Slashdot Mirror

I don't see how General Motors has a cause at all. And if they do, better start hiding any hyperlinks you might have used to say something sucks. When you use your page to point visitors (via worded-link) to something that you think blows, you could argue that people aren't even sure what they're going to until they get there. They click a word like 'blows' and it takes them to something which may or may not blow. Hell, if people are as stupid as GM would have us believe, then anyone who clicked that last link is forever convinced that GM BLOWS. But obviously, this is just me expressing my opinion. The issue I'm making is that for GM to have a case, they would have to argue even beyond my use of links, by saying that someone who goes to fuckgeneralmotors.com might be confused, or might think that GM is somehow involved with it, and thusly wants to fuck themselves. GM wants to argue that people don't have the right to link to them in a critical manner, and that people who do are misusing their bandwidth by linking to a publicly accessable website, that is a completely valid target for criticism or parody.

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

www.fuckgeneralmotors.com

Is there a difference?

I agree. There was an artical in the chicago tribune newpaper Yesterday on a company called copyright.net that is using a peice of software, little bot anyway. To scan the harddrives of users that are using the service of napster or gunata(sp) looking for Songs that are copyrighted. The link to the article is HERE

Once is finds a song title on your system is sends of a letter of demand to your ISP, demanding that your connection be terminated until you remove the offending title. This is very much like breading and entering to me. They are not part of any of the services that the user uses, but they secretly invade a system and scan the hard drive. There needs to be laws protecting us from Blantant attacts on our privacy like this. I posted this to /. yesterday but it was rejected as an article so figure is sorta fits here.
The Zaphod

I couldn't help but notice one of the banner ads running on Copyright.net looked an awful lot like the trademark of the gaming company Terminal Reality. Here's a comparison for you:

12k GIF

Perhaps we should report these guys to themselves?

• Thanks to new software applications hitting the market, content providers are now able to track users that share music, movie and other media files across file-trading networks like Napster. Even Freenet -- the fiercely protective network -- appears to be vulnerable to the new programs.

• One service, Copyright Agent, allows content owners to provide ISPs with lists of files to remove and, in many cases, to have Internet access to certain users cut off completely.

  "Our software all developed around the DMCA. We've Web-enabled the DMCA."

And in one of their officially attributed press releases:

• Copyright.net goes live today with CopyrightAgent, its groundbreaking software tool that legitimizes Napster and other peer-to-peer networks while at the same time protecting the rights of copyright owners.

Poof, this lone company suddenly solves the whole P2P problem.

Yeah, that's it.
--

The board of directors of copyright.net appear to all have experience in the recording/publishing industry. Some of them were record label execs.

http://www.copyright.net/copyrightnet/cg_board.cfm

I just thought that was interesting. Who's side are they on?