The government can compel you to hand over documents, but if those physical documents are written in a language that no one can read, can they compel you to translate the documents as well? This is how I see the situation and I'm not convinced they should be allowed to compel decryption. How would it be any different if I created my own code language and used that to write all my documents in, whether they be physical pieces of paper or files on a hard drive?
I agree with my fellow critics above, but still I'll give this trolling an 8/10 simply for the giant vampire squid reference! It's creativity like that that will save the content industry...
Now I'm off to copyright that phrase and put it on t-shirts. Thanx again!
I see your point, but there are plenty of people who may have deleted their content after uploading to MU as an offsite backup. Those people's data are gone (at least for the time being). If the locker had the only copy, then the situation isn't much different from a physical seizure.
I think the main point is that there are plenty of legitimate users who have had their distribution platform removed, their legitimate revenue source cut off, their method of legal long distance sharing shut down, and quite possibly their property confiscated based on what was done by a few bad actors. While there may have been substantial illegitimate uses going on within MU, the government's actions in this case seem disproportionate to the point of prejudicial overkill.
While comparing physical property to imaginary property in an analogy can be difficult, in this case his analogy was apt. He was using the cyberlocker in the same way he would use a physical storage locker. It was a place for him to keep his stuff. He wasn't passing the keys around to his unit but when the feds came in and seized the entire lot because of the drug grower next store, he lost access to his stuff just the same.
The analogy isn't perfect when you talk about sharing the locker with others on the internet but it was much better than the totally clueless comparison given by the original AC that is being responded to.
Depending on how someone was using a cyberlocker, there could be many useful analogies, and Kingster's was accurate based on his stated purpose.
Another analogy could be for people who need to share legitimate large files over a great distance. This would be akin to sending someone a package via Fedex only to have the service shutdown mid-transit because someone else used Fedex to ship drugs cross country and your legitimate content confiscated.
Yet another analogy could be for artists using the cyberlocker as a legitimate distribution source for their music or video endeavors. This would be like having a store in a mall and having it and all your merchandise confiscated because some other store in the mall was selling counterfeit goods.
There are plenty of legitimate comparisons to this situation between the digital and physical world. It just takes a moment to think it through to make sure the analogy is secure. The original AC didn't do that, and I suspect he/she/it is incapable of such critical thought.
It's possible, but more likely just an anomaly as was stated that may have been shown by allowing him a second scan as he requested.
I disagree about your "manning up and taking the pat down" position like "every other citizen" would. There are plenty of people out there that would take great offense at being a) treated like a criminal and b) groped intrusively by a stranger. Would you want your daughter or grandmother to be violated in that manner for doing nothing wrong? The TSA is out of control, and I find it difficult to understand or respect those who support their efforts. So far they have contributed absolutely nothing to the security of this country.
Personally, I have a problem with the scanners and would opt for the pat down right off the bat. The scanners amount to pornography, and no one is taking nudie pics of me without the proper compensation. The pat down on the other hand is like a free groping, and I would do everything in my power to become aroused and make the situation as awkward as possible for the TSA agent! :0
Brilliant... instead of suing your potential customers, now we'll indict the actual content creators so they are locked up and can't make new content. I think the RIAA has finally found a winning strategy in combating piracy! Since they can't stop people from downloading, they'll just lock up all the artists so there is no new content to be infringed upon. How did they not figure this one out sooner? Problem solved!
This is an interesting interpretation, but I don't think it applies to MegaUpload. The first thing we need to look at is the purpose of a cyberlocker. This is a service where anyone can upload a file and then download it after. The only person that gets a link to the location of the content is the uploader. Now the uploader can keep this link to himself (as for the purpose of personal backup), he can share the link with specific individuals (as for the purpose of sharing a file with friends or coworkers), or he can post the link for all to see (as for the purpose of making the file public). It's important to understand this basic setup of the service before trying to apply the court's interpretation in the Perfect 10 case. No one has the ability to search the site for specific content... not the public, not the rightsholders, and not even the uploader himself. This would not constitute "actively preventing copyright holders from locating information required to file a DMCA notice". The purpose of the site is agnostic to the content uploaded, and the uploader has the full discretion over who can access their uploaded content. Rightsholders are not prevented from locating their content, they just have to do it the same way everyone else that was downloading found it, which means finding it's location somewhere else.
Awwww... you're so cute when you get your panties all bunched up like that. Do me a quick favor and go back and actually read the article... I'll wait...
