Much like the US is a terrorist state then? Denying people from other nations their rights. The Internet isn't solely for US citizens. And I, as a Dutchman also have freedom of speech.
And so do the whistleblowers on sites like Wikileaks and Cryptome. REGARDLESS where they are from.
The genie is out of the bottle. Good luck putting it back in.
The more the US is struggling against the release of these files the more attention they get.
By taking Wikipedia offline, like Joe "I hate freedom" Lieberman just demanded, he just used the US Constitution as toilet paper. I don't think the Founding Fathers had that use in mind when they wrote the damn thing.
The national interests of my country are indeed seriously threatened, by that terrorist nation called the US of A.
Their invasive actions have had ramifications for the safety of the other Western nations, who got sucked in by the actions of the USA.
Yes, invasive, as the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses (them thar's weapons of mass destruction or have you conveniently forgotten about that?)
Such is the action usually portrayed by a dictatorship-regime.
Oh yes, Saddam Hussein was a despot and a dictator, but he should've been taken out during the SECOND Gulf war in the 90s, and it shouldn't be a reason for invading and grabbing power in that country.
Also, I don't think that invading the country has helped improved how Iraq is functioning now.
The US government leaks also just to spite someone.
*coughValerie Plame*cough*.
And they still have yet to prosecute the person responsible for endangering those American lives. (Dick Cheney)
So, the DoJ can look in their lawbooks all they want, but if they do start a trial against Assange, it'll be a sham trial and the rest of the world knows it.
What's wrong US Government, scared of a wittle website?
Does the US Government really think that by prosecuting Assange, Wikileaks would stop? Are they really that dim?
I would be more sympathetic to the US' point of view If their DoD had helped Wikileaks in censoring out the names that might endanger people. But the DoD refused, because apparently there is more profit in complaining afterwards.
What I heard was that everyone went through the metal detectors without the extra groping. (as is normal, the groping is only when you opt out of the naked scanners)
Ever heard of Rembrandt? Bach? Beethoven?
Their "ideas" were also very important to society, right? Did they need copyright for those ideas to be created? No.
Do the creators today *need* copyright? I'm not sure, as they keep selling their copyrights to companies, instead of keeping them to themselves.
I am however sure that a life+70years duration of copyright is detremental for our culture.
That's the part that many people are objecting to. The duration, the selling off.
Don't see us as a bunch of "copyright thieves" as a lot of us don't even use P2P in that way.
What I stand for is an abolishment of copyright, in the hopes that we get a more sensible one. (compromizing)
What do I call sensible? For instance a non-resellable copyright, so solely for the content CREATOR, with a lifespan of say 5 years, with a possibility for an extension of that copyright of upto another 5 years, that the content creator can buy. After those 5 to 10 years, the content becomes public domain.
IF you were to offer anything insightful about why copyright as it exists today should stay the way it is, or become more stringent, then by all means go ahead, and show us why.
And we will offer you many examples of why it doesn't need to be.
People were making music and other types of content WAY before the notion of copyright ever even existed.
So what's the point of this ACTA treason again?
It's this stupid fear that people have about planes going down, after 9/11 don't you think that passengers will take that kind of shit laying down?
So far every attempt after 9/11 have been foiled either through sheer stupidity from the "terrorist" or by fellow passengers stopping the attempt in its tracks.
The TSA refuses to acknowledge whether they've stopped anything, probably meaning that they've stopped 0 attempts. All they have done so far has been reactionary.
We don't need to be afraid. The chance of any one of us actually becoming a victim of terrorism is smaller than being struck by lightning. By being afraid you are letting the terrorists win, as their goal is not to attack you, but to strike fear in you.
Al Qaeda couldn't have wished for a better outcome than this. 9 years after their attack, and America is still running scared, like headless chickens.
Also, you need to follow the money, who stands to gain the most by the deployment of these gaterape machines? Chertoff is one of the names.
Re: Re: Re: Mike fails to connect with potential customer...
How much did you pay again to watch the content on this site? Did you encounter any demands for your money?
And yet, this site works, and has been operating for years now. You can't do that, unless it offers an added value to Techdirt's employees.
So, if I were a barrister, and were to sue you, darryl on a claim that I pulled out of my ass, on the basis that I suspect you might in a tiny way be guilty of said claim, I should not be punished for this flagrant abuse of the law?
Indeed, if I were to by pulled over, for a car search, it wouldn't incur any costs to me, except my time.
By suing someone you are incurring costs on that person, as well as tearing their lives upside down. They'd have to find a lawyer, and then pay his fees, in the hope that they win the trial and get their fees returned. Except that Big Media also has loads of money to pay for the Big Lawyers to help litigate.
See the difference?
Your example wouldn't cost me money, if the police didn't find anything.
The lawsuit that you put it against, would cost me money, and would amount to a fishing expedition ("we are sure you are guilty, it's up to you to prove your innocence")
Actually, I have reasons to believe that no, it's not what the majority wants (it's what they should want, but that's another question).
Most people are just going through this checkpoint without asking any questions. And there are even people who say that they are sick and tired of those people who complain about their civil rights...
Sadly, it's only a vocal minority taking up this case. :(
Addendum:
Guess what, the terrorists have won, as you Americans are so eager to put aside your freedoms to protect... well protect what exactly? The US isn't the freedom loving country it once was. It certainly doesn't give you security!
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re:
And so do the whistleblowers on sites like Wikileaks and Cryptome. REGARDLESS where they are from.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
Instead of standing up for anyone's rights, they took a runner. And you call that patriotic.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
The more the US is struggling against the release of these files the more attention they get.
