Thanks for coming guys lets begin the meeting for legal maneuvering to neutralize the latest sticky points.
Thats right. Anyone who testifies against us MUST be crazy! Hes supposed to be on our side wasn't he? What kind of rat would sue us for just allegedly using his name (its not like we are admitting to anything of course) a few times doesn't he understand who he's messing with?
OK guys/staff what kind of dirt do we have on this dude anyway? Meds? Social problems? Being a housekeeper/gardener has got to be lame enough for derogatory comment hasn't it? Hes been supportive of our noble copyright crusade on the hapless porn aficionados right? (Psst. Don't tell him he was never going to see a dime of the offshore accounts stash) How can that be used against the fool?
The EFF? Aren't they related to unsavory activities like defending human rights or the like? Yeah use that rallying cry thing too.
Great work guys use what we got for now and keep digging its always worked before. Meeting adjourned.
Have said it before but it's like just snapping a picture on your cell phone and wham! Your a suspicious person. Posting it on a social website? Bam! Your guilty! (of whatever) This same type of government paranoia is common to both US and CA these days.
In no way do social sites need policing and civil law works fine. Poor Pawluck only took a picture FCOLoud. For that she gets criminal harassment?
Everyone is guilty of a thousand crimes and enforcement is random targeting based on fear or profiling.
Since its obvious that police treat facebook and other social sites as a perp-walk/lineup/most-wanted some legislation might be needed and it would be nice to have some criminal teeth in it for any police/agency stupid enough to use it as such. Freedom of expression? What a laugh.
Don't see this beneficial type of legislation submitted anytime soon but its nice to have a target to work toward. Would be nice to have the legal text of such a good act 'shovel ready' for instant presentation when the time is ripe.
It might be a good idea for the Montreal PD to visit a psychiatrist for a Prozac prescription. Take a load of dudes! Relax. You'll be fine. -spoken honestly with no malice-
This paranoia comes from job stress. When police are off duty they should surrender their badge and gun. The need to live as a normal human being when off duty. No special persons allowed. The only special ones on this planet are human beings. Being on the job 24/7 creates stress that is unsolvable and damaging to the normal human psych. Paranoia is one of the normal expressions of such stress.
Its normal human psychology 101 with no exotic disorders involved. Stress kills from the inside.
Your right. Specifically the US Chamber of commerce or USCC. Its a special interest industry group that likes to masquerade as an integral part of federal government. Even I get fooled sometimes. Thanks for reminding me to get more bug spray.
Among may lobbying efforts they;
Support the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
Oppose the DISCLOSE Act, which aims to limit foreign influence on U.S. Elections.
Oppose action on climate change.
Supported corporate personhood and allowing corporations to spend unlimited sums on electioneering,
Me thinks the USTR and the Chamber of Commerce might be a great target for budget reduction efforts. Protectionism, however seemingly patriotic, is bad for profits overall and definitely bad for my pocketbook! Especially since the USTR recent TPP and other 'treaties' seem more about coercing US domestic law than foreign trade growth.
In what way has the USTR supported innovation and new technology that benefits the average citizen? Have they instead been trying to support (legacy media) ice salesmen by restriction of (computer) refrigerator sales or use? Laws (treaties? Hahaha) that fetter cultural growth don't help anyone not even the legacy firms they try to support. A monopoly by any other name is still a monopoly.
It seems that even the lowly refrigerator is rapidly becoming a computer itself and the two words might become interchangeable soon.
Also please tell me why the USTR gets to hold a rally and not the opposition? Oh. You say you can? Sure go ahead. Just try to get a 'permit' to protest at your local city hall. Most likely the group would be forced to put the protest on some back alleyway at a time only visited by ally cats.
Its at least possible the opposition be jailed just for waving signs/slogans of opposition? Likely also tracked by some religiously/patriotically motivated nut-case, (got a better explanation?) working at the nearby reaction center, as terrorists? Didn't that exact same scenario happen to a recent peaceful protest group?
Realizing this is rain on a potential parade... The only safe way to protest these days it to donate to the EFF or the few senators willing to face the grindstone of todays current industrial/media monopolies.
Mooolah! Dirty ol cash. Funding given to a politicians campaign fund to splash wine into glasses and char thick steaks with the weak willed courtiers who follow such cash outflow. Give it up or lose to the better funded special interest corporate opposition. Ugly. but true?
Where is the similar outcry for the destruction of culture that eternal copyright causes? Monopolies lay waste to fertile new unexplored areas ripe for cultural and commercial growth discovered/expanded by innovative new technology.
Have to admit if a few authors/publishers/media-firms are intimidated or even crushed by new technology they could not master. Its OK. Natural economic evolution. No problem. They either study up and pass the test of consumer support or die.
It seems that Scott Turow wants (like the typical sissy-wuss media firm these days) to bend space, time and constitutional rights to their personal monopolistic will. A grade schooler might want to avoid a math test they did not study for in the same childish way. Many students fail and thats normal.
Scott says; “,a surge in cheap imports,”. This is just normal, level playing field, economic process in operation. If a firm charges to much, consumers purchase elsewhere. Importing is a valid business model also so if you can make a profit please do so. Entrepreneurial spirit is still alive! Whining about 'First Sale Rights' stepping on your turf is out of (legal) bounds and as such likely marginalizes the speakers legitimacy or good standing.
The pricing of textbooks has been a legendary closed market (local monopoly) rip off for many a year now. Anyone forced to pay $230usd for a calculus book, problem/example workbook and study guide (with dubious version updates that obsolete earlier versions because the problems sets are changed.) knows that. Its so bad that its classic that near any large campus competitor book stores are always found much to the frustration of the campus bookstore. (many a local zoning battles have been waged/won/lost)
Mr. Turow's constitutional awareness is typical of todays obviously uneducated (or worse corrupt/immoral) batch of lawyers/congressmen/politicians/media-firms. It realistically further undermines his credibility and by association the NYT also IMHO. The fact he mentions copyright and suggests more of it is a benefit to culture really tears up any/all logic or reasoning.
Copyright is a monopoly and if the terms granted are longer than the lives of the audience it disallows (good) exponential cultural growth. If the terms are to long the cultural growth becomes negative. Thats right it shrinks (the body of) Public Domain Rights. (yeah the word Rights was added but so what you doublespeak bird brains!) -kicks the copyright bucket-
The comments on book pricing and royalties by Scott was more childish reasoning seemingly based on maximizing profits at the expense of economic truth. Kind of a walled garden viewpoint that even if attractive is still not real. Any author/publisher will not have incentive to come up with more cultural works unless the copyright term expires. Hint; THIS IS (one of, don't forget cultural expansion) THE REASON(s) FOR SHORT REASONABLE COPYRIGHT TERMS! -use of megaphone-
The only thing learned about the Russian talk was that they are becoming more literate and reading more. In what way was Scott paying attention there? Isn't he supposed to be FOR increased sales and profits? Will this work in every case? Probably not but this IS (undeniably) a matter of substance worth studying.
The example of Paulo Coelho's unorthodox appropriation (for Russian translation) of his own book by bittorent and caused actual sales to grown tenfold should be added to the fact that cultural sharing can create/grow a powerful demand for such items/media/books. (the word 'pirate' is too strong and still intonates a wrong as the abuse by prosecutors shows.) Another reason to remove copyright from existence. Replace it with something better.
Embracing new technology has victims strewn throughout history and thats life. Will anyone give up their refrigerator to support the local ice haulers kids? No way! Its not that people don't care there's just nothing to be done for it.
Like the printing press sometimes cultural expansion by making literary works more available to everyone is a great thing. We have the same opportunity that the Gutenberg press does. If we act the same anal way that the Catholic church did (A death sentence for printing a bible and especially heretic was publishing it in a different language other than Latin.) there may be war (real, commercial, whatever or not), suffering (already a fact), a splintering of society and even possibly nations. Will we see a civil war rationalized over monopolies in the same way slavery was championed? (By either sides oppositely.) Yikes! I certainly hope not but do we even read/learn from history even at the bare minimum level that war is bad?
It should be obvious that copyright enforcement has become at least as bad and ubiquitous as the abuse levied by British tax and legal scandals before the revolution. Today, copyright has transmorphed into copyMonopoly or copynopoly for short. -kicks the copytight bucket again-
Reactionary;
the discussion of Shakespeare's Patrons and puritanical/dark-age law enforcement of the day was fascinating and enlightening.
The writings supporting the original copyright act bears repeating with much to learn about growing culture and scientific knowledge. A lot of which we have obviously forgotten these days. Time to break up another (copyright) monopoly?