Ok, great. Now that you've actually read it you must see that there is no apology for piracy, that Mike states he will not be surprised if the defendants are found guilty, and that he actually only raises legitimate concerns about some of the things that are being presented as evidence.
Did you want to want to discuss the merits of Mike's position on the questionable nature of some of the evidence presented? If so, I'd be happy to engage you in the debate. If not, you're in the wrong room... We all paid for arguments in this clinic. Abuse is down the hall.
Whatever. The only thing this protest did was to really piss off creators/content producers, and reality check them into an awareness of how a greedy tech industry will go to the gutter to protect their parasitic business model.
+1 Funny... You are making a joke, right?
Let me bring it back to reality for you...
Awesome! The main thing this protest did was to really piss off the American public/content consumers into an awareness of how greedy and entitled the content industry is will go to their wallets to pass draconian and unjustifiable legislation to protect their out of date and parasitic business model!
I think it's great that piracy is becoming more of a national issue and out in the spotlight as well. Each new person that becomes aware of these issues will be one less person that will buy into the industry's lies that there is an economic impact or job losses at stake. The bigger the issue becomes, the more truth will come out. The industry's position has been 100% been based on misinformation and distorted statistics that cannot be backed up. The greater the awareness of the issue will be directly translated into less support for the industry and more outcry against not only the ridiculously poor legislation trying to get passed, but hopefully also against the existing draconian terms and provisions the industry has managed to purchase thus far. The MAFIAA is only helping to speed up their inevitable demise, and the sooner the better!
Thing is, on this blog, with the known exception of averagejoe, the folks who most ardently support these half-baked ideas of legislation are (I suspect) apologists for the entertainment industry. Either that or they are trolls.
Why does it have to be one or the other? In fact I think the list of descriptions is by no means limited to those two things...
We have:
entertainment industry apologists
trolls
But let's not forget:
willfully ignorant
intellectually dishonest
shill
paid shill
IP maximalist
troglodyte
mongoloid
And we can throw a few more in for fun:
paytard
fascist
scientologist
unbathed
wife beater
Reminds me of madlibs...
Thing is, on this blog, with the known exception of averagejoe, the folks who most ardently support these half-baked ideas of legislation are (I suspect) paytard, mongoloid apologists for the intellectually dishonest, IP maximalist industry. Either that or they are willfully ignorant, wife beating, fascist trolls. Or all of the above!
To use the example provided by the AC with regards to the telephone number, the difference between seizures and blocking is easy to see.
You have a telephone number that is listed in the yellowpages. When someone looks up this number and dials it, your phone rings. DNS blocking essentially delists your phone number from the yellowpages. If someone knows the number they can still still dial it and your phone will ring. DNS blocking doesn't take away your website and anyone can still access if they know the direct dial. Domain seizure on the other hand means that when someone dials your number, your phone no longer rings and someone else's does (like the police station). You no longer have the domain name and when someone tries to access it they get a message from the new owner (in recent cases it has been an ICE banner).
Is that the type of clarification you're looking for? I tried to make it simple enough that even a congressman could understand :P
Agreed. I laugh every time I go over to a friend's house and flip through 400 channels only to find there's nothing worth watching. If I was paying 50-100 bucks a month for that, I'd be a very bitter person!
Domain seizure isn't the same thing as DNS blocking. Domain seizure is what ICE did with certain websites, except in your above examples there was actually a court order and due process.
There is a big difference between consulting every citizen and being held accountable to the citizens you represent. You don't need to ask every single person to understand that what you are supporting is representative of what they feel should or should not happen. Being that you are the king of intellectual dishonesty it may be hard to fathom that some people actually believe their governments should act in their best interests and represent the will of the people, but it's true.
Having a bad day? Your ad-homs and strawmen are particularly weak this evening?
I agree that copyright needs some serious reform and also hope that these recent events will motivate a combined political effort to push said reform. That being said, I'm not going to hold my breath. People no longer have a voice when it comes to policy making and legislation. Our elected "representatives" are bought and paid for by the lobbying industry. I truly believe that the first step to any meaningful political reform is to abolish lobbying and let it go back to good old fashioned "envelope-under-the-table" bribes. At least then when you got caught there was a scandal and penalties.
To address your points:
1. This is absolutely necessary. Copyfraud claims should be punished by the maximum penalty for infringement at a bare minimum. If anything it should be on an order of magnitude since those bringing the false claims are the only ones that truly have the ability to know if the claim is legit or not.
