British Transport Police: Illegal Downloading Kills Babies [Updated]

from the suspiciously-convenient-logic dept

Mon, Sep 19th 2011 11:53am — Brady Kriss

Update: Apparently this is a parody of the actual ad, which is only slightly less ridiculous...

~~The British Transport Police's newest anti-terrorism campaign focusses on� illegal downloading? That seems to be the case, based on this billboard, as tweeted this weekend by @case_hardened:~~

In case you can't see it, the billboard features a picture of a small crowd in an outdoor shopping area - and at the center, a mom with adorable baby. The text of the billboard reads:

"A bomb won't go off here because weeks before the criminal pirating films was caught by monitoring his internet history. Pirating films funds terrorism and organized crime. Report it today.
Confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline
Call 0800 789 321"

The logic is a bit difficult to follow, but the message is clear: if you are against the government monitoring your internet use, you are for killing babies.

We've been hearing for a while that counterfeit goods, including DVDs, software, and even handbags, fund terrorism, but it doesn't follow that an individual illegally downloading movies from the internet is helping terrorists. And it sure doesn't follow that monitoring individuals' internet use for illegal downloads is going to stop terrorists. On the whole, I think this campaign by the British Transport Police may have the opposite of the effect intended - the "Confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline" is going to be bogged down with reports of copyright violations instead of tips about actual terrorist activities.

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: file sharing, terrorism, uk

144 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:45am

The real effect...
"A bomb went off here, blowing little Johnny's infant face off, because we were too busy hunting down that guy that downloaded the Wiggles movie for his kid to catch anyone worthwhile."

Love,

You Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: The real effect...
  Hmmm...I wonder if that is why Johnny can't read; or form sentences in proper English...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:24pm
    
    Re: Re: The real effect...
    It is proper English, American English isn't proper. You can only be proper if you have a prime minister and parliament.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Someantimalwareguy (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The real effect...
      Don't let the Canadians hear you say that...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The real effect...
        The Canadians that use non-American English? Or the Canadians that have a Prime Minister and a Parliament?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real effect...
        What's this here all aboot?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Someantimalwareguy (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real effect...
        No, not that they don't have a PM and Parliment, just don;t tell them they have something else to hold over our heads down here in the south lol...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real effect...
        Neither. I think he means the French Canadians. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WYSIWYG-SWNM, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The real effect...
      BRITISH? PROPER? You have to be completely off your rocker to make such a grievous statement. Just remember this, Congress and the President kicked Parliament and the King's butt.
      
      / sarcasm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:24pm
    
    Re: Re: The real effect...
    It is proper English, American English isn't proper. You can only be proper if you have a prime minister and parliament.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: The real effect...
  Nah,
  
  This poster is apparently a parody of a real poster. The real poster is at the link below, and it's actually only slightly less awful than the spoof:
  
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/salimfadhley/3392591037/
  
  Featuring the slogan "A bomb won't go off here because weeks before a shopper reported someone studying the CCTV cameras."
  
  Although I wouldn't be surprised if that is also a spoof.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:24pm
  
  Re: The real effect...
  The machine ate my post, so here, hobbled so you can get to it:
  
  hxxp://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7900/mikemasnicksucker.jpg
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:28pm
  
  Re: The real effect...
  Fear, the drug of the evolution!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:57am

I already reported the queen for file sharing, I hope they catch the uppity criminal bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  Now why did you go and do that, I thought everyone liked Dame Edna.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
theDude, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:02pm

huh?
I just read the sign (not the post)and gotta say, that's not going to make sense to anyone. It might be genius as its so obtuse that it may stick in peoples minds as they try to connect the missing dots. I suspect however its a bridge too far in terms of reason, especially when they attempted to boil it down to a bumper sticker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: huh?
  "hello im your averaged adult aged 40-90. I have no idea how the internet works, and little knowledge of how file sharing works. The government says it funds terrorists. So you kids stay off the internet and I'm calling the cops on that little friend of yours who always bring over movies."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:03pm

I actually hope someone in Britain sues these guys...false advertisement maybe? The days when criminals actually made money from pirated VHS/DVD is long gone. They're actually saying that if someone downloads a movie, then you're a terrorist. If you read the quote carefully, its says the bomb won't go off because they caught the criminal. It doesn't say "The bomb won't go off because we illegally monitored this one guy, and found out he had been donating money to Al'Qaeda".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re:
  well obviously the file sharer was going to set off the bomb, I mean once you commit one crime whats to stop you from doing others. Didn't you know file-sharing is a gateway felony.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh yeah i started out small with music, moved to films, then started importing shoes directly from the factories over seas. My plan for next week is to pay people in third world countries a loonie a day for phone support. Then complain to my senator that others are criticizing my "business" and have them write a bill that will greatly help me. All I have to do is donate to their campaign a couple of young boys from my factories.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sorry but lots of file sharers release bombs regularly. You know - the stereotypical kid living in his parents' basement eating Cheetos all day? Yeah. Even the cat won't go down there anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:03pm

How does downloading something for free help fund terrorism and organized crime?