Its kind of bothering that Protective custody has been bandied as a solution to or prevention of suicide. Protective custody is kind of a myth. Remember we are talking about possibly corrupt charges in the first place. Its almost certain that Aaron felt that way. Such is the loss when one feels that justice has lost its impartiality. For Aaron (who surely felt that to surrender to 'protective custody' would be giving up wholly to a corrupt government agency) it might have been worse to surrender in such a way.
Lets look at the demeaning nature of such protective custody. (technically its not incarceration but thats stupid. The justice dept only has jail cells. Thats it.) You get locked up in a jail cell with every belt, shoe lace, wallet and everything else including the small sliver of dignity one was supporting their mostly lost pride with also. Many totally sane people would consider losing their freedom worth the risk to life as it's at least that important.
Its even possible that imprisonment (silly to call it protective custody) would increase the risk of suicide to a typical American. In fact a hostile prosecution would likely use protective custody to harass and pressure an already vulnerable defendant. Considering the apparent forcefulness of the JD its almost certain to happen that way.
Its even more possible that the prosecution would have used 'suicidal tendency' as another justification for guilt thus adding to the perceived social burden Aaron carried. Such is the cruelness that results when wild accusations are made.
For these reasons responsible government agencies/departments/offices/personnel should not use demoralizing/bedeviling/demonizing terms such as piracy or theft when talking about copyright. Its just wrong and are doublespeak terms. (Probably being overly polite saying it as such.)
It does not seem that the JD followed any rules at all (seems silly what they claim) with the whole thing like a derailed train wreck even before Aaron's death.
Am so proud of ChillingEffects.com and Google for ignoring these ignoramus letters of take down. This is a watershed event for at least two reason.
One. For several years all take-down notices were implemented regardless of their implausibility/legality. Now. Its common that outlandish DMCA take-down notices are scrutinized and some ignored completely.
Two. Its an over the waterfall event. Censoring the censorship. Covering up the attempt of covering up ones mistakes/machinations/evilness/wrongness/bad-publicity/etc. This stuff is societally scary. A cancerous wart on culture. This kind of reciprocity would be infinite in both paperwork and cost if followed to its logical conclusion. Or if the monopolies have their way nobody would hear of it again with a whole new level of secret hearings and review process(s).
There is no way just liking to a questionable site/content can be considered a bad thing. Following such flawed logic ALL sites would be labeled as 'bad' and ALL links would be illegal. The very basic foundation of WWW linking technology that revolutionized/popularized the thing we call the web/interweb today!
It would be wisdom to just toss out the DMCA (the courts seem useless these days) and other bad legislation (CFAA, CISPA proposals, etc) but what the real battle from after the fact votes is... Pride! Its classic that politicians do not ever, EVER admit mistakes while in office. Its just not done because of perceived weakness and possible verbal ammunition given to the opposition.
It may be a better tactic to replace such badly conceived legislation with newer well written constitutionally correct acts and bills. They can always be sold as a better alternative and avoids the political faux pas of finger pointing.
Probably want to use elements of both as each poses a higher than normal standard although differently. If forced to choose would pick Nobel for the top of the top achievements. Would be nice to see Aaron Swartz nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but thats only a prize issued to the living.
Aaron contributed to culture. He leveled up our cultural IQ with getting some publicly funded research being recognized as a part of the public domain. (its still a battle)
Is nice to see the judge focusing on matters not totally foreseen by me. Like that good kind of surprise and want to hang with Judge Wright cuz I might accidentally learn something. Oops!
The judge was clear in mentioning fraud going further to state that this hearing was about “,attorney misconduct such misconduct which I think brings discredit to the profession.”
What did delightfully surprise me was the judges determined recognition that all of the shell firms were one and the same with Prendaa. More surprising was using such recognition to point out that “,notices of related cases,” have not been filed throughout the Prendaa universe of shell firm lawsuits. Sounds like reasonable charges to me.
More seemingly binding was the comment “Who made the decision not to disclose to the court the fact that the law firms have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?” Financial interest is quite an important link.
As a layperson it would totally piss me off if the firms represented by a legal firm were themselves owned by that same legal firm. The term fleecing comes to mind. It also is a clear motive to anyone without a minimum of scruples might want it covered up.
Its kind of hilarious that they would be able to get another court to not recognize such a cozy arrangement. A lot filings are just taken for granted without any high level of proof other than what is submitted. Makes one wonder what was transcribed or not during such a filing. Possibly submitted in between a dozen or so other more normal pieces of paperwork during a busy moment? Who knows? Just another example of funny paperwork? Might even be used as evidence of willful misdirection.
The event was not without some good old fashioned follow the money detective work in trying a bit to untangle the complex network of shell firms and which one gets the money. (wonder if off shore accounts are used?)
Without direct testimony the judge must piece together the Prendaa puzzle with his own staff. Is hard to see progress without a search warrant or subpoena issued to a lot of funky shell firms. Bank records, corporate officers, assets, etc.
And all this is in addition to what was discussed earlier. The story unfolds as the mysteries are explored and as in all real life drama the plot is a thing of past tense revealed only after the fact.
What do we need a Hollywood Zar for? Has corporate influence reached that deep into government? How about a Homeland Propaganda Zar instead which is at the level of the ridiculous culturally destructive claims made almost daily by Hollywood special interest groups.
Congressional weirdness seems to know no bounds. Another few filler pages to stuff into a bloated constitution. It might be like the Monty Python grotesquely fat man eating just one more chocolate truffle after a huge meal...
The computer is the new refrigerator and legacy media firms are only selling ice. Worse are the attempts to fetter the computer so that it only works with ice. (DRM) Do I care if they go out of business? Not even in the slightest. Hollywood has become an acronym for accounting fraud and other fakery both on and off the screen. It would be good to let go of such and not cry about it.
Healthy culture always will demand entertainment and in no way will Hollywood itself be missed. So much badness has emanated from the self supposed movie capital of the world that even if outlawed/banned tomorrow it will take years to ferret out the legal/legislation problems. The tabloids would not even slow down and the implosion of Hollywood would most likely give much to report on.
Hollywood seems more and more like the lands of Mordor with thousands of orcs and trolls doing their bidding/damage. What binds them all together is the one ring of (copyright) monopoly. The one all powerful economically demonic concept 100% universally recognized as evil. The darkness grows with tremors underfoot and fear spreads upon the land.
Converting copyright enforcement from civil to criminal law is like hoards of money sucking zombie lawyers stuffing the brains (at seminars and social gatherings no place is safe) of more lawyers with money thus creating more zombie/trolls crying insatiably for ever more victims to fleece cash from. This demonic conversion is not limited to lawyers but anyone can succumb to its siren call of legal plausibility. Especially JD and DoJ Hollywood zombie appointees.
Has copyright law been hijacked for political convenience enabled by Hollywood monopolies? In no way does US culture benefit from any of the proposed or existing Hollywood sponsored legislation. (sharing is caring!) Its seems popular for every agency to run about crying wolf like some out of control army of court jesters. Why create another court jester post?
It would be nice to actually adjourn for a few months (hahaha what a joke!) and let the senators out of the box for a bit. Capitol hill seems more like some mind numbing zone where only circus like performance survives.
The proper response to someone mentioning copyright as weak and useless would be; “you can rot in hell thats ok with me (and your ice has melted).”
To be clear 'tort' applies to civil law and 'sentencing reform' would include criminal law especially statutory damages. In long wordy posts always trying to paraphrase and metaphoricalize to condense but sometimes miss good detail. Just thought it was an important enough detail to rectify.
Thanks for the opinion however its important to be impartial especially on such emotional matters. Fact finding is for the calm and quiet types. This response seems kind of fluffy and is hard to comment on. It kinda appalls me that anyone would not seek truth and understanding. Where is your argument going?
Am myself, and masquerade as no one else. What ideas you have of anyone are your own. (might even nudge you along on that too.)
The only reason facts, like who made what accusations, are necessary is because its good to know who to vote for and not be fooled by anyone who 'masquerades' as a good conscientious citizen. This basic motivation needs facts/information if only just to figure things out for ourselves.
Do you think its wrong to apply social pressure to get to the bottom of any situation? Someone died during a criminal investigation where official charges were levied and that does matter. Life matters. How we live and the actions of government officials are important. Someone died. Would you want to just forget that?
Its important not to participate in a witch trial either as the prosecution or the audience as both are guilty. A complacent public enables/empowers the worst in human behavior. Without such social pressure aberrant abuses of power are quick to happen. Was this a witch hunt? That's a valid question with answers sought after.
