruption at NBC news.
" If the only thing you can do is discount people more successful than you, it's not my problem. Hell, the Russian *President* has already come out looking more moderate with his view than what Alyona "the progagandist" has said about the messed up politics of this legislation. There must be something in the Russian water because they look a helluva lot more sensible than the RIAA or the MPAA and their need to break the internet."
Break the internet? Please Jay. The only thing this bill will do is take out some of the more casual infringers. Frankly the DNS blocking aspect of the bill is the least important. Cutting off US-sourced ad revenue and payment processing will have a far more profound effect.
"After seeing how PBS has dealt with Bradley Manning, or what NBC does in regards to the domain seizures, I find their "reputations" circumspect. It goes without saying that you've got to build trust with your audience. NBC lost a lot of mine with their shenanigans. And the last thing that CNN is talking about is internet piracy when they are busy discussing the real thing."
I think you mean "suspect" not "circumspect" which means watchful and discreet, cautious or prudent. It appears that you judge a news organization's journalistic credentials based on its reporting on a single issue or perhaps a single story. That only serves to make you look foolish and be left defending the Russian kid from RTTV as a serious source of journalism, simply because she served up softballs for Masnick's rant. That's pretty weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It must be amazing to see into the future, how do you do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're moving the goal posts here. My specific question is how does being with NBC, CBS or CNN make you more or less reputable. There's journalistic integrity from other sources, just as there are biases. CNN does use other sources outside of their network, the same as Alyona would. She's building up her cred just the same as Bryan Collin
"Fuck that. You make allegations of corruption and tell me to study up? Your statement is a deliberate lie, calculated to reinforce your argument. You've been called out on it and now what little creditability you had just evaporated."
Nope. Again, study up. They have a particular bias, and it's one sided. I wouldn't trust what they say because it's absolutely crap. Do what you want. They become a mouthpiece for industry, they lose credibility as a journalism site. And if the government decided to pay all three major news sites for political favors, I would not trust their reporting on the news. It's that simple.
"Break the internet? Please Jay. The only thing this bill will do is take out some of the more casual infringers. Frankly the DNS blocking aspect of the bill is the least important. Cutting off US-sourced ad revenue and payment processing will have a far more profound effect. "
I've linked to this before. You ignored it. The implications of this are lost on someone that's paid to ignore them. And you still ferret the "us sources" part with no clear endgoal of what this will do for those US based companies. But I guess so long as you're paid to do so, this will still be something you can willfully put behind a counter and forget about. Sad.
"I think you mean "suspect" not "circumspect" which means watchful and discreet, cautious or prudent. It appears that you judge a news organization's journalistic credentials based on its reporting on a single issue or perhaps a single story. That only serves to make you look foolish and be left defending the Russian kid from RTTV as a serious source of journalism, simply because she served up softballs for Masnick's rant. That's pretty weak."
Nope, PBS did an amazing job in digging themselves a hole. After watching the Manning ordeal, they lost any and all credibility with me with incredibly biased reporting. Wouldn't expect it any other way, considering the source of their income would be the government. NBC has been losing journalistic integrity for quite some time. CNN is decent but I prefer other sources of information such as NHK, BBC, and most news sites on the web, not TV. Since Alyona is the only one to actually *show* anything about copyright issues, I'll watch. The rest just ferret out opinions about or make propaganda videos.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's amazing how opinions about this predicted rapture that keeps getting delayed can easily make their way over to public airwaves, yet the laws are set up in such a way that they effectively make it much more difficult for IP criticisms to be broadcasted. IP criticisms, monopolists can't have that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Care to offer any proof of this? Or is this another of you made-up ad hominem attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
{{Citation Needed}}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh? Maddow and Beck treat me like a leper? Really? Pray tell where did that tidbit come from? More like neither knows who I am, with good reason. I write a tech blog that rarely touches on anything either would be interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you mean like CBS, MSNBC, FOX, and the rest of the US news channels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm happy to discuss this with whomever is interested in discussing it. Also, FYI, RT is a US-targeted TV station. But, why let facts get in the way with your desire to smear me?
