PDA

View Full Version : US Government Censors 70 Websites



Gremlinzzz
November 27th, 2010, 03:10 PM
This doesn't sound good!
http://www.osnews.com/story/24074/US_Government_Censors_70_Websites
Whats next?

Random_Dude
November 27th, 2010, 03:13 PM
I'll start to worry when freedom of expression is at stake.

szymon_g
November 27th, 2010, 03:17 PM
anyone wonders why half of world hates USA?

handy
November 27th, 2010, 03:24 PM
That bill was blocked in the U.S., Senate, yet they just go straight ahead & start blocking sites anyway.

Between the desire & implementation of controlling the internet & the bill that turns having a vegetable garden in your home backyard into a crime; I'm becoming extremely concerned about what the residents of the States are allowing their government to get away with.

We are surrounded by madness... :(

Oxwivi
November 27th, 2010, 03:33 PM
Hey, it's not only the States' guys should be worried, we should too. It says that the block is active outside US as well!

MooPi
November 27th, 2010, 04:54 PM
This was part of the news yesterday as well
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/
Granted these were/are illegal torrent and copycat locations, there was no due process. Something we take for granted in this country and which seems to be null and void. UHG

Dr. C
November 27th, 2010, 05:11 PM
So the US government is forcing certain sites to move from a .com, .org, or .net to an .info or a country code top level domain. For what purpose may I ask?

grahammechanical
November 27th, 2010, 06:32 PM
Here is a link to the BBC news website about the Police in UK wanting powers to shut web sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11845961

Note the concerns about this being done without any judicial oversight. Recently a man got arrested, charged and convicted because he expressed a desire on a social networking site to blow up an airport due to being frustrated by delays.

Powers like this are fine if police use good judgment and if authorities do not abuse the power. And if the actions and reasons are not kept secret.

Regards.

bwhite82
November 27th, 2010, 06:35 PM
I would suggest reading TorrentFreaks version (that is cited in the OP's linked-to article):

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/

Basically: Not censorship but seizure of the domains. Additionally, court-ordered warrants were issued for the seizures. Oh and BTW, they were all sites dealing in either counterfeit merchandise or digital media.

Spice Weasel
November 27th, 2010, 06:53 PM
Lol, lobbying.

ivarn
November 27th, 2010, 07:01 PM
I wouldn't worry about this.
the sites will be back up on another address.
And you can always use a proxy.
Also, most of the best torrent sites are .ru or .de domains.
You know, this isn't really news. It has always been like this.
When thepiratebay's swedish owners got sued, they did the same thing.
The sites were down and are still down somewhere in the US but still, use a proxy.
You know, the police are always like this when they find something to use against websites.
They act like heroes and 20 people will open up new torrent sites or whatever sites they want to close down.
The cops never learn. If you want to forbid something, the dumbest thing you can do is to block it out.
Trust me, there will be 200 illegal websites after this lockdown thing is over.
Ok maybe we lose piratebay but the publicity will give people the motivation to create new websites. Then the police will again see how much they fail in so many ways.
It has always been like this, guys.

matt_symes
November 27th, 2010, 07:09 PM
Lol, lobbying.

:popcorn: :D

wilee-nilee
November 27th, 2010, 07:18 PM
176748

nerdopolis
November 27th, 2010, 07:22 PM
It seems they have also have trackers on that site... What do you think they are using those IP addresses for? If they are looking for people to arrest, they are going to have a number of false positives just checking out the damage...

They are using Google Analytics and a program called "piwik" ( http://piwik.org/ ) which is an open source alternative to Google Analytics. Why are they using redundant tools?

And does this mean the IIPA is going to call them pirates, and add them to their watch list for using open source software, like they wanted to do to a number of countries earlier this year? http://www.opensource.org/node/510

weasel fierce
November 27th, 2010, 07:31 PM
Corporate run government.

Quadunit404
November 27th, 2010, 07:36 PM
Producer: What happen?
Actor: Someone claimed own your movie.
Composer: We get signal.
Producer: What!
Composer: Main screen turn on.
Producer: It's you!!
MPAA: How are you gentlemen?
MPAA: All your intellectual property are belong to us.
MPAA: You are on the way to losing control of your hard work.
Producer: What you say!!
MPAA: You have no chance to regain control make your time.
MPAA: HA HA HA.

(I can do this with the RIAA as well if you want me to :wink: )

kaldor
November 27th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Eh.

