Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Jan 2012 @ 2:49pm
Re: Re:
You mean the jobs they want to grant more HB-1 visa's for foriegner's to fill?
There's a few problems with your statement.
First, the implied racism/nationalism aspect.
Next, the other option is for companies to outsource jobs they can't fill here without that process.
Finally, you assume that its a zero-sum game, in that if an American doesn't get that job, there's no other benefits. That's false, as each new job here creates more new jobs for others.
To sum it up: I'd rather hire a qualified person from another country, bring them here on a visa, have that job contribute to our economy here, first from itself, and then as added effects for others here, instead of hiring an ignorant asshole like you that already lives here.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jan 2012 @ 5:48pm
Re: The Offensive
If the Republican leadership had brains they'd ditch the religious conservatives and latch onto the freedom types before it's too late and they lose the whole generation.
Oh geeze, I feel dirty now after realizing there is a way for the Republicans to get my vote, even if its entirely theoretical.
The Democrats tested that the last Presidential cycle, but that seems to have resulted in mass disillusionment.
Yeah, that's what usually happens when you don't follow through on promises to change things and go back to the old corrupt system and even fail using that to get much done.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jan 2012 @ 5:32pm
Re: Re:
I'd find something else to do if I couldn't guarantee a living by selling my works
So there's a law that guarantees your right to make a profit from your work? That must be nice.
Congress apparently can just solve this entire economic issue we're in by writing a law than guarantees everyone in the country a high-paying job, a nice house, and two or more weeks of paid vacation a year. Hey, they could solve the terrorism problem by writing a law that guarantees that no one will ever be hurt by a terrorist! In a week they could solve all problems we've ever thought of by just passing laws! Perfect world here we come!
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 11:58pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Databanks
Now that there's more than the press release available, there's some details (which was what I was asking for). While it seems that 95% of the 72 page indictment is perfectly normal business operations (seriously, pages and pages of how they did deals with server and bandwidth providers or advertising payments), there's some questionable activities. If the DOJ is right (and that's a big if, since they've been wrong so much before), then there are some criminal actions.
Instead of throwing insults, you could have actually pointed out the specifics. Is it so hard to actually back up your position with real facts when you actually have them, or is that a habit you don't want to get in to?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 2:58pm
Re: Re: Databanks
Yes but how about a bank that turns a blind eye to money laundering or some other financial crime?
Did MegaUpload "turn a blind eye" or did they follow the law when they were told their service was being used for specific acts of copyright infringement?
Can you point out a single time that MegaUpload was presented via a DMCA notice with a link to an unauthorized copyrighted file on their server and did not disable the access to that link? Or more pertinent, can the DOJ?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 2:47pm
Re: Re: War
As I have repeatedly stated on Techdirt, I am not a lawyer, nor have ever had any desire to be one. I work in computer security, where facts and data are important, not as a lawyer or lobbyist where they are seen as the enemy. (Apologies to the good lawyers we have around that really do care about facts, but you know as well as I that your profession has a horrible reputation brought about by the scum sucking members of it.)
Are you actually going to address any of the points I made, or just make some pitiful two-bit attempt to insult me?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 2:41pm
Re: Re: Insanity Wolf
The difference is apparently that they're suspected of not following DMCA procedures
Read the press release more carefully. Its the same general knowledge issue that courts have shot down repeatedly. Content companies are expecting that if they tell a hosting company that movie ABC is on their servers and provide one link to it, that the hosting company has to magically make all the links they weren't told about disappear as well.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 2:36pm
Re: Re: Re: time to put a stop to this
Little known fact:
In 1794, Congress narrowly voted against publishing laws in German as well as English. While it likely wouldn't have made German the official language (as English is not either, we have no official language in this country), it is easy enough to see that something like Canada's French speaking population emerging here if history was just a tiny bit different.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 2:27pm
War
Well, it really is a war now. Let's see how this turns out.
On a more productive note...
From the press release:
"Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users."
