Yes, I know that my IP is recorded because I haven't used VPN or TOR and have not to this point chosen to do so. [...]
It is rapidly reaching the point that I am considering the last two as self protection
Indeed. I have an older machine sitting about, and my current plan is to craft it into a "secure" desktop running a hardened version of Linux, with full disk encryption, TOR, and a bevy of other offerings both large and small to make tracking a virtual impossibility.
So you can be charged with a sex offense for merely having the poor taste to dub an obscene song over top a video, but not for actually fondling someone's genitals against their will.
Here's the kicker: for EVERY action of a user on the internet, these companies are now required to record the nature of the operation, whether it is writing an e-mail or downloading an image or video.
After people get wind of this, I hope they have fun sorting through logs that look like:
3-11-2011@19:27 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:31 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:34 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:47 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:58 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@20:06 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@25:04 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
Not a believable impression of a TD troll. Next time, try making insinuations about what Mike really believes (make sure to use his statements out of context and stretch the meaning of any individual word way past its maximum limit), and add in some leading questions that can't be answered without confirming wrongdoing ("When are you going to stop supporting piracy?). Alse, I believe the accepted resident troll opening is "LOL!", not "Hahahaha", so you're close, but no cigar there.
You did use the word FUD, though, so you get a D- instead of an F.
So protections for US citizens demand a "sober second thought" that requires a hold from an anonymous senator to kill the bill, but they haven't found time in 10 years to take a second look at the Patriot Act.
Copyright doesn't exist to protect "brands"; trademark does. Using copyright as a legal bludgeon against people in order to control your "image" is a horrendous abuse of the system.
Nope, nor do they need to. That's not how it works. All they have to prove is that SOMEBODY committed a crime and he helped them do it.
That was what I was getting at, actually. Not really "charged" I guess, but there would have to be a showing that some crime was at least committed, as you later note.
Ever since the NET Act, it can still be criminal even if it's not commercial.
What differentiates criminal infringement from non-criminal infringement?
To be convicted of aiding and abetting, it has to be proved that someone else committed a crime.
So my next question is, who was proved to have committed a crime here?
I'll ask again, since I don't think I got an answer on the last story: Has anyone been charged with a crime for him to have allegedly aided and abetted?
For example, if the people he were linking to were distributing the material without any financial gain, they wouldn't be criminally liable (only civilly) for copyright infringement, correct? And if their violation was not criminal, can aiding and abetting that civil violation be criminal in turn?
Is it possible to criminally aid and abet a civil infraction? Honest question.
Re: The police record you with both video and audio...
No, no, no. They only do record you so they can whip out the video in court when it supports their story. If you record them, how is the tape going to "mysteriously disappear" when it doesn't?
The line is only "fuzzy" if you willfully ignore the original intent of the amendment, which was to guarantee the right of citizens to own the standard weapons that an average member of the infantry would carry.
So rifles are in, but I'm not certain how many soldiers carry ICBMs strapped to their backs.
Is a former President not allowed an opinion, or would that only be for former Presidents that support Assange?
Err, did Mike actually say that? Or even imply that? In fact, he said:
To be honest, I'm not sure that Bush's comments will really have that much weight here. We've already seen tons of politicians make similar claims. It's clear: US politicians, for the most part, are not fans of Assange. But is that really going to change anyone's opinion of Assange and/or Wikileaks?
Furthermore, if he was really pulling for Assange, and he thought that Bush's statement would hurt Assange's case, why would he purposefully increase the chance that people will see Bush's comments by posting the story at all? This is the guy who came up with the term Streisand Effect, after all.
On the post: France Goes Overboard In Data Retention: Wants User Passwords Retained
Re:
It is rapidly reaching the point that I am considering the last two as self protection
Indeed. I have an older machine sitting about, and my current plan is to craft it into a "secure" desktop running a hardened version of Linux, with full disk encryption, TOR, and a bevy of other offerings both large and small to make tracking a virtual impossibility.
Should be a fun project.