Dustin2128
November 27th, 2010, 07:46 PM
besides expressions of sadness that next to nobody knows about this, the only thing I can say is this: Viva la internet 2!

Oxwivi
November 27th, 2010, 07:47 PM
And you can always use a proxy.
Dude, the block is international!

Spice Weasel
November 27th, 2010, 08:00 PM
176748

Middle logo looks frightening.

czr114
November 27th, 2010, 08:06 PM
Does anyone find it scary that this rises to a "Homeland Security" issue instead of normal police work or a civil lawsuit?

Is filesharing now an act of terrorism?

I didn't get that memo.

weasel fierce
November 27th, 2010, 08:12 PM
Does anyone find it scary that this rises to a "Homeland Security" issue instead of normal police work or a civil lawsuit?

Is filesharing now an act of terrorism?

I didn't get that memo.

Nothing says "I hate America" like torrenting some Justin Timberlake

Elfy
November 27th, 2010, 08:54 PM
No more politics - unless it is directly related to free and open source issues.

aysiu
November 27th, 2010, 09:31 PM
No more politics - unless it is directly related to free and open source issues.
I've already moved two offending posts to the jail--one bashing Obama, one bashing Republicans.

Let's keep it on topic, folks. Thanks!

Dustin2128
November 27th, 2010, 09:45 PM
so how many seconds do you think it'll be before wikileaks is blocked for 'copyright infringement'?

Spice Weasel
November 27th, 2010, 09:50 PM
so how many seconds do you think it'll be before wikileaks is blocked for 'copyright infringement'?

More likely for 'national security issues'.

Sporkman
November 27th, 2010, 09:51 PM
so how many seconds do you think it'll be before wikileaks is blocked for 'copyright infringement'?

They wouldn't do that - it would brand the "copyright infringement" charge as a political sham & weaken its legitimacy.

rg4w
November 27th, 2010, 10:24 PM
Does anyone find it scary that this rises to a "Homeland Security" issue...
I got scared the moment they started throwing "homeland" around....

Dustin2128
November 27th, 2010, 11:07 PM
They wouldn't do that - it would brand the "copyright infringement" charge as a political sham & weaken its legitimacy.
As if that's not happening already.

holiday
November 28th, 2010, 12:17 AM
I got scared the moment they started throwing "homeland" around....

And calling us "folks".

holiday
November 28th, 2010, 12:24 AM
I've already moved two offending posts to the jail--one bashing Obama, one bashing Republicans.

Let's keep it on topic, folks. Thanks!

I respectfully submit - and I mean that, I respect what you are trying to do here - but this is an open source issue. The foundation of open source is freedom of information.

An open discussion of this foundation will invariably involve a political discussion.

I understand that political discussion can tend to inarticulate expressions of rage and frustration, but that is not reason or justification to silence debate.

aysiu
November 28th, 2010, 12:29 AM
I respectfully submit - and I mean that, I respect what you are trying to do here - but this is an open source issue. The foundation of open source is freedom of information.

An open discussion of this foundation will invariably involve a political discussion.

I understand that political discussion can tend to inarticulate expressions of rage and frustration, but that is not reason or justification to silence debate.
I wasn't silencing debate. The two posts were primarily tirades against Obama and Republicans, respectively. They were not talking directly about the issue at hand.

Even if I were "silencing debate" (and, again, I was not), I would have been well within my rights to do so. The point of the Ubuntu Forums is not to be a place for debates about governmental politics. If you don't like that, there are plenty of other places on the internet you can bash Obama and/or the Republican Party.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 12:37 AM
I respectfully submit - and I mean that, I respect what you are trying to do here - but this is an open source issue. The foundation of open source is freedom of information.

An open discussion of this foundation will invariably involve a political discussion.

I understand that political discussion can tend to inarticulate expressions of rage and frustration, but that is not reason or justification to silence debate.
I saw the posts - they were partisan hackery, which blamed one side for the problem as to exonerate the other.

The truth of the matter is that the political elite of both parties here in the US, and most parties in most countries, has gradually be working against the information liberty of the regular people. It's about we the people versus the political class, not Republicans vs. Democrats, or right versus left.

Until regular voters become aware of this stuff, the discussion is going to be controlled by lobbyists, statist nannies, partisan corporate media pundits, and power-hungry politicians.

Information, ideas, and societies want to be free, and it's not Main Street which is standing in the way.

coolbrook
November 28th, 2010, 01:34 AM
Nothing says "I hate America" like torrenting some Justin Timberlake

His appeal is global and if one thing's for certain, it's that people won't stop going to the movies. He's getting very early Oscar buzz, and not for his BooBoo impression.

