A government entity propped up in front of a private one no less. And flying is "standard" transportation ass. Unless of course you're perhaps rickety ancient or still consider air travel a luxury only for the well off.
No chance you could become a chuckle choker real quick like eh? A shame some are endowed with the ability to breath much less type.
Hm.. by that logic you're implying that one can have their free speech so long as you can traverse the impediments - the costs imposed as a result of accusation. Might as well burn a witch.
A bit like that old school snake game that.
>Not true at all. They can just reopen under a different domain name.
Just reopen? That strikes me as a tad simplistic don't you think? What is the burden on you if you're forced to change your email address, without having the original to link the two?
I believe though that the "point" is that tax dollars are being used to support (supposed) copyright infractions because the copyright holders haven't quite figured out how to do it themselves. That seems like a different kind of theft to me. It's "points" like this that are honed spear tips pointed at the throat of the rule of law and once those tips number in the many then the rule of law will face the challenge of the nature of things.\r
I can't quite make out why you're needing a show me from me about something neither stated nor implied, however, given the very brief amount of time I'm willing to give to satisfy your inquiry I've found this -- here -> http://www.techdirt.com/about.php
Like a lot of analysis that would seem to imply content that includes both facts, opinions and an occasional fantasy induced impetuous comment (i.e. Intelligence Analysis)
\r
Fact: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire;
Followup: Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Article Content: Observation and Opinion
Keywords: music, settle, copyrights
Odd that anyone with a reasonable disposition and basic understanding and familiarity of/with Internet outlets can get upset over this headline. The entire string of ... debate is ass. If anybody derives "Fact" from the word "Afraid" in the title and is not satiated by reading the article was, quite simply, looking to bash heads. Knuckle dragging bully with a general inability to segment news and blogs and limewire into their respective categories.
And all this bashing of the people providing the content is ass too. Drag your bloody knuckles to the comments sections at CNN or DailyKos or some other equally low lying level of audience participation.
Pages and pages of ass comment on someone's opinion that a page title is all facts. Yeah, that's nice. Mission Accomplished
If I have nothing to hide then I may have nothing to fear.
If I have nothing to fear then I might have nothing to die for.
If I have nothing to die for I have nothing. See? Make sense?
I have the inherent right to privacy everywhere. It is not your right to see that which I do not wish you to see simply because you can. Which may include but is not limited to what's beneath my clothes, in my pockets, on my phone or on my mind.
The good news is that your idea of security makes me afraid.
I'm not sure your angle is quite right.. I hear what you're trying to say but I think you've staked your ground whilst looking behind you. The guy wanted a digital, UK had one (Internet == global) but said You're not here therefore you can not purchase it.
You can't, in any way, empathise with that? It wasn't even me and I'm mildly irritated. There is no sound nor sane reason for preventing access to what is available.
We're not talking about an automobile folks - stop giving digital business the benefit of the doubt. It's an is or it's an ain't. That is, either it exists or it doesn't - you can't fake it.
--
Thirsty guy
Line over there, lot's of water being passed out
Other side of fence with barbed wire on top
Thirsty guy
Must wait for next full moon before you can drink but here is a box of saltines to hold you over
(he wasn't hungry, he was thirsty and water was abundant)
What? He just provided a good deal of stuff that seemed to directly relate to legality of the content of the affidavit no?
How is preventing access to even a single comment underneath a single seized domain not preventing access to protected free speech?
Where are you coming from?
As far as I can tell we're all paying to protect sadly out of date business models here.
You're all legal eagle and good with it but I fail to see how you fail to see that this could be used for bigger and more nefarious purposes than business model protection. Gosh, based on this Google and Bing are "guilty", without a doubt I should think.
Intuition tells me the grab, as a whole, is questionable because if they're certain they're on sound legal ground why bother at all with just the domain name? Since when do police do their policing walking softly using little sticks? If it's been determined that these sites are breaking the law what would possibly be preventing them from grabbing the IP *with* the domain(s)?
The obvious answer to me is they're walking softly so as to create the least amount of uproar and thus attempting to prevent direct and loud challenges to their actions.
And I'm really stuck on the authoritarian tone. "It would seem therefor it must be". The precedent, regardless of current use of the tactic, is frightening and it needs to be challenged sooner rather than later. Like now, yesterday. Homeland Security - that just infuriates me.
I'm on the fence about the whole seizure thing and just watching the show - but now I've a question. There has been a lot of discussion about drug related seizure and the like and a lot of attempts at direct translation. Now my question - when all of these assets are seized in other crimes related cases is someone not "on notice" or otherwise under arrest? Or do they come swoop your stuff and individuals can go "uh-oh, all my stuff is gone - I'm outa here!".