I like how prominent the camera is in the background of the image. That poster has a major 1984 vibe to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WysiWyg (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  I take it you haven't been in London recently? I was there last year, and I honestly thought first that the posters were some sort of satire. *shivers*
  
  I especially loved the way they announced the third day we were there (middle of summer) that since it now was so hot that everyone were allowed one bottle of water with them. And here I had been carrying around 10 of them all the time!
  
  Also, while I'm on the subject; they don't do trashbins anymore. Turns out you're supposed to throw the trash on the ground, and someone will pick it up. You know, so no-one throws a bomb in a bin or something.
  
  They are absolutely mad. The make the TSA look like sane people!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Also, while I'm on the subject; they don't do trashbins anymore. Turns out you're supposed to throw the trash on the ground, and someone will pick it up. You know, so no-one throws a bomb in a bin or something."
    
    really?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes really, the IRA bombed the shit out of London and they don't have trash bins anywhere near a station or inside any public transport.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Call me Al, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    erm WysiWyg I'm not sure if the London you visited is the same one that I live in.
    
    We do have some ridiculous laws but your points aren't true.
    
    They don't give you permission to carry a bottle of water, rather they advise that you do so. This is because the London Underground is not airconditioned and gets ridiculously hot in summer.
    
    Also we do have bins, not as many as we need but they are certainly there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WysiWyg (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh. I must have misunderstood what they said on the speakers. My bad.
      
      About the bins; I should have clarified that it seems to only apply to the Underground. Although, I do agree that you need a lot more in general. ;-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:36am
        
        We are...
        Two countries separated by a common language.
        
        Mind your head...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "They are absolutely mad."
    
    Yes, this fictional parallel reality you seem to have stepped into certainly seems to be. The version I visited at the end of August had plenty of bins and no restrictions on soft drinks. The posters are stupid, but maybe they realised that since I didn't see any of this type other than some parodies in tourist shops...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WysiWyg (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I should have been more clear; the "bin-ban" is only in the Underground and the stations it seems.
      
      And the restrictions on soft drinks seems to have been an misunderstanding on my part.
      
      With that said, I still think the posters are REALLY creepy, and whoever thought of them must have been a bit mad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, no problema and thanks for responding. You definitely did seem to completely misunderstand and no mention was made of public transport in your original post, so glad we could sort you out on those points!
        
        You are still right about the posters of course, but I think they've been gradually removed since most people thought the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 4:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    There are very few bins available on British transport systems precisely because years ago (1987 or 1988 or so), the delightful IRA (Irish Republican Army) decided that planting a bomb in one and setting it off during a busy period would be a 'jolly jape' that would aid their "War on Britain".
    
    Although bins have crept back somewhat in some places, there is still a dearth of them about. Terrorism wins, and the TSA would be proud!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  Obviously people are taking the money they aren't spending on movies and instead donating it to terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  By downloading movies, you clog the tubes, when the tubes are clogged, it hard to filter through all of that traffic and find the terrorists. Everyone needs to log off of the internet now until they can find the terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:06pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:07pm

I'm pretty sure this is a parody of an earlier sign that stated because someone was vigilant and reported suspicious activity a bomb was discovered in a trash can and a baby was saved etc. I remember seeing this about a year ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:08pm

So, dead baby jokes, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  Johnny runs in the house, his finger covered in blood. With a panic in his voice he yells, "Mommy! Mommy! I didn't know babies had a soft spot!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pirate Alice Cooper, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:54pm
  
  Re: Dead Babies
  At least they not be takin' things off the shelf! Arrgh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Marks, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:09pm

The slogan has been changed. Original, somewhat less tendentious one, is on the Met site - here's the official image
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travis (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re:
  OMG you can be reported for looking at a frakking camera? This is the same country that V For Vendetta come from? How prophetic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 4:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Aside from the fact that there are so many that it's hard NOT to look at them, so what? They are there for our 'protection' supposedly, not so that the 'authorities' can spy on us. If you put a camera in a public place, or even looking onto a public area, you can't complain if people look at it or even study it.
    
    Besides, it's about a thousand times more likely that someone wanting to avoid a camera seeing what they are doing will be engaged in 'petty' crime, and about a million times more likely that it's some dog owner trying to work out where he can avoid using his pooper-scooper (and yes, some local authorities are that anal about it).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:11pm

Report Everyone
Let's just take this to the inevitable conclusion and save a lot of time.

Report everyone to be investigated. That way no one can escape, and we'll figure out everything bad about everyone and can lock up everyone's who's ever done anything wrong.

Police, federal authorities, and private business all get to team up and inspect everything that everyone has ever done. We'll catch every terrorist and criminal because no one is exempt.

