Meet The Internet Defense League (And Join It, Too)
from the defend-the-internet dept
A bunch of the folks who were instrumental in the SOPA/PIPA fight have been working together over the last few months to build The Internet Defense League, which is launching today. Techdirt is a founding member, along with a number of other organizations and sites, including Reddit, Mozilla, Cheezburger, EFF, Fark, Imgur and more. The process is being driven by the awesome folks at Fight for the Future, who were the ones behind the American Censorship Day effort during the SOPA fight. The launch is today, in part because today is also the day that the new Batman movie opens -- and part of the IDL's concept is that when the internet is at risk, it can shine a "cat signal" to alert the internet to jump in and do something:
Taking a page from Kickstarter, the IDL has set up various tiers to which you can donate to get your own personal mini-cat signal or a t-shirt or some other fun offerings.
Earlier this year, I wrote about the Hacking Society gathering, put on by Union Square Ventures. During that discussion, Clay Shirky brought up the idea of an "Internet Volunteer Fire Department" and Tiffiniy Cheng, from Fight for the Future, explained the IDL and how they were already working on it. You can watch that discussion to get a sense of the thinking behind this effort:
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: defense, free speech, internet, openness
Companies: cheezburger, eff, fark, imgur, internet defense league, mozilla, reddit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The cat signal will be sued into oblivion...
Yes, I'm that jaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once that happens, the laughter will set. It will be much easier to take what a group like this publishes and point out the similarities to hippies or perhaps a kibbutz.
There is no sadness today, just a giggle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you can stop spouting the techdirtcratic party line and start thinking for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which side do you want to be on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, however, communicate doesn't include breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take your pick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take your pick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps because we're seeing a series of legislative attempts to do exactly that? SOPA, etc., all control our ability to communicate on the internet, even when that speech is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you also one of those who think that freedom of travel means nothing more than that you are allowed to walk wherever you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good joke, I didn't know your side had any of those left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because SOPA, ACTA, TPP expand copyright control and that's used to stifle speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just highlighted the problem: You think that your free speech should include the ability to freely distribute someone else's protected speech. You want to pull the blanket of free speech onto your side of the bed, leaving everyone else without any covers, and you think this is fine. Any attempt to balance it in your mind is an unfair blocking of your cover use.
Basically, you are a free speech monopolist. You want all the free speech with none of the obligations, obligations are for little people and those who follow the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me ask you something?
Is it fair to shut down whole websites simply because someone drew a picture of a show they liked (fanart) or wrote a story based on those shows (fanfiction) and they weren't expecting anything more than simply having people look at their stuff?
You forget, the way to expand culture is to build on stuff that's already there.
Hip Hop and that style of music already does that.
But, hey, I'm sure that SOPA, ACTA and TPP would NEVER shut down a legitimate genre of music simply because it uses unauthorized samples and remixes music, right?
"Basically, you are a free speech monopolist. You want all the free speech with none of the obligations, obligations are for little people and those who follow the law."
What obligations?
So long as what I say or do does NOT endanger the freedoms or lives of others, then I can say or do whatever I want.
But, so long as laws and treaties keep getting made to curtail those freedoms and rights that we enjoy, respect for the law will continue to go down by the public at large.
"There is NEVER any need to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security." - Ron Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The free speech problems that are a part of that legislation have nothing to do with distributing someone else's protected speech.
Also, the free speech problems are not the only freedom-related problems with the legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, you seem to forget, until not too long ago, the United States was one of the BIGGEST Copyright Infringers in the world.
Stop trying to put your revisionist B.S. history into the modern world.
You'll do everyone a favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that kind of works in your favor because to the founders viewed copyright from a utilitarian perspective and rejected the idea that you had a moral right to the copyright monopoly and understood that perpetual copyrigth was bad.
It's why the compyright clause is written as a power granted to congress rather than a mandate in the constitution yet granting a copyright without an expiration date is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Keep laughing sweetie. Just don't be too mad when the Internet flexes its muscles again against your kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your lines are easy to read between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can see Masnick mincing around in his tights and cape exhorting his brigade of - Tee hee hee. funny.
tinfoil hatters - See here is where you failed. We are not tinfiol hatters, we are freetard, lord high apology pirates. Get with the program.
You must have us confused with Alex Jones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.infowars.com/warner-bros-censors-critical-review-of-dark-knight-rises/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah the fireworks it provided with SOPA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a sad day
Something truly revolutionary in the history of humanity. Packets of data can be sent from anyone to anyone else on the planet, instantly, at nearly zero cost, or cost so cheap as to not matter.