So nobody has succeeded in connecting the dot between "I'm taking your stuff - piss off" and "You're in quite a bit of trouble - all this stuff is now probably ours" to which said 'suspect' is arraigned, given a court date and, likely, sufficient reason to recognise that his stuff will be gone when he gets out of jail.
There seems to be an extraordinary level of childish forces at play here. We're talking about domain names which are rather analogous to a street address (which can be unwillingly changed on you but not "taken" I think) and the IP address would probably best describe the house (as it relates to visiting something).
Taking a domain is absurd, patently ridiculous or otherwise down right silly. If they're so certain that they are 100% based in real legal framework they'd be stomping the show by taking your IP like a real man and getting your servers stuffed into their black sub-urbans. no? Otherwise I'm really failing to see the point. Whack-a-mole? That sounds pretty far from legal that does.
\r
Justin, I do believe that a root kit provides a method of access (typically a suite of tools and programs) to acquire elevated privileges regardless of where or where it may not presently reside in 'kit' form. A back door can be used to either directly access those privileges via a method prepared and lodged in code present on any given running system or otherwise accessed via less intrusive means as a kit in waiting in order to (attempt to) acquire said elevated privileges (side door) as such it is far from impossible for an OS or FW to contain (house) a (root) kits in waiting. Once you breach a system you'll often carry your kit in with you. Semantics do not always warrant evaluation but don't get it wrong when you do.\r
What is bothering me is we've apparently got mass copyright holders strapped on to our government policing their interests. That's just great. On our fucking coin no less. And at the same time trying to redefine the definition of rape to save coin (sorry, horror of the day). Human ass leaches.
It's your stuff - you fix it.
pussy bitches.
super-bowl is coming. yeah. can you hit these real quick? yeah. thanks. no problem. == large problem
keep media off the carrier wire leases! hands off! suck it and compete! common carrier - nothing more! mobile & cable too! useless fucking programming heap-o-shite they all are - $100. pfft you just wait til the old man passes.
Yeah, how dare Senators ask questions - the nerve
Angry enough? I could try harder but then I might not even read it.
Could someone please, please create the FatherNet, ASAP. I'm getting really, really confused about what I should/should not do, can/can not look at, what I should or should not pay for and can or can not click on.
The Internet - ah to be an expatriot of it all - but they'll find you - oh yes they will - and you'll like it - and you'll buy stock - and stuff.
Oh and perhaps the MotherDevice too, so that I now know that I can not, in any way, alter anything I ever fucking choose to spend money on. Please? Oh, and please drive me to work. Thanks.
So.. "rule of law" just and unjust, paid for and free, bled for and protected by. Oh. OK. Cool. I'm glad I got that straight and glad I have the money required to use it. Thanks again.
PS. If y'all do happen to make a mistake on that MegaBlower thing, and it does suck, can I get one? Download it?
It would seem to me that this is a lively topic and one all over the place.
It would also seem to me that the brick-n-border vs bit-n-order businesses have yet to build a connection their respective products that viably bridge the gap. "Let us open a web site and sell our stuff" is about as far as it seems to get.
We've established certificates and authentication for the money transaction on the Internet whereas we can pass a buck across the counter on Land.. for the same wares. Why are we not embracing authenticated product? Have smart phone can authenticate type of stuff. Barcodes, SN's, prodID's .. all kinds.. lists, comprehensive mind you, of authorised dealers etc. Rapid verification online or off.
I understand I've over simplified however a good part of the last couple of decades has been a "post and prosper" mindset without a whole lot of ... "product integration with point of sale".
Log it - audit it - call out your enemies in near-real time - have a fake? tell us where/how we'll give you a discount on the real goods.
Grab friggin hold bubbas. You can't placate a pi-rate but you sure can appease the masses. Brains not brawn right?
And thanks to D'Addario for the post, a bit of real amidst the rank.
The old school business models simply do not translate.
Soft and hard products need to properly evaluate Internet and how said Internet does business. Flog it? Log it.
Open yourselves to the possibilities - they are, truly, endless.
Actually, I get more of a pro 21st century stance impression.
Some interpretations(existence) of (a lot of) LAWS are #uc%ing up this country (and a good amount of other ones) - much like the MUSIC business is #uc%ing up MUSIC. Then we have people that don't think #uc%ing up people that do. Where dost thou fit?
Enough. The two businesses in these chambers have caused enough polarity and damage to last generations.
Get OUT!
Mr. Lieberman, I think you're a fuck.
Unlimited two and six year terms is a bloody joke with today's party money.
Too black, too strong.
The human wave of the planet, humanity - WILL overcome. (and it won't be flying a fucking flag)
You protect the heavy pockets, the entire design is for that protection. And you engorge yourselves. That's what you've become, that's what you've done. Go.
