Slashdot Mirror
Felten Suit to Continue
MadCow-ard writes: "C|Net has an article on the EFF pushing ahead with the countersuit to open the way to Dr. Felten to publishing the SDMI hack. RIAA has back peddled from their original threats, and now claim "hey, we never were going to sue him, so lets just drop the whole thing". It seems they prefer scare tactics to going up against free speech in a court room. Fear has more leverage because 'anything' could happen. The best part is the EFF and Felten are planning a victory dinner at $250 a head!" The recent legal filings are available, if you want to read the maneuvering. In a nutshell: both the RIAA and EFF think the RIAA made a mistake by threatening Felten, and want to negate it or capitalize on it respectively.
After Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested for giving a presentation on eBook security, I think we have a pretty good notion of things to come if Felton hadn't withdrawn his paper.
Well i for one have stopped using my pirated adobe products.
Because a negative ruling strikes down the law forever. Felten seems to have resources to fight the RIAA, so the RIAA will backdown and drop charges.... but by doing so, the law will reamin on the books. Then when some peon without megadollars for lawyers cracks [latest CD/DVD-A copy protection scheme] the RIAA will be right there with the same law again.
...when the hypothetical damage consists of "I could go to jail". There are some oft-cited cases of people suing to have censorship laws overturned because they were selling pornographic books. Even though they hadn't been arrested *yet*, the decision was that because they could reasonably expect to be arrested, and they shouldn't have to wait until after they were facing criminal charges to get a decision, therefore they had standing to sue.
It seems to me that the DMCA presents the same situation: even if Felten et al. aren't in criminal trouble yet, they can reasonably expect that they will be if they continue "trafficking", and so they have a right to know whether the law about that is garbage.
In related Unconstitutional-DMCA-violation news, www.boycottadobe.com has launched. We need to defend Dimitry Sklyarov as vigorously as Dr. Felten.
Here is some disturbing commentary:
This just in from Bill Scannell:
I just got off the telephone with Vladimir Katalov.
Katalov informs me that the Russian embassy has been denied access to Dmitry Sklyarov, a flagrant violation of international law. No Russian consular official has spoken to Sklyarov since his detention earlier this week.
In addition, Sklyarov's wife and two children have not heard from their husband and father since his arrest. They are understandably worried sick for his safety.
It is believed Dmitry Sklyarov is being held in solitary confinement.
As an American who honorably served in the armed forces, I am ashamed for the actions of my government. This cannot stand.
Telephone numbers:
US State Department: 1-202-647-6575
Russian Embassy: 1-202-298-5700
Russian Consul (SF) 1-415928-6878
Call. Get your friends to call. Call again.
Please disseminate this information as widely as possible.
-Bill
What is really great is if the DMCA, or at least the relevant part of it, gets declared unconstitutional, then it will be impossible to stop anyone from making a crack public. All the person who made the crack has to do is send it to a friendly computer science professor who will then write it up in a paper and publish it on the web, and it will all be totally legal.
Hmm. So the RIAA now says they never intended to follow through on their original legal threats against Felten, then?
As I understand the law, making threats of lawsuits that you do not actually intend to follow through on in order to bully someone into doing what you want is a criminal offense. Isn't it?
If i am correct, then why isn't the EFF going after the RIAA for *that*? Seems the results of a suit finding the RIAA guilty of trying to use 'we'll sue you' scare tactics against an individual without the ability to defend himself could be far more damaging in the eye of the public media than forcing the RIAA to allow something they now claim they'll alow anyway, and could maybe end with some punitive damages that could fund the EFF..
Oh, hell, why not go against the RIAA in court for BOTH?
What am i missing/confused on here?
I'm sending it to the RIAA so they can continue to innovate.