Of course, since you seem so fascinated with judging me based on what media is interested in talking to me, I've been quoted plenty of times in the NY Times, the WSJ, Wired, the Washington Post, etc. I've appeared on both NPR and CBC (the equivalent of NPR but in Canada) multiple times.
But that's really beside the point, isn't it? This is all a sideshow. Since you can't attack the message, you have to attack the messenger.
RTTV asked me to come on and speak about this, and I did. And the best you can come back with is an insult for Russia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(and no them saying the same thing as you said, is not quoting you).
In other words if you say "I dont like IP", and someone else says "I dont like IP" that is not them quoting you.
Show us at least ONE link to confirm it is not all just real in your head.
Of course, if you REALLY were on any of those programs, you would have done exactly the same as you have done with this article, done a bit of 'self promotion' to show us all how big and important you are.
No one was insulting Russia, they were insulting you Mike, if you are that big and important, why make such a big deal about some unknown online Russian Streaming site, that is "directed towards the US".
If it is directed at the US, how come no one in the US seems to have heard about it ?
We judge you on what you say, far more than who you say it too.
They are attacking the 'messinger' and not the message.
No one would be interested in interviewing you anyway (IMO) simple due to your total single minded, "it's my way or no way" attitude, that NEVER changes.
What is there to ask you ? everyone allready knows exactly what your response will be to any particular 'issue'.
It's like you have a big cheat book that has standard 'who to blame' and 'who to call stupid', and "who to discredit' list and simple explinations for you to follow.
It's the SAME every time, even if they conflict with each other.
Like the classic, COPYRIGHT.
The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, how many times have we heard you rattle that one off, we all know it by heart thanks to you.
It's a damn shame to done post the complete statement, why is that ???
Let me guess, it does not 'jell' with your idealogy !
How is it you are apparently the only person on the planet who understands EVERYTHING, everything about computers, everthing about the internet, everything about the music and movie industries.
And of course, everything about business and finance, and economics. But for some reason someone with so much self proclaimed talent is using your valuable time flogging a dead horse ?
Year in year out, all those talents are waisted, so you can give formula answers to every 'crisis' that you can see.
I come here for the endless amusement that you provide us and your core group of dieharts who hang on your every word, like a mantra from a higher being !!!..
I guess the only thing we can really be thankfull for is that you appear to have no authority, and are not listened to by anyone who actually have something to do with the real world and how it works.
How much were you paid ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Much like your work schedule, except there is only one name in it. Must be a pretty monotonous job, eh? Kudos for sticking in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(and no them saying the same thing as you said, is not quoting you).
In other words if you say "I dont like IP", and someone else says "I dont like IP" that is not them quoting you.
Show us at least ONE link to confirm it is not all just real in your head.
Of course, if you REALLY were on any of those programs, you would have done exactly the same as you have done with this article, done a bit of 'self promotion' to show us all how big and important you are.
Heh. Really? Let's see if Darryl admits he was wrong. He goes on for all these paragraphs insisting that I was lying here, and even making up the claim that people agreeing with me is what I was talking about. Here are some links:
http://online.wsj.com/video/kara-visits-techdirts-mike-masnick/CAA6BFB4-FA96-452A-80AF-179 FCCDED62F.html?mod=googlewsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487046582045756107716772 42174.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/30/eff-creates-a-hall-of-shame-for-disputed-takedo wns/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/technology/12link.html?pagewanted=print
http://opiniona tor.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/morning-skim-the-pirates-win-the-pirates-win/
http://www.nytimes .com/2007/12/29/technology/29online.html?pagewanted=print
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/posttech /2007/07/filesharing_a_national_securit_1_wap.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2008/10/30/AR2008103003751.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809 195
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/technology-blog/2009/04/mike_masnick_online_marketing.html
ht tp://www.cbc.ca/technology/technology-blog/2009/04/masnick_on_movie_copyright_yes.html
http://www .cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/04/22/michael-masnick-copyright.html
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2 011/02/spark-137-february-6-9-2011/
So, Darryl, will you admit you were wrong?