( gosh I get so darn frustrated and mad some times .. and stuff )
You, my good sir, are less than capable. Amazon, far and away, has average prices and hideous shipping fees.
There now, having typed that, I'm not getting how you equate not believing in freedom of the press etc with choosing not to shop at Amazon because one may disagree with their action.
You're spend-ing a-lot of time and money on this fu-tile venture - that's time and money poorly spent imo. You could have tapped this hotty a long-ass time ago. tick-tock muther#u@%er$. TMOAISTI\r
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re: Re: Re:
No chance you could become a chuckle choker real quick like eh? A shame some are endowed with the ability to breath much less type.
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A bit like that old school snake game that.
>Not true at all. They can just reopen under a different domain name.
Just reopen? That strikes me as a tad simplistic don't you think? What is the burden on you if you're forced to change your email address, without having the original to link the two?
I believe though that the "point" is that tax dollars are being used to support (supposed) copyright infractions because the copyright holders haven't quite figured out how to do it themselves. That seems like a different kind of theft to me. It's "points" like this that are honed spear tips pointed at the throat of the rule of law and once those tips number in the many then the rule of law will face the challenge of the nature of things.\r
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Re:
A book is a copy.
A blog is a living book of sorts that writes itself.
The book can be acquired elsewhere, picked up and relocated, the title does not change nor any reference to its existence used in acquiring it.
A blog, website, discussion board etc. is a single, live original text.
If you block access to the book you'll, likely, be able to go somewhere else and acquire the exact same text.
If you block the blog it's done, gone. Good luck and speak freely today, for tomorrow, who knows what tomorrow will bring or what tomorrow will take.
\r
On the post: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Re: Re: Afraid
Like a lot of analysis that would seem to imply content that includes both facts, opinions and an occasional fantasy induced impetuous comment (i.e. Intelligence Analysis)
\r
On the post: Music Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Afraid
Followup: Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In Question
Article Content: Observation and Opinion
Keywords: music, settle, copyrights
Odd that anyone with a reasonable disposition and basic understanding and familiarity of/with Internet outlets can get upset over this headline. The entire string of ... debate is ass. If anybody derives "Fact" from the word "Afraid" in the title and is not satiated by reading the article was, quite simply, looking to bash heads. Knuckle dragging bully with a general inability to segment news and blogs and limewire into their respective categories.
And all this bashing of the people providing the content is ass too. Drag your bloody knuckles to the comments sections at CNN or DailyKos or some other equally low lying level of audience participation.
Pages and pages of ass comment on someone's opinion that a page title is all facts. Yeah, that's nice. Mission Accomplished
On the post: Homeland Security Was Interested In Doing 'Covert' Pedestrian 'Scans' From 30 Feet Away
Re:
If I have nothing to fear then I might have nothing to die for.
If I have nothing to die for I have nothing. See? Make sense?
I have the inherent right to privacy everywhere. It is not your right to see that which I do not wish you to see simply because you can. Which may include but is not limited to what's beneath my clothes, in my pockets, on my phone or on my mind.
The good news is that your idea of security makes me afraid.
On the post: Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't, in any way, empathise with that? It wasn't even me and I'm mildly irritated. There is no sound nor sane reason for preventing access to what is available.
We're not talking about an automobile folks - stop giving digital business the benefit of the doubt. It's an is or it's an ain't. That is, either it exists or it doesn't - you can't fake it.
--
Thirsty guy
Line over there, lot's of water being passed out
Other side of fence with barbed wire on top
Thirsty guy
Must wait for next full moon before you can drink but here is a box of saltines to hold you over
(he wasn't hungry, he was thirsty and water was abundant)
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: No, this is not legal.
How is preventing access to even a single comment underneath a single seized domain not preventing access to protected free speech?
Where are you coming from?
As far as I can tell we're all paying to protect sadly out of date business models here.
You're all legal eagle and good with it but I fail to see how you fail to see that this could be used for bigger and more nefarious purposes than business model protection. Gosh, based on this Google and Bing are "guilty", without a doubt I should think.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re:
The obvious answer to me is they're walking softly so as to create the least amount of uproar and thus attempting to prevent direct and loud challenges to their actions.
And I'm really stuck on the authoritarian tone. "It would seem therefor it must be". The precedent, regardless of current use of the tactic, is frightening and it needs to be challenged sooner rather than later. Like now, yesterday. Homeland Security - that just infuriates me.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: + Curious
So nobody has succeeded in connecting the dot between "I'm taking your stuff - piss off" and "You're in quite a bit of trouble - all this stuff is now probably ours" to which said 'suspect' is arraigned, given a court date and, likely, sufficient reason to recognise that his stuff will be gone when he gets out of jail.
