Shouldn't The Infringement Tracking System Used In New Six Strikes Program Be Open To Scrutiny?

from the nope.-it's-hidden dept

Fri, Aug 12th 2011 1:53pm — Mike Masnick

With the entertainment industry and ISPs agreeing to a "voluntary" six strikes plan, which treats users as guilty until proven innocent and takes away completely valid defenses (for example: that file is in the public domain is not a valid defense!), you would think that the very least the public could ask for is that the system used to make the accusations is open to scrutiny.

But, of course, there was no one representing the public at the negotiations, so instead, the monitoring system is shrouded in secrecy. No one will speak about it on the record. TorrentFreak has gotten off the record sources to confirm that it's going to be handled by DtecNet, which means we should expect some problems with the accusations. This is, after all, a company that didn't even understand how BitTorrent works, but put out a totally misleading report about it, which was so bad that the company eventually retracted it.

Doesn't it seem highly questionable that no one involved in this plan is willing to discuss the monitoring technology publicly? If they actually had faith that it worked, wouldn't they be showing it off? The problem is they know it's not good. They know it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They know there will be people falsely accused. But they don't care. As long as they think that they're holding on to some tiny bit of a business model that is pretty much dead... they can pretend that they're doing something smart. And the public and our culture suffers as as result.

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, six strikes, tracking
Companies: dtecnet, mpaa, riaa

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 1:51pm

Well, DUH! They paid the most money (in kickback terms) for the contract! I mean, it's BOOTSTRAPS and everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 1:55pm

They've learned from their mistakes and now they have a solid product. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't solid. It's no wonder that they keep regular freetards from seeing their system because you folks will just complain about it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kaden (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  Gonna need to see some proof of that, Sparky.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 1:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why should I have to prove anything? They got the contract. Someone looked over it. Just because it wasn't you doesn't mean that it isn't any good. Lobby to have an independent firm look it over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Lobby to have an independent firm look it over.
      
      Lobby to whom? This isn't any sort of government action - this is an agreement amongst a group of businesses who have given themselves the ability to do what the UN considers to be a human rights violation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HothMonster, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        maybe he meant lob bees until they let someone else to di
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 10:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not a human right violation, it's a feature of contract law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Why should I have to prove anything?" - TAM's Motto
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jimbo, 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      if there was nothing to hide, it would be available for scrutiny. as it isn't, must mean it is, at the least, suspect!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear!" only works one way? Shocking.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why should I have to prove anything? They got the contract. Someone looked over it. Just because it wasn't you doesn't mean that it isn't any good.
      
      First rule Science: Results should be verifiable by anyone.
      
      Second rule of law: Justice must be seen to be done.
      
      If it's not in the open for anyone to review than by definition it isn't any good.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the meantime we know from independent academic research that such software CANNOT be made reliable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the meantime, know that two posts made a bunch of people nerd rage. Troll wins.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trolls never win, it's why they troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not how it works buddy. They get what they want, therefore they win. I suppose anyone who loves to nerd rage wins too. The losers are the people replying that do not love to nerd rage, and the people who have to read it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're completely wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, they learned that the best way to continue a contract is by not making their techniques verifiable or subject to scrutiny. This is less solid than their work with bittorrent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re:
  Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't solid.
  
  Exactly. That's why Windows is more secure than Linux.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 13 Aug 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  This post was sarcasm and here is why:
  
  "They've learned from their mistakes"
  -- obviously this will never happen
  
  "and now they have a solid product."
  -- and neither will this
  
  "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't solid."
  -- stating the obvious
  
  "It's no wonder that they keep regular freetards from seeing their system because you folks will just complain about it anyway."
  -- use of the freetard tag
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  You again? Look, if the thorazine isn't effective enough, you could try stellazine. Just trying to help. You do seem beyond that, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:00pm

Once again, the vice continues to close around the Tardian universe, and Mike is there kicking and clawing as they try to drag it away. I know it kills the who infinite universe business model, but can you not accept that there are other business models that don't need piracy to succeed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: Other business models
  Indeed, selling non-functional plans/equipment to government agencies & big businesses has had quite the banner decade.
  
  Let's see, there's the "nude" scanners, the "internet filters" (ha ha), the electronic voting machines, a certain newspaper's online paywall, a $1.2bn "security" network for a certain defense agency.
  