Sporkman
November 28th, 2010, 01:43 AM
Information, ideas, and societies want to be free, and it's not Main Street which is standing in the way.

What about Net Neutrality in the US? One major party in the US endorses it, where as the Tea Party movement openly opposes it.

lancest
November 28th, 2010, 01:48 AM
I saw the posts
The truth of the matter is that the political elite of both parties here in the US, and most parties in most countries, has gradually be working against the information liberty of the regular people.
That and more.

MooPi
November 28th, 2010, 01:59 AM
This is scary nonetheless and it is being done with the guise of protecting content creators. Sure they are copycat vendors and dvd rip off suppliers but there was no due process. Straight to guilty and gone. It is being pushed by the media moguls and their lobbyist.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 02:17 AM
What about Net Neutrality in the US? One major party in the US endorses it, where as the Tea Party movement openly opposes it.

"Net neutrality" (as they're pitching it) has become a giant red herring of distorted definitions.

That can't be answered yes or no because they've twisted the definitions.

"Yes" on "net neutrality" means there will be a giant federal powergrab reclassifying the Internet under existing law, and permitting regulation of so much more than packet discrimination. Currently, they don't have the authority to enforce net neutrality - but they're using net neutrality as the excuse for why they need all sorts of new Internet regulatory powers.

"No" on "net neutrality" means oligopolistic media companies, many of whom are operating government-granted monopolies on the infrastructure easements, will get to inspect, hinder, and slow packet traffic based on arbitrary characteristics designed to squeeze more money out of customers as part of a convoluted and screwy billing scheme.

As usual, no matter what group of politicians and lobbyists wins, we lose.

Dustin2128
November 28th, 2010, 02:17 AM
What about Net Neutrality in the US? One major party in the US endorses it, where as the Tea Party movement openly opposes it.
What? The pirate party is a major party in the US?!
Seriously though, there is no major support for NN in the states, one party is far too deep in Hollywood's pockets and the other seems to... intentionally misunderstand it, if you catch my meaning. Getting out of my political analyses, most people aren't even aware its an issue, they either take it for granted or just don't know about it. Though, I'll admit, everyone I explain it to *properly* does support it.

BigCityCat
November 28th, 2010, 02:28 AM
I always thought this logo was spooky looks like a grim reaper holding scales.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk14/bigcitycat/534780041.gif

but it's just half of this.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk14/bigcitycat/53478004.gif

murack
November 28th, 2010, 04:06 AM
I'm not sure I would put osnews as credible source,

handy
November 28th, 2010, 04:17 AM
I suppose it is time to trot ACTA out again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

This section is particularly pertinent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Criticism

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2010, 04:25 AM
I'm becoming extremely concerned about what the residents of the States are allowing their government to get away with.

Yeah, okay I will get right on that man.

handy
November 28th, 2010, 04:29 AM
Yeah, okay I will get right on that man.

Good. I feel much better now. :popcorn:

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2010, 04:35 AM
Good. I feel much better now. :popcorn:

Thought you would; all fixed now. actually you know I find your comments at the least cogent.;)

bwhite82
November 28th, 2010, 04:39 AM
I love how people ignore comments that don't "jive" with their own mentality.

The U.S. HAD due process. For clarity, I will quote a Torrent Freak update on the story:


Update: A spokeswoman for ICE confirmed the seizures in the following statement. “ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time.”

Will this be ignored too? So that you will continue bashing "Big bad amurrican govment? Slapping down on our rights and such? Tsk"

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 04:48 AM
The writs of a kangaroo court do not due process make.

The operative question in this controversy was whether the owners were identified, and given the benefit of notice and a hearing, and if foreign, the ability to be governed by only those laws applicable to them.

Of the 70 sites, the largest was a search engine which iframed torrent search sites which indexed trackers which contained IP:port/infohash information for the alleged copyright infringement itself. The site was removed from the source files by an iframe, a search engine, and a torrent tracker.

Was that given a chance to air in court before this process was rubber stamped?

Due process has been eroding for some time now under laws which create either presumptions of guilt, injunctions until proven innocent, or such high barriers to defense that the average man has no practical option but submission. That's not due process.

handy
November 28th, 2010, 04:49 AM
Thought you would; all fixed now. actually you know I find your comments at the least cogent.;)

Thanks & good. :)


I love how people ignore comments that don't "jive" with their own mentality.

