Even if wikileaks do expunge their copies (verry unlikely, I know) what about the people that have downloaded or copied the information from wikileaks.
that's the point. it's impossible to get the documents back and removed from the internet, so this pentagon request is abject nonsense.
Controlling what's published is a key source of the state's power. That's why Queen Anne was persuaded to enact Copyright in 1709, and why the US copied her statute in 1790. And this is why ACTA will represent a reprise of the state's attempt to enforce global control over what information may be communicated to (and now by) the public.
but publishing has changed drastically since then... technology lets anyone with the proper tools to put just about anything online, with almost complete secrecy and anonymity, while mirroring and peer to peer exchange virtually guarantee longevity for sensitive releases. in fact, the only real danger a document faces on the internet is obscurity. that's why the pentagon's saber rattling is so detrimental to its cause. lashing out at wikileaks just makes it stronger by legitimizing its cause and attracting attention to it.
also, unless this "corporate state" of yours is ready to invade the other states that serve as havens to leakers and file sharers, there really isn't much that can be done to stop the dissemination of materials. the groundwork has been and is being laid those who are building the tools and practices for unauthorized and illegal distribution of digital materials.
We are in a civil cyberwar and no-one's noticed. It's corporate state vs the people, and a lot of the latter don't know which side they are or should be on.
i think that it's more of a low grade insurgency. the insurgents in this case being the distributed and informal conspiracy of certain activists, hackers, and pirates who seek to subvert corporatism and corporate influence on global super-powers.
it's not a true insurgency, however. at least not according to the accepted definition of an insurgency. the tactics are vastly different, and so too is the intent.
i suppose that one could construe the unauthorized dissemination and distribution of corporate and government materials as an act of terrorism. terrorism is considered to be the hallmark of an actual insurgency. however, that would certainly require liberal application of some seriously tortured logic.
i do not think that any activist group wants to actually overthrow any corporation or government, but instead to reign in the abuse of power and the spread of corporate sponsored corruption. the fact that there is no agency among these activist groups is a pretty clear indicator of that.
or is there some Third Way you think could actually be effective?
you mean like competition?
i happen to be a fairly strong proponent for net neutrality, but the whole thing would be a non-starter if there was increased competition in the market.
government regulation is a necessary evil. it is necessary due to the market failures that make the telco's shenanigans possible in the first place. it is evil because the government can't do anything right and pretty much always abdicates to lobbyists.
I do remember trailers in Movie Theatres against cable, which they referred to as pay tv. I think it started out with something like, "Do not let a money crunching monster into your home..."
The SSL cert link on the bottom is an affiliate link, which no serious company would dabble in.
i found it suspicious that the website for a group that monitors internet traffic is HTTPS (presumably to prevent monitoring/sniffing) and that you have to sign up for an account to read anything other than their PR stuff.
I still think it's a little weird to argue that going to a movie is a "social" experience. Sitting in a dark room being still, not talking or moving and staring straight ahead for 2 hours is not terribly social.
going to the movies can be part of "a night out" the way that sugary cereals are part of a nutritious breakfast.
theaters ought to focus on making films more accessible to the "night out". getting 4 adult humans in and out of a restaurant before a showtime is a total pain, and finding a decent place that is still open after a movie is equally painful.
i'd love to go to a place where dinner is served during the show, like they do at cabaret clubs in some casinos and cruise ships, with intermissions and the whole bit.
IP law tends to increase income inequality because it is effectively a privately levied tax for the benefit of a few rich individuals.
i think this particular issue is more basic than the evils of ip laws. it's a question of the US being able to continue in the manner to which its people and government have become accustomed.
not making things domestically is a big deal for the sustainability of this country.
IP law is one of the reasons why US/European production can't compete with China.
again, this is a much larger issue than IP law. china didn't come in and steal our manufacturing sector, we paid them to take it off our hands.
we entered into an agreement that china isn't going to honor. and the problem won't remain confined to china. there is also brazil, india, and russia in the near future, and god know who else after that.
i caught this little tidbit from "rip: a remix manifesto":
“Maybe we should have forgotten intellectual property rights internationally,” says Bruce Lehman, U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property for President Clinton, in the recent documentary Rip! A Remix Manifesto, “and gone for labor standards and the environment.”