And then we'll be safe forever, because this is such a good idea and nothing could go wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tasmot (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:11pm

Confused - With Many Others
OK, let me get this straight. Were I to download/pirate a movie and not pay Hollywood, somehow money magically appears in the hands of somebody who is going to blow up a baby? I am missing something. Did I lose the money? Who gave those terrorist the money that I didn't give to Hollywood? And with all of this money magically showing up for the terrorists because people are not giving money to Hollywood, can I sign up to get some of this free money? I just don't understand how this works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: Confused - With Many Others
  No. What this is saying is that if you are downloading/pirating a movie, song, book or game, you are a terrorist and plotting to blow up a baby.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: Confused - With Many Others
  It simply means that the people in charge are behind the times as ever, and still equate "piracy" with "illegal profit", which is how it was before the internet (at least when talking about large scale piracy). Now? Not so much, they just haven't realised it yet and/or find it convenient to pretend it hasn't changed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re: Confused - With Many Others
  Agreed
  
  The only way anyone makes money off downloads is if:
  
  a. They run the torrent site and have some ads. Minimal income.
  
  b. The down-loader burns copies and sells them on the black market. Physical goods again.
  
  By the governments logic, if one then wants to find terrorists, look for the bazaars with lots of CD's and DVD's for sale.Only they are not.
  
  Also, the trend seems to be more streaming/downloading rather than physical media. This may be different in developing countries, but that will change quickly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:11pm

But those are the terrorists....
But, But, But.... I keep hearing that the terrorists are the ones downloading the latest movies and songs...

I hear their leader (Al Cada or something like that, who is this Al guy and why can't we stop him anyway?) is a real asshole and won't let the jihiadists listen to current music or watch new movies when they are supposed to be working on performing suicide bombings....

What's the world coming to when even terrorists have to pirate just to get the music and movies to get their 'Jihad' on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- KGB Operative, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:57pm
  
  Re: But those are the terrorists....
  The leader of the Music Terrorists is Al Martino.
  
  He's old but very very evil.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:13pm

Yeah, it's a spoof
It's not real, sadly/fortunately - although it is a parody of a real campaign from 2009, which I recall did link piracy (as in physical goods, not downloading) to organised crime and terrorism. Although in a less overtly batshit way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:14pm

this has been forwarded to my MP. i dont know whether he will respond or not, or when that might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frost (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:16pm

Assuming they care about terrorism at all
Any time somebody wants to pass some liberty-crushing legislation, they push the buttons. You know, the kiddie porn button. And the terrorism button. As a result, they can pass any abomination of a law just by passionately declaming "but think of the children!".

I wonder if this isn't more of the same, sort of - a corporate-powered witchhunt for "pirates" in the name of Holy Profit, pushing the "terrorist" as well as the "think of the children" button because that does demonstrably work (apparently people are consistently morons unable to see they're being manipulated to a fare-thee-well while their liberties get snatched out from under them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jes Lookin, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:17pm

And Now for the Rest of the Story...
Whadda-bout the Children ?!!!
*Let's eliminate all corporate distraction from government security !
*Let's create public corporate oversight for working conditions and pay that inspire terrorists !

Response: Whadda-bout privacy and 'freedom' ?!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:21pm

Missing Explanatory Text:
(many Bothans died to bring me this information, and this coffee which I'm presently engaged in drinking)

The following was revealed by expert spies & informants, a document explaining how the terrorists are funded by illegal downloads:

I, Evil Mastermind, do hereby pledge to deliver into the hands of terrorists $50 in gold bullion for EVERY film, clip, movie, song, book, game, etc which is downloaded at trivial cost by somebody who is not paying Hollywood (or some other middleman gatekeeper organization).

End of Line.

The stationary it's printed on says "From the desk of Al Franken" but there's no way that's true...

/Satire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Anon, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:22pm

Looking at the picture there are no puppies or kittens. It is good to see that cute fluffy animals won't be hurt b/c I downloaded a movie.

Frankly, that baby is going to grow up to be a terrorist downloader just like the rest of us, so it's really a preventative measure I guess.

But puppies and kittens....they are the true innocent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:22pm

As a few others have pointed out THIS IS FAKE

Sorry Brady, this is why you check sources. It is not real. Was a paraody done about 2 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:23pm

What a waste of money... the Anti-Terrorist agency spending ad money for a civil issue and interest group.

The tax payers should be outraged at organized crime (RIAA/MPAA) spending their tax dollars on using terrorism to fight piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:36pm

Logic win!
in counterfeit goods fund terrorism, then by pirating instead of buying from street vendors we're keeping money one of the al-queda's hands!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:37pm

Brady, this is fake. It's been circulating message boards for over a week now. You seem to have a lower-resolution picture that doesn't show where the text is obviously inserted into the banner using an editor.

I hate the damn billboards that say "When you watch TV without a permit you ARE HITLER, WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS AND CHURCHILL BUT LOVE HITLER?", but we don't have to make up new stupid, crazy billboards when there are already real stupid, crazy billboards telling us things like "WE'RE WATCHING YOU WHILE YOU'RE SHITTING, DON'T YOU FEEL SAFE?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re:
  Hi, I work as a headhunter for Homeland Security and the TSA. Both of my clients would like to hire you to write billboard slogans for us. The ones on your resume here are great.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:40pm

My internet company funds terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAC, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:43pm

Big Brother...
Big brother knows best...

All you pesky downloaders will have to be shipped off to re-education centers so that you will not fund terrorist with free downloads.

Why, because it's in Big Brothers best interest, that's why.