There just may be complications that the prosecution might have to explain under judicial review. A civil case might even be brought up against the JD itself and hopefully a few special interest groups for possibly sponsoring such also. This case does not seem like blind justice and that would not be a good recommendation for any involved. Red slips to the unemployment line might be the best solution.
Powerful statement; “Witnesses do suffer. It's the pain a witness undergoes to provide first person based testimony to convict someone of a crime. Be amazed at the genius of requiring such a high level of evidence. Democratic society is based on that.” That sounds sooooo cool! The pain is definitely metaphorical and the pressure is only social at the present. Interesting you should point out the wording just what are you getting at? Please note that if civil claims are successfully established they all become legitimate witness again.
Culture is a seemingly weak argument. But only seemingly for the unaware. Its a concept thats always there but forgotten by many. (most?) Its like air and water we just don't want to think at such a level but its all we have that ties us together as a whole/healthy society.
Cultural awareness is like the measurement of a society's IQ. How we grow up as a society is based on what and how much we share facts/data/music/etc. (have written more than a few posts about it please go back and read a bit to form a better question.) Any process that slows or stops this sharing of intelligence lowers our cultural IQ. Why would anyone want that?
About every 20-40 years or so tort reform jumps up in the voters minds is a normal readjustment. It seems congress gets mesmerized by the word 'deterrent' so easily by special interest groups and ruins the concept of only violent persons in jail (its expensive) and the rest get bitch-slapped with reasonable fines not life/family destroying (put them in the gutters which is also an economic drain) statutory fines.
Since a lot of the above is a recap/repeat of earlier posts am getting bored. If you want more response please read up and even if you don't agree your posts may still have meaning. (and will respond)
Quote; “A Nobel cause. Aaron Swartz to me represents someone who suffered the societal noose (of weird laws) and did not survive a following witch hunt. A hero that actually stood up for what he believed in to the very end. No way could I come close to that passion and dedication.
Nobel or noble cause? Not sure what you mean.” Unquote.
Response; Nobel cause. Pure. Without self interest. Beyond what we mortals could comprehend. Aaron Swartz touched immortality itself in the thoughts he entertained and publicly expressed with distribution of knowledge.
Quote; “Its nice that his cause for intellectual research distribution is continued via the RECAP $5k grants.
It may have been nicer if they'd stepped up and put that grant money into his defense fund. ” Unquote.
Response; You are so absolutely right! Bing, bing bing, bing! (grand prize!) Please donate.
Quote; “In the US justice system we have a right to face our accusers. Period. If someone goes to the justice department and makes an accusation the accused automatically know about it once the charges are filed and evidence is submitted. The accused have a right to defend themselves. The prosecution must have legitimate evidence and it must be given to the defendant to allow rebuttal.
We? By your writing you are almost certainly a foreigner. And fyi, there's no case. The defendant is dead and charges have been dropped.” Unquote.
Response; Right again! Your awesome! So what (at that level.)
Quote; “How the evidence was collected and its supposed relevance is of utmost importance to the court and public. For sure Aaron Swartz suffered a the classic witch hunt! This is the very reason for clear evidence submitted with know accusers in a public trial with a jury of ones peers. The JD really sounds hypocritical in this way.
Again, there's no case. There's no basis for any disclosure.” Unquote.
Response; Once charges are filed its public record and disclosure is required regardless of death. (some may argue with me)
Quote; “It sounds more likely that the JD never had a case to begin with and are just covering their own arses. On many levels this case smells. Who sponsored/ordered/suggested this case anyway?
If they had no case, why did Swartz kill himself. It seems that he certainly believed and was advised by counsel that they did have a case. Otherwise why not at least wait until after a motion for summary judgment before doing something as rash as suicide? Or until after trial, conviction and sentencing?” Unquote.
Response; It will always be unknown why death happens. Fact of life. Its always wrong. What pressures on an individual cause such a morbid choice? (suicide) Government? Society? Peer pressure? All are valid challenges to existence.
Quote; “If the Justice Department (JD) has some other idea of law then its time to consider dumping the whole department and starting from scratch. The weirdness of hiding evidence (once the charges are filed) is just that bad. The order of protection seems out of place as no physical threats were made. (suggested maybe but thats just opinion being waged) Potentially threatening is not actually a threat. Seems more like damage control.
There's no need to provide discovery where's there's no case. Which is essentially what is sought. And why subject witnesses to intimidation and threats. ” Unquote.
Response; When the accused dies cases become extinct in the courts eye forever. What we are really taking about is culture. Culture survives the official ignorance of the law. How do we learn from such reality?
Quote; “By design (have said this before) its meant to be hard for any accuser/prosecution/plaintiff for the very reason that witch hunts are a major societal danger. (not just a fairy tail but a real bloody horror.)
Witch hunts like the ones the witnesses would endure? Those kinds of witch hunts?” Unquote.
Response; Witnesses do suffer. It's the pain a witness undergoes to provide first person based testimony to convict someone of a crime. Be amazed at the genius of requiring such a high level of evidence. Democratic society is based on that.
Quote; “For the JD not to follow the most basic of rules that evidence is not concealed or hidden breaks the system in to the extent it likely does not exist any more. Who hired these guys anyway and with what kind of references did they have? (don't want people like that to be hired again so need to know)
The case is over. Understand? There is no point other than to expose witnesses to abuse and threats. ” Unquote.
Response; Your right the case is over. However the lesson is not. Do we learn from our callousness or kill others because of our ignorance/policy?
Quote; “On the face of it the whole Aaron Swartz case looked corrupted from multiple problems to such an extent that even tort reform (sentencing guidelines) needs were highlighted let alone the ridiculous charges derived from the legislative miscarriage known as CFAA.
Tort reform is different than sentencing guidelines. Do you know what the sentencing guidelines were for Swartz? Hint: months, not years. Not that it matters to you hysterical zealots.” Unquote.
Response; The sentencing guidelines were likely trashed and completely abuse in the Aaron Swartz case. Pressure is one thing and insane claims are another. And if sentencing was (morbidly) in line with written policy the we return to the concept of tort reform. (Its a common occurrence.)
Quote; “I support a legitimate investigation because it looks like dirty work supported by nasty special interest groups. Such conservative infestations of normal government operations need liberal applications of the metaphorical bug spray. If anyone feels guilty about that then its probably a sign that they are the ones who might suffer from the truth.
Oh, so it's a vast conspiracy? No doubt headed by the MPAA and RIAA, right? Maybe you should contact Jason Bourne.” Unquote.
Response; Who knows. (good guesses) Politics is a wild animal/insect. (conflicting analogies.) Conspiracy is not a bad idea as commercial interests often align in ways of profit. Special interest groups excel in that way. At least its not preposterous.
Quote “For a legitimate investigation there needs to be a donation site to fund such. Money is the only respected thing in Washington these days.
No one cared enough to do that kind of fund-raising to afford him a proper defense. Why do you think this will happen?” Unquote.
Response; Please donate posthumously. Aaron Swartz is a great idea/concept/light.
Quote. “or my part, unless MIT fesses up, I support the complete denial of research funding to them. A 100% cutoff. They can perish as an institution if they want to thats ok.
It's likely that what you support doesn't make a difference here or anywhere else. MIT did nothing wrong. They cooperated with a criminal investigation, they didn't direct it” Unquote.
Response. How does the average citizen reward institutions that provide knowledge and destroy others that conceal knowledge in favor of profit at the expense of public funded research? -Impartiality- MIT is or is not a place where great ideas can flourish. Aaron Swartz died because of a great idea as many a great scientist did (Example; Boltzman.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann
Fair use is a great idea but its implementation in the US is kind of weak. This with the combination of recent criminalization of (what used to be civil) copyright laws one can be 'rounded up' just for trying to write and grade school essay with quotes about some new and, in the writers opinion, important concept.
All arguments that attempt to degrade the concept of Fair Use are just wrong. Its probably best to start using the phrase “Fair Use Rights” as its that important. (take that you doublespeak morons!)
Excuse me someone actually commented on one of my comments and must respond. Is a good one so please read. (shameless self plug but is one of my cooler moments)
What is Fair Use anyway? What is Culture anyway? Where/why does an advanced society revolve around such transfer of knowledge anyway? How do we grow as a society as a whole? How do we discuss important issues of the day?
Fair Use Rights! It's a rally point. Do we define our culture as a multi point continually changing reference (as chosen good reference points change over time/perspective) or a top down hierarchy based on anthill theory?
Cultural awareness. A goal. A greatness. Something greater than itself.