No one was insulting Russia, they were insulting you Mike, if you are that big and important, why make such a big deal about some unknown online Russian Streaming site, that is "directed towards the US".
It's not a "streaming site." It's a cable tv channel that is actually doing pretty well. Perhaps your cable provider doesn't offer it.
If it is directed at the US, how come no one in the US seems to have heard about it ?
Um. That's a pretty bold statement. Lots of people have it on their cable systems.
No one would be interested in interviewing you anyway (IMO)
Funny, then, that I have two more radio interviews scheduled this week. "No one" must mean something different where you're from.
It's a damn shame to done post the complete statement, why is that ???
"to done post"? Huh?
Let me guess, it does not 'jell' with your idealogy !
The copyright clause? I have no problem with the clause itself.
How is it you are apparently the only person on the planet who understands EVERYTHING, everything about computers, everthing about the internet, everything about the music and movie industries.
I'm not. I don't. I have a *DISCUSSION SITE* which encourages discussion for the very reason that I know I don't understand everything. If I did, why would I let people like you join in and accuse me of being ignorant?
I guess the only thing we can really be thankfull for is that you appear to have no authority, and are not listened to by anyone who actually have something to do with the real world and how it works.
I love it when people insist they know who does and who does not listen to me. If you could see my email box this week, I think you'd have a heart attack. Buck Lateral, in the meantime, would probably call his corporate masters and demand a lot more cash if he knew who was contacting me. What's amusing to me is that the more people like you insist that no one important cares what I have to say, the more I seem to be getting calls and emails from all sorts of important people to get my thoughts on things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A quote applicable to so many situations when it comes to legacy organisations (both corporations and governments) attempting to cope with the cultural shift brought about by the rise of readily available multilateral channels of communication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How it works with the recording industry
Then you laugh at them.
Then you ignore them.
Then they go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A good example is the cbc.ca interview with Paul Jay, who has gone on to run a thing called The Real News. That is a site or idea pretty much dependant on Al-Jazeera for it's news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Glad to hear that Masnick, but doubt the people you consider important have any more ability to affect policy than you do. In any event, if people are aligning closer to you that means they are getting more extreme and desperate, which means the battle is drawing to a close.
BTW, I heard your criticism of the breadth of the definition of a rogue site and asked if you had a definition of your own to offer. It's going to be hard for you to be taken seriously if all you do is make broad criticisms and never offer alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about this alternative.. "The Status-Quo"
I think everyone is in agreement that illegal activities are happening on the net. Where and what those activities are being debated right now. So let them investigate, obtain warrants, find evidence, charge people, have a trial, and THEN if found guilty of a crime take appropriate actions. Its been done for 200 over years, the process *should* seem familiar to police.
We should not have to sacrifice our rights to make law enforcement's job easier? I'm sure cracking down on illegal drugs would be a lot easier if Police could just go door to door without cause or warrant, bust it down and check...Oh wait they are already doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about this alternative.. "The Status-Quo""
It's hard to believe that anyone is this stupid. Masnick made a specific criticism of the definition of a rogue site in a proposed law. He did not dismiss the proposed bill by saying that the current status quo was sufficient. He characterized the definition as overly broad. So if that is his beef why is unreasonable to say "Ok, what is a better definition"?
"I think everyone is in agreement that illegal activities are happening on the net. Where and what those activities are being debated right now. So let them investigate, obtain warrants, find evidence, charge people, have a trial, and THEN if found guilty of a crime take appropriate actions. Its been done for 200 over years, the process *should* seem familiar to police."