And, because you don't love Big Brother; but you will...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:44pm

original here, with another spoof version.
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/blog-post/1651363/new-metropolita n-police-campaign-ridiculed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re:
  lol that parody one is fucking awesome
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm afraid that is not parody at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:51pm

I lol'd hard.

This will ultimately serve to lower the credability of the pro copyright lobby below even that of the westboro babtist "church".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:52pm

well well, pirates = terrorists.

at least they've come out in the open with it.
On this wonderful talk like a pirate day, may i suggest:
#antisec forever! Hoist sail me hearties, load all guns, power teh lazers! No prisoners, no quarter... God will know his own!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:53pm

Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
The same servers that host Pirate Bay also host child porn.

How can you look at yourself in the face when you know child-abusing perverts are downloading child porn from the same servers you are using and financially supporting?

Denial of course? Your foolish support of "free-speech" for child rapists/pornographers is identical to your foolish support of the "free-speech" of IP thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
  Did you miss the /sarc, the /troll or the (citation needed)?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
    he knows because he hosts it
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- paperbag (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
  It doesn't bother me one bit what people download from anywhere. It's none of my business.
  
  If there is child abuse going on, go after the source in the physical world. Kill the Hydra, not just one of its heads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
    "It doesn't bother me one bit what people download from anywhere. It's none of my business."
    
    It would bother you if you were the child being raped because people could make money off the porn, but keep the paperbag over over your head.
    
    Also keep the paper bag over your head when you go into a whorehouse so you don't have to look at the child prostitutes forced into sex slavery while you do your adult sex with an adult whore saying that child being abused in the next room is none of my business. The average scumbag John has higher standards than you. Even criminals dislike child abusers and beat them up as a "public service."
    
    For those of you who don't read the news and don't know that child porn, and Wikileaks is hosted on the same scumbag site that hosts pirate bay, here is a Wikipedia link to start your read on:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRQ
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
      hosting a NAMBLA page and hosting child porn are not the same thing. NAMBLA is pro boy love but im pretty sure they don't have any child porn on their website, they still like to try and act like a legitimate organization.
      
      But really since they are on the same server as child porn advocates then they are worthy of all the rage you should direct at child porn advocates?
      
      What county are you from?
      
      [insert country here] has child porn advocates living in it. John Doe also lives there. Therefore john doe is scum.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
      You might get better results if you stopped attacking people for pointing out the bleeding obvious to you. I'll quote again:
      
      "If there is child abuse going on, go after the source in the physical world. Kill the Hydra, not just one of its heads."
      
      You know the source where people obtain it from? Great, work with them to find the people who are creating it in the first place. Then, go after those who merely possess it (yes, I'm aware there will be some overlap). You'll probably find them more willing to help you go after things that actually cause damage in real life, rather than simply cutting into the profits of a few foreign corporations.
      
      Attacking people for even daring to suggest that there might be more important things to go after than file sharing is not making your case one bit, and makes you look like a tool in the process. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cabal (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
      I challenge you to find one case of infringement EVER filed on child porn. Just sayin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Illegal Downloading Supports Child Porn
      "It would bother you if you were the child being raped because people could make money off the porn, but keep the paperbag over over your head."
      
      Actually, I'm pretty sure that if I was a child being raped my distress would be with the fact that I was being raped and the pictured being taken. The fact that money changed hands in the production and distribution of pictures would be the least of my concerns. In fact, if law enforcement was to put stopping the exchange of the files for money higher on the priority list than rescuing me, I would find that deeply depressing.
      
      So stop making arguments for non-profit child rape.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
paperbag (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:10pm

Priest
"To go against the Church, is to go against God."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lostalaska (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:40pm
  
  Re: Priest
  Where do I sign up! ...to go against the church that is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:31pm

Death to Babies, long live Al... oh shit wrong post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:33pm

Reality is now indistinguishable from self-parody
Yeah, the billboard is a spoof. Of course, the Met maintains a list of real "suspicious activities" here: http://www.met.police.uk/so/at_hotline.htm.

A quick scan of their list suggests that you should report people with:
Vans
Passports
Mobile Phones
Cameras
Computers
Suitcases
Padlocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: Reality is now indistinguishable from self-parody
  whoa the paranoia on this website makes homeland security's outlook seem sane.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:43pm
  
  Re: Reality is now indistinguishable from self-parody
  Passports, Cameras, Creditcards & Suitcases. Is that an anti-terrorist page, or an anti-tourist page?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:34pm

fake: http://www.edwud.com/photos/anti_terrorist_bomb_advert_uk.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  I've seen quite a few pixels in my time...
  
  Also, this is an old poster even if it wasn't fake. Which it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hothmonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    i thought what you linked was the real one that spawned all these fake ones
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:35pm

This is evidence that pro-copyright groups have become just like politicians.

The RIAA & other pro-copyright groups argue that people pirate to get music and such for free, which robs artists of hard earned cash.

Now the RIAA & others in Britain are saying that Pirating funds terrorism.

Well if people pirate content to get it for free because they're too cheap to pay for it, when how do terrorists make money off of pirating?

Does the RIAA want us to think that all of those companies in places like China that sell knock offs of the real thing are sending their profits to terrorists?