How does one become aware. Aware of what? The world? Society and groups with specific shared meems? (both good and bad) How do we all fit withing all that? (this is a ten+ page essay would you sit through all that?) Everyone goes through a coming of age moment several times in a life. Best to provide them as soon as possible. Its a crime that kids grow up and similarly that parents want to preserve childhood forever.
Keeping in mind that once a question is asked by a child full disclosure is needed to whatever extent you measure or are able to describe without... fear. 100% honesty complete with your embarrassment is needed at this point or your kids might start to ignore you. (are you holding back?)
How does one explain the facts of life without dirty nude pictures in a playboy/girl magazine, bloody war photos of goo and spatter (that are censored and hard to find thus giving an artificial glamorous view of war without the vivid reality of horrible gore), evil serial crime without disgusting stories of murder with photos like the insanity of John W. Gacy, government corruption without pictures and stories of killing just because of experiments/profit, … life is real and horrible unless one makes the effort to become a good person amid all the trash and terror of life.
How do we explain such real life showing the wonderful explosion of cultural greatness shown by Einstein, Martin Luther King, Harold Washington (1st black mayor of Chicago IL), Thomas Jefferson, etc. So many great people and things in life to have fun with.
There are some things each of us should fear with all of our hearts and intelligence; War, rape, violent crime, serial murders, dictatorship, monopolies, copyright, performance and trademark law (hahahah), insanity and worse things like the erosion of democratic culture. (not a joke)
Parents should introduce these topics as they seem able. Each subject is as sensitive as the feared 'facts of life' talk but also as important when introducing the concept of human nature in it greatness/terribleness.
On the Internet and in real life (pointless to force either issue) kids will obtain porno or whatever they want physically ( a playboy or girl magazine) or virtually (on-line) every time. Evey time. The question is... will you as a parent be there at that time to guide your kids along way you believe are good? If you leave it to chance what will your kids actually obtain? An S&M magazine?
Do you believe that you should prevent and prohibit your family from knowledge about sex, war, human nature (good and bad) or whatever? Lets phrase this another way; do you want to see you kids intimidated at school repeatedly about such silly stupid subjects that you should inform them of as soon as they even attempt to question you about them?
What happens to the child who has no idea what sex is once they reach the age of 18? what happens to anyone without some worldly knowledge? Yes. They, most likely, get taken advantage of... Sad tale. Bad ending. Damaged psyche. PTSD.
Ideally one should watch sensitive videos/information along with your kids. Establishing a rapport at such a level to discuss anything is valuable and alienation is a danger to fear by any parent.
Good luck. Hope for the best. Want all good dreams to be fulfilled.
Gave some measurement in above short essay; “As long as a kid is old enough to understand that Santa is not what was originally presented then... Its the real world or nothing.” Of course its up to the parent to decide when but is common for parent to put off such straight talk.
The cost benefit ratio for cable is way off kilter. The only channel worth watching is the weather channel (and thats getting to comercial-y also.) Just tossing off an unofficial rating on the worth of such an offering: $1-3/month. 10/m (maybe) for basic. Wont pay more and in fact feel that ALL the channels, movie ones too, should be included for that price. Antennas are awesome!
Cable is getting to possessive about how anyone can watch TV also. Clamcast now requires that all TV's have to use a set top box for any use over basic of which there is a fee for each, of course, also. Its possibly going to a point where your cable firm knows what and when you are watching. Don't want to use their silly remote with the expensive looking, over sized “on demand” button and like the one that came with the TV much better. The tuner was better also.
For these and other reason have cut the cord long ago. The bill was usually around 100-150/month for the few channels watched out the the huge bundles had to purchase. Have saved literally thousands in fact its getting closer to a five digit savings! It seems to me that this is another form of copyright extortion by high media overcharging. (the damned things were already paid for once)
So they cost to much, provide questionable service(s), are a potential privacy leak, force unwanted equipment on subscribers, force subscribers to pay for said unwanted equipment, put the one channel we want into a huge money wasting bundle, ...
Its new that they don't want to specify the motus operandi? Sounds more like a crime in progress.
I remember (seems like ancient history already) when Prendaa started to act funny after someone pointed out a few goofy looking documents leading up to their recent pleading the 5th in civil court. Since the DJ basically starts out with the 5th it does not look good from here. Its scary when government itself seems skewed.
Not having to worry about secret laws and courts was one of the founding reasons for a short easy to understand document like the Constitution. Government is fast becoming a myth. Good government is a joke. Now we have to worry about secret government interpretations? Expect an increase in high blood pressure/hypertension prescriptions.
Its possible such an interpretation is some kind of post rationalization attempt to justify earlier transgressions and if it worked? Keep up the good bad work?
If the interpretation was planned specifically to violate personal rights (whatever the seemingly patriotic rational) it would be best to ferret out the source and administer red slips.
The public at large does not seem up to neutering bad government practice atm. To point out the obvious as long as there are only two parties in the mind of the average voter... nothing major will change. Business as usual. (the two parties wont change unless they have a rival worth worrying about)
There are many reasons why business has left some countries and the lack of privacy is a large one. If a country does not respect even its own citizens privacy all complaints about lost GDP/business/trade is just whining. And if such records are required to do business then expect higher prices as it only adds to operational costs. (again driving business overseas)
Many times its impossible to collect such data as the volume makes it prohibitive. Its normal that a popular VPN generates 2-4 plus terrabytes a day.
The best way to keep data leaks from happening is not to keep it or collect it at all. Its the only way so much so that it would be nice to see legislation that ensures such (non) action. For now, even if it would be a form of civil disobedience, its probably best to randomize/anonymize posts in logs/blogs/bbs/forums were possible. (there are troubleshooting and maintenance concerns) It's best to dispose of them before any errant court order demanded them because its worse to knowingly destroy evidence.
There are good exceptions like Wikipedia revision history. Its been great fun knowing who attempts revisionist history. To be honest it might be nice for Wikipedia to offer a corporation sponsored (not the front page but only a tab or button) page if the user wanted to click on it. I just love to read clashing viewpoints and when discovered they raise red flags and loud sirens of incongruity. (lies)
US (and potentially European) law has basically gone crazy with unavoidable felonies committed every day just for backing up data and other stupider things too. At the present conversion rate Jaywalking and parking tickets will soon be added to the death penalty also. Since copytight (right) law is broken almost every time a phone camera is clicked is hard to take them seriously especially when more law is broken just to send it to a friend.
Because of the above obvious legal abuse it makes warrants and gag orders a potential way to abuse law. In fact considering the silly drug laws and ridiculous copyright laws the law is starting to look lawless.
A VPN with a data retention policy of any time length beyond maintenance is as good as not having one at all. A legitimate VPN is becoming almost as normal as an Internet connection.
A Nobel cause. Aaron Swartz to me represents someone who suffered the societal noose (of weird laws) and did not survive a following witch hunt. A hero that actually stood up for what he believed in to the very end. No way could I come close to that passion and dedication.
Its nice that his cause for intellectual research distribution is continued via the RECAP $5k grants.
In the US justice system we have a right to face our accusers. Period. If someone goes to the justice department and makes an accusation the accused automatically know about it once the charges are filed and evidence is submitted. The accused have a right to defend themselves. The prosecution must have legitimate evidence and it must be given to the defendant to allow rebuttal.
How the evidence was collected and its supposed relevance is of utmost importance to the court and public. For sure Aaron Swartz suffered a the classic witch hunt! This is the very reason for clear evidence submitted with know accusers in a public trial with a jury of ones peers. The JD really sounds hypocritical in this way.
It sounds more likely that the JD never had a case to begin with and are just covering their own arses. On many levels this case smells. Who sponsored/ordered/suggested this case anyway?
If the Justice Department (JD) has some other idea of law then its time to consider dumping the whole department and starting from scratch. The weirdness of hiding evidence (once the charges are filed) is just that bad. The order of protection seems out of place as no physical threats were made. (suggested maybe but thats just opinion being waged) Potentially threatening is not actually a threat. Seems more like damage control.
By design (have said this before) its meant to be hard for any accuser/prosecution/plaintiff for the very reason that witch hunts are a major societal danger. (not just a fairy tail but a real bloody horror.)
For the JD not to follow the most basic of rules that evidence is not concealed or hidden breaks the system in to the extent it likely does not exist any more. Who hired these guys anyway and with what kind of references did they have? (don't want people like that to be hired again so need to know)
On the face of it the whole Aaron Swartz case looked corrupted from multiple problems to such an extent that even tort reform (sentencing guidelines) needs were highlighted let alone the ridiculous charges derived from the legislative miscarriage known as CFAA.