For the millionth time; Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure affords the SAME protection to an operator of a rogue site as it does ANY CIVIL LITIGANT. What do you want, GREATER protection for foreign rogue site operators than anyone else? That's absurd.
The good news is that when lawmakers consider opposing points of view, read utter fabrications of how the law works, they dismiss the entire argument as self-serving bullshit that is unsupported by fact and instead relies on falsehoods and distortions.
Why don't you distill this nonsense into an e-mail to the Judiciary Committee and give them a good laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The internet is a different situation, and required new rules to handle situations in a more timely manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you resort to calling people by their last name(as you so often do) it makes you sound like you got stuck in the seventh grade, either emotionally or intellectually.
Possibly both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hilarious. So you admit to your own technological incompetence, and then use that to attack *me*?
Dude, seriously, troll harder. You insisted that no credible news organization would want to talk to me. I provided plenty of evidence that they do all the time, and then suddenly it doesn't count because of your own incompetence.
Wow. No wonder you don't sign your real name to anything you post here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FUD Module: Loading...
Loaded
Grammar Module: Missing is
Spelling MOdule: Not avaliably
*** FUD SPREAD INITIATE ***
*** MOVE FUD ***
*** FOR GREAT JUSTICE ***
Damn, sorry lol... Im sure even you can get at one instand, and easily be 'clean for 5 years, (ie, "5 years of clean conduct").
Or is it that you are telling porkies or not.
I do not like ?
So is it that you are telling porkies or not.
How do you really think murder is nonviolent crime ?????
If you do mike..
How do you really dont know what your talking about if you go out on the issues.
And what if you just created that diagram to make a copy of it.
It's called manufacturing under license, like if you just dont like ip" that is not the message.
We never has slavery here, tough laws, and no one in the open.
There are no cases here cited that the kkk is not the issue, i know ive won.
Why is it that you do not like ?
If it is directed at the time..
And the other poster is right, in the future with gnu/linux as they require developers to sign over copyright.
All you are equally liable for that mistake.
Why is it that you are always at war with so many countries, (or yourselves).
I guess you have done with this article, done a bit of 'self promotion' to show us all how big and important, why make such a big cheat book that has a better grasp of patents and business than you do my homework for me.
Who is the real joke here ?
But for you is something you keep degrading ?
So if you give it away is no difference between "real property" and interlectual property, or 'real' and 'software'.
Who is the same every time, even if they conflict with each other.
Who is the two faces of mike !
*** OUT OF LITHIUM ERROR ***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course they're having their media attack this bill.
Nobody wants to be involved in fracturing the internet but that's what they'd probably have to do to protect their sovereignty if the bill passes.
Why would they want to assist in running a network that only protects U.S. interests over the expense of others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was this troll-bait?
Count the off-topics, ad-hominems, and general pointlessness that ensues....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was this troll-bait?
Who trolls the trolls that troll? I do that, too. You can call me The Guiding Troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So how does that tie in with allowing any government official on your land, to touch your property without a warrant? That's the only question, doesn't matter who is saying it or what broadcast medium they are using.
The home of the brave and the land of the free eh? Seems that you are gradually moving into a police state sanctioned by politicians on the payroll of corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Friend, you use such strange words. This is America! What is this 4th Amendment you speak of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm
You're the expert explain to us why this rule is helpful when the local police are kicking your door in during a random sweep of the neighbourhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhat dissappointed Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somewhat dissappointed Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somewhat dissappointed Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somewhat dissappointed Mike
I don't think that's true in many many cases. And even in situations where it might be true, it's certainly not explicit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somewhat dissappointed Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is “darryl” A Manchurian Candidate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric F. Vermote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't speak for everyone, but for me personally, I find that resorting to insults and contempt is the fastest way to ensure that people stop listening to you on ANY topic, whether you have something worthwhile to say or not.
This has nothing to do with the issue itself, but I found it mildly amusing (and ironic) that after reading the comments that shared my doubts about RT's validity I find that their condescending behavior has convinced me to give RT a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]