From0 10 626_amended_felten_complaint.html, Declaratory Relief (Second Cause of Action):
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/20
F. A declaration that the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
G. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication or presentation of scientific, academic or technical speech, including the publication of computer programs, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Posted by polar_bear:
They may not be joking, but the justice department wasn't joking when it tried to enforce the CPA (I think) several years ago -- and it got shot down for being full of holes.
There are quite a few precedents of laws being passed only to be overturned when they actually get taken to court. Legislators don't always draft laws that will hold up to scrutiny, and I'm pretty sure this is one of them.
The sort of thing under discussion is disbarrment material. That doesn't imply a normal courtroom but a review board of other lawyers. While this would certainly be a "tough room" for the EFF, it might even work to their advantage. They could throw around lots of rhetoric about ideals in the practice of law. If the Bar eats it up and wallows in it's own self dellusion, these exortionists just might end up sacrificial lambs.
Then what's going to happen the next time someone from the RIAA wants to send out a letter?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No irony needed. That's what we have been on about for these last two decades. Smaller government means YOU get to keep your money and put it where you think it will do the most good. And if you think the EFF is the best use of it, great! And if you decide that new tires for the car is what you need most that is also your call.
It's called freedom, and someday we hope to live again in the country our forefathers fought and died to create. Without a overpowerful central government we wouldn't have the DMCA ya know. It is a dream we conservatives have, we could use your help.
Democrat delenda est
s a rhetorical question, I think it would be fine if we spent the $300 on the EFF, but in my own life, I plan on depositing it back into my general account and using it for my day-to-day expenses.
Hey, if you can still get more than 1 day out of $300 you're better off than me.
When it comes right down to it we as citzens should have and did get a tax refund because it was morally imperative.
Well, you know morality can be funny sometimes. Some people think it's morally right to pay bills outstanding, of which we have quite a bit - they're called Medicare and Social Security. And so can financial forecasts - all the surplus money that was supposed to pay for this cut isn't going to be there. Isn't really there now.
At the end of the year I will donate my $100 to the EFF like I do every year,
Well said, I'm with you on that. We have to be in it for the long haul and grind the bastards down.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Remind me again who appointed you to dictate a moral code to 260 million people. I don't recall this happening.
I say we find this guy and kick his ass.
Ahh, but the Irish are teaching them all a thing or two about how taxes *really* work (and the Belgians hate every minute of it). Italy and Sweden are getting the message, and France is rumored to be as well. It's a beautiful thing, even though it means in the short term our own US Democratic Party is farther left on economics than actual admit it-in-public socialists. Whoda thunkit?
In reference to the "Oregon Draught", in both this post and another below:
:)
Geez. You guys dont' really know anything about what is going on out here, do you? It's almost funny to read your comments on it.
1. There is NOT a 10 year draught going on here. (For crying out loud, we're generally known for our "more than adequate" rainfall. Yes, the eastern half of the state is quite dry, which is normal. And we are having a draught... this year. (You should see the pictures of some of the reservoirs... they look like bomb craters. But they're not empty yet, and we'll make it through the summer OK. A little tight, but that's because we're used to not worrying about water at all. Ever.)
2. The problem you're referring to is in the Klamath basin. (Sort of south central OR. There's other places having trouble, but they've got the worst of it.) It's not that there isn't water that can be used... although it IS lower than normal. The problem is that THE WATER SUPPLY HAS BEEN CUT OFF BY THE GOVERNMENT. Why? Because an "endangered fish" needs the water. (Regardless of the fact that this particular fish has been around for ages, and is capable of surviving draughts by holing up in mud. Drain the water lower, and it may hurt the population some, but not much. There's been draughts worse than this in the last million years, I'm sure.)
This is not an issue of farmers asking for handouts or "blaming the government for a 10 year draught". (What freakin' hat did you pull that one out of, I wonder?) The government is interfering with their lives by cutting off their water supply. Without that water, the fields dry up, there are no crops, there is no money. Not just for farmers, but for other industries in the area. (No one shops for anything when they don't have money to spend. So the problem ripples around to everybody. Every business is going broke.)