I support a legitimate investigation because it looks like dirty work supported by nasty special interest groups. Such conservative infestations of normal government operations need liberal applications of the metaphorical bug spray. If anyone feels guilty about that then its probably a sign that they are the ones who might suffer from the truth.
For a legitimate investigation there needs to be a donation site to fund such. Money is the only respected thing in Washington these days.
For my part, unless MIT fesses up, I support the complete denial of research funding to them. A 100% cutoff. They can perish as an institution if they want to thats ok.
Another reason to abolish drug laws of any sort. (including prescription nonsense) There is no civilized reason to treat people this way. Society gone mad seems best way to describe it. Laws that allow even the possibility of the abuse of such power are an anathema to healthy civil society. Hard to call such enforcement legitimate regardless of whether it was or not.
None of this is funny at any level. Trying to infer that any part or event was humorous only makes it scarier.
It might be good to introduce the most feared deterrent a police officer would suffer. A “shining letter of recommendation.” An EXTREAMLY polite letter outlining the incident and its effects on your life or world view. Get your lawyer to help write it. Just stating ones opinion on the mental fitness of an officer is a powerful thing.
Many a promotion have been passed over because of such obvious detrimental public opinion. These letters often stick around for life and force many to switch cities or even move to another state.
On the post: Mutual 'Friend' Of John Steele And Alan Cooper Implies That Cooper Was 'Off His Meds' When Accusing Steele Of Identity Fraud
Thanks for coming guys lets begin the meeting for legal maneuvering to neutralize the latest sticky points.
Thats right. Anyone who testifies against us MUST be crazy! Hes supposed to be on our side wasn't he? What kind of rat would sue us for just allegedly using his name (its not like we are admitting to anything of course) a few times doesn't he understand who he's messing with?
OK guys/staff what kind of dirt do we have on this dude anyway? Meds? Social problems? Being a housekeeper/gardener has got to be lame enough for derogatory comment hasn't it? Hes been supportive of our noble copyright crusade on the hapless porn aficionados right? (Psst. Don't tell him he was never going to see a dime of the offshore accounts stash) How can that be used against the fool?
The EFF? Aren't they related to unsavory activities like defending human rights or the like? Yeah use that rallying cry thing too.
Great work guys use what we got for now and keep digging its always worked before. Meeting adjourned.
[/sic]
On the post: Montreal Student Arrested For Posting Photo Of Anti-Police Graffiti To Instagram
In no way do social sites need policing and civil law works fine. Poor Pawluck only took a picture FCOLoud. For that she gets criminal harassment?
Everyone is guilty of a thousand crimes and enforcement is random targeting based on fear or profiling.
Since its obvious that police treat facebook and other social sites as a perp-walk/lineup/most-wanted some legislation might be needed and it would be nice to have some criminal teeth in it for any police/agency stupid enough to use it as such. Freedom of expression? What a laugh.
Don't see this beneficial type of legislation submitted anytime soon but its nice to have a target to work toward. Would be nice to have the legal text of such a good act 'shovel ready' for instant presentation when the time is ripe.
It might be a good idea for the Montreal PD to visit a psychiatrist for a Prozac prescription. Take a load of dudes! Relax. You'll be fine. -spoken honestly with no malice-
This paranoia comes from job stress. When police are off duty they should surrender their badge and gun. The need to live as a normal human being when off duty. No special persons allowed. The only special ones on this planet are human beings. Being on the job 24/7 creates stress that is unsolvable and damaging to the normal human psych. Paranoia is one of the normal expressions of such stress.
Its normal human psychology 101 with no exotic disorders involved. Stress kills from the inside.
On the post: Lobbyists, Politicians And USTR Planning A 'Rally' To Show 'Strong Support' For TAFTA
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce
Among may lobbying efforts they;
Support the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
Oppose the DISCLOSE Act, which aims to limit foreign influence on U.S. Elections.
Oppose action on climate change.
Supported corporate personhood and allowing corporations to spend unlimited sums on electioneering,
On the post: Lobbyists, Politicians And USTR Planning A 'Rally' To Show 'Strong Support' For TAFTA
In what way has the USTR supported innovation and new technology that benefits the average citizen? Have they instead been trying to support (legacy media) ice salesmen by restriction of (computer) refrigerator sales or use? Laws (treaties? Hahaha) that fetter cultural growth don't help anyone not even the legacy firms they try to support. A monopoly by any other name is still a monopoly.
It seems that even the lowly refrigerator is rapidly becoming a computer itself and the two words might become interchangeable soon.
Also please tell me why the USTR gets to hold a rally and not the opposition? Oh. You say you can? Sure go ahead. Just try to get a 'permit' to protest at your local city hall. Most likely the group would be forced to put the protest on some back alleyway at a time only visited by ally cats.
Its at least possible the opposition be jailed just for waving signs/slogans of opposition? Likely also tracked by some religiously/patriotically motivated nut-case, (got a better explanation?) working at the nearby reaction center, as terrorists? Didn't that exact same scenario happen to a recent peaceful protest group?
Realizing this is rain on a potential parade... The only safe way to protest these days it to donate to the EFF or the few senators willing to face the grindstone of todays current industrial/media monopolies.
Mooolah! Dirty ol cash. Funding given to a politicians campaign fund to splash wine into glasses and char thick steaks with the weak willed courtiers who follow such cash outflow. Give it up or lose to the better funded special interest corporate opposition. Ugly. but true?
On the post: Authors Guild's Scott Turow: The Supreme Court, Google, Ebooks, Libraries & Amazon Are All Destroying Authors
Have to admit if a few authors/publishers/media-firms are intimidated or even crushed by new technology they could not master. Its OK. Natural economic evolution. No problem. They either study up and pass the test of consumer support or die.
It seems that Scott Turow wants (like the typical sissy-wuss media firm these days) to bend space, time and constitutional rights to their personal monopolistic will. A grade schooler might want to avoid a math test they did not study for in the same childish way. Many students fail and thats normal.
Scott says; “,a surge in cheap imports,”. This is just normal, level playing field, economic process in operation. If a firm charges to much, consumers purchase elsewhere. Importing is a valid business model also so if you can make a profit please do so. Entrepreneurial spirit is still alive! Whining about 'First Sale Rights' stepping on your turf is out of (legal) bounds and as such likely marginalizes the speakers legitimacy or good standing.
The pricing of textbooks has been a legendary closed market (local monopoly) rip off for many a year now. Anyone forced to pay $230usd for a calculus book, problem/example workbook and study guide (with dubious version updates that obsolete earlier versions because the problems sets are changed.) knows that. Its so bad that its classic that near any large campus competitor book stores are always found much to the frustration of the campus bookstore. (many a local zoning battles have been waged/won/lost)
Mr. Turow's constitutional awareness is typical of todays obviously uneducated (or worse corrupt/immoral) batch of lawyers/congressmen/politicians/media-firms. It realistically further undermines his credibility and by association the NYT also IMHO. The fact he mentions copyright and suggests more of it is a benefit to culture really tears up any/all logic or reasoning.
Copyright is a monopoly and if the terms granted are longer than the lives of the audience it disallows (good) exponential cultural growth. If the terms are to long the cultural growth becomes negative. Thats right it shrinks (the body of) Public Domain Rights. (yeah the word Rights was added but so what you doublespeak bird brains!) -kicks the copyright bucket-
The comments on book pricing and royalties by Scott was more childish reasoning seemingly based on maximizing profits at the expense of economic truth. Kind of a walled garden viewpoint that even if attractive is still not real. Any author/publisher will not have incentive to come up with more cultural works unless the copyright term expires. Hint; THIS IS (one of, don't forget cultural expansion) THE REASON(s) FOR SHORT REASONABLE COPYRIGHT TERMS! -use of megaphone-
The only thing learned about the Russian talk was that they are becoming more literate and reading more. In what way was Scott paying attention there? Isn't he supposed to be FOR increased sales and profits? Will this work in every case? Probably not but this IS (undeniably) a matter of substance worth studying.
The example of Paulo Coelho's unorthodox appropriation (for Russian translation) of his own book by bittorent and caused actual sales to grown tenfold should be added to the fact that cultural sharing can create/grow a powerful demand for such items/media/books. (the word 'pirate' is too strong and still intonates a wrong as the abuse by prosecutors shows.) Another reason to remove copyright from existence. Replace it with something better.
Embracing new technology has victims strewn throughout history and thats life. Will anyone give up their refrigerator to support the local ice haulers kids? No way! Its not that people don't care there's just nothing to be done for it.