These packets can enable all kinds of applications (web, voice, news, radio, commerce, video chatting or conferencing, blogging, etc etc). And yes, communications can be used for good or evil, but that's not the fault of the technology.
With that new era of communication comes transparency and whistle blowing. Citizens also can "assemble" in ways they couldn't before without physical assembly.
It also brings disruption of business models that depend on artificial scarcity. The cost of packets on the network is nearly zero.
People who say or do stupid things can now be laughed at by a much larger audiences, much more quickly, providing vast numbers of people endless entertainment pleasure.
People can oppose things like SOPA . . . oh, wait. Nevermind. That was all Google's doing and just Google alone. Because Google is pro-piracy. Please discontinue subversive thinking now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a sad day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a sad day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a sad day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a sad day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wonder Woman would be facebook, because EVERYONE (sarcasm) wants to be on Facebook.
Flash would be Skype.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it can shine a "cat signal"
I know I know, cat rhymes with bat, and the whole Batman thing, but IMHO, the cat looks like he ate a paw full of bath salts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
Hope yer trolling my friend because you totally missed this one...
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
It has nothing to do with rhyming with bat.
More coffee, less Bob lol...
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
it all sort of ties together in a big ball of tie-y... stringy... stuff.
it's a logical yarnball, i guess?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
Thoughts? How would you describe an idealized lolcat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny
Hacking Society: We Need an Internet Volunteer Fire Department
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=XDTD9laPQWo
and:
Hacking Society: Visualizing the Web's Hidden Economies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7aQonUFi4
Both show roundtable discussions while not letting the internet join in via the comments.
"Yeah, because they don't announce right on the site that they have a subreddit" Really? "Right on the site" yeah at the bottom of the page:
Targets
We'll keep in close touch with groups like the EFF and Public Knowledge to identify threats and opportunities. We've also got a subreddit. This will get formalized more soon, but for now we're definitely targeting ACTA in June and CISPA as it re-emerges in the Senate.
Have a nice go fuck yourself fuckingbra.(probably a useless a-cup.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a shame that it needs to exist
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
What he said with regard to the survival of the United States is just as relevant when we talk about the survival of the Internet as a medium for unfiltered communication. Yes, some of that communication is vile filth, but some of it is pure magic. You can't see one if you don't see the other.
Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Many Americans have embraced that slogan. Many American soldiers have died defending that right. Is the Internet the straw that breaks the camels back? Will soldiers go to war and die, protecting free speech, while the average American sits and home and is fed the information that some small group in a boardroom wants them to hear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist
it's a fortunate by-product, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist
In the final analysis, there are only two reasons that nations engage in war: to steal the resources of another people, or to defend against aggression. The US, in particular, has only very rarely engaged in war in defense.
The aggressors are never honest with their populace about the reason for going to war: they always give some "higher purpose," such as religion or patriotism, but really, it's always about the cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist
Everything I've said is well-supported and generally accepted by sociologists and historians generally, and military historians in particular. Proof is easily found. If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to address it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist
no.
entirely?
no.
usually and mostly? sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Lets say some big company takes your vacation photo and uses it without paying you squat. The IDL will be there claiming that it's "fair use" and you're merely trying to censor the Internet by trying to stop people from replicating your photo everywhere.
The organizations involved in the IDL don't care about individuals rights-- unless they're the so-called right to pirate anything anywhere anytime. The folks in the IDL try to avoid doing anything to defend the hard work of people because that would mean defending copyright and there's nothing that Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy hate more than is the copyright law and the way it can force them to respect the hard work of the average person.
So expect that the IDL will insist that an ever expanding concept of "fair use" is essential or else the Internet will be broken. Because the billionaires who are paying for the IDL want it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Hm, where did they say this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Saying that fair use can be rather complicated, for instance any company making a profit from using someones art should be paying for it, but news sites can claim fair use as can parody sites.
The main aspect though is that big business cannot take anyone's content and use it as there sole source of income without paying the content creator.
If i have a site with all of the music in the world and let anyone come to my site to listen to it, as long as i do not make money from the site it seems like it should be fair use.
If use the same site and get ad revenue i am generating income from the content and should be paying the artists, i.e like youtube and other content sites.
The problem comes when we have torrent sites, there we can get anything and it is actually fair use, but artists expect to be paid for there content which is reasonable. If anything the more paid sites we have the better the artists would be compensated as people would rather download content from a site that they know compensates the artist.