On the post: Another Attempt To Make TSA Searches Open To Sex Offender Charges
Only in the USA
Makes sense.
On the post: France Goes Overboard In Data Retention: Wants User Passwords Retained
Yeah, Sure
After people get wind of this, I hope they have fun sorting through logs that look like:
3-11-2011@19:27 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:31 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:34 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:47 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@19:58 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@20:06 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
3-11-2011@25:04 - XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX - Connection To: YYY.YYY.YYY.YYY (Tor Gateway Node)
On the post: Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
Re: Re: Re:
You claim that this is "very basic". Explain.
On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship
Re: Masnick gets bitch slapped!
Not a believable impression of a TD troll. Next time, try making insinuations about what Mike really believes (make sure to use his statements out of context and stretch the meaning of any individual word way past its maximum limit), and add in some leading questions that can't be answered without confirming wrongdoing ("When are you going to stop supporting piracy?). Alse, I believe the accepted resident troll opening is "LOL!", not "Hahahaha", so you're close, but no cigar there.
You did use the word FUD, though, so you get a D- instead of an F.
On the post: Down To Just 3 Senators Who Refuse To Say If They Anonymously Killed Whistleblower Bill
Re:
Funny how that works.
On the post: For Lady Gaga, Copyright Not About Music, But Her Image
Re: Re: Re: responding to Crhis
You'll note that I never said differently. There are all kinds of legal actions a person might take that would still make them a shitty person.
On the post: For Lady Gaga, Copyright Not About Music, But Her Image
Re:
Copyright doesn't exist to protect "brands"; trademark does. Using copyright as a legal bludgeon against people in order to control your "image" is a horrendous abuse of the system.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
Nope, nor do they need to. That's not how it works. All they have to prove is that SOMEBODY committed a crime and he helped them do it.
That was what I was getting at, actually. Not really "charged" I guess, but there would have to be a showing that some crime was at least committed, as you later note.
Ever since the NET Act, it can still be criminal even if it's not commercial.
What differentiates criminal infringement from non-criminal infringement?
To be convicted of aiding and abetting, it has to be proved that someone else committed a crime.
So my next question is, who was proved to have committed a crime here?
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
I'll ask again, since I don't think I got an answer on the last story: Has anyone been charged with a crime for him to have allegedly aided and abetted?
For example, if the people he were linking to were distributing the material without any financial gain, they wouldn't be criminally liable (only civilly) for copyright infringement, correct? And if their violation was not criminal, can aiding and abetting that civil violation be criminal in turn?
Is it possible to criminally aid and abet a civil infraction? Honest question.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re:
I think you have Mike confused with me.
On the post: New Hampshire Police Charge Man With 'Wiretapping' Because He Made A Phone Call During Traffic Stop
Re:
I was confused by the wording too.
On the post: New Hampshire Police Charge Man With 'Wiretapping' Because He Made A Phone Call During Traffic Stop
Re: The police record you with both video and audio...
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would you stop at the title and not look at the content? If the complete post was:
Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
No, not at all, despite what Mr. Dershowitz says.
Would you make the same argument? Would you "stop at the title?" And if so, why is that an intellectually honest choice?
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re: Re: Re:
Again, I ask: where did this happen. Time to put up or shut up.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So rifles are in, but I'm not certain how many soldiers carry ICBMs strapped to their backs.
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re:
Err, did Mike actually say that? Or even imply that? In fact, he said:
To be honest, I'm not sure that Bush's comments will really have that much weight here. We've already seen tons of politicians make similar claims. It's clear: US politicians, for the most part, are not fans of Assange. But is that really going to change anyone's opinion of Assange and/or Wikileaks?
Furthermore, if he was really pulling for Assange, and he thought that Bush's statement would hurt Assange's case, why would he purposefully increase the chance that people will see Bush's comments by posting the story at all? This is the guy who came up with the term Streisand Effect, after all.
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Re: Even people we don't like have First Amendment rights
Besides, has he even been charged with anything yet?
Next >>