Will this be ignored too? So that you will continue bashing "Big bad amurrican govment? Slapping down on our rights and such? Tsk"

Thanks for the lite relief. :popcorn:

That first sentence of yours brings to mind the sword of Damocles.

bwhite82
November 28th, 2010, 04:55 AM
The writs of a kangaroo court do not due process make.

The operative question in this controversy was whether the owners were identified, and given the benefit of notice and a hearing, and if foreign, the ability to be governed by only those laws applicable to them.

Of the 70 sites, the largest was a search engine which iframed torrent search sites which indexed trackers which contained IP:port/infohash information for the alleged copyright infringement itself. The site was removed from the source files by an iframe, a search engine, and a torrent tracker.

Was that given a chance to air in court before this process was rubber stamped?

Due process has been eroding for some time now under laws which create either presumptions of guilt, injunctions until proven innocent, or such high barriers to defense that the average man has no practical option but submission. That's not due process.

No, but it WILL. It is under investigation. No different than if you were a meth-maker working out of your basement. The law gets a whiff, begin investigating you. They gather enough proof to ask a judge for a warrant. Judge signs off, police come and seize anything connected to your meth-making.

Further investigation and then charges brought against you. You get papers in the mail asking you to appear in court (or you are arrested outright).

This IS due process. Its how it works in the US.

handy
November 28th, 2010, 04:58 AM
...
This IS due process. Its how it works in the US.

Unless there is a desired need to sidestep due process. Which the previous Bush administration has shown.

I shouldn't be posting this stuff, CoC & all, BUT...

phrostbyte
November 28th, 2010, 05:14 AM
Forget all the "is this legal" back and forth. The fundamental issue here is we shouldn't be using taxpayer money to futilely attempt to protect a backward industry's obsolete business model.

We have the technology to have an entirely knowledge economy with true post-scarcity. The only thing preventing this from happening is a copyright regime that was conceived before the Internet was even a consideration.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 05:18 AM
No, but it WILL. It is under investigation. No different than if you were a meth-maker working out of your basement. The law gets a whiff, begin investigating you. They gather enough proof to ask a judge for a warrant. Judge signs off, police come and seize anything connected to your meth-making.

Further investigation and then charges brought against you. You get papers in the mail asking you to appear in court (or you are arrested outright).

This IS due process. Its how it works in the US.

Now suppose that the website is actually innocent.

This whole sham of a process would bankrupt it. Good luck trying to recover a business from that.

Lawyers can call it due process; I call it a farce.

There's no "due" in a process which the common man can't rebut.

bwhite82
November 28th, 2010, 05:22 AM
Forget all the "is this legal" back and forth. The fundamental issue here is we shouldn't be using taxpayer money to futilely attempt to protect a backward industry's obsolete business model.

We have the technology to have an entirely knowledge economy with true post-scarcity. The only thing preventing this from happening is a copyright regime that was conceived before the Internet was even a consideration.

Now on THAT point I would agree and award you 10 internets. This is the root cause. A flawed and out-dated business model by the music and movie industries which, unfortunately for most of western civilisation, is backed by out-dated laws.

This won't change until:

1) Music and Movie industry figures out a better business model

or

2) Lawmakers wise up and realize the above. Lulz

bwhite82
November 28th, 2010, 05:28 AM
Now suppose that the website is actually innocent.

This whole sham of a process would bankrupt it. Good luck trying to recover a business from that.

Lawyers can call it due process; I call it a farce.

There's no "due" in a process which the common man can't rebut.

Oh but you can. And it happens everyday. You sue for damage to your business and re-coup (some or all) of the losses. Now many factors involved here and two would be:

a) good lawyer
b) good judge

I am in no way defending our legal system. It surely has its flaws but just wanted to point out its not all that bad.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 05:36 AM
3) To paraphrase the famous quote, the Internet interprets the damage and routes around it.

Short of every nation on Earth establishing copyright gulags, and abandoning due process, there isn't going to be a way to corral the spread of information in open, accessible formats. They'd have a better shot at enforcing the cannabis laws in Berkeley.

Since they can't actually enforce the copyright laws as they stand written, the best they can hope to do is what the Dutch did with cannabis - tolerate it, so long as it isn't causing harm.

The cartel's lost sale numbers have been debunked over and over. A 13 year old kid with a terabyte of music is not responsible for millions in lost sales.

Busting up personal use infringement isn't doing any good and it's not going to change the culture of infringement. The best they can hope to do is shut down the commercial counterfeiters, make pay services fast, comprehensive, and hassle-free, then let the chips fall where they fall.