So offering a search feature that allows anyone to find copyrighted content is providing tools that facilitate infringement, yet not offering a search feature is "manipulating the perception of content available." Are you fucking kidding?
"For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file."
So we're back to the general knowledge of infringement happening on the site argument again? How many courts have to say that it's the copyright holder's responsibility to provide specifics? It sounds like when DMCA notices contained a link to the file, it was disabled, as per the law.
"The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content."
I suppose there's a few ways to interpret that, but how is a well known rewards program that does what it says money laundering? And paying companies to host the infringing content... we'll need some specifics there, but if Mega was just purchasing additional space for what their users uploaded then this makes no sense at all.
Unless the DOJ has some really specific credible evidence, this is going to seriously blow up in their faces.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 6:13am
Re: Re: Re:
You're asking me to prove a negative?
No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to point out the specific language in the bill that clearly defines what a rogue site is, and as long as the sites above do not meet the definition, your point would be valid. For example, there could be a part that says any site that responds to legal DMCA notices are exempt from all of the actions in the bill, and therefore, a site such as Wikipedia that does could not be targeted.
One of us is being intellectually dishonest. News flash: It isn't me.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 9:30pm
Re:
So if shutting down websites isn't the the reason for SOPA and PIPA, then what is it?
Please be specific, and point out the language in the bill that makes it impossible for those bills to be abused and shut down even a single legitimate site.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:08pm
Re: Re: Re:
suggest an alternative
Here's an alternative.
Your corporate overlords in the legacy industries can start offering compelling products and services that people want at prices customers are willing to pay.
Until then, stop corrupting our political process.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2012 @ 11:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
It wouldn't take much to disconnect a few keys players and shatter the web.
This.
I'm not a fan of the "Internet designed to withstand nuclear attack" thing. It makes a good soundbite, but it's not true.
It'd be much more accurate to say "Underlying protocols upon which the internet was based were designed to be decentralized and with easily implemented fallback and redundancy capabilities and could continue to function at some levels even in the event of major global catastrophe." In a perfect world, TCP/IP + BGP + multiple redundant links and paths could survive massive damage and multiple node failure with little impact to the remaining nodes.
But the internet of today is not implemented in an ideal scenario because it has to function in the real world. When a dictator in Libya or Egypt decide to turn off their country's gateways, the rest of the internet keeps going, but their citizens are still screwed. When an undersea cable in the Mediterranean gets cut, we get cascading failures and half of the Mid-East and India loose all or part of their connections. When two backbone providers get into a snit and stop routing each other's traffic, millions of people who have never heard of either of the companies suddenly can't access certain sites. And when one superpower's legislature is overrun with lobbyists from legacy industries, there is a real threat of global consequences from bad laws. All of the above have happened.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jan 2012 @ 9:25am
Re: Re: Re:
I prefer Bad Religion's "Punk Rock Song":
Ten million dollars on a losing campaign
Twenty million starving and writhing in pain
Big strong people unwilling to give
Small in vision and perspective
One in five kids below the poverty line
One population running out of time
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jan 2012 @ 9:12pm
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
Why are researchers still submitting papers to these known-abusive publishers?
In order to be seen as successful in their fields, they need to publish. If they don't publish, they don't get grants for new research, or respect from their peers. The bigger and more respected the journals they publish in, the more well known and respected the researcher becomes.
Unfortunately, the bigger and more respected journals are the bad actors when it comes to onerous copyright terms. If only a few researchers or universities are willing to stop working with the bad actors, they may be committing professional suicide.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 1:11pm
Re: Re: Credit to where credit is due.
But Rick is correct that copyright, as conceived today, is very much unnecessary for this problem of protecting this scarcity.
I would go a little farther, and say that because of the today's copyright industry (created by past and present copyright laws), in some cases, credit is easier to obscure.