And no, you don't just move away to do something else. The rain will be back. Considering this is OREGON we're talking about, it'll be back in droves. This is a temporary problem, caused by a draught.
SUMMARY: The government shut off the water, and it's choking out the entire region. They want one of two things:
1. Turn the water back on
2. If the government insists on keeping it turned off, they should pay for the damages.
Neither seems to be happening... so they've decided on a big "F-U". They've rounded up hundreds of people and gone out there with buckets and hauled water by hand. (More as a demonstration than anything else.) They broke down they gates and turned the water back on, while the local sherriff looked on in approval. US Marshals came in, and turned it back off. (Note, there is no violence going on here. A lot of tension, but no one wants anyone to get hurt. They just want the water on.) So they snuck around and laid pipe to route around the gate. Now they're heading up there with heavy equipment to do a better job of it. And the governor is talking about readjusting the water level ratings in the region as a way to get water to them legally without violating the endangered species act. (Note, this is a very environmentally conscious governor, so don't get your panties in a bunch about that.)
So don't give me this "government hand-out" crap. They want the government the hell out of the area, so they can continue normal life on their own terms.
Apologies for the rant, and no offense meant to any of you... but I wanted to clear up a little misconception that appeared concerning my home state. I encourage you to look into it more... it's quite an interesting story.
Oh, yeah... forgot to mention something.
:)
Guess where a lot of our water went?
Released from reservouirs and channeled through hydro-electric dams. Making lots of juice.
Guess where a lot of that juice went?
Down to sunny California to help out with their little "problem".
So I'd guess a good good handful of Slashdotters are sitting around using up the results of our water as we speak. (So don't talk to Oregonians about "subsidizing". They might get a little irritated, and cast a menacing glare southwards.
The real danger isn't that the RIAA will sue the presenters in civil court ... they've said they haven't.
The real danger is that the RIAA will step behind the scenes and convince the Attorney General's office to press criminal charges against Felton et al.
Then the RIAA could step back and say, 'Hey, we didn't sue. The Federal government "decided" to sue'
In reality, it just became dangerous to present any research findings on encryption. Now anyone who wants to do so has to balance their desire to advance the science of encryption against the very real possibility of being charged with a felony and facing prison time and/or the loss of their house, car, and all their possessions.
Makes me glad I didn't go into the field! I wonder whether the next generation of cryptologists and cryptographic scientists will feel the same.
> they never intended to follow through on their original legal threats against Felten, then?
Perhpas they're being "honest". Maybe they just planned to do what Adobe did and sick the FBI on him. Technically, they're initial letter just warned him that he might violate the DMCA. I wonder if they cc:ed their warning to the FBI?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
[Johnny Cochran]: If the SDMI doesn't encrypt, you must acquit!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Mmmmmm, $300 worth of anime tentacle rape...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Wait a minute - since when did fiscal conservatism become leftward-leaning? Or is nutty fiscal policy (voodoo economics, anyone?) OK when it's your party in power?
It seems to me that both parties are happy to play fast and loose with the nation's economy; they just like to do it in different ways...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Touché! But in a way that's my point - the administration could be encouraging responsible personal uses of such a tax rebate (ignoring the fact that it's still irresponsible for the nation as a whole, IMHO), like taking a college course or two, contributing it to your local faith-based charity, etc. Any of those options will still spur on the economy. But the focus has been on increased consumer spending, which means SUVs, big TVs and computers (OK, I like that last one too), and so on. That's what bugs me - the idea that the American people are just out there to buy things to keep business on track. Of course, nobody supports that viewpoint like the American people themselves, so what do I know.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Well, if you really want to get the economy back on track, you'd buy some over-priced CDs :)
Me, I'm going to save the money just to spite the Prez. and Mr. Greenspan. It's amazing that conspicuous consumption, or even consumption at all, has been elevated to the standard-bearer of our economy. Sure, the economy depends on people buying goods and services, but it seems kind of sordid to tell the American people that it's their God-given duty to go out and spend some for the W, especially since there are plenty of ways that money could be used towards the long-term improvement of society and the economy in general. Too bad the President, along with most politicians, isn't a particularly long-term thinker.