That's the best they can do in the West. Practical enforcement is even more hopeless in those places where people can't afford to pay for the information they receive copies of even if they were willing.

The cost of making a copy is virtually zero. For those who can't or won't pay, there is no lost sale, yet the current paradigm places a large benefit of denying those people the benefit of information as purely an exercise in show.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 05:40 AM
Oh but you can. And it happens everyday. You sue for damage to your business and re-coup (some or all) of the losses. Now many factors involved here and two would be:

a) good lawyer
b) good judge

I am in no way defending our legal system. It surely has its flaws but just wanted to point out its not all that bad.

a. hahahahaha

b. If you believe the average small business can afford to fight the government, think again.

c. The average torrent site is run by a college student and barely scrapes by from donations and dating ads. If you believe he can fight the government, think again.

d. Unless you're a Fortune 500, the government itself, or well connected in the legal community, the only way to win is not to play.

e. Now translate that to a site run without any commercial or financial angle. Just how much is a person expected to spend keeping his blog or project online in the face of an army of government lawyers, if the scope starts to creep? (wait until a patent troll alleges infringement, then it's lights out)

bwhite82
November 28th, 2010, 05:48 AM
a. hahahahaha

b. If you believe the average small business can afford to fight the government, think again.

c. The average torrent site is run by a college student and barely scrapes by from donations and dating ads. If you believe he can fight the government, think again.

d. Unless you're a Fortune 500, the government itself, or well connected in the legal community, the only way to win is not to play.

e. Now translate that to a site run without any commercial or financial angle. Just how much is a person expected to spend keeping his blog or project online in the face of an army of government lawyers, if the scope starts to creep? (wait until a patent troll alleges infringement, then it's lights out)

Are you kidding? You could call 15 lawyers, after your plight with the Government, and 15 would only be way too eager to sue for damages. There would be little "fight" if you were truly wrongly accused.

The lawyer fees would come out of whatever damages were awarded to you. But hey I agree on one point here and that is: just don't play

Don't get into the business of doing something that could be construed as illegal in the first place -- until laws are changed.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 06:02 AM
Are you kidding? You could call 15 lawyers, after your plight with the Government, and 15 would only be way too eager to sue for damages. There would be little "fight" if you were truly wrongly accused.

The lawyer fees would come out of whatever damages were awarded to you. But hey I agree on one point here and that is: just don't play


That's not the way it works. There will only be damages if your rights are violated (e.g., Rodney King), but the courts do not consider dragging you through a difficult and expensive legal process to be a violation of rights.




Don't get into the business of doing something that could be construed as illegal in the first place -- until laws are changed.

That's a great theory, but it's not the way the real world works. What actually happens is people are merely accused of doing something illegal according to the whims of one prosecutor somewhere, and then they're forced to expend enormous sums of time, energy, and money clearing their name and proving no violation actually occurred.

The same applies to civil procedure. Suppose you're sued by a patent troll over a noncommercial FOSS project in your free time - can you even afford to fight it, or take the risk of losing?

What about domain disputes? How often does an individual win when a company decides to lawyer up and steal the domain through the courts?

There's no way for the little guy to win as a defendant no matter what he did or how pure his mind. The best he can hope to do is lose less by paying a lawyer and burning through enormous quantities of time instead of being convicted or forced to pay damages.

Dr. C
November 28th, 2010, 06:10 AM
...

c. The average torrent site is run by a college student and barely scrapes by from donations and dating ads. If you believe he can fight the government, think again.

...
Really? When TPB went down the traffic on the Amsterdam Internet exchange went down by 30%!

First of all the government is not the issue here it is the organizations that lobby the government for repressive laws. People forget the power of the Internet which is why organizations such as the MPAA, RIAA etc are so afraid. Now consider this the following ad (http://image.exct.net/lib/fee913797d6303/m/1/Final+COICA+ad.pdf) supporting COICA was endorsed by a series of organizations including for example the NFL. What would happen for example if TPB called for a boycott of the Super Bowl in retaliation for the NFL's support of COICA? What would happen if say 10% of the TPB's visitors heeded the boycott?

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 06:12 AM
TPB is not an average torrent site. The largest in the world makes for a poor example.

Dr. C
November 28th, 2010, 06:28 AM
TPB is not an average torrent site. The largest in the world makes for a poor example.

