At the end of the day, if the beneficial owners live and work in the US, they cannot avoid US law.
One of the sites in question was found legal by Spanish courts, hosted in Spain, used almost exclusively by Spanish people. They *did* have a .com address, though.
It is useful to keep in the back of your mind, when discussing the internet, that the world is much bigger than the US. (Disclaimer: I'm an American.)
Isn't the phrase "letter of the law" a form of following the herd? It says that no critical thinking is required-- someone else must have already done that when the law was enacted-- and we should follow blindly what the law says?
I follow the ideals that I agree with. Doesn't everyone?
So I would make the same bet if we can bet over whether or not the seizure of one of the blogs will be deemed legal. If the seizure itself is challenged and at a final level it's deemed legal (i.e., Supreme Court, or at whatever court level this case ends), I'll gladly donate $500 to MusiCares, which is a good charity.
However, if it's deemed that the seizures were not in accordance with the law, then you donate $500 to the EFF.
Yes, we get it. You support this form of censorship. This entire post was not about whether it was right or wrong, it is about the consequences of the (foolish) actions of the US.
Short term, companies will, at least, pick up a few non-US controlled TLDs and at worst, ditching the ICANN controlled one altogether.
Long term, we have to move away from centralized TLDs, so that this tomfoolery is no longer possible.
PS- You have no idea what "property" means, do you?
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Every time some misguided government attempts to place undo control on the internet, thousands of people respond by making that form of control irrelevant.
It's just like when a hacker points out a major flaw with someone's software by publishing the flaw to the world. It is a weakness and needed to be fixed.
It's facebook related, judging by the noise on google. Update your browser, that seems to help. (This includes going to the newest version and/or switching from IE or Opera to a real browser.) :P
In the last 10 years I've had -
38 of my photographs used without my permission (my starting rate for each image would normally be $75)
4 designs used without permission (my design rate for those items at that time was around $150)
1 logo ripped off by a competitor (the original client paid $100 for the logo)
Tell me: Exactly how many times do you feel you should be paid without actually doing any work? You are complaining about being ripped off, but what would *you* call charging people $75 for permission to use a picture you took at one point in the past? I'd call it ripping people off.
I do understand your pain, you used to get paid for something, and now people can simply route around you by pressing Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. It sucks when 4 buttons on a keyboard makes your business model completely irrelevant. Don't lose hope yet, though! You actually have a simple modification to your business model that will make copyright infringement (Note: not theft!) a thing of the past: Make people pay you before you do the work. I know, crazy, right? Sure, you'll lose the ability to keep getting paid without doing extra work (bummer, dude!) because works for hire usually end up with the party paying for the work having the copyright to the work, but at least you won't have to worry about piracy anymore.
So, you'll have to actually work to get paid, but piracy will no longer be a problem. Sounds fair, right? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
Holy crap! You should be an FBI agent! Even with all their resources they couldn't prove Manning's "full intentions" to hand it over to wikileaks. Case closed everyone, Green flower AC has this covered!
It doesn't negate the issue that the documents are in Assange's control.
More good work! Assange has the documents! You figured it out! Well played, sir. Well played.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: discussion over the word censorship
So pointing out that the ice industry was significantly changed when the a technology was introduced to allow people to perform that function themselves at home is nonsensical when comparing it to the RIAA/MPAA, whose industry is being significantly changed by a technology that has been introduced allowing people to perform a major part of their function at home.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the site that was found to be perfectly legal under Spanish law? Those victims?
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re:
One of the sites in question was found legal by Spanish courts, hosted in Spain, used almost exclusively by Spanish people. They *did* have a .com address, though.
It is useful to keep in the back of your mind, when discussing the internet, that the world is much bigger than the US. (Disclaimer: I'm an American.)
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re:
I follow the ideals that I agree with. Doesn't everyone?
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re:
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
Please explain to me the Master Plan, because I can't fathom how this helps America at all.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re:
Trust me. :)
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: You have this backward
Short term, companies will, at least, pick up a few non-US controlled TLDs and at worst, ditching the ICANN controlled one altogether.
Long term, we have to move away from centralized TLDs, so that this tomfoolery is no longer possible.
PS- You have no idea what "property" means, do you?
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Anti-bodies.
...and, push comes to shove, there's always dialup. (Yes, it still exists.)
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Anti-bodies.
It's just like when a hacker points out a major flaw with someone's software by publishing the flaw to the world. It is a weakness and needed to be fixed.
Thank you, **AA, we'll get right on that.
On the post: Rep. Issa Wants List Of Everyone Who's Filed FOIA Requests; Increasing Transparency Or Chilling Future Requests?
Re: File Download Prompt
On the post: Taking The Long View: App Developer Happy That Piracy Doubled His Sales
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:39pm
38 of my photographs used without my permission (my starting rate for each image would normally be $75)
4 designs used without permission (my design rate for those items at that time was around $150)
1 logo ripped off by a competitor (the original client paid $100 for the logo)
Tell me: Exactly how many times do you feel you should be paid without actually doing any work? You are complaining about being ripped off, but what would *you* call charging people $75 for permission to use a picture you took at one point in the past? I'd call it ripping people off.
I do understand your pain, you used to get paid for something, and now people can simply route around you by pressing Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. It sucks when 4 buttons on a keyboard makes your business model completely irrelevant. Don't lose hope yet, though! You actually have a simple modification to your business model that will make copyright infringement (Note: not theft!) a thing of the past: Make people pay you before you do the work. I know, crazy, right? Sure, you'll lose the ability to keep getting paid without doing extra work (bummer, dude!) because works for hire usually end up with the party paying for the work having the copyright to the work, but at least you won't have to worry about piracy anymore.
So, you'll have to actually work to get paid, but piracy will no longer be a problem. Sounds fair, right? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
On the post: Taking The Long View: App Developer Happy That Piracy Doubled His Sales
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:39pm
It's definitely one of those, though.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Weekend article sumarization
PS- you blow.
On the post: US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.operationprotest.com/julian-assange-rape-allegations-story-behind-the-girls
On the post: US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
Re:
It doesn't negate the issue that the documents are in Assange's control.
More good work! Assange has the documents! You figured it out! Well played, sir. Well played.
On the post: US Investigators Can't Find Any Direct Connection Between Manning And Assange
Easy peasy.
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: discussion over the word censorship
Roger that.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
I'll start, since you apparently won't: www.rdio.com
Unlimited music, offline caching, excellent selection (now). $10/month. I'm sold. Buying copies of music is *so* 2010.
Next >>