(i go the quote from here but the article is only slightly relevant)
you can hand wave and finger point all you want about ip law, but the fact of the matter is that not enough gets made in the US anymore. making stuff is how you solve the jobs problem, the economy problem... just about every problem, really.
sure you can "design by apple in california" but the real way to help the US compete is to push the rest of the world to adopt laws that bring them up to the same level as the US when it comes to manufacturing, like labor and environmental standards, and not intellectual property law, which honestly is an attempt to regulate something that simply cannot be regulated. that way overseas manufacturing competes with american manufacturing on a level playing field, and some of that manufacturing will come back to the US.
While I don't doubt that the lawsuits have been ineffective, the fact that file sharing has increased does not conclusively prove the law suits to be a waste of time. It's entirely possible that the law suits reduced the growth of file sharing,
it's also entirely possible that these lawsuits prevented another terrorist attack on new york city. after all, piracy supports terrorism and these lawsuits are an obvious deterrent to both piracy and terrorism.
you should also note that both steve jobs and lance armstrong did not die from cancer. it is entirely possible that these lawsuits stopped the spread of cancer in both of these cases.
while it might be a coincidence, i think it's also entirely possible that these lawsuits helped the united states to elect it's first black president.
so i ask you, isn't $17.6 million a small price to pay to put an end to racism, cancer, and international terrorism?
On the post: Pentagon Demands Wikileaks 'Returns' Leaked Documents; Does It Not Know How Digital Documents Work?
Re: What about non wikileaks copies?
that's the point. it's impossible to get the documents back and removed from the internet, so this pentagon request is abject nonsense.
On the post: Pentagon Demands Wikileaks 'Returns' Leaked Documents; Does It Not Know How Digital Documents Work?
Re: Re: Re: Loose tongues
but publishing has changed drastically since then... technology lets anyone with the proper tools to put just about anything online, with almost complete secrecy and anonymity, while mirroring and peer to peer exchange virtually guarantee longevity for sensitive releases. in fact, the only real danger a document faces on the internet is obscurity. that's why the pentagon's saber rattling is so detrimental to its cause. lashing out at wikileaks just makes it stronger by legitimizing its cause and attracting attention to it.
also, unless this "corporate state" of yours is ready to invade the other states that serve as havens to leakers and file sharers, there really isn't much that can be done to stop the dissemination of materials. the groundwork has been and is being laid those who are building the tools and practices for unauthorized and illegal distribution of digital materials.
We are in a civil cyberwar and no-one's noticed. It's corporate state vs the people, and a lot of the latter don't know which side they are or should be on.
i think that it's more of a low grade insurgency. the insurgents in this case being the distributed and informal conspiracy of certain activists, hackers, and pirates who seek to subvert corporatism and corporate influence on global super-powers.
it's not a true insurgency, however. at least not according to the accepted definition of an insurgency. the tactics are vastly different, and so too is the intent.
i suppose that one could construe the unauthorized dissemination and distribution of corporate and government materials as an act of terrorism. terrorism is considered to be the hallmark of an actual insurgency. however, that would certainly require liberal application of some seriously tortured logic.
i do not think that any activist group wants to actually overthrow any corporation or government, but instead to reign in the abuse of power and the spread of corporate sponsored corruption. the fact that there is no agency among these activist groups is a pretty clear indicator of that.
On the post: Latest Attempt To Create Federal Journalism Shield Law May Carve Wikileaks Out Of The Protections
this actually makes wikileaks happy
US senators try to gut shield bill; great! All the more leaks for us and Iceland http://nyti.ms/96bjh1 http://bit.ly/dh8bx6
wikileaks' purpose is to upset governments. political rants, grandstanding, and dubious law passing plays directly into their hands.
On the post: Google, Verizon Compromise On Net Neutrality
Re: Will Anything Make You Happy?
you mean like competition?
i happen to be a fairly strong proponent for net neutrality, but the whole thing would be a non-starter if there was increased competition in the market.
government regulation is a necessary evil. it is necessary due to the market failures that make the telco's shenanigans possible in the first place. it is evil because the government can't do anything right and pretty much always abdicates to lobbyists.
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Re: Re: Re:
convenience mostly. convenience is a scarce, salable commodity.
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re: Cable
like this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIgZHZpiq1U
the materials may have been discarded so there is not a historical record.
thank god we have unauthorized copying today to fix that problem.
