Posted on 03/22/2008 4:43:10 PM PDT by jdm
Tomorrow’s the big day — or rather, today is, if plans proceed to post the movie online at midnight (European time, I’m assuming). I’ve been monitoring the official website since this morning and until the past hour it looked like this. Click to enlarge:
That’s from the British website, which is still up and running as I write this. The American page looked exactly the same except for “Coming Soon” in place of the date. Now it looks like this. Click again to enlarge:
Here’s Network Solutions’s terms of use. Is paragraph 7 the operative one, do you think — or is it paragraph 10? If the latter, why on earth did they agree to host the site in the first place? Have they missed the global uproar over the movie during the past two months?
And why are they bouncing it before the film’s even gone online? As I say, the only thing on the site right now is that Koran image and the title information. Where’s the terms of use violation? Or are they being DOS’d already?
I’m stepping out for a bit but keep your eye on the site. Exit question: Where does it end?
Update: Please do read that Wash Times article and reflect on the fact that a movie of such immense public interest as to have drawn comments from heads of state and NATO officials before it’s even been released is struggling at this moment to find a single western media outlet, of any sort, to distribute it. Wilders’s point has already been proved, hasn’t it?
I’m sure that butt-faced Michael Moore could ram it through.
“Wilders’s point has already been proved, hasn’t it?”
#
Yes.
Another article on the same subject:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020419.php
#
Previously...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020418.php
March 22, 2008
“Netherlands anti-Wilders protestor: “The government could really do something. That’s in the interest of the country — stop him, just stop him””
Happens all the time with conservative content on youtube.
It is the same with slap suits, intimidation by complaint.
There is a time honored civil redress though. It is called “tortious interference with a beneficial business relationship.”
IOW the complaint was filed just to interfere with a contractual relationship which has nothing to do with the complaining party.
Absolutely chilling - the complete moral cowardice.
“Is paragraph 7 the operative one, do you think — or is it paragraph 10?”
No, its paragraph 1 thats at issue. And according to that paragraph this company would never allow such a movie.
More about Wilders and the movie.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/815
Instead of showing a movie about Islam as it really is, they will show an anti-Christian movie and everyone will be happy.
He may just have to publish it over peer-to-peer networks.
Fine by me, although I would prefer it broadcast over worldwide tv in primetime to reach the most.
I’ll gladly host the torrent for as long as their is download demand. I would consider it an honor.
Seeing that NetSolutions “disclaimer” chilled me to the bone. Is this the future of every Western nation—terrified deference to Islam?
Put it up with Torrent and nobody can block it.
I can only recall that the left loves to scold others who object to the garbage they push out to the public, that if they don't like it, they don't have to watch. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
First it should be posted to multiple groups on USENET, “the other half of the Internet”. This will be the most rapid and clean propagation. Then the USENET subscribers both advertise to their friends and set it up as torrent files.
This way, it will enter the eMule and Gnutella2 P2P nets as trusted files, since there will no doubt be lots of malicious hoaxes.
Network Solutions Information
Call us 1-800-333-7680
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.