  Honestly, I'm surprised there isn't news about somebody selling "air-free aerogel" to NASA for like $100bn or a "positive feedback only news network" to Congress for even more $$$$.
  
  Yes, there ARE business models that don't need piracy to succeed--and as long as you're lying scum you can make tons of money of ignorant legislators and executives in a manner which isn't yet considered to be fraud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  can you not accept that there are other business models that don't need piracy to succeed?
  
  I'm sorry, I've seen that despite your clever attempts to sound like a regular TD reader, I can see that you're new here. Let me try and clarify a common misconception folks have in regard to Mike's views on business models.
  
  Good models make money by knowing the true scarcities connected to their business, and uses open and postive connections with customers to buy products and services related to those scarcities (e.g merchandise, performances, etc.).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 7:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yet as always, most people don't want merch or performances, they want the content. Many potential fans will never be within reasonable distance of a performance, and there are only so many t-shirts you can buy.
    
    The truth is what people want, what people enjoy, what people will listen to over and over again in the music.
    
    It's just too bad that Mike can't seem to understand that people will pay for what they want. Just ask the NYT.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Aug 2011 @ 8:08pm
      
      Re: Just ask the NYT.
      Yeah, they�re doing really well ...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Just ask the NYT.
        You proved my point - Mike played the NYT firewall like death, and now it's already earned back a fair bit of it's expenses.
        
        Congrats on not getting the point and failing basic business 101.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 13 Aug 2011 @ 10:47pm
        
        Re: ... and now it's already earned back a fair bit of it's expenses.
        A �fair bit� ... yeah, just like all the other loss-making ventures out there. They all �earned back a fair bit� of their expenses, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Just ask the NYT.
        A successful loss-leader is actually pretty common. For example, iTunes is a loss-leader, but it sells other things. Reverse-auction sites, such as Madbid, use their auctions as loss-leaders to make money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 13 Aug 2011 @ 6:57am
  
  Re:
  You said ".....can you not accept that there are other business models that don't need piracy to succeed?"
  
  I do believe that you are confusing "downloading" and "free" with "piracy". If somebody, say a musician, offers a free download of a song, the person downloading it is not a pirate. You do not need a legal degree nor a degree in mathematics to understand the difference between "free" and "piracy".
  
  While I'm on my high horse or soap box, I would like to point out to people in general, no necesarilly just the Anonymous Coward that I am responding too, that "free" as part of a business model does not always mean everything must be free.
  
  Take, for example, "Free Comic Book Day" held the first Saturday of every May. The publishers give away SAMPLES of their regular comic books, some containing no more than half a dozen pages from a two dozen page book, others containing a complete 22 page story. This is to attract people to try new titles, try comics full stop and even give a comic book fan a good excuse to go to their nearest comic book store. Now, you can't tell me those "free" comic books are "free" in the sense that the paper and ink costs money, plus distribution to stores. But it is a cost that comic companies bear in order to attract more customers.
  
  Of course, there's bound to be somebody who poo-poo's the fact that I mention comic books, an industry that, big as it is, has been relatively struggling since the mid-1990's (if not longer). So let's try another example. YouTube: How many people watch videos of, say, TV shows for free on YouTube. If it is an official upload - and they DO exist - you are often given a link to where you can purchase the DVD's if you like the show. And so that is an example of "free" as part of a business model: You can watch the show for free online (bandwidth costs notwithstanding) and buy the DVD or download for more convenient viewing (often of higher quality) at a later time if you so choose to do so.
  
  Remember, though, this does not work for everything. You can get a FREE sample of, say, food. Once those free samples are gone, you have to buy the product is you want to eat more. Or you can pay a smaller price for a "sample pack" in som cases, like a few years ago Kellogg's of Australia brought out some new cereals which they sold in 100g boxes (approx 1/4 pound) for $1 each for people to rty before they bought the big boxes at full retail price.
  
  There are, of course, people who do want things for free and will not pay for them. They are not in your target market; they never were and never will be. Just pretend those people don't exist and the commercial world will be a lot better off. Maybe.
  
  And just for the heck of it, I'd like to add that I do not drink Kool Aid, I have never seen any (does it come in a cup or bottle even?) and I'm pretty sure it's not available in Australia. Would green cordial suffice? =)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 8:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Giving away samples is way different from giving away the product. What would you think the value of a comic book would be if they gave them away, hoping people would buy $30 t-shirts to support the production of the magazine?
    