2. 100% agreed! Anyone using a fair use argument should not have to prove the use is fair. Those registering the complaint should have to prove the use is not fair. PERIOD!
3. I don['t know if I could agree with this one since the job loss to all of the report preparers would be astronomical and where else would we get relevant statistical information to base policy creation on? /s
4. Agreed, although they still might be too long.
5. This I couldn't agree more with! Any public official should be representing the public's interests. Copyright was implemented so that the creator could exclusively profit from the work for a limited time before it was turned over to the public. Making sure this bargain is honored and material is increasing the public domain should be priority one for anyone in this position!
As SOPA is drafted at present, no thinking person could possibly support it.
Only January 3rd, and we might already have the understatement of the year. But, in SOPA's defense, currently there are no thinking people that support it. We have lobbyists that do the bidding of their masters... There's the Senators and Congressmen bought by these lobbyists and told what to think... And finally there's the MAFIAA who own the lobbyists and crafted the legislation. The backlash that has happened so far is proof that they clearly have not thought about the long term effects of ever trying to expand their draconian reach and keep from ever having to adapt. Nope, not a single thinking person in the lot!
As far as all the whining about "censorship" goes, tell me this: How exactly is SOPA censorship? I posted a couple days ago about how there's a broad and a narrow defintion of censorship. Not sure if you saw it.
We all saw, and the example was just as flawed then as it is now.
Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has...
Let's get one point out right off the bat... this narrow vs broad definition argument you are using is yours alone. This is not a commonly acknowledged distinction, so please do not try to present this as something that everyone knows and that Mike is (insert whatever insult you're slinging today here). Censorship means the government restricting/ceasing speech, and that is THE definition. SOPA is censorship by the actual definition no matter how you'd like to narrow YOUR definition to suit your argument.
Not that we've gotten that point clear, let's address your actual example. You are saying that there is a difference between "broad" and "narrow" censorship. You use the example of a city noise ordinance law as a form of censorship in that it prohibits you from saying that which you would otherwise be able to say unless its decibel level remains within a predetermined threshold. I would disagree with you that this is censorship because it does not restrict what you can say, only how loudly you can say it. You can stand on your soapbox and say all of the positive or negative things about same-sex marriage that you would like, and as long as you don't violate other laws (not pertaining to the content of speech) no one can stop this speech. Censorship is the restraint of speech and city ordinance laws do not retrain what you can say. They may place restraint on how and when you can say it, but not on the content itself. Essentially your example is not accurate to the situation.
To be clear, censorship is a restraint on speech... and to say it simpler, it is the government saying WHAT you can or cannot say. Laws that potentially effect how, when, or where you can say something are not a true restraint on speech as they do not limit the speech themselves. Dajaz1.com is perfect example of actual censorship. The entire site was removed from the internet for a year with restraint on tons of legitimate and protected speech. This is the true face of censorship that we are worried about with SOPA and past events have shown that the government is willing to do it.
I really don't follow your distinction between this "broad" and "narrow" definition of yours, and your soapbox/noise ordinance example certainly does not support this example. Maybe if you would define censorship in general, I'd have better understanding of this distinction. The common definition of censorship put in layman's terms is when the government removes or blocks speech from the public. Your soapbox example doesn't address the restraint of speech. As I stated above, the noise ordinance does not place any restraint on the speech as it is totally agnostic to the content. Simply put, it says that no speech may occur above this decibel level after that hour of the day. Comparing this example to Mike's opinion that SOPA (which does have the ability to retrain speech) is censorship (whether you want to use your "broad" or "narrow" distinction is fallacious and a false comparison. SOPA has the ability to remove speech and that meets any definition of censorship that you can come up with... PERIOD. Abrahams himself admitted that SOPA WILL result in first amendment violations, he just didn't care about those instances (most likely because he was being paid not to care IMHO).
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops"
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re:
On the post: Movie Theaters' Top Lobbyist Resorts To Making Up Facts Concerning SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re:
Now I'm off to copyright that phrase and put it on t-shirts. Thanx again!
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Destroys The Rationale Behind The Megaupload Seizure With A Single Tweet; Follows Up With Epic Blog Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the main point is that there are plenty of legitimate users who have had their distribution platform removed, their legitimate revenue source cut off, their method of legal long distance sharing shut down, and quite possibly their property confiscated based on what was done by a few bad actors. While there may have been substantial illegitimate uses going on within MU, the government's actions in this case seem disproportionate to the point of prejudicial overkill.