Grrrr, I haven't been this angry since the last time Miguel said something :)
(boy, you know you read /. too much when all of your witty self-referential posts have scrolled off of your user page.)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Can you really say that with a straight face? He went from guy-I-never-heard-of-before (admittedly probably due to my ignorance) to hero-in-the-media-spotlight.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In addition to the facts stated in the parent post, this case provides the perfect opportunity to show what is wrong with the DMCA. Up till now the RIAA and companies who like the DMCA have been able to carefully chose opponents who can be tarred with a piracy brush (e.g. Corley & 2600, DeCSS in general) and can therefore throw a lot of mud at the defendant in the hope that some sticks.
Felten is for the EFF a perfect case of why the DMCA is a bad law and if they can get it ruled unconstitutional then Skylarov and Corley in effect receive a 'Get out of jail free' card.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
our economy was a lot healthier before we gave up England as our overlord
With all due respect, whilst a number of your countrymen have long wished to become a totally independent nation and remove the Queen as Head of State, you were partially pushed into giving up England as your overlord/ major trading partner when we joined the EU (or Common Market as it was then), which meant we started to buy all our agricultural products and most other goods from Europe.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
However, these aren't the only parties--- I could easily see a judge dismissing the RIAA and SDMI from the case, but the complaint lists the U.S. Government (well, at least the AG) as targets as well. As others have pointed out, there are criminal penalties to be careful of, too. Given the recent arrest, I'd say there's a pretty "affirmative fear" there.
Does anyone know what the procedure would be if some of the "defendants" were dropped? Would the EFF have to refile or just amend their complaint?
> I believe that they'll be CHARGING $250 a head, making a nice profit on the dinner for their legal funds. I can't imagine a dinner that actually COSTS $250 a head unless they're serving baked gold...
Except maybe bite-sized chunks of the RIAA's @ss.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
did anyone else notice the url ended with sue-bastards2.html? not that we're resorting to childish name calling or anything of the sort... but... well, i guess we are.
oh well.
--
--
RumorsDaily
Hopefully he keeps driving you up there until you smack your head on the ceiling.
President Bush does possess an MBA, and though you'll likely give some crass explanation along the lines that he just bought it, it's far more education than hundreds of millions of Americans have.
The Gods help you if you should ever misspeak in public.
"Tinybrain" isn't even clever.
I might send them a portion of mine. But mostly, it's going to go to catch up on bills accumulated while my wife was out of work (four months. Maternity. Goes back on Monday.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Rock on. I've been saying this for years.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.
Seems like this kind of statute could easily be used for the very thing it was intended to prevent, doesn't it?
The First Amendment doesn't seem to be much of a defense for us either.
The problem in the US is that there has been enough time for loopholes to be found. Combined with failing to do anything about people enguaged in high treason, even in the full glare of the media.
If you were going to sell a security system like this wouldnt you want a third party to check your work and find holes before you released it to the mass market?
But any half decent "locksmith" would tell you that mass market and high security are difficult to combine. Especially when you intend to use the security aspect against the owner of the device.
Ihe EFF have stated that the lawsuit will not be withdrawn even if the RIAA binds themselves not to sue Felton. No matter what the RIAA and Verant do, the EFF can still sue the DOJ because of the threat of criminal penalties (not chimerical).
You appear to misunderstand the import of a Motion to Dismiss. RIAA is not asking EFF to withdraw its suit, it is asking the Court to kick EFF out of court.
And what I am saying is that they have a case. It is a rare circumstance that you will be permitted to sue me to resolve possible lawsuits I might file against you but have not filed (this is what EFF is suing for -- resolution of an unfiled lawsuit, or a "Declaratory Judgment").