But the terrorists hate China to (their government stiffles religious freedom), so that can't be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SD (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:36pm

Picture this was shopped from
I thought the ripples looked off because they sort of stop right under the text, but looking at the original picture it's sourced from, I must say they did a pretty good job. Here's the original. (Found via TinEye)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SD (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: Picture this was shopped from
  Looks like the one I linked to isn't original either. The text makes a mockery of the campaign photographers, and I just found a couple more edited pictures. All of these were uploaded in 2009.
  
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/nogbad/3687093466/
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobanblack/36 08245052/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PrometheeFeu (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Picture this was shopped from
    I loved the "Be scared of your neighbor. It makes good sense."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SD (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Picture this was shopped from
  Apparently the true source was from a meme image generator which isn't live anymore but references to it still exist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Simms, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:45pm

Really? WTF?
As the owner of a small games company that has been hit quite hard by pirated games (no it isnt a victimless crime etc etc) even I am saying WTF to this. If ANYTHING downloading a film from a site that funds terrorism will mean their bandwidth bills go up, and they have less money for bombs.

Also, even their grammar is wrong, you can't 'monitor someones internet history' - monitoring is a present tense activity and a history is past tense. You can monitor their activity or investigate their history, you cant monitor their history unless....

ZOMG THE POLICE HAVE A TIME MACHINE!!! Thats how they knew there would be a bomb, and how they monitor history!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re: Really? WTF?
  "As the owner of a small games company that has been hit quite hard by pirated games (no it isnt a victimless crime etc etc)"
  
  do you sell your own games or just physical copies of old games released by other companies many years ago?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Really? WTF?
    sorry that came out ruder than i intended. Its just that it seems like I could get most of your catalog for about 5 bucks on GOG, and thats for a near instant(with these old small games) download. All the rest(well the couple i looked for) are cheaper on ebay or amazon. So is piracy killing you or competition? Does the Linux angle allow you to sell a game for 65$ that people can download for 5$? I have never tried to game on a linux box but to save 60$ im pretty sure I would try to hunt down some emulator before paying 10 times as much for the same game.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:46pm

Updated
Updated to note that it's a parody..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:28pm
  
  Re: Updated
  "Updated to note that it's a parody.."
  
  LMFAO. Hook, line, and sinker. You guys will bite at anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Updated
    LMFAO. Hook, line, and sinker. You guys will bite at anything.
    
    Or... it seemed so similar to what's actually out there, that it didn't seem like a parody. That's a lot worse, don't you think?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Updated
      "Or... it seemed so similar to what's actually out there, that it didn't seem like a parody. That's a lot worse, don't you think?"
      
      Nice try at spinning your mistake, but no dice. This only shows your desperation, nothing more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HothMonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        this comment would almost work if he was the one that made the mistake. But keep trying to spin this into an epic fail, it might work out yet, although you are showing your desperation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "this comment would almost work if he was the one that made the mistake. But keep trying to spin this into an epic fail, it might work out yet, although you are showing your desperation."
        
        Nope. Mike believed it was true too, or else he wouldn't have allowed it to be posted. It's obviously a joke, and the fact that Mike and his flunky jumped on it shows their bias and lack of critical thinking skills.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chillienet (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Mike believed it was true too, or else he wouldn't have allowed it to be posted. It's obviously a joke, and the fact that Mike and his flunky jumped on it shows their bias and lack of critical thinking skills."
        
        Or maybe, just maybe, it appears to be history repeating itself.....
        
        http://www.pcworld.com/article/109808/does_file_trading_fund_terrorism.html
        http://w ww.dailytech.com/US+Attorney+General+Piracy+Funds+Terror/article11303.htm
        http://www.theregister.co .uk/2004/11/17/graun_piracy_lessons/
        
        A quick google search showed those and many more, but then that's too much like hard work for you isn't it....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        Tell me something please. Although this wasn't written by Mike, he did correct it and showed that he made an honest mistake.
        What do you want Mike to do? What would make you happy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Tell me something please. Although this wasn't written by Mike, he did correct it and showed that he made an honest mistake.
        What do you want Mike to do? What would make you happy?"
        
        It's simple. He should check his facts before running with a story. Basic journalism 101 stuff. And once he makes a mistake like this, he shouldn't try to blow it off by pretending it's the other side's fault ("Or... it seemed so similar to what's actually out there, that it didn't seem like a parody. That's a lot worse, don't you think?") or pretending it's OK to run with ridiculous, unvetted stories so long as he "updates" the story when his error is pointed out ("No. This whole blog is about posting what we know, when we know it, and letting the community continue the discussion. That means that we get stuff wrong sometimes. And, when we do, we learn, update and move on. Not sure what there is to fell stupid about.").
        
        This is huge egg on Mike's face, and the fact that he doesn't own up to that and tries to spin it as being OK just shows more of the same intellectual dishonesty that Mike is known for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Basic journalism 101 stuff."
        
        Jeez, do you AC clowns need to have OPINION BLOG explained to you again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Jeez, do you AC clowns need to have OPINION BLOG explained to you again?"
        