On the post: Is Project Vigilant A Hoax?
Re:
i found it suspicious that the website for a group that monitors internet traffic is HTTPS (presumably to prevent monitoring/sniffing) and that you have to sign up for an account to read anything other than their PR stuff.
On the post: Theater Owner Begs Hollywood Not To Give Consumers What They Want
Re:
going to the movies can be part of "a night out" the way that sugary cereals are part of a nutritious breakfast.
theaters ought to focus on making films more accessible to the "night out". getting 4 adult humans in and out of a restaurant before a showtime is a total pain, and finding a decent place that is still open after a movie is equally painful.
i'd love to go to a place where dinner is served during the show, like they do at cabaret clubs in some casinos and cruise ships, with intermissions and the whole bit.
On the post: Surprising New DMCA Exceptions: Jailbreaking Smartphones, Noncommercial Videos Somewhat Allowed
Re: This is the one that surprised me ...
listen to something read by jim dale. that market is perfectly safe.
On the post: IP Czar: Blame China! Congress: Do Something!
Re: Re: why not push china on something else?
i think this particular issue is more basic than the evils of ip laws. it's a question of the US being able to continue in the manner to which its people and government have become accustomed.
not making things domestically is a big deal for the sustainability of this country.
IP law is one of the reasons why US/European production can't compete with China.
again, this is a much larger issue than IP law. china didn't come in and steal our manufacturing sector, we paid them to take it off our hands.
we entered into an agreement that china isn't going to honor. and the problem won't remain confined to china. there is also brazil, india, and russia in the near future, and god know who else after that.
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
Re: It's not as if
the charity version is raising money. that mean the charity might have money to pay for rights.
On the post: More Porn Companies Filing Mass Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: Funny ....
beers, steers, and queers: cowboys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPVC8Y4aJdc&feature=PlayList&p=DC8688DAF049DDA9& playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
On the post: IP Czar: Blame China! Congress: Do Something!
why not push china on something else?
“Maybe we should have forgotten intellectual property rights internationally,” says Bruce Lehman, U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property for President Clinton, in the recent documentary Rip! A Remix Manifesto, “and gone for labor standards and the environment.”
(i go the quote from here but the article is only slightly relevant)
you can hand wave and finger point all you want about ip law, but the fact of the matter is that not enough gets made in the US anymore. making stuff is how you solve the jobs problem, the economy problem... just about every problem, really.
sure you can "design by apple in california" but the real way to help the US compete is to push the rest of the world to adopt laws that bring them up to the same level as the US when it comes to manufacturing, like labor and environmental standards, and not intellectual property law, which honestly is an attempt to regulate something that simply cannot be regulated. that way overseas manufacturing competes with american manufacturing on a level playing field, and some of that manufacturing will come back to the US.
On the post: Don't Dismiss Musicians Who Forge Their Own Path
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Motorola Does Openness Wrong; Bricks Your Droid X If You Tamper
Re: Why...
that's the thing. it will be easy once the right hacker takes up the challenge. once that happens, where does this leave motorola?
On the post: If Negotiators Still Don't Want To Release ACTA, It'll Still Get Leaked
Re: Re: Re: What should we do?
it's a big list.
On the post: YouTube's Three Strikes Rule Hits Again; Dance Company Has Over 300 Videos Taken Down
But lots of videos AREN'T being taken down
On the post: Peter Jenner Admits That Stopping File Sharing Is Impossible
Re: One hurdle
that's a lot of porn. aren't you worried about going blind?
On the post: If Negotiators Still Don't Want To Release ACTA, It'll Still Get Leaked
Re: What should we do?
you could write a letter to the whitehouse:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/action/whitehouse_acta
On the post: RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
it's also entirely possible that these lawsuits prevented another terrorist attack on new york city. after all, piracy supports terrorism and these lawsuits are an obvious deterrent to both piracy and terrorism.
you should also note that both steve jobs and lance armstrong did not die from cancer. it is entirely possible that these lawsuits stopped the spread of cancer in both of these cases.
while it might be a coincidence, i think it's also entirely possible that these lawsuits helped the united states to elect it's first black president.
so i ask you, isn't $17.6 million a small price to pay to put an end to racism, cancer, and international terrorism?
Next >>