    Samples and free are very different animals. Samples is using a small amount of your product to get people to buy more of the same product. Free is giving away your product hoping someone will do something else that makes you money. It's the "free peanuts to sell beer" mentality, except in the Techdirt world of stupidity, we are giving away the beer and charging $20 for peanuts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2011 @ 12:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Except for the people who are selling the beer, not making any money, and complain about thieves.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:01pm

$35
...they can pretend that they're doing something smart.

Having �competitors� within an industry get together to all agree to charge consumer $35 is not smart.

Horizontal price fixing is a per se violation of Sherman Act � 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:11pm

They probably just use a random ip generator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  That's not funny.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  That's not funny.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:12pm

What I don't understand is why ISPs would put themselves in the direct path of inevitable future lawsuits that they normally would have nothing to do with?

Do they honestly think attorneys won't rabidly countersue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:18pm

I'll leak the infringement tracking system's source code right here:

If accused Then
guilt = presumed
Else
guilt = presumed
End If
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:43pm

The problem is they know it's not good. They know it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They know there will be people falsely accused. But they don't care.

Your desperation today is hilarious. You're just completely making it up with this. Classic. Talk about FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike42 (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  Well, I see you only had a half day at high school today, huh?
  
  How about, oh, I dunno, something meaningful to say? Or is this the Chewbacca attack?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Please refrain from insulting Chewbacca--a fictional character beloved by many--by comparing him with a peanut brained troll. The last thing we need is for Star Wars geeks to come out in force (no pun) and destroy this website.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HothMonster, 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      he was referencing the chewbacca defense, not insulting chewbacca
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trolls-R-Us, 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re:
  Your desperation today is hilarious. You're just completely making it up with this. Classic. Talk about FUD.
  
  No U
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re:
  I'm convinced Masnick freaks out about this stuff because he's worried about being busted. He says he doesn't steal anything, but I'm convinced the opposite is true: he steals everything, just like all his readers do.
  
  Once he said he didn't have Netflix I knew there was something screwy going on. With the hatred the guy has for all entertainment companies, you know he can't stand the thought of giving them any money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think he's just not right in the head.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 12 Aug 2011 @ 6:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your deductive reasoning is astounding. And it seems your method for determining if someone is a pirate is about as hard evidence-based as the new six strikes program! Mike and all the commenters on this site are clearly pirates because you think they are.
    
    Actually, I'm starting to think you are a very smart pirate. You know that few things make the IP maximalists look worse than their supporters trolling websites that want a fairer system and making the most inane and illogical statements possible. You've developed these trolls persona's to make the real IP maximalists look stupid. And in that respect, I applaud your efforts and wish I had the patience to be as consistent and dedicated as you are to coming up with pathetic attacks everyday.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The guy runs one of the biggest pro-piracy blogs on the web, yet that's a gigantic leap in logic for you?
      
      You guys get so butt-hurt anytime someone points out the obvious about Masnick.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 13 Aug 2011 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's supposedly "one of the biggest pro-piracy blogs on the web" and yet Mike has repeatedly said that he's not pro-piracy and has repeatedly talked about how artists can use newer business models to make money regardless of whether or not their content gets illegally copied.
        
        The problem is your false dichotomy approach to the issue. You believe, "if you're not with me, then you're against me."
        
        You don't believe that someone could be staunchly against excessive and abusively maximized IP laws without also being deeply in favor of "piracy." So as far as you're concerned, anyone who isn't screaming for harsher IP laws and enforcement must be a pirate.
        
        This simply isn't true, however.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2011 @ 9:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike Masnick regularly plays fast and loose with facts, and openly misrepresents things all the time. No one is going to believe something he said just because he says it's true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mike Masnick regularly plays fast and loose with facts,"
        -- At least he has some facts to present, unlike yourself.
        
        "and openly misrepresents things all the time."
        -- Which, of course, you never do.
        
        "No one is going to believe something he said just because he says it's true."
        -- It would be astonishing if everyone used this approach to everything they read, heard, etc. Don't hold your breath.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 14 Aug 2011 @ 6:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No one is going to believe something he said just because he says it's true."
        
        He's being accused by you of being a pirate and you're saying that he should prove that he's not.
        