        Opinions are fine. But presenting stories as fact when in fact they haven't even been properly vetted is simple manipulation. This is no surprise, since anyone who is smart can tell that Mike is an intellectually dishonest manipulator. But it is a surprise that Mike doesn't even pretend like his articles are properly researched. Obviously, he doesn't want to be held accountable for anything he publishes (since he publishes turd after turd). But how can anyone be expected to respect him if he doesn't even stand behind those turds?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        Love the fact that the two ACs hitting me on this, neither of them will answer the simple question about whether or not they fact check their comments. Hilarious. And telling.
        
        But presenting stories as fact when in fact they haven't even been properly vetted is simple manipulation.
        
        And when you do the same in your comments?
        
        Obviously, he doesn't want to be held accountable for anything he publishes
        
        And this is the hilarious one. If I didn't want to be held accountable, I wouldn't have open comments and I wouldn't allow comments that show where mistakes were made.
        
        I WANT to be held accountable and I am held accountable, which is why I changed the post and admitted we got it wrong, and have left up all the comments.
        
        I don't think you understand what it means to be held accountable. Of course we're held accountable. And of course, we TRY to get the stories right. We try to figure out as much as possible. But even so, sometimes we get things wrong. Just like you do. How many times did the NYTimes run corrections this year? Everyone gets things wrong sometimes. Some people -- like yourselves -- have no accountability. You have no name, you'll never admit you were wrong.
        
        We have absolute accountability. I leave the comments open to ensure exactly that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Love the fact that the two ACs hitting me on this, neither of them will answer the simple question about whether or not they fact check their comments. Hilarious. And telling."
        
        Wow. Your intellectual dishonesty continues. You, as the writer of an article, are held to a higher standard than those who simply comment on the article. If you don't understand this, you have no business running this site. Instead, it's just proof that you are trying to weasel out of having accountability for what you write. And no, simply correcting the bigger mistakes when they are pointed out is not enough. You have a duty to fact-check your articles BEFORE you post them. The fact that you try and shirk even this most basic responsibility speaks volumes to the issue of what Mike Masnick is really about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        Note, the AC still won't answer. Telling.
        
        you have no business running this site
        
        And when you join my board of directors, you can bring that up. Until such time, I'm afraid that your ill-informed opinion of what my business is... is... well, meaningless. But amusing.
        
        You have a duty to fact-check your articles BEFORE you post them.
        
        And we do try to fact check as much as we can. But sometimes -- just like the NY Times and you -- we get things wrong. And unlike you, we admit that and stand up for it and put our names on it.
        
        If you can't see how that's being accountable, then I don't believe you know what accountable means.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Note, the AC still won't answer. Telling."
        
        I did answer by saying that it's irrelevant. You haven't explained how it is relevant. That's quite telling.
        
        "And when you join my board of directors, you can bring that up. Until such time, I'm afraid that your ill-informed opinion of what my business is... is... well, meaningless. But amusing."
        
        Slimy and intellectually dishonest. It's basic journalism 101 stuff, as I've said. You have a duty to not manipulate and lie to your readers. It's quite telling that you don't think you even have this duty.
        
        "And we do try to fact check as much as we can. But sometimes -- just like the NY Times and you -- we get things wrong. And unlike you, we admit that and stand up for it and put our names on it. If you can't see how that's being accountable, then I don't believe you know what accountable means."
        
        But you don't, Mike. This article is just another example of your failure to try hard enough to get things right the first time. Given that I think your real purpose is to manipulate and lie to further your agenda (copyright abolition and piracy apology), it's really no surprise that you're being intellectually dishonest about this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        I did answer by saying that it's irrelevant. You haven't explained how it is relevant. That's quite telling.
        
        It's entirely relevant. This is an opinion and discussion blog. We post stuff to kick off a discussion -- and that includes fully expecting and encouraging people to add more information.
        
        We are not a journalism operation and have never claimed to be one. You like to put other labels on us, and you're free to do it. But it doesn't mean we have to live up to your made up standards.
        
        But the point remains: you don't fact check your comments. You don't admit when you're wrong. You don't put your name on things.
        
        Who has more credibility here? Everyone reading this knows the answer.
        
        Slimy and intellectually dishonest. It's basic journalism 101 stuff, as I've said. You have a duty to not manipulate and lie to your readers. It's quite telling that you don't think you even have this duty.
        
        Making an error is not manipulating and lying. You just lied. And manipulated. We made an error. I corrected my error. Will you admit you lied? Of course not.
        
        This article is just another example of your failure to try hard enough to get things right the first time.
        
        People get stuff wrong. We get stuff wrong. It happens. Using the one example over a 6 month or so period where we get stuff wrong to say we don't try hard enough? Yeah. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
        
        I think your real purpose is to manipulate and lie to further your agenda (copyright abolition and piracy apology), it's really no surprise that you're being intellectually dishonest about this
        
        Lying and manipulating are entirely different than being wrong -- and it's a manipulative lie to suggest otherwise. And being intellectually dishonest would be to insist it was true after it was shown to have been in error, and deleting your comments.
        
        I would not do that. I stand behind what we do, and when we make an error I admit it.
        