But it can fight back if it chooses to do so, and do a lot of damage to those who are lobbying for repressive laws. It is realistically the prime target of COICA

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 06:38 AM
But it can fight back if it chooses to do so, and do a lot of damage to those who are lobbying for repressive laws. It is realistically the prime target of COICA

It's one of the few which can fight back. It's the exception to the rule.

TPB has thrived on controversy and built its brand around it, ever since anakata bought his first retractable baton.

A hobbyist, recreational, or part-time webmaster is toast once the paperwork hits the mail. He can't afford to fight it, even if he did have a realistic chance.

Dr. C
November 28th, 2010, 07:14 AM
It's one of the few which can fight back. It's the exception to the rule.

TPB has thrived on controversy and built its brand around it, ever since anakata bought his first retractable baton.

A hobbyist, recreational, or part-time webmaster is toast once the paperwork hits the mail. He can't afford to fight it, even if he did have a realistic chance.

Seriously big copyright can take out a handful of sites but can big copyright them all out?

MisterGaribaldi
November 28th, 2010, 07:59 AM
Hmm... Interesting conversation. Like to add a couple quick things here.

First, I know that many of UbuntuForums' members are not U.S. citizens, and as someone who has had conversations with a LOT of non-U.S. folk over the years, I think I fundamentally understand two basic things:

1. People from other countries don't really understand (or a better way of saying this is they don't have the background in) a number of the sentiments here in the U.S.

2. The U.S. is not "hated" by everyone else, but rather we've lost face and lost respect throughout the world, particularly in the years since the end of World War II.

Because UbuntuForums is not a place to discuss politics -- and I have no intentions of doing so -- I'm going to keep this short and clean and to the point.

The founding fathers (Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al) largely shared a concern about the size, scope, and power of government. In general terms, there was a desire to keep the U.S. Government from turning into the British or French or Spanish empire governments of the 1600s-1800s. That is, there was just too much power concentrated in too few hands affecting too many people who had no say.

If you look at what is in the Declaration of Independence, the failed Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution and original "Bill of Rights", what you find in many different forms and ways are checks and balances, both within the Federal Government and external to it.

I say all that to say this: All of this overstepping being discussed in this thread -- and frankly much of the discussion you'll see on Slashdot or on dedicated political-related sites -- can be traced back to the U.S. Government and the "how much power it should have" equation. I think it is fundamentally wrong for the U.S. Government -- for *any* government -- to force its rules and laws upon any other sovereign country, and also I think it is wrong for the U.S. Government to act against the interests of its people, either for its own gain or at the behest of other parties, in particular various corporate entities or industries.

However, all of that "power" and all of its justification comes from a progressive tipping of the balance of power in this country, which amongst other things was the entire purpose of the "separation of powers" parts of the Constitution.

Those above who have said "this isn't a Democrat or Republican thing" are both right and wrong. They're right that it's neither party's exclusive fault, but they're also wrong in that both parties have acted poorly over the decades, and we the people in this country have let them get away with it. It's also very easy to "blame the government" because that makes it a "them vs. us" thing. However, it *is* "us" because "us" make up the people in all the government offices, and it is "us" who over the years have either pushed for, supported, or merely gone along with bad legislation and bad court decisions.

Anyhow, just some perspective. Hope it helps, and I hope it is taken in the spirit it is given and intended (i.e.: educational and neutral).

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 08:10 AM
Seriously big copyright can take out a handful of sites but can big copyright them all out?

They can take almost anyone out, but they can't take everyone out all at once.

Torrent sites today are like speakeasies during the days of Capone - no matter how many they closed, new ones would constantly reappear to replace those which were lost. Since they couldn't get all at once, there was no interruption to the supply.

Government and lawyers have been furiously attacking piracy over the years. They've shut down countless sites, hauled crew members to jail, and brought tens of thousands of civil suits. Today, there is more pirate material available at faster speeds and with easier technologies.

What would have taken forever ten years ago can now be accomplished quickly by any teenager with a Visa card, FIOS, and a Giganews account, or for the low budget, uTorrent and TPB on a cable connection.

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2010, 08:16 AM
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, all were slave owners kind of odd icons wouldn't you say.

MisterGaribaldi
November 28th, 2010, 08:40 AM
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, all were slave owners kind of odd icons wouldn't you say.

No, not really. They were people of their own time, and so I judge them by the norms of their time. That isn't to say I condone slavery, but it is also very easy to try and judge people by standards they wouldn't recognize or necessarily understand. Moreover, it's no different really than talking about, say, different religions or philosophies and recognizing that no one group of anybody, no matter how you want to define them, has "all the truth" or "all the knowledge".