Like the printing press sometimes cultural expansion by making literary works more available to everyone is a great thing. We have the same opportunity that the Gutenberg press does. If we act the same anal way that the Catholic church did (A death sentence for printing a bible and especially heretic was publishing it in a different language other than Latin.) there may be war (real, commercial, whatever or not), suffering (already a fact), a splintering of society and even possibly nations. Will we see a civil war rationalized over monopolies in the same way slavery was championed? (By either sides oppositely.) Yikes! I certainly hope not but do we even read/learn from history even at the bare minimum level that war is bad?
It should be obvious that copyright enforcement has become at least as bad and ubiquitous as the abuse levied by British tax and legal scandals before the revolution. Today, copyright has transmorphed into copyMonopoly or copynopoly for short. -kicks the copytight bucket again-
Reactionary;
the discussion of Shakespeare's Patrons and puritanical/dark-age law enforcement of the day was fascinating and enlightening.
The writings supporting the original copyright act bears repeating with much to learn about growing culture and scientific knowledge. A lot of which we have obviously forgotten these days. Time to break up another (copyright) monopoly?
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Suit
Lets look at the demeaning nature of such protective custody. (technically its not incarceration but thats stupid. The justice dept only has jail cells. Thats it.) You get locked up in a jail cell with every belt, shoe lace, wallet and everything else including the small sliver of dignity one was supporting their mostly lost pride with also. Many totally sane people would consider losing their freedom worth the risk to life as it's at least that important.
Its even possible that imprisonment (silly to call it protective custody) would increase the risk of suicide to a typical American. In fact a hostile prosecution would likely use protective custody to harass and pressure an already vulnerable defendant. Considering the apparent forcefulness of the JD its almost certain to happen that way.
Its even more possible that the prosecution would have used 'suicidal tendency' as another justification for guilt thus adding to the perceived social burden Aaron carried. Such is the cruelness that results when wild accusations are made.
For these reasons responsible government agencies/departments/offices/personnel should not use demoralizing/bedeviling/demonizing terms such as piracy or theft when talking about copyright. Its just wrong and are doublespeak terms. (Probably being overly polite saying it as such.)
It does not seem that the JD followed any rules at all (seems silly what they claim) with the whole thing like a derailed train wreck even before Aaron's death.
On the post: Movie Studios Filing DMCA Takedowns Over DMCA Takedowns
One. For several years all take-down notices were implemented regardless of their implausibility/legality. Now. Its common that outlandish DMCA take-down notices are scrutinized and some ignored completely.
Two. Its an over the waterfall event. Censoring the censorship. Covering up the attempt of covering up ones mistakes/machinations/evilness/wrongness/bad-publicity/etc. This stuff is societally scary. A cancerous wart on culture. This kind of reciprocity would be infinite in both paperwork and cost if followed to its logical conclusion. Or if the monopolies have their way nobody would hear of it again with a whole new level of secret hearings and review process(s).
There is no way just liking to a questionable site/content can be considered a bad thing. Following such flawed logic ALL sites would be labeled as 'bad' and ALL links would be illegal. The very basic foundation of WWW linking technology that revolutionized/popularized the thing we call the web/interweb today!
It would be wisdom to just toss out the DMCA (the courts seem useless these days) and other bad legislation (CFAA, CISPA proposals, etc) but what the real battle from after the fact votes is... Pride! Its classic that politicians do not ever, EVER admit mistakes while in office. Its just not done because of perceived weakness and possible verbal ammunition given to the opposition.
It may be a better tactic to replace such badly conceived legislation with newer well written constitutionally correct acts and bills. They can always be sold as a better alternative and avoids the political faux pas of finger pointing.
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aaron contributed to culture. He leveled up our cultural IQ with getting some publicly funded research being recognized as a part of the public domain. (its still a battle)
On the post: Transcript Of The 12 Minute 'We're Done' Prenda Hearing Released
The judge was clear in mentioning fraud going further to state that this hearing was about “,attorney misconduct such misconduct which I think brings discredit to the profession.”
What did delightfully surprise me was the judges determined recognition that all of the shell firms were one and the same with Prendaa. More surprising was using such recognition to point out that “,notices of related cases,” have not been filed throughout the Prendaa universe of shell firm lawsuits. Sounds like reasonable charges to me.
More seemingly binding was the comment “Who made the decision not to disclose to the court the fact that the law firms have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation?” Financial interest is quite an important link.
As a layperson it would totally piss me off if the firms represented by a legal firm were themselves owned by that same legal firm. The term fleecing comes to mind. It also is a clear motive to anyone without a minimum of scruples might want it covered up.
Its kind of hilarious that they would be able to get another court to not recognize such a cozy arrangement. A lot filings are just taken for granted without any high level of proof other than what is submitted. Makes one wonder what was transcribed or not during such a filing. Possibly submitted in between a dozen or so other more normal pieces of paperwork during a busy moment? Who knows? Just another example of funny paperwork? Might even be used as evidence of willful misdirection.
The event was not without some good old fashioned follow the money detective work in trying a bit to untangle the complex network of shell firms and which one gets the money. (wonder if off shore accounts are used?)
Without direct testimony the judge must piece together the Prendaa puzzle with his own staff. Is hard to see progress without a search warrant or subpoena issued to a lot of funky shell firms. Bank records, corporate officers, assets, etc.
And all this is in addition to what was discussed earlier. The story unfolds as the mysteries are explored and as in all real life drama the plot is a thing of past tense revealed only after the fact.
On the post: Senator Hatch's Plan To Give Hollywood The Key Seat At The Table For All Future Trade Negotiations
Congressional weirdness seems to know no bounds. Another few filler pages to stuff into a bloated constitution. It might be like the Monty Python grotesquely fat man eating just one more chocolate truffle after a huge meal...
The computer is the new refrigerator and legacy media firms are only selling ice. Worse are the attempts to fetter the computer so that it only works with ice. (DRM) Do I care if they go out of business? Not even in the slightest. Hollywood has become an acronym for accounting fraud and other fakery both on and off the screen. It would be good to let go of such and not cry about it.
Healthy culture always will demand entertainment and in no way will Hollywood itself be missed. So much badness has emanated from the self supposed movie capital of the world that even if outlawed/banned tomorrow it will take years to ferret out the legal/legislation problems. The tabloids would not even slow down and the implosion of Hollywood would most likely give much to report on.
Hollywood seems more and more like the lands of Mordor with thousands of orcs and trolls doing their bidding/damage. What binds them all together is the one ring of (copyright) monopoly. The one all powerful economically demonic concept 100% universally recognized as evil. The darkness grows with tremors underfoot and fear spreads upon the land.
Converting copyright enforcement from civil to criminal law is like hoards of money sucking zombie lawyers stuffing the brains (at seminars and social gatherings no place is safe) of more lawyers with money thus creating more zombie/trolls crying insatiably for ever more victims to fleece cash from. This demonic conversion is not limited to lawyers but anyone can succumb to its siren call of legal plausibility. Especially JD and DoJ Hollywood zombie appointees.
Has copyright law been hijacked for political convenience enabled by Hollywood monopolies? In no way does US culture benefit from any of the proposed or existing Hollywood sponsored legislation. (sharing is caring!) Its seems popular for every agency to run about crying wolf like some out of control army of court jesters. Why create another court jester post?
It would be nice to actually adjourn for a few months (hahaha what a joke!) and let the senators out of the box for a bit. Capitol hill seems more like some mind numbing zone where only circus like performance survives.
The proper response to someone mentioning copyright as weak and useless would be; “you can rot in hell thats ok with me (and your ice has melted).”
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Am myself, and masquerade as no one else. What ideas you have of anyone are your own. (might even nudge you along on that too.)
The only reason facts, like who made what accusations, are necessary is because its good to know who to vote for and not be fooled by anyone who 'masquerades' as a good conscientious citizen. This basic motivation needs facts/information if only just to figure things out for ourselves.
Do you think its wrong to apply social pressure to get to the bottom of any situation? Someone died during a criminal investigation where official charges were levied and that does matter. Life matters. How we live and the actions of government officials are important. Someone died. Would you want to just forget that?
Its important not to participate in a witch trial either as the prosecution or the audience as both are guilty. A complacent public enables/empowers the worst in human behavior. Without such social pressure aberrant abuses of power are quick to happen. Was this a witch hunt? That's a valid question with answers sought after.
There just may be complications that the prosecution might have to explain under judicial review. A civil case might even be brought up against the JD itself and hopefully a few special interest groups for possibly sponsoring such also. This case does not seem like blind justice and that would not be a good recommendation for any involved. Red slips to the unemployment line might be the best solution.
