Posted on 07/18/2010 7:33:08 AM PDT by oc-flyfish
I shutter to think what plans are in store for conservative sites when the current administration so quickly violates the free speech rights of 73,000 legitimate sites!
Echelon at work.
Follow the money indeed. Big business often does far better under a system of socialism mixed with crony capitalism. For an extreme example look at the Third Reich and pro Nazi businesses.
Time to move to non-US hosting. Panama has lots of fiber capacity and most hosting facilities are in ex-US military facilities in the Canal Zone.
Today about copyright. Tomorrow about criticizing the “healthcare” bill. Day after tomorrow about criticizing the mad rush to marxism that we’re in.
The statement from the ISP sounds like the feds actually seized the physical server. Sounds more like suspicion it contained encrypted kiddie-porn or jihadi material than a DMCA action. Remember the DMCA link is only speculation. Screen-shots and downloads as proof, plus a cease-and-desist order would have sufficed for DMCA enforcement, though I suppose encrypted versions of copyrighted material might make them want to seize the physical server, too.
Now here’s an idea: drive the Feds mad by setting up sites containing encrypted files with completely innocuous public domain content, but file names suggestive of something nefarious, and generate lots of traffic to and from it.
Correct. Typically though, a simple cease and desist order is sent. The hosting company deletes out the offending material and the other 72,999 sites are unaffected.
This is like chopping off your leg to remove pimple.
Hahaha! Use crazy encryption schemes that take them weeks to crack!
Funny and true!
Some years ago, I had an employee who was involved with a group of people providing movies via Bit Torrent. The movie industry and the feds got concerned when these guys got their hands on the latest Star Wars movie, before release in theaters.
The FBI raided his apartment. He was not there, as he was out of town on a training course. However, they seized his computer which was being used as a server. The problem was that the server was government property. Without permission, he had taken the server home to configure it for Linux. Before he did that, he decided to transfer all of his home computer files to the government machine and clean up his own drive. We fired the employee, and bought the government a new server. We weren’t happy.
Our now former employee was convicted along with his fellow conspirators and spent time in federal prison. He was just a kid, and had no idea what he was getting into. He learned a hard lesson.
Over a year later, the FBI called and told us that we could pick up the server. The guy I sent to pick it up asked the agent if he had wiped the drive. He got a nasty response but was assured that all illegal materials had been removed. When we got the server back to the office, we found all the movies still intact.
I had read that these were not really blogs but limewire napster type sites that were allowing file sharing of copywritten materials like dvds and cds is that not the case?
I did pretty well in spelling. But I still get gigged sometimes. (However, you did spell shutter correctly.)
Copyright violation is theft. Protecting property rights is a legitimate function of government. That's why the Constitution says that is an area that Congress has the power to pass laws.
Better still, mix in a few gigabyte-plus files of random bits.
Headline says blogs. Sites and blogs are different things.
Congress has the Constitutional authority “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” It really is unfortunate that we now refer to copyright and patent as “intellectual property law”. They are not. They are state-granted monopolies on the use of ideas or the making of copies of something.
Granting a monopoly of functionally unlimited duration—by copyright extensions up to what is it now, 95 years?—not to the creator of scientific or artistic works, but to commercial interests, which monopoly impedes progress in science and the (useful) arts by preventing the creation of derivative works is contrary to the Founders intent (which was to allow the U.S. to benefit from something like the Law of Queen Anne: 14 years initial duration, renewable by the author/artist/inventor—only, not his or her estate, not a commercial enterprise to which the rights were sold—for another 14 years).
At some point “stealing” from state-monopolies becomes morally justifiable as an act of civil disobedience against tyranny. Has “intellectual property law” as a support for crony-capitalism reached the point that like keeping some food from the collective-farm rather than turning it all over to the commissars, “piracy” has ceased to be theft in moral terms? Probably not. But copyright and patent law have strayed so far from their Constitutional foundation that we may be getting close to that point.
As a case-in-point, the fact that the goth band Unto Ashes cannot release their track “Fire and Ice” in the U.S. because Henry, Holt & Co. still holds exclusive rights to Robert Frost (d. 1968)’s 1928 poem “Fire and Ice” which was used as the lyrics shows how broken copyright law is: one would think that the Constitution read “To impede the progress of science and the arts by securing to commercial interests for indefinitely extendable times exclusive right to the works of inventors and authors whose works they bought the right to circulate.” It does not. Under any sensible system of laws, a 70 plus year old poem by an author who died over 30 year ago (the case in point is maybe 10 year old) should be in the public domain.
Hey! I know this guy who is in on a deal to turn the Golden Gate Bridge into a toll bridge and for just $10K you can get in on it too....
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/gunny-g-dont-send-that-outraged-e-mail/
Semper Blogging!
Every American A Blogger!
“I shutter to think of ...”
Closing another window of liberty. Gives me cold shills.
You could have simply typed the phrase into Google where you would have found 2,310,000 links.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Here is the most succinct account of the events. (See: Bush criticizes Web site as malicious)
Liberals have a different playbook and it may well have been a PAC that bent the rules.
No offense, but you really should do a little research before you post a knee-jerk reaction defending the indefensible.
Duh!bya is a liberal in "compassionate" conservative clothing. The only one in that instance who chose to try to bend the rules was Bush. But, what the heck. It's only the freedom of speech, right?
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.