It's my general understanding that many of the founding fathers probably considered a number of issues that the Constitution didn't address -- and, sadly, slavery is amongst those -- as battles they simply couldn't fight at the time, given everything else they were trying to fight against.

Recall that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are only three of five basic tenets from John Locke, the other two being right to privacy and property. Probably never before in the history of any country has there been such an obvious need for those two than now.

Dustin2128
November 28th, 2010, 08:45 AM
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, all were slave owners kind of odd icons wouldn't you say.
All icons have flaws, sometimes major ones, but I doubt the relevance to this thread.

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2010, 08:50 AM
No, not really. They were people of their own time, and so I judge them by the norms of their time. That isn't to say I condone slavery, but it is also very easy to try and judge people by standards they wouldn't recognize or necessarily understand. Moreover, it's no different really than talking about, say, different religions or philosophies and recognizing that no one group of anybody, no matter how you want to define them, has "all the truth" or "all the knowledge".

It's my general understanding that many of the founding fathers probably considered a number of issues that the Constitution didn't address -- and, sadly, slavery is amongst those -- as battles they simply couldn't fight at the time, given everything else they were trying to fight against.

Recall that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are only three of five basic tenets from John Locke, the other two being right to privacy and property. Probably never before in the history of any country has there been such an obvious need for those two than now.

All I'm going to say here is you and most people don't know the half of the real stories. The truth is from the victors mouths not every bodies. I know what a contextual analysis is and critical thinking is.

Lol your so misinformed it is not even worth trying to be honest.;)

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 08:58 AM
Liberty, privacy, and property are on the way out. In this Brave New World, they'll give us life and a pursuit of [government approved] happiness.

Don't forget to check Facebook before going to the mall.

handy
November 28th, 2010, 09:03 AM
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, all were slave owners kind of odd icons wouldn't you say.

As I see it the founding fathers set up a system which continued to protect those that had money (like themselves), a class system that was somewhat different to the one in Britain.

According to Benjamin Franklin, the war of independence was primarily fought to be free of the Bank of England. They wanted their own currency. (Which was good while it lasted!)

Anyway, to tie it back into the topic of this thread; we still have the same battle going on between those with the money & their perpetual efforts to keep the masses moving capital up from the bottom of the pyramid.

The MPAA & the RIAA are the two prime organisations to use to attempt to justify various kinds of internet censorship. I think that (apart from sites that cater to paedophiles) the sharing of music & movie files is absolutely the easiest way to try to sell increased internet censorship in a variety of forms to the general public. (Not that it is a very popular idea amongst the populations of most countries, I know it is not in mine.)

I suspect that MPAA/RIAA are being used by the media moguls & their cohorts to divert the attention of the population from the fact that the media moguls want to control the way people think, as this is how they protect their position & the position of their class, control politics, keep the masses consuming & the capital moving up the pyramid.

The likes of Murdoch are truly powerful political entities that work behind the curtain.

If you think I'm making it up, do a little research? "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" is an extremely good documentary on the topic.

The internet is a hugely powerful political tool. For many of us it offers enormous freedom. Freedom of information, & freedom of speech; freedom to block advertisements if we so desire; freedom to read information on sites that provide powerful insights into the flaws & corruption of those situated higher up the pyramid.

Jaecyn42
November 28th, 2010, 10:19 AM
Lol your so misinformed it is not even worth trying to be honest.;)


Lol your so misinformed


your so misinformed


your

I wouldn't criticize others if I were you.

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2010, 10:24 AM
As I see it the founding fathers set up a system which continued to protect those that had money (like themselves), a class system that was somewhat different to the one in Britain.

According to Benjamin Franklin, the war of independence was primarily fought to be free of the Bank of England. They wanted their own currency. (Which was good while it lasted!)

Anyway, to tie it back into the topic of this thread; we still have the same battle going on between those with the money & their perpetual efforts to keep the masses moving capital up from the bottom of the pyramid.

The MPAA & the RIAA are the two prime organisations to use to attempt to justify various kinds of internet censorship. I think that (apart from sites that cater to paedophiles) the sharing of music & movie files is absolutely the easiest way to try to sell increased internet censorship in a variety of forms to the general public. (Not that it is a very popular idea amongst the populations of most countries, I know it is not in mine.)