Powerful statement; “Witnesses do suffer. It's the pain a witness undergoes to provide first person based testimony to convict someone of a crime. Be amazed at the genius of requiring such a high level of evidence. Democratic society is based on that.” That sounds sooooo cool! The pain is definitely metaphorical and the pressure is only social at the present. Interesting you should point out the wording just what are you getting at? Please note that if civil claims are successfully established they all become legitimate witness again.
Culture is a seemingly weak argument. But only seemingly for the unaware. Its a concept thats always there but forgotten by many. (most?) Its like air and water we just don't want to think at such a level but its all we have that ties us together as a whole/healthy society.
Cultural awareness is like the measurement of a society's IQ. How we grow up as a society is based on what and how much we share facts/data/music/etc. (have written more than a few posts about it please go back and read a bit to form a better question.) Any process that slows or stops this sharing of intelligence lowers our cultural IQ. Why would anyone want that?
About every 20-40 years or so tort reform jumps up in the voters minds is a normal readjustment. It seems congress gets mesmerized by the word 'deterrent' so easily by special interest groups and ruins the concept of only violent persons in jail (its expensive) and the rest get bitch-slapped with reasonable fines not life/family destroying (put them in the gutters which is also an economic drain) statutory fines.
Since a lot of the above is a recap/repeat of earlier posts am getting bored. If you want more response please read up and even if you don't agree your posts may still have meaning. (and will respond)
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Re: Re:
Nobel or noble cause? Not sure what you mean.” Unquote.
Response; Nobel cause. Pure. Without self interest. Beyond what we mortals could comprehend. Aaron Swartz touched immortality itself in the thoughts he entertained and publicly expressed with distribution of knowledge.
Quote; “Its nice that his cause for intellectual research distribution is continued via the RECAP $5k grants.
It may have been nicer if they'd stepped up and put that grant money into his defense fund. ” Unquote.
Response; You are so absolutely right! Bing, bing bing, bing! (grand prize!) Please donate.
Quote; “In the US justice system we have a right to face our accusers. Period. If someone goes to the justice department and makes an accusation the accused automatically know about it once the charges are filed and evidence is submitted. The accused have a right to defend themselves. The prosecution must have legitimate evidence and it must be given to the defendant to allow rebuttal.
We? By your writing you are almost certainly a foreigner. And fyi, there's no case. The defendant is dead and charges have been dropped.” Unquote.
Response; Right again! Your awesome! So what (at that level.)
Quote; “How the evidence was collected and its supposed relevance is of utmost importance to the court and public. For sure Aaron Swartz suffered a the classic witch hunt! This is the very reason for clear evidence submitted with know accusers in a public trial with a jury of ones peers. The JD really sounds hypocritical in this way.
Again, there's no case. There's no basis for any disclosure.” Unquote.
Response; Once charges are filed its public record and disclosure is required regardless of death. (some may argue with me)
Quote; “It sounds more likely that the JD never had a case to begin with and are just covering their own arses. On many levels this case smells. Who sponsored/ordered/suggested this case anyway?
If they had no case, why did Swartz kill himself. It seems that he certainly believed and was advised by counsel that they did have a case. Otherwise why not at least wait until after a motion for summary judgment before doing something as rash as suicide? Or until after trial, conviction and sentencing?” Unquote.
Response; It will always be unknown why death happens. Fact of life. Its always wrong. What pressures on an individual cause such a morbid choice? (suicide) Government? Society? Peer pressure? All are valid challenges to existence.
Quote; “If the Justice Department (JD) has some other idea of law then its time to consider dumping the whole department and starting from scratch. The weirdness of hiding evidence (once the charges are filed) is just that bad. The order of protection seems out of place as no physical threats were made. (suggested maybe but thats just opinion being waged) Potentially threatening is not actually a threat. Seems more like damage control.
There's no need to provide discovery where's there's no case. Which is essentially what is sought. And why subject witnesses to intimidation and threats. ” Unquote.
Response; When the accused dies cases become extinct in the courts eye forever. What we are really taking about is culture. Culture survives the official ignorance of the law. How do we learn from such reality?
Quote; “By design (have said this before) its meant to be hard for any accuser/prosecution/plaintiff for the very reason that witch hunts are a major societal danger. (not just a fairy tail but a real bloody horror.)
Witch hunts like the ones the witnesses would endure? Those kinds of witch hunts?” Unquote.
Response; Witnesses do suffer. It's the pain a witness undergoes to provide first person based testimony to convict someone of a crime. Be amazed at the genius of requiring such a high level of evidence. Democratic society is based on that.
Quote; “For the JD not to follow the most basic of rules that evidence is not concealed or hidden breaks the system in to the extent it likely does not exist any more. Who hired these guys anyway and with what kind of references did they have? (don't want people like that to be hired again so need to know)
The case is over. Understand? There is no point other than to expose witnesses to abuse and threats. ” Unquote.
Response; Your right the case is over. However the lesson is not. Do we learn from our callousness or kill others because of our ignorance/policy?
Quote; “On the face of it the whole Aaron Swartz case looked corrupted from multiple problems to such an extent that even tort reform (sentencing guidelines) needs were highlighted let alone the ridiculous charges derived from the legislative miscarriage known as CFAA.
Tort reform is different than sentencing guidelines. Do you know what the sentencing guidelines were for Swartz? Hint: months, not years. Not that it matters to you hysterical zealots.” Unquote.
Response; The sentencing guidelines were likely trashed and completely abuse in the Aaron Swartz case. Pressure is one thing and insane claims are another. And if sentencing was (morbidly) in line with written policy the we return to the concept of tort reform. (Its a common occurrence.)
Quote; “I support a legitimate investigation because it looks like dirty work supported by nasty special interest groups. Such conservative infestations of normal government operations need liberal applications of the metaphorical bug spray. If anyone feels guilty about that then its probably a sign that they are the ones who might suffer from the truth.
Oh, so it's a vast conspiracy? No doubt headed by the MPAA and RIAA, right? Maybe you should contact Jason Bourne.” Unquote.
Response; Who knows. (good guesses) Politics is a wild animal/insect. (conflicting analogies.) Conspiracy is not a bad idea as commercial interests often align in ways of profit. Special interest groups excel in that way. At least its not preposterous.
Quote “For a legitimate investigation there needs to be a donation site to fund such. Money is the only respected thing in Washington these days.
No one cared enough to do that kind of fund-raising to afford him a proper defense. Why do you think this will happen?” Unquote.
Response; Please donate posthumously. Aaron Swartz is a great idea/concept/light.
Quote. “or my part, unless MIT fesses up, I support the complete denial of research funding to them. A 100% cutoff. They can perish as an institution if they want to thats ok.
It's likely that what you support doesn't make a difference here or anywhere else. MIT did nothing wrong. They cooperated with a criminal investigation, they didn't direct it” Unquote.
Response. How does the average citizen reward institutions that provide knowledge and destroy others that conceal knowledge in favor of profit at the expense of public funded research? -Impartiality- MIT is or is not a place where great ideas can flourish. Aaron Swartz died because of a great idea as many a great scientist did (Example; Boltzman.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann
On the post: Exploring Fair Use And Fair Dealing Around The Globe
All arguments that attempt to degrade the concept of Fair Use are just wrong. Its probably best to start using the phrase “Fair Use Rights” as its that important. (take that you doublespeak morons!)
Excuse me someone actually commented on one of my comments and must respond. Is a good one so please read. (shameless self plug but is one of my cooler moments)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130325/12380522458/youtube-terms-use-sweep-results-t akedown-fail.shtml#c1106
What is Fair Use anyway? What is Culture anyway? Where/why does an advanced society revolve around such transfer of knowledge anyway? How do we grow as a society as a whole? How do we discuss important issues of the day?
Fair Use Rights! It's a rally point. Do we define our culture as a multi point continually changing reference (as chosen good reference points change over time/perspective) or a top down hierarchy based on anthill theory?
Cultural awareness. A goal. A greatness. Something greater than itself.
On the post: YouTube Takes Down Music Video For 'Terms Of Service' Violation; Refuses To Explain Or Put Back
Re: Re:
Keeping in mind that once a question is asked by a child full disclosure is needed to whatever extent you measure or are able to describe without... fear. 100% honesty complete with your embarrassment is needed at this point or your kids might start to ignore you. (are you holding back?)