There seems to be an extraordinary level of childish forces at play here. We're talking about domain names which are rather analogous to a street address (which can be unwillingly changed on you but not "taken" I think) and the IP address would probably best describe the house (as it relates to visiting something).
Taking a domain is absurd, patently ridiculous or otherwise down right silly. If they're so certain that they are 100% based in real legal framework they'd be stomping the show by taking your IP like a real man and getting your servers stuffed into their black sub-urbans. no? Otherwise I'm really failing to see the point. Whack-a-mole? That sounds pretty far from legal that does.
\r
On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]
Re: Back Door
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
strap-on ((arguably) adult content)
It's your stuff - you fix it.
pussy bitches.
super-bowl is coming. yeah. can you hit these real quick? yeah. thanks. no problem. == large problem
keep media off the carrier wire leases! hands off! suck it and compete! common carrier - nothing more! mobile & cable too! useless fucking programming heap-o-shite they all are - $100. pfft you just wait til the old man passes.
Yeah, how dare Senators ask questions - the nerve
Angry enough? I could try harder but then I might not even read it.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Please Hurry
The Internet - ah to be an expatriot of it all - but they'll find you - oh yes they will - and you'll like it - and you'll buy stock - and stuff.
Oh and perhaps the MotherDevice too, so that I now know that I can not, in any way, alter anything I ever fucking choose to spend money on. Please? Oh, and please drive me to work. Thanks.
So.. "rule of law" just and unjust, paid for and free, bled for and protected by. Oh. OK. Cool. I'm glad I got that straight and glad I have the money required to use it. Thanks again.
PS. If y'all do happen to make a mistake on that MegaBlower thing, and it does suck, can I get one? Download it?
\r
On the post: The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
So .. infancy man
It would also seem to me that the brick-n-border vs bit-n-order businesses have yet to build a connection their respective products that viably bridge the gap. "Let us open a web site and sell our stuff" is about as far as it seems to get.
We've established certificates and authentication for the money transaction on the Internet whereas we can pass a buck across the counter on Land.. for the same wares. Why are we not embracing authenticated product? Have smart phone can authenticate type of stuff. Barcodes, SN's, prodID's .. all kinds.. lists, comprehensive mind you, of authorised dealers etc. Rapid verification online or off.
I understand I've over simplified however a good part of the last couple of decades has been a "post and prosper" mindset without a whole lot of ... "product integration with point of sale".
Log it - audit it - call out your enemies in near-real time - have a fake? tell us where/how we'll give you a discount on the real goods.
Grab friggin hold bubbas. You can't placate a pi-rate but you sure can appease the masses. Brains not brawn right?
And thanks to D'Addario for the post, a bit of real amidst the rank.
The old school business models simply do not translate.
Soft and hard products need to properly evaluate Internet and how said Internet does business. Flog it? Log it.
Open yourselves to the possibilities - they are, truly, endless.
\r
On the post: More & Bigger Mistakes Discovered In Homeland Security's Domain Seizures
Re: Re:
Some interpretations(existence) of (a lot of) LAWS are #uc%ing up this country (and a good amount of other ones) - much like the MUSIC business is #uc%ing up MUSIC. Then we have people that don't think #uc%ing up people that do. Where dost thou fit?
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Reasons for piracy
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS
Get OUT!
Mr. Lieberman, I think you're a fuck.
Unlimited two and six year terms is a bloody joke with today's party money.
Too black, too strong.
The human wave of the planet, humanity - WILL overcome. (and it won't be flying a fucking flag)
You protect the heavy pockets, the entire design is for that protection. And you engorge yourselves. That's what you've become, that's what you've done. Go.
( gosh I get so darn frustrated and mad some times .. and stuff )
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: A platform
You, my good sir, are less than capable. Amazon, far and away, has average prices and hideous shipping fees.
There now, having typed that, I'm not getting how you equate not believing in freedom of the press etc with choosing not to shop at Amazon because one may disagree with their action.
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
reHatch
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930731/posts
You're spend-ing a-lot of time and money on this fu-tile venture - that's time and money poorly spent imo. You could have tapped this hotty a long-ass time ago. tick-tock muther#u@%er$. TMOAISTI\r
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
In Rem
Let's see.. Look! That store sells hammers - hammers are used to bash folks over the head - we have to shut the store down and take it.
Yah, we need more laws - specifically more "law" based on "in rem" - take it! Fuckers. I don't want it - the racket protection laws nor their makers.
Provide and you shall be provided for.
Bend the tool - Not the law - and stop wasting our political time on your unearned undeserved paycheck
Oh and surely the intent is to have an actual member of the judiciary render these judgments yes?
OK, I feel better. Thanks.
Next >>