If GoDaddy was only the registrar like TFA seems to suggest, then I don't see how on earth they should accept *any* DMCA requests, let alone take sites offline.
Maybe GoDaddy is taking the COICA as a done deal? They must know something we only think we know...
My Senator apparently co-authored that tripe and does not know IANA or have any inkling of the possible effects this bill may have on DNS as a globally viable naming system.
And one thing I noticed the mob hates is when people can't be bothered with common courtesy....
It's hard to say what a mob wants at any given moment, but I think in this case they were actually looking for Cheetos.
There is one certain lesson we can all take from this, however. No matter how right or wrong you may think you are... never taunt a mob. Especially in real life kids. Snark is right out!
Here's to hoping we never have to apply that lesson.
I think Mike is correct that the best they hope to achieve is making an example of a couple of people they will call "organizers" or "instigators".
Going after actors involved in an Anonymous effort is like trying to round up all the electrons involved in a single lightning strike. Even if the roundup is somehow entirely successful, the potential for another strike in "favorable" conditions would be undiminished.
Still, I agree the DDoS counter-attacks were stupid and, of course, illegal. Not to mention, to use an aging term, "weak sauce" in the spectrum of digital disobedience.
It is legally permissible to consider public deterrence in setting statutory damage awards. I only mention that because this article and some comments seem to suggest that it's not.
Yikes, had no idea. Not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that, at least in these RIAA cases, the (offending) individuals were given proper consideration or justice in the damage consideration. There has to be a line where public deterrence must be limited so that reasonable justice for the situation and people actually involved is served.
This is a tough crowd. Appreciate your sharing opinions.
As I noted in the prior discussion Mike mentions, and below, with citations, deterrence *is* a proper consideration when applying copyright statutory damages.
I accept that if wrongdoing is proven, deterrence of future acts by the same individual should be considered (or rejected) when calculating damaged.
However the damaged awarded in the infamous RIAA case seem to be calculated to act as a public deterrent well beyond what would be necessary for the individuals involved (especially considering their potential income).
Do you think those awards were appropriate deterrence for the individuals involved? Because of the extraordinary awards, some of us think the whole campaign smacks of social engineering, which in turn is abuse of the justice system.
What would be cool is if we could actually vote on the issues.
No, that would be bad. California's proposition system has many great examples for why this is a bad idea. Voters have shown again and again that the vast majority of voters come to vote for one person, then "vote with their conscience" for everything else.
What this amounts to is voters making their decisions by the issue/proposition headline on the ballot itself. This is why California sees a succession of "Clean Water Bonds" pass, when there is never any obligation to use the debt incurred for any specific purpose.
More recently, in my district, voters passed an issue that allows their City Council to hold private decision making sessions. The ballot headline for that gem read "Bring Columbus Ordinance into Compliance with State Law".
No, I have to disagree with Mike on this one. Voters may be smart, but they practice voting stupidly. Real stupid.
On the post: Monster Cable Gets Classifieds Search Engine Taken Down With Bogus DMCA Notice
Re:
Maybe GoDaddy is taking the COICA as a done deal? They must know something we only think we know...
My Senator apparently co-authored that tripe and does not know IANA or have any inkling of the possible effects this bill may have on DNS as a globally viable naming system.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Re: Playing the victim works a lot better...
It's hard to say what a mob wants at any given moment, but I think in this case they were actually looking for Cheetos.
There is one certain lesson we can all take from this, however. No matter how right or wrong you may think you are... never taunt a mob. Especially in real life kids. Snark is right out!
Here's to hoping we never have to apply that lesson.
On the post: University Promises To Report File Sharers To Police, Tells Students They Can Spend 5 Years In Jail
Re: Surveillance Run Amok
On the post: The Fine Line Between Legitimate Think Tank And Industry Shills
Re: "intellectually honest" No threat of you being called that Mike !!!
Sure it's easier to scan the page now, but.. at.. what... cost!?!?!
On the post: FBI Apparently Investigating Anonymous' 'Operation Payback' Denial Of Service Attacks
Good Luck With That...
Going after actors involved in an Anonymous effort is like trying to round up all the electrons involved in a single lightning strike. Even if the roundup is somehow entirely successful, the potential for another strike in "favorable" conditions would be undiminished.
Still, I agree the DDoS counter-attacks were stupid and, of course, illegal. Not to mention, to use an aging term, "weak sauce" in the spectrum of digital disobedience.
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's where you wrong
Yikes, had no idea. Not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that, at least in these RIAA cases, the (offending) individuals were given proper consideration or justice in the damage consideration. There has to be a line where public deterrence must be limited so that reasonable justice for the situation and people actually involved is served.
This is a tough crowd. Appreciate your sharing opinions.
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's where you wrong
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Re: Re: Re: That's where you wrong
I accept that if wrongdoing is proven, deterrence of future acts by the same individual should be considered (or rejected) when calculating damaged.
However the damaged awarded in the infamous RIAA case seem to be calculated to act as a public deterrent well beyond what would be necessary for the individuals involved (especially considering their potential income).
Do you think those awards were appropriate deterrence for the individuals involved? Because of the extraordinary awards, some of us think the whole campaign smacks of social engineering, which in turn is abuse of the justice system.
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Re: Re:
wanted to strike "sound" and add "permitted".
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Re:
Fixed.
I think there are those who would agree that some SCOTUS precedents need to be, and in fact have been, reversed down the road.
What seems "sound" to the current flock may look "stupid and corrupt" to a future generation.
On the post: Computer Techs Turn Normal Virus Removal Into Multi-Million Dollar Scam
Re:
I think Homer Simpson already has the "I GRIFT" vanity plate, though...
On the post: Pilot Group Urges Pilots To Refuse Naked Backscatter Scans, And Avoid Groping Pat Downs
Re:
It's sickening, but "why him what about me" riot prevention probably does factor in here.
On the post: Pilot Group Urges Pilots To Refuse Naked Backscatter Scans, And Avoid Groping Pat Downs
Re: does anyone know ...
This one uses Linux. (Warning link to PDF)
Are you going to break the story here first?
On the post: Pilot Group Urges Pilots To Refuse Naked Backscatter Scans, And Avoid Groping Pat Downs
Re: Seems fair
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
Re: Re:
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
Re:
If not, can you offer your opinion in the context of the article and amicis being discussed?
On the post: Are 'Indiscreet' Images On Social Networks Really Having An Impact On Elections?
Re:
No, that would be bad. California's proposition system has many great examples for why this is a bad idea. Voters have shown again and again that the vast majority of voters come to vote for one person, then "vote with their conscience" for everything else.
What this amounts to is voters making their decisions by the issue/proposition headline on the ballot itself. This is why California sees a succession of "Clean Water Bonds" pass, when there is never any obligation to use the debt incurred for any specific purpose.
More recently, in my district, voters passed an issue that allows their City Council to hold private decision making sessions. The ballot headline for that gem read "Bring Columbus Ordinance into Compliance with State Law".
No, I have to disagree with Mike on this one. Voters may be smart, but they practice voting stupidly. Real stupid.
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
Re: Biggest flaw in "Free Speach" is...
Human's are not carnivores, they're omnivores, dude.
Try to stay on topic, Big Michelle.
On the post: Time To Stop Being So Fascinated With The Cyber- Part Of Cybercrime
Next >>