How does one explain the facts of life without dirty nude pictures in a playboy/girl magazine, bloody war photos of goo and spatter (that are censored and hard to find thus giving an artificial glamorous view of war without the vivid reality of horrible gore), evil serial crime without disgusting stories of murder with photos like the insanity of John W. Gacy, government corruption without pictures and stories of killing just because of experiments/profit, … life is real and horrible unless one makes the effort to become a good person amid all the trash and terror of life.
How do we explain such real life showing the wonderful explosion of cultural greatness shown by Einstein, Martin Luther King, Harold Washington (1st black mayor of Chicago IL), Thomas Jefferson, etc. So many great people and things in life to have fun with.
There are some things each of us should fear with all of our hearts and intelligence; War, rape, violent crime, serial murders, dictatorship, monopolies, copyright, performance and trademark law (hahahah), insanity and worse things like the erosion of democratic culture. (not a joke)
Parents should introduce these topics as they seem able. Each subject is as sensitive as the feared 'facts of life' talk but also as important when introducing the concept of human nature in it greatness/terribleness.
On the Internet and in real life (pointless to force either issue) kids will obtain porno or whatever they want physically ( a playboy or girl magazine) or virtually (on-line) every time. Evey time. The question is... will you as a parent be there at that time to guide your kids along way you believe are good? If you leave it to chance what will your kids actually obtain? An S&M magazine?
Do you believe that you should prevent and prohibit your family from knowledge about sex, war, human nature (good and bad) or whatever? Lets phrase this another way; do you want to see you kids intimidated at school repeatedly about such silly stupid subjects that you should inform them of as soon as they even attempt to question you about them?
What happens to the child who has no idea what sex is once they reach the age of 18? what happens to anyone without some worldly knowledge? Yes. They, most likely, get taken advantage of... Sad tale. Bad ending. Damaged psyche. PTSD.
Ideally one should watch sensitive videos/information along with your kids. Establishing a rapport at such a level to discuss anything is valuable and alienation is a danger to fear by any parent.
Good luck. Hope for the best. Want all good dreams to be fulfilled.
Gave some measurement in above short essay; “As long as a kid is old enough to understand that Santa is not what was originally presented then... Its the real world or nothing.” Of course its up to the parent to decide when but is common for parent to put off such straight talk.
Want more? Respond.
On the post: Charter Communications Refuses To Air Antenna Manufacturer's Ad
Cable is getting to possessive about how anyone can watch TV also. Clamcast now requires that all TV's have to use a set top box for any use over basic of which there is a fee for each, of course, also. Its possibly going to a point where your cable firm knows what and when you are watching. Don't want to use their silly remote with the expensive looking, over sized “on demand” button and like the one that came with the TV much better. The tuner was better also.
For these and other reason have cut the cord long ago. The bill was usually around 100-150/month for the few channels watched out the the huge bundles had to purchase. Have saved literally thousands in fact its getting closer to a five digit savings! It seems to me that this is another form of copyright extortion by high media overcharging. (the damned things were already paid for once)
So they cost to much, provide questionable service(s), are a potential privacy leak, force unwanted equipment on subscribers, force subscribers to pay for said unwanted equipment, put the one channel we want into a huge money wasting bundle, ...
On the post: DOJ Trying To Hide Secret Interpretations Of The Law Because You'd All DIE!!!!
I remember (seems like ancient history already) when Prendaa started to act funny after someone pointed out a few goofy looking documents leading up to their recent pleading the 5th in civil court. Since the DJ basically starts out with the 5th it does not look good from here. Its scary when government itself seems skewed.
Not having to worry about secret laws and courts was one of the founding reasons for a short easy to understand document like the Constitution. Government is fast becoming a myth. Good government is a joke. Now we have to worry about secret government interpretations? Expect an increase in high blood pressure/hypertension prescriptions.
Its possible such an interpretation is some kind of post rationalization attempt to justify earlier transgressions and if it worked? Keep up the good bad work?
If the interpretation was planned specifically to violate personal rights (whatever the seemingly patriotic rational) it would be best to ferret out the source and administer red slips.
The public at large does not seem up to neutering bad government practice atm. To point out the obvious as long as there are only two parties in the mind of the average voter... nothing major will change. Business as usual. (the two parties wont change unless they have a rival worth worrying about)
On the post: Can Commercial VPNs Really Protect Your Privacy?
Many times its impossible to collect such data as the volume makes it prohibitive. Its normal that a popular VPN generates 2-4 plus terrabytes a day.
The best way to keep data leaks from happening is not to keep it or collect it at all. Its the only way so much so that it would be nice to see legislation that ensures such (non) action. For now, even if it would be a form of civil disobedience, its probably best to randomize/anonymize posts in logs/blogs/bbs/forums were possible. (there are troubleshooting and maintenance concerns) It's best to dispose of them before any errant court order demanded them because its worse to knowingly destroy evidence.
There are good exceptions like Wikipedia revision history. Its been great fun knowing who attempts revisionist history. To be honest it might be nice for Wikipedia to offer a corporation sponsored (not the front page but only a tab or button) page if the user wanted to click on it. I just love to read clashing viewpoints and when discovered they raise red flags and loud sirens of incongruity. (lies)
US (and potentially European) law has basically gone crazy with unavoidable felonies committed every day just for backing up data and other stupider things too. At the present conversion rate Jaywalking and parking tickets will soon be added to the death penalty also. Since copytight (right) law is broken almost every time a phone camera is clicked is hard to take them seriously especially when more law is broken just to send it to a friend.
Because of the above obvious legal abuse it makes warrants and gag orders a potential way to abuse law. In fact considering the silly drug laws and ridiculous copyright laws the law is starting to look lawless.
A VPN with a data retention policy of any time length beyond maintenance is as good as not having one at all. A legitimate VPN is becoming almost as normal as an Internet connection.
On the post: US Attorneys Reveal Online Bullying To Explain Why People Who Helped Them Prosecute Aaron Swartz Should Remain Anonymous
Its nice that his cause for intellectual research distribution is continued via the RECAP $5k grants.
In the US justice system we have a right to face our accusers. Period. If someone goes to the justice department and makes an accusation the accused automatically know about it once the charges are filed and evidence is submitted. The accused have a right to defend themselves. The prosecution must have legitimate evidence and it must be given to the defendant to allow rebuttal.
How the evidence was collected and its supposed relevance is of utmost importance to the court and public. For sure Aaron Swartz suffered a the classic witch hunt! This is the very reason for clear evidence submitted with know accusers in a public trial with a jury of ones peers. The JD really sounds hypocritical in this way.
It sounds more likely that the JD never had a case to begin with and are just covering their own arses. On many levels this case smells. Who sponsored/ordered/suggested this case anyway?
If the Justice Department (JD) has some other idea of law then its time to consider dumping the whole department and starting from scratch. The weirdness of hiding evidence (once the charges are filed) is just that bad. The order of protection seems out of place as no physical threats were made. (suggested maybe but thats just opinion being waged) Potentially threatening is not actually a threat. Seems more like damage control.
By design (have said this before) its meant to be hard for any accuser/prosecution/plaintiff for the very reason that witch hunts are a major societal danger. (not just a fairy tail but a real bloody horror.)
For the JD not to follow the most basic of rules that evidence is not concealed or hidden breaks the system in to the extent it likely does not exist any more. Who hired these guys anyway and with what kind of references did they have? (don't want people like that to be hired again so need to know)
On the face of it the whole Aaron Swartz case looked corrupted from multiple problems to such an extent that even tort reform (sentencing guidelines) needs were highlighted let alone the ridiculous charges derived from the legislative miscarriage known as CFAA.
I support a legitimate investigation because it looks like dirty work supported by nasty special interest groups. Such conservative infestations of normal government operations need liberal applications of the metaphorical bug spray. If anyone feels guilty about that then its probably a sign that they are the ones who might suffer from the truth.
For a legitimate investigation there needs to be a donation site to fund such. Money is the only respected thing in Washington these days.
For my part, unless MIT fesses up, I support the complete denial of research funding to them. A 100% cutoff. They can perish as an institution if they want to thats ok.
On the post: Police Officers Association Director On Facebook: Being Sexually Assaulted By A State Trooper Is Hilarious!
None of this is funny at any level. Trying to infer that any part or event was humorous only makes it scarier.
It might be good to introduce the most feared deterrent a police officer would suffer. A “shining letter of recommendation.” An EXTREAMLY polite letter outlining the incident and its effects on your life or world view. Get your lawyer to help write it. Just stating ones opinion on the mental fitness of an officer is a powerful thing.
Many a promotion have been passed over because of such obvious detrimental public opinion. These letters often stick around for life and force many to switch cities or even move to another state.
Next >>