By taking Wikipedia offline, like Joe "I hate freedom" Lieberman just demanded, he just used the US Constitution as toilet paper. I don't think the Founding Fathers had that use in mind when they wrote the damn thing.
On the post: Why The Wikileaks Document Release Is Key To A Functioning Democracy
On the post: Justice Department Trying To Figure Out How To Twist US Laws To Charge Julian Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their invasive actions have had ramifications for the safety of the other Western nations, who got sucked in by the actions of the USA.
Yes, invasive, as the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses (them thar's weapons of mass destruction or have you conveniently forgotten about that?)
Such is the action usually portrayed by a dictatorship-regime.
Oh yes, Saddam Hussein was a despot and a dictator, but he should've been taken out during the SECOND Gulf war in the 90s, and it shouldn't be a reason for invading and grabbing power in that country.
Also, I don't think that invading the country has helped improved how Iraq is functioning now.
On the post: Justice Department Trying To Figure Out How To Twist US Laws To Charge Julian Assange
Re: Re: Pentagon papers
*coughValerie Plame*cough*.
And they still have yet to prosecute the person responsible for endangering those American lives. (Dick Cheney)
So, the DoJ can look in their lawbooks all they want, but if they do start a trial against Assange, it'll be a sham trial and the rest of the world knows it.
On the post: Justice Department Trying To Figure Out How To Twist US Laws To Charge Julian Assange
What's wrong US Government, scared of a wittle website?
I would be more sympathetic to the US' point of view If their DoD had helped Wikileaks in censoring out the names that might endanger people. But the DoD refused, because apparently there is more profit in complaining afterwards.
On the post: Just Because 'National Opt-Out Day' Didn't Do Much, Does It Mean People Don't Care About TSA Searches?
Re: Re:
On the post: Blurred German Houses Get Egged By Google Street View Fans
Re: Re: So your message is: CONFORM or be egged?
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their "ideas" were also very important to society, right? Did they need copyright for those ideas to be created? No.
Do the creators today *need* copyright? I'm not sure, as they keep selling their copyrights to companies, instead of keeping them to themselves.
I am however sure that a life+70years duration of copyright is detremental for our culture.
That's the part that many people are objecting to. The duration, the selling off.
Don't see us as a bunch of "copyright thieves" as a lot of us don't even use P2P in that way.
What I stand for is an abolishment of copyright, in the hopes that we get a more sensible one. (compromizing)
What do I call sensible? For instance a non-resellable copyright, so solely for the content CREATOR, with a lifespan of say 5 years, with a possibility for an extension of that copyright of upto another 5 years, that the content creator can buy. After those 5 to 10 years, the content becomes public domain.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we will offer you many examples of why it doesn't need to be.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re:
People were making music and other types of content WAY before the notion of copyright ever even existed.
So what's the point of this ACTA treason again?
On the post: TSA Claims You Need To Be Naked Scanned Or Groped After A Flight?
Re:
It's this stupid fear that people have about planes going down, after 9/11 don't you think that passengers will take that kind of shit laying down?
So far every attempt after 9/11 have been foiled either through sheer stupidity from the "terrorist" or by fellow passengers stopping the attempt in its tracks.
The TSA refuses to acknowledge whether they've stopped anything, probably meaning that they've stopped 0 attempts. All they have done so far has been reactionary.
We don't need to be afraid. The chance of any one of us actually becoming a victim of terrorism is smaller than being struck by lightning. By being afraid you are letting the terrorists win, as their goal is not to attack you, but to strike fear in you.
Al Qaeda couldn't have wished for a better outcome than this. 9 years after their attack, and America is still running scared, like headless chickens.
Also, you need to follow the money, who stands to gain the most by the deployment of these gaterape machines? Chertoff is one of the names.
On the post: Don't Blame 'Piracy' For Your Own Failures To Engage
Re: Re: Re: Mike fails to connect with potential customer...
And yet, this site works, and has been operating for years now. You can't do that, unless it offers an added value to Techdirt's employees.
On the post: UK Lawyers Who Originated 'Pay Up Or We'll Sue' Knew They Were Threatening Innocents
Re: Re: Know the law much Mike ?? ?
Laws are different around the globe.
On the post: UK Lawyers Who Originated 'Pay Up Or We'll Sue' Knew They Were Threatening Innocents
Re: Know the law much Mike ?? ?
Indeed, if I were to by pulled over, for a car search, it wouldn't incur any costs to me, except my time.
By suing someone you are incurring costs on that person, as well as tearing their lives upside down. They'd have to find a lawyer, and then pay his fees, in the hope that they win the trial and get their fees returned. Except that Big Media also has loads of money to pay for the Big Lawyers to help litigate.
See the difference?
Your example wouldn't cost me money, if the police didn't find anything.
The lawsuit that you put it against, would cost me money, and would amount to a fishing expedition ("we are sure you are guilty, it's up to you to prove your innocence")
On the post: Why Murdoch's iPad-Only Newspaper Misses The Point
The Daily would work
So everyone has access to 'free as in beer' news.
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Most people are just going through this checkpoint without asking any questions. And there are even people who say that they are sick and tired of those people who complain about their civil rights...
Sadly, it's only a vocal minority taking up this case. :(
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Scanners
Guess what, the terrorists have won, as you Americans are so eager to put aside your freedoms to protect... well protect what exactly? The US isn't the freedom loving country it once was. It certainly doesn't give you security!
Next >>