        Will you admit your lie? Let's wait and see...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        This isn't hard, Mike. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that the procedures you have in place to fact-check a story before you publish it are not sufficient. Claiming that it's OK because people in the comments will point out your mistakes doesn't cut it. The fact is, you turn out story after story without doing enough research into what you write. Examples of this are sadly all too readily available. But it's not really about getting it right, is it, Mike? It's about the agenda and the manipulation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        This isn't hard, Mike. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that the procedures you have in place to fact-check a story before you publish it are not sufficient.
        
        Sure they are. We post 75 or so stories a week. If, as is the case, we get the facts wrong on one story every 6 months or so... that's a pretty good track record. A lot better than most major publications.
        
        Examples of this are sadly all too readily available.
        
        Yeah, right.
        
        But it's not really about getting it right, is it, Mike? It's about the agenda and the manipulation
        
        Of course it's about getting it right. If it wasn't, then why would we have open comments and admit to our errors? You have such a strange view of the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 21 Sep 2011 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        if he was wrong about the story and didn't fact check then he can't be manipulating. To manipulate he would have known the story isnt true and ran the it anyway to...well, to manipulate people. If he is a "bad reporter" and just plain wrong he can't have been purposefully manipulating because he thought what he posted was true.
        
        So is he a lying slimeball manipulator or an idiot who can't fact check and will believe anything that fits his worldview? Pick one.
        
        P.S. Mike you do realize this was one person trolling the shit out of you right? I would imagine you would have a pretty powerful Troll Detector by now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Basic journalism 101 stuff"
        
        You still haven't learned the difference between a blog and a primary news source, have you? No wonder you always come off like an idiot, you don't even know what the site is that you're posting on.
        
        I'll wait for that cite back to when you've ever admitted fault, by the way. People in glass houses, etc. and from where I'm sitting you're in a pretty sizeable greenhouse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 3:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        It's simple. He should check his facts before running with a story.
        
        Do you check your facts before posting a comment?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "Do you check your facts before posting a comment?"
        
        Wow, Mike. I know you have no scruples, and I know you are intellectually dishonest to the core, but I'm surprised you admit that you don't fact-check before running with a story. There really is no accountability with you, is there?
        
        I will cite this post of yours as proof that you don't even do basic research into the stories you write. No wonder you get so many things wrong. You don't even give a minimum amount of effort, and you don't even stand behind your own words.
        
        I'm amazed and stunned that you freely admit this. It makes you look even worse than you already look--and that's hard to accomplish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "There really is no accountability with you, is there?"
        
        Wow, irony overload.
        
        You might think you're fighting some good fight, but really you just come across as a bitter, spiteful little man with a bizarre obsession for trashing Mike and Techdirt. You offer absolutely no reason to take anything you say seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        Obviously you've not heard of Poe's Law. The whole point is that when you can't tell that a post is a parody, not reality, then there is a problem with the presented 'reality'.
        
        Because there is always a 'fundamentalist' religion person/government organisation/legacy industry/AC industry shill willing to say something as obviously stupid, if not more so. It's totally believable as 'real' precisely because some people and organisations really are that stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Updated
      You got punk'd.
      
      Damn, you are always in a rush to bite on these things. Don't you feel stupid now for jumping to a conclusion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        Damn, you are always in a rush to bite on these things. Don't you feel stupid now for jumping to a conclusion?
        
        No. This whole blog is about posting what we know, when we know it, and letting the community continue the discussion. That means that we get stuff wrong sometimes. And, when we do, we learn, update and move on. Not sure what there is to fell stupid about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "No. This whole blog is about posting what we know, when we know it, and letting the community continue the discussion. That means that we get stuff wrong sometimes. And, when we do, we learn, update and move on. Not sure what there is to fell stupid about."
        
        So you're admitting that you just run with a story without doing the proper background work? No surprise there. No one could possibly do the proper vetting of a story and be as prolific as you. You sacrifice quality for quantity as a matter of course. And no wonder you don't see "what there is to feel stupid about." You just don't get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "You sacrifice quality for quantity as a matter of course."
        
        So why do you read it? If the quality is so low, why do you bother? You look a lot more foolish admitting you keep coming back given your low opinion of Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hothmonster, 19 Sep 2011 @ 10:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        he has a low opinion of himself
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        I don't get it. Are you now saying that you run stories without having a clue if they are true or not? Are you just posting stuff up because it supports your points of view or mocks the other side, regardless of if it is true or not?
        
        How many other stories are on Techdirt that are based on unchecked, unproven, or junk content? How many stories are made up of a pile of someone else's poo?
        
        You can understand how you look bad here, especially considering how often you call others out and "debunk" them. Perhaps you should debunk yourself!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
        "I don't get it. Are you now saying that you run stories without having a clue if they are true or not? Are you just posting stuff up because it supports your points of view or mocks the other side, regardless of if it is true or not?
        
        How many other stories are on Techdirt that are based on unchecked, unproven, or junk content? How many stories are made up of a pile of someone else's poo?
        
        You can understand how you look bad here, especially considering how often you call others out and "debunk" them. Perhaps you should debunk yourself!"
        