But the problem at the moment is that big business has twisted copyright law so much it is being used to stop torrent sites instead of compete with them with a better way to compensate artist.
as an example. If there was a site that provided torrent links to every bit of content out there, and they made sure only quality content was represented with no fake or virus ridden torrents more people would use them, thereby increasing traffic and add revenue and thus being able to compensate artists, even if they has a donate button on every page to donate to the creator of the content i am sure they would make a lot of money, even then if they wanted to they could charge a fee for access to there torrents.
Most if not all of us would rather pay something to compensate the artists if we could , we would pay a subscription fee or view adds but only if there was a good infrastructure and quality content as with torrents.
But this removes the power from the big Hollywood copyright groups to make money controlling the content. They are fighting to stop just anyone from making a profit even if they are paying the artists more than they do at the moment.
As soon as people start realizing this the sooner we can overcome the lies about fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Now I believe that anyone can create something without being pirated. I got a plan that will involve selling my book in three different forms, one in digital form, and I'm planning on doing a free sampling of the first few chapters and offering the full version for a very cheap price. And I am considering doing a free event that will enable people to get a copy of my story for free, in either forms, just because I'm willing to try a different
And if I were to look at the word "piracy" as "the act of stealing something and claiming it as my own," then yes it would be a bad thing. But with everyone getting uptight that people are looking for something that they like for cheap, even free, and these corporations holding these items back because they aren't getting money... I don't know how to word it. I do like to get some money on my work, but I don't want to lock up my work and go suing innocent people of every last cent just because they want to read a new story. If I want to do that, I'll sue the big corporations you are apparently supporting.
I may have missed the point, but I tried to decipher whatever the freak you're saying. Please, for the love of God, add links and some examples to back your claims! It might make you appear smarter, but each time that you appear, your posts make us dumber from reading your rants!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
How about piracy as the act of obtaining something of value from another without compensating the rightful owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
The ability to force people into paying for something before they can make the judgement is disappearing. Sorry industries that got rich buy shoveling crap into people heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
And that's an even stupider definition. I quite often obtain something of value without compensating the rightful owner. I'll give even point out how there's no copyright infringement on my part whatsoever, before you call me a pirate/freetard/thief.
I on a daily basis watch television without paying anyone to do so. I also on a daily basis listen to music for free. I do so by listening to the radio in the car or through the use of various apps on my phone (iHeartRadio/Pandora/Slacker/etc.). I also routinely walk into grocery stores and am given samples of various food substances.
Now, before you say, "Yeah well advertising or blah blah blah", keep in mind your definition of piracy just stated moments ago. Obtaining something of value without compensating the rightful owner. I DID AND DO NOT PAY ANYONE TO LISTEN TO THE RADIO (ESPECIALLY NOT THE OWNERS OF THE MUSIC WHICH WOULD BE VARIOUS LABELS). I ALSO DO NOT PAY THE MAKERS OF THE VARIOUS FOOD PRODUCTS I AM SAMPLING. I ALSO DO NOT PAY ANY STUDIOS TO WATCH THE SHOWS THEY PRODUCE. So yeah, I meet your definition on a regular basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
As far as the radio goes. Music artists have agreed to allow their songs to be played over the radio, as well as the various other radio like programs. Music artists haven't given permission to have their songs freely copied and shared by anyone for any purpose. (I'm speaking generally, obviously some artists have given such permission)
Perhaps a better definition for piracy is "the act of obtaining, without permission, something that was the result of the work of somebody else."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Which ends that bit as it relates to the original AC's point.
As for your definition, guess what I do for a living? Or better said one of the things I do for a living. I work in IT. Know what I do on a routine basis? I obtain WITHOUT PERMISSION something that was the result of the work of somebody else. Either firsthand knowledge or software of one sort of another. I do not ask permission to use Microsoft Windows/Office, but we do have licenses for it. But I am not directly asking permission to use it. Nor am I directly asking permission from anyone for any information related to problems that arise in the IT field and information on how to solve them.
Now, you may say my license to use Windows/Office is enough. But note, you said obtaining something WITHOUT PERMISSION that is the result of somebody else's work. Who'd you ask for permission to use the internet? Was it any of the guys who helped build the internet? Because it is very much a result of their work. In which case, way to go you pirate. And did you ask Tesla for permission to use alternating current? Because it's as a result of his work that you even have the electricity you need to power the computer you're using to respond to me. Want me to go on? I'm more than happy to.