        By that logic, prove to me that you're not a terrorist.
        
        Or better: provide real, hard evidence that Mike is a pirate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have no receipts for bomb making materials.
        
        Whoops! You just realized how dumb your rebuttal was.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miff (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:25pm

Remember back when everyone thought that if your IP is revealed you become "hackable"? Well, now it's true!

I forsee a severalfold rise in "injector" software that allows one to insert IP addresses into a BitTorrent swarm.

Maybe we could shut down 76.74.24.200 (riaa.com), 69.172.201.20 (mpaa.org), 184.51.36.110 (whitehouse.gov), 143.228.181.132 (house.gov), and more- the possibilities are endless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 5:11pm
  
  Re:
  Those addresses are on the super secret 'white list' that are allowed to do anything they want, they have to be able to find the material on the net before they can copy it, claim it as their own, and sue others for trying to share it, you understand how this works, right?
  
  Expect a knock on the door anytime now, we know where you are and nobody will be hearing from you soon...
  
  We're from the government and we're hear to help (the industries who pay us the most)...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 14 Aug 2011 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  I read somewhere that just becoming part of a swarm added the IP Addr in use to a list of infringers subject to subpoena and potentially subsequent extortion attempt. It was alleged that the act of down or up loading was not used to discriminate nor was infringement determination of any content in question.
  
  So, I doubt there is a need for any new software that injects an address.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
deadzone (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:28pm

Please!
The isp's can't even give us a bandwidth meter that works and reliably tracks our CAPPED services and we have seen numerous examples of how clueless the entertainment industry is about technology and their ham fisted clueless attempts to control it!

There is no way that they have come up with a reliable and ACCURATE system to don what they claim it does. The proof is in the pudding and the simple fact that they dont want tp provide pudding to anyone speaks volumes.

If they truly had something they would be shouting it to the rooftops and demonstrating some sort of verifiable data to everyone they could in triumph!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy, 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:39pm

Finally, We Can Troll Them
I don't know how their product works, but if I get one notice I will sue the company that sends the notice for libel and defamation. If they accuse me of infringement (or my internet connection) to my ISP, they better have rock solid proof. Otherwise, the whole "demonize those nasty file sharers" campaign that equates file sharers with thieves will backfire. You cannot falsely accuse someone of thievery to their business partners (read ISPs) without expecting a lawsuit if the charge cannot be proven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 3:58pm

Davenport -Lyons
They know there will be people falsely accused. But they don't care.

Wasn't that enough to get the Davenport-Lyons Solicitors banned and fined?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:16pm

Shouldn't The Infringement Tracking System Used In New Six Strikes Program Be Open To Scrutiny?
No, it shouldn't. Because then everyone would know had bad it is. Remember the whole voting system episode? Let's not revisit it. Can't have people expose flaws, come on now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
J, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:49pm

one answer
Class action lawsuit. There's bound to be some hungry lawyers somewhere and RIAA conspiring with ISPs represents some pretty deep pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re: one answer
  Class action lawsuit.
  
  I presume you mean a civil class action. Why is that the �one answer�?
  
  The DoJ guidelines on horizontal price fixing state:
  
  Per Se Violations. Price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation are generally prosecuted criminally because they have been found to be unambiguously harmful, that is, per se illegal.
  
  So why do you think a civil class action is the appropriate remedy here? Shouldn't Attorney-General Holder apply his department's guidelines?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 12 Aug 2011 @ 5:58pm

Infringement accusation will turn into a profit center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NamelessOne, 13 Aug 2011 @ 5:24pm

seriously
Maybe we could shut down 76.74.24.200 (riaa.com), 69.172.201.20 (mpaa.org), 184.51.36.110 (whitehouse.gov), 143.228.181.132 (house.gov), and more- the possibilities are endless!
these get boned many times a month you just have to realize they gotz a rise of the apes gorilla guy there flipping the reset switch all day so to see it defaced you have to reload the browser often no really everyone should just try that for a month....."its not a dos i just wanted to show that the site gets defaced your honor"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NamelessOne, 13 Aug 2011 @ 5:30pm

P.S.
IM NOT in a union nor are you invited to one
thus not hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 13 Aug 2011 @ 7:47pm

I'm waiting for 127.0.0.1 to be reported as having infringed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin H (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:19am

Where do you think the idea for "Inception" was derived from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]