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Destroys The Rationale Behind The Megaupload Seizure With A Single Tweet; Follows Up With Epic Blog Post
Re: Re: Re:
The analogy isn't perfect when you talk about sharing the locker with others on the internet but it was much better than the totally clueless comparison given by the original AC that is being responded to.
Depending on how someone was using a cyberlocker, there could be many useful analogies, and Kingster's was accurate based on his stated purpose.
Another analogy could be for people who need to share legitimate large files over a great distance. This would be akin to sending someone a package via Fedex only to have the service shutdown mid-transit because someone else used Fedex to ship drugs cross country and your legitimate content confiscated.
Yet another analogy could be for artists using the cyberlocker as a legitimate distribution source for their music or video endeavors. This would be like having a store in a mall and having it and all your merchandise confiscated because some other store in the mall was selling counterfeit goods.
There are plenty of legitimate comparisons to this situation between the digital and physical world. It just takes a moment to think it through to make sure the analogy is secure. The original AC didn't do that, and I suspect he/she/it is incapable of such critical thought.
On the post: TSA Critic, Senator Rand Paul, Prevented By TSA From Getting On His Flight To DC
Re: Re: Re:
I disagree about your "manning up and taking the pat down" position like "every other citizen" would. There are plenty of people out there that would take great offense at being a) treated like a criminal and b) groped intrusively by a stranger. Would you want your daughter or grandmother to be violated in that manner for doing nothing wrong? The TSA is out of control, and I find it difficult to understand or respect those who support their efforts. So far they have contributed absolutely nothing to the security of this country.
Personally, I have a problem with the scanners and would opt for the pat down right off the bat. The scanners amount to pornography, and no one is taking nudie pics of me without the proper compensation. The pat down on the other hand is like a free groping, and I would do everything in my power to become aroused and make the situation as awkward as possible for the TSA agent! :0
On the post: Busta Rhymes Backs Megaupload, Says Record Labels Are The Real Criminals
Re:
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re:
On the post: Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior
Re:
Ok, great. Now that you've actually read it you must see that there is no apology for piracy, that Mike states he will not be surprised if the defendants are found guilty, and that he actually only raises legitimate concerns about some of the things that are being presented as evidence.
Did you want to want to discuss the merits of Mike's position on the questionable nature of some of the evidence presented? If so, I'd be happy to engage you in the debate. If not, you're in the wrong room... We all paid for arguments in this clinic. Abuse is down the hall.
On the post: 8 Million People Looked Up Their Elected Officials' Contact Info During Wikipedia Blackout
Re: Re: Politics
+1 Funny... You are making a joke, right?
Let me bring it back to reality for you...
Awesome! The main thing this protest did was to really piss off the American public/content consumers into an awareness of how greedy and entitled the content industry is will go to their wallets to pass draconian and unjustifiable legislation to protect their out of date and parasitic business model!
FTFY :D
On the post: 8 Million People Looked Up Their Elected Officials' Contact Info During Wikipedia Blackout
Re:
On the post: Yet More Collateral Damage From SOPA/PIPA: Activism Through Satire
Re: Re:
On the post: Apparently, Someone Forgot To Tell Reality That The Entertainment Industry Was Dying
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why does it have to be one or the other? In fact I think the list of descriptions is by no means limited to those two things...
We have:
entertainment industry apologists
trolls
But let's not forget:
willfully ignorant
intellectually dishonest
shill
paid shill
IP maximalist
troglodyte
mongoloid
And we can throw a few more in for fun:
paytard
fascist
scientologist
unbathed
wife beater
Reminds me of madlibs...
Thing is, on this blog, with the known exception of averagejoe, the folks who most ardently support these half-baked ideas of legislation are (I suspect) paytard, mongoloid apologists for the intellectually dishonest, IP maximalist industry. Either that or they are willfully ignorant, wife beating, fascist trolls. Or all of the above!
FTFY :D
On the post: Android App Helps You Avoid Supporting SOPA Supporting Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have a telephone number that is listed in the yellowpages. When someone looks up this number and dials it, your phone rings. DNS blocking essentially delists your phone number from the yellowpages. If someone knows the number they can still still dial it and your phone will ring. DNS blocking doesn't take away your website and anyone can still access if they know the direct dial. Domain seizure on the other hand means that when someone dials your number, your phone no longer rings and someone else's does (like the police station). You no longer have the domain name and when someone tries to access it they get a message from the new owner (in recent cases it has been an ICE banner).