See how this works? Bad definitions are bad. Piracy has a definition. Suffice it to say it involves water. Copyright infringement can also be directly defined and has. There's no need for any of this BS, beyond the AC trying to make a point, which I quite obviously showed to be both erroneous and stupid, much like the AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
As far as not compensating the rightful owners, that's not true at all. You may not be directly giving them your money, but by paying for your cable subscription, you are in effect compensating the creators. Free samples fall under permissions that are granted by content creators. They agree to allow the cable companies (or whoever) to distribute free samples.
You don't have to ask permission for something in order to receive it. Your argument is total nonsense. If I create a piece of music, and stipulate that anybody can download it whenever they want, it's not necessary for every single person to then come back and ask me if they can download the music whenever they want.
So, the licenses are in fact enough because they are permissions granted by Microsoft that dictate how the software can be used. I'm granted permission to use the internet by way of paying my Internet Service Provider. The rest of your examples fall under my same argument. Asking for permission to do something is not necessary to be given permission to do that same something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
YOU ARE A PIRATE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Also, even if I pay a cable company, I am not directly compensating the rightful owner. This is how that AC usually means things. If you aren't giving your money directly to them then you're stealing.
The rest is the same. You stated a definition that by default is quite easily not met in almost every single situation. Thus, piracy has been committed by everyone not asking permission PER YOUR DEFINITION. Now, it might be nonsensical the manner in which I've explained things, but that's only to show how I'm not keeping with your definition. If you see fit to revise your definition of "piracy" then I'll see fit to revise my examples. In the ones you stated, which were revisions of mine, you are getting or asking permission from someone in control of something, be it a software or internet service, but they are a mere proxy or are allowing you to do so in a proxy-like manner. Ala licenses or agreements, but you at no point directly ask permission of the person who created said things. Again, I'm just keeping in line with your very specific definition.
Which is why I said, "bad definitions are bad". And regardless, piracy has been defined. Ditto copyright infringement. So there's no real need to even go down this line beyond the AC starting it. But, suffice it to say, his definition of piracy is not even remotely correct. And luckily for the rest of us, the Supreme Court has ruled what is considered copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
If that's the case, then shouldn't be we attempting to come up with a new definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Studios and labels keep coming up with new definitions of property and piracy all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
btw, pirates do compensate the creator...they pay it with their time pirating the work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
That's a pretty good compensation if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
If anything the future is free with a donation button, that's it, that's the only way to compete with free.
I searched a torrent site for a book i wanted to read but it was not there, that tells me a few things, one it is not very popular and two i will not be reading it.
If i could i would be donating to authors but hey they do not have that button anywhere for me to donate yet , so until they do i will continue reading free books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
That's a bad thing? Why your precious SOPA and PIPA, etc are making such a stir is they are trying to do too much. They go too far and make a gifted monopoly trump the rights of others. Copyright is a gift not a God given right. If the price of a "free" and "open" internet is someone might take my vacation photo and use it to make money, so be it. There are already laws in place to deal with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
I hear that Pearle Vision is offering a deal on Team USA Olympic glasses. You should get some so that you can see reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
You can create whatever you want without it being pirated. But just as it has always been, you lose control once you release your creation in the world. That has always been the case and will always be the case no matter what laws are made. Just because you want something doesn't make it a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
I'm so sick of people like you who think that just because the goverment regulates something you are entitled to that regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
I guess what you're trying to say is that the IDL is the Ultimate Paywall.
We know, we know. Hey, we should call it Big IDL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Well, of course you do. You believe the entire Internet is just a front for Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?
Yes you did! Yes you did!
Who's a good little troll? You are! Yes you are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ok, yeah, i lost my point.
yarn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You bastard! I had been winning for MONTHS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Are ALL Stakeholders Now
In the internet age that narrow view of "stakeholder" no longer applies. We are all stakeholders now and our voice must be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Signed Up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link to kitteh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Are ALL Stakeholders Now
In the internet age that narrow view of "stakeholder" no longer applies. We are all stakeholders now and our voice must be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for the IDL!!
Not to mention that some congressmen from Wyouming are forwarding a plan to tax the 'net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
securely to donate.internetdefenseleague.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure."
WTF is going on? Firefox is all but throwing its body in front of me to get me to stop going to the donate page!
"What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue."
Oookay, is someone causing problems for the site to stop people donating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]