I suspect that MPAA/RIAA are being used by the media moguls & their cohorts to divert the attention of the population from the fact that the media moguls want to control the way people think, as this is how they protect their position & the position of their class, control politics, keep the masses consuming & the capital moving up the pyramid.

The likes of Murdoch are truly powerful political entities that work behind the curtain.

If you think I'm making it up, do a little research? "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" is an extremely good documentary on the topic.

The internet is a hugely powerful political tool. For many of us it offers enormous freedom. Freedom of information, & freedom of speech; freedom to block advertisements if we so desire; freedom to read information on sites that provide powerful insights into the flaws & corruption of those situated higher up the pyramid.

Excellent treatise.;)

@Jaecyn42, and your just mirroring me are you not judging; yourself.

Jaecyn42
November 28th, 2010, 10:28 AM
@Jaecyn42, and your just mirroring me are you not judging; yourself.

No.

Judgment has nothing to do with it.

If you're going to criticize someone else's opinion, you'd better make sure your grammar is correct or you're going to have your own opinions challenged; and rightly so.

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2010, 11:08 AM
No.

Judgment has nothing to do with it.

If you're going to criticize someone else's opinion, you'd better make sure your grammar is correct or you're going to have your own opinions challenged; and rightly so.

Lol, you have not challenged my statements just pulled out the English major clause.

And yes you have judged me in the same way you criticize me of, but you know what I could not even care, it just makes me laugh at your ignorance.

You just have a bone to pick with somebody it just happens to be me that gets the projection of it, meh big deal. I'll let the members of the deans list I'm on, know you don't approve.

And by the way real English majors do not use contractions.

NovaAesa
November 28th, 2010, 11:17 AM
No.

Judgment has nothing to do with it.

If you're going to criticize someone else's opinion, you'd better make sure your grammar is correct or you're going to have your own opinions challenged; and rightly so.

I'm not one to normally be picky about peoples' grammar (my own is often terrible), however I think it's warranted in this situation :P When using a semicolon to separate two independent clauses, you are NOT allowed to put a conjunction after the semicolon. To fix your grammatically incorrect statement, you must either remove the conjunction or replace the semicolon with a comma.

Also, to invalidate someone's argument because of a tiny grammatical error is ridiculous.

Jaecyn42
November 28th, 2010, 11:26 AM
Also, to invalidate someone's argument because of a tiny grammatical error is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is to invalidate someone else's argument WITH bad grammar.

Let us not forget the post that prompted my participation in this thread.

Master Garibaldi:


No, not really. They were people of their own time, and so I judge them by the norms of their time.
[...]
Recall that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are only three of five basic tenets from John Locke, the other two being right to privacy and property. Probably never before in the history of any country has there been such an obvious need for those two than now.

Wilee-Nilee:


Lol your so misinformed it is not even worth trying to be honest.


That was simply ignorant and inappropriate. No person who cites John Locke in an Ubuntu forum post is "misinformed"...quite the contrary.

That's the primary problem I am criticizing.

Guy A: *concise nuanced statement of opinions*
Guy B: "LOL, you disagree with me, therefore your dumb"

I have no time nor patience for the Guy Bs of this world and I will spare no method against them, regardless of whether or not I have your approval.

Elfy
November 28th, 2010, 11:28 AM
Take the frankly ridiculous grammar posts off somewhere else please or carry on so I can close the thread.

zer010
November 28th, 2010, 07:27 PM
I'm surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has. I've been reading it all the while thinking that it would end in the eventual disappointing "Thread Closed". What I wonder is how many US citizens that have posted have actually called their Representatives to voice such opinions, instead of posting it in a forum in which such discussions are discouraged.

czr114
November 28th, 2010, 07:38 PM
I'm surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has. I've been reading it all the while thinking that it would end in the eventual disappointing "Thread Closed". What I wonder is how many US citizens that have posted have actually called their Representatives to voice such opinions, instead of posting it in a forum in which such discussions are discouraged.
Have you ever called a rep?

A phone piker will pretend to listen to your complaint, then you'll receive a generic, say-nothing letter written in slimy political speak, telling you how important your concern is and how the honorable so and so is busy examining all angles of the issue.

KiwiNZ
November 28th, 2010, 07:38 PM
"Politics and Religion: These two topics have caused serious problems in the past and are now forbidden topics in the forums. Please find another venue to exercise your freedom of speech on these topics."

"Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed. This area is intended for fun and community building, not arguments. Please take those elsewhere. Thanks!"

There has been at least four warnings issued in this thread by staff.

Thread Closed