Is that the type of clarification you're looking for? I tried to make it simple enough that even a congressman could understand :P
On the post: Lamar Smith's Head-In-Sand Approach To SOPA Critics Inspires 'Lamar Smith Can't Hear You' Anti-Campaign Poster
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Android App Helps You Avoid Supporting SOPA Supporting Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US State Dept: Don't Censor The Internet! Unless We Order You To, As We Did In Spain...
Re: Re: Re:
Having a bad day? Your ad-homs and strawmen are particularly weak this evening?
On the post: It Is Time To Stop Pretending To Endorse The Copyright Monopoly
Re:
To address your points:
1. This is absolutely necessary. Copyfraud claims should be punished by the maximum penalty for infringement at a bare minimum. If anything it should be on an order of magnitude since those bringing the false claims are the only ones that truly have the ability to know if the claim is legit or not.
2. 100% agreed! Anyone using a fair use argument should not have to prove the use is fair. Those registering the complaint should have to prove the use is not fair. PERIOD!
3. I don['t know if I could agree with this one since the job loss to all of the report preparers would be astronomical and where else would we get relevant statistical information to base policy creation on? /s
4. Agreed, although they still might be too long.
5. This I couldn't agree more with! Any public official should be representing the public's interests. Copyright was implemented so that the creator could exclusively profit from the work for a limited time before it was turned over to the public. Making sure this bargain is honored and material is increasing the public domain should be priority one for anyone in this position!
On the post: Another Candidate Campaigning Against SOPA Supporter: Jack Arnold
Only January 3rd, and we might already have the understatement of the year. But, in SOPA's defense, currently there are no thinking people that support it. We have lobbyists that do the bidding of their masters... There's the Senators and Congressmen bought by these lobbyists and told what to think... And finally there's the MAFIAA who own the lobbyists and crafted the legislation. The backlash that has happened so far is proof that they clearly have not thought about the long term effects of ever trying to expand their draconian reach and keep from ever having to adapt. Nope, not a single thinking person in the lot!
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
We all saw, and the example was just as flawed then as it is now.
Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has...
Let's get one point out right off the bat... this narrow vs broad definition argument you are using is yours alone. This is not a commonly acknowledged distinction, so please do not try to present this as something that everyone knows and that Mike is (insert whatever insult you're slinging today here). Censorship means the government restricting/ceasing speech, and that is THE definition. SOPA is censorship by the actual definition no matter how you'd like to narrow YOUR definition to suit your argument.
Not that we've gotten that point clear, let's address your actual example. You are saying that there is a difference between "broad" and "narrow" censorship. You use the example of a city noise ordinance law as a form of censorship in that it prohibits you from saying that which you would otherwise be able to say unless its decibel level remains within a predetermined threshold. I would disagree with you that this is censorship because it does not restrict what you can say, only how loudly you can say it. You can stand on your soapbox and say all of the positive or negative things about same-sex marriage that you would like, and as long as you don't violate other laws (not pertaining to the content of speech) no one can stop this speech. Censorship is the restraint of speech and city ordinance laws do not retrain what you can say. They may place restraint on how and when you can say it, but not on the content itself. Essentially your example is not accurate to the situation.
To be clear, censorship is a restraint on speech... and to say it simpler, it is the government saying WHAT you can or cannot say. Laws that potentially effect how, when, or where you can say something are not a true restraint on speech as they do not limit the speech themselves. Dajaz1.com is perfect example of actual censorship. The entire site was removed from the internet for a year with restraint on tons of legitimate and protected speech. This is the true face of censorship that we are worried about with SOPA and past events have shown that the government is willing to do it.
I really don't follow your distinction between this "broad" and "narrow" definition of yours, and your soapbox/noise ordinance example certainly does not support this example. Maybe if you would define censorship in general, I'd have better understanding of this distinction. The common definition of censorship put in layman's terms is when the government removes or blocks speech from the public. Your soapbox example doesn't address the restraint of speech. As I stated above, the noise ordinance does not place any restraint on the speech as it is totally agnostic to the content. Simply put, it says that no speech may occur above this decibel level after that hour of the day. Comparing this example to Mike's opinion that SOPA (which does have the ability to retrain speech) is censorship (whether you want to use your "broad" or "narrow" distinction is fallacious and a false comparison. SOPA has the ability to remove speech and that meets any definition of censorship that you can come up with... PERIOD. Abrahams himself admitted that SOPA WILL result in first amendment violations, he just didn't care about those instances (most likely because he was being paid not to care IMHO).
Next >>