Examples:
Let's take the average Pixar movie. Outside of the copyright industry, who really knows who wrote the story behind Toy Story? Who can name even a single animator or modeler behind a character? Sure, the movie as a whole is a team effort, but publicly those individual writers and artists rarely get the credit they deserve. The credit goes to a faceless corporation.
What about the individual songwriters or musicians behind a major RIAA artist such as Lady Gaga or Rihanna? We all know they don't write and compose everything themselves (and if they do, apologies, just insert another performer). All the public credit goes to the performer, and yes, she's an artist herself, but what about the songwriters, composers and musicians behind her?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
There's a few problems with your statement.
First, the implied racism/nationalism aspect.
Next, the other option is for companies to outsource jobs they can't fill here without that process.
Finally, you assume that its a zero-sum game, in that if an American doesn't get that job, there's no other benefits. That's false, as each new job here creates more new jobs for others.
To sum it up: I'd rather hire a qualified person from another country, bring them here on a visa, have that job contribute to our economy here, first from itself, and then as added effects for others here, instead of hiring an ignorant asshole like you that already lives here.
On the post: OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
Re: The Offensive
Oh geeze, I feel dirty now after realizing there is a way for the Republicans to get my vote, even if its entirely theoretical.
The Democrats tested that the last Presidential cycle, but that seems to have resulted in mass disillusionment.
Yeah, that's what usually happens when you don't follow through on promises to change things and go back to the old corrupt system and even fail using that to get much done.
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re: Re:
So there's a law that guarantees your right to make a profit from your work? That must be nice.
Congress apparently can just solve this entire economic issue we're in by writing a law than guarantees everyone in the country a high-paying job, a nice house, and two or more weeks of paid vacation a year. Hey, they could solve the terrorism problem by writing a law that guarantees that no one will ever be hurt by a terrorist! In a week they could solve all problems we've ever thought of by just passing laws! Perfect world here we come!
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re: Re: Re: Entendre
You can flaunt the fact that you are flouting the law.
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Databanks
Instead of throwing insults, you could have actually pointed out the specifics. Is it so hard to actually back up your position with real facts when you actually have them, or is that a habit you don't want to get in to?
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Databanks
Did MegaUpload "turn a blind eye" or did they follow the law when they were told their service was being used for specific acts of copyright infringement?
Can you point out a single time that MegaUpload was presented via a DMCA notice with a link to an unauthorized copyrighted file on their server and did not disable the access to that link? Or more pertinent, can the DOJ?
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: War
Are you actually going to address any of the points I made, or just make some pitiful two-bit attempt to insult me?
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Insanity Wolf
Read the press release more carefully. Its the same general knowledge issue that courts have shot down repeatedly. Content companies are expecting that if they tell a hosting company that movie ABC is on their servers and provide one link to it, that the hosting company has to magically make all the links they weren't told about disappear as well.
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: time to put a stop to this
In 1794, Congress narrowly voted against publishing laws in German as well as English. While it likely wouldn't have made German the official language (as English is not either, we have no official language in this country), it is easy enough to see that something like Canada's French speaking population emerging here if history was just a tiny bit different.
On the post: DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA
War
On a more productive note...
From the press release:
"Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users."
So offering a search feature that allows anyone to find copyrighted content is providing tools that facilitate infringement, yet not offering a search feature is "manipulating the perception of content available." Are you fucking kidding?
"For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file."
So we're back to the general knowledge of infringement happening on the site argument again? How many courts have to say that it's the copyright holder's responsibility to provide specifics? It sounds like when DMCA notices contained a link to the file, it was disabled, as per the law.
"The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content."
I suppose there's a few ways to interpret that, but how is a well known rewards program that does what it says money laundering? And paying companies to host the infringing content... we'll need some specifics there, but if Mega was just purchasing additional space for what their users uploaded then this makes no sense at all.
Unless the DOJ has some really specific credible evidence, this is going to seriously blow up in their faces.
On the post: A Gallery Of The SOPA Blackout Protest Screens.
Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to point out the specific language in the bill that clearly defines what a rogue site is, and as long as the sites above do not meet the definition, your point would be valid. For example, there could be a part that says any site that responds to legal DMCA notices are exempt from all of the actions in the bill, and therefore, a site such as Wikipedia that does could not be targeted.
One of us is being intellectually dishonest. News flash: It isn't me.
On the post: A Gallery Of The SOPA Blackout Protest Screens.
Re:
Please be specific, and point out the language in the bill that makes it impossible for those bills to be abused and shut down even a single legitimate site.
On the post: Disney Refused Invitation From Senator Feinstein To Meet With Tech Companies Over PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Will heads roll?
FTFY
13 years and they still haven't learned.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re:
Here's an alternative.
Your corporate overlords in the legacy industries can start offering compelling products and services that people want at prices customers are willing to pay.
Until then, stop corrupting our political process.
On the post: It's Official: Wikipedia To Go Dark On Wednesday
Re: Re: Re:
So you've thrown in now with the pirates?
Welcome to the fold, comrade.
On the post: Dutch ISPs Told To Block The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
This.
I'm not a fan of the "Internet designed to withstand nuclear attack" thing. It makes a good soundbite, but it's not true.
It'd be much more accurate to say "Underlying protocols upon which the internet was based were designed to be decentralized and with easily implemented fallback and redundancy capabilities and could continue to function at some levels even in the event of major global catastrophe." In a perfect world, TCP/IP + BGP + multiple redundant links and paths could survive massive damage and multiple node failure with little impact to the remaining nodes.
But the internet of today is not implemented in an ideal scenario because it has to function in the real world. When a dictator in Libya or Egypt decide to turn off their country's gateways, the rest of the internet keeps going, but their citizens are still screwed. When an undersea cable in the Mediterranean gets cut, we get cascading failures and half of the Mid-East and India loose all or part of their connections. When two backbone providers get into a snit and stop routing each other's traffic, millions of people who have never heard of either of the companies suddenly can't access certain sites. And when one superpower's legislature is overrun with lobbyists from legacy industries, there is a real threat of global consequences from bad laws. All of the above have happened.
On the post: Android App Helps You Avoid Supporting SOPA Supporting Companies
Re: Re: Re:
Ten million dollars on a losing campaign
Twenty million starving and writhing in pain
Big strong people unwilling to give
Small in vision and perspective
One in five kids below the poverty line
One population running out of time
On the post: Unfortunate: 'Open' Advocate Darrell Issa Sponsoring Bill That Will Close Off Open Access To Gov't Funded Research
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
In order to be seen as successful in their fields, they need to publish. If they don't publish, they don't get grants for new research, or respect from their peers. The bigger and more respected the journals they publish in, the more well known and respected the researcher becomes.
Unfortunately, the bigger and more respected journals are the bad actors when it comes to onerous copyright terms. If only a few researchers or universities are willing to stop working with the bad actors, they may be committing professional suicide.
On the post: It Is Time To Stop Pretending To Endorse The Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: RE Seriously?
If Swedish legislators are not reflecting the social norms of their citizens, they are very bad at their jobs.
On the post: It Is Time To Stop Pretending To Endorse The Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Credit to where credit is due.
I would go a little farther, and say that because of the today's copyright industry (created by past and present copyright laws), in some cases, credit is easier to obscure.
Examples:
Let's take the average Pixar movie. Outside of the copyright industry, who really knows who wrote the story behind Toy Story? Who can name even a single animator or modeler behind a character? Sure, the movie as a whole is a team effort, but publicly those individual writers and artists rarely get the credit they deserve. The credit goes to a faceless corporation.
What about the individual songwriters or musicians behind a major RIAA artist such as Lady Gaga or Rihanna? We all know they don't write and compose everything themselves (and if they do, apologies, just insert another performer). All the public credit goes to the performer, and yes, she's an artist herself, but what about the songwriters, composers and musicians behind her?
Next >>