        That's exactly right. Mike is admitting that his articles aren't vetted properly. That actually explains a lot. Rather than even attempt to get things right, he just goes with whatever sounds good for his position. It's faith-based FUD through and through, and now Mike is even admitting as much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 19 Sep 2011 @ 1:49pm

What really annoys me about this is the run on sentence.

Use a comma, ffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:16pm

"Update: Apparently this is a parody of the actual ad, which is only slightly less ridiculous..."

LMAO @ Pirate Mike! His tinfoil hat-wearing sycophantic lapdog really blew this one. The TD idiocy continues. Nice work, asshats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  Ah, I wondered when the idiot brigade would turn up...
  
  The article was based on wrong, as soon as Mike is informed (and he is informed by numerous people here) he edits the article to indicate it as such. This is a problem in your eyes, and a reason to attack him directly again for something he didn't write? Figures.
  
  Let me know next time you admit to, let alone correct, a mistake of yours (there's hundreds to choose from) and I'll let you have the tiny point you think you scored...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 10:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Paul, it appears that the idiot brigade made the billboard and another member wrote the post. Sorry that you didn't get your turn until now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, so got nothing again, but just had to launch an attack anyway? You people are truly pathetic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 5:24am
  
  Re:
  If I could post on the many tinfoil hat-wearing sycophantic MPAA blog entries my posts would say almost exactly the same as your post. Remember how they purposely spout mis-truths and don't even try to correct them..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:23pm

hmmm
Dead people don't feel pain. The sadness of losing a loved one is out-weighed by the fear of another terrorist act.

I fear copyright enforcement more than terrorists. Does that mean copyright bastards are terrorists?

From a logical standpoint, I am more likely to get accidentally targeted by a false copyright accusation than killed by some terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 2:25pm

The scary part about the original, is that pretty much says "don't look funny at our cameras or we'll get you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:11pm

It's not so far fetched
The ad may be a spoof, but its not something that hasn't been said.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/109808/does_file_trading_fund_terrorism.html

If you care to look at the PC World article from 2003, yes 2003. There were predictions made that investment in movies would end if file sharing (piracy) was not stopped. Well here we are 8 years later with more file sharing than ever and there are still movies.

While I've often heard that file sharing funds organized crime and that funds terrorism, I haven't heard of any concrete examples. Could someone please share some actual examples of file sharing funding terrorism? I'm just finding it difficult to believe that drug lords and terrorists are opting for the ads on file sharing sites as their source of income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:14pm

omg! thought crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wayne Andersen (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 3:17pm

The real sign bothers me
I am amazed that everyone is so concerned about the parody, the real sign bothers me more. I have to agree with the AC that linked to http://www.met.police.uk/so/at_hotline.htm.

Any time I travel with my van, I display pretty much all of the suspicious activities listed on the site except for the mask and goggles. Although if it is cold and I will be riding my bicycle I would have those with me as well.

I have multiple passports in my dresser at home.

My credit card has charges to companies like stalker.com, clearly someone should be worried.

I also rent a commercial property and do not go out of my way to display all of the items I store there, some might even consider my behavior secretive.

So the only thing on the list which is not part of my daily life are the suspicious use of chemicals.

And then there is the anti-copyright, anti-social web site (I am sure the MPAA would not have to stretch to characterise techdirt as a terrorist website ) that I knot only read but comment on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 19 Sep 2011 @ 5:26pm

RERERE
Short version of rant above: Human error unacceptable, retraction unacceptable, remaining option: GET OFF THE INTERNETZ. I don't like you. But I love eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Victor David, 19 Sep 2011 @ 9:18pm

Babies are important
This has gone on long enough. Babies are crucial to our well-being and should be drinking milk, not downloading movies.

If a baby is suspicious, you should turn him upside down to see if he rattles. A terrorist by definition rattles. Nobody disputes that and if a camera catches you with a baby in your pocket, well.. you knew the risk.

Don't do the crime if you can't babysit for two or three hours on a Saturday night. All babies smell the same. They positively innovate while we sleep. They plot movies and only more (not less) fanatical shopping can prevent their illegal downloads. It's not worth the possibility of an explosion. Be a full-time patriot. Stay at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abe, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:18am

Really?
I'm amazed at how stupid the police think we are -_-
When did the Taliban take control of RapidShare, MegaUpload, Demonoid, PirateBay and all the other download sites?

I must have killed about 8 or 9 babies last night!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 5:17am

combo time!
Why not just claim that downloading movies turns your BABY into a bomb-wielding terrorist who will wreak havoc at the daycare centre?

There, killed 3 birds with one (cracked) stone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 5:47am

BTW
did anyone notice how the ACs almost managed to sidetrack the conversation from retarded/corrupt governments claiming file sharing = organized crime/baby murdering etc....into pedantic wordplay

Didn't work ACs...you score an F, must try harder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re: BTW
  Did you notice that corrupt file sharers tried to make it look that way too?
  
  Eat shit. You made it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:59pm

I think that this sums it up nicely:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/mikemasnicksucker.jpg/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GBolt, 23 Sep 2011 @ 7:56am

That hero saved us all. By pirating films he had his internet history monitored, thus preventing any terroristic attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
marengo, 17 Oct 2011 @ 10:08am

just a waste of money and nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]