This, of course, has nothing to do with the abstention doctrine. The issue in Roe, to which you refer, was the fact that no woman who wanted an abortion, but could not, could sue for DJ, since her pregnancy would have been terminated (one way or the other) long before a petition for cert could be filed. The "capability of repetition, yet evading review" issue has nothing to do with RIAA's motion to dismiss.
- That serious damage was already done, since the paper wasn't presented at the conference it was supposed to
That would be helpful, had the action been filed before the conference was over. RIAA will argue, persuasively to a court, I think, that apparently, nobody thought the threat important enough to sue about it at the time.
It's very obvious to all, that what happens is, that the EFF calls the RIAA's bluff, but the EFFs lawyers used a lot of language to point out why this is necessary.
RIAA's point here is that Professor Felton did not call the bluff. No injunction was in place -- he was free to give his speech or to file an action for an emergency injunction at the time. Instead, he waited -- this is the sort of thing for which there are a zillion cases saying "No DJ jurisdiction."
I'm not saying RIAA is in the right. Just that there is a fair chance the District Court will find this motion persuasive unless EFF manifests substantial evidence that there is likelihood RIAA will subsequently seek to sue Felton for publishing.
you can sue if the threatening of suit causes damages. Which it did.
As a lawyer who has practiced in this arena quite a bit, I'll leave it at this: the truth is much more interesting.
Yes, a threat of a lawsuit may give rise to a cause of action for DJ jurisdiction. But (1) there isn't always jurisdiction unless certain facts can be proved; and (2) even when you can prove them, the District Court needn't take the case.
All I am saying is this: the the motion seriously. RIAA has a fair chance of kicking this case out of court for lack of jurisdiction without further adjudication.
I didn't say successfully sue. Yes there can be reasons that it won't get to court, however you can still file the papers, as it were.
My point was, in response the the original post I replied to, that persons do have recourse against bogus claims.
You can always file papers. Paper doesn't refuse ink.
In this case, by the way, EFF filed papers. RIAA filed a motion to dismiss -- which is to say that RIAA is asserting that it is EFF's claim that is bogus. Take this motion seriously.
Courts typically eschew resolving disputes when there is no dispute. RIAA messed up big, no doubt, but their statement that they have no intention to sue, if credited by the Court, is sufficient to permit dismissal.
Why? You can't sue because you are merely apprehensive of being sued under a statute. Unless you are affirmatively fearful that the other side intends to sue, and they are refraining from suit as a tactic to get the benefit of the threat without risking adjudication, a Court is free to refrain from taking up the cause.
No doubt, EFF will do a job in this case, hitting RIAA over the head with their rather amazing history of conduct, and perhaps raising the criminal risk card from Las Vegas. But so far, these facts still look 50-50 in terms of going forward in an action for a declaratory judgment.
Now, I'd expect EFF to offer RIAA to dismiss if they sign a general release and consent to publish the article -- thus, RIAA would have to concede, or look bad before the Court.
But these guys are all represented by awesome lawyers. It will be very interesting to watch what they do.
"Let me put it simply. I want back every dime that the government didnt absolutely need. "
Well that sounds fine and dandy until you actually sit down and do the math. The fact of the matter is that significant percentage of the population of the united states relies very heavily on government handouts. No I am not talking about the welfare mothers I am talking about farmers, ranchers, veterant, elderly people, sick people, and damn near every resident of rural states who get back from the govt more then they pay into the govt. The ugly fact is that the "liberal" (and more densly populated) states like New York and California subsidize the rural (and conservative) states like Arizona and Montana.
If indeed the govt took back that money or better yet never collected it at all so that New York money stayed in New York then the west and the midwest would collapse and fall into serious disrepair. Of course being angry and armed lot who knows what the consequences of that would be. Look how the farmers in oregon are blaming the govt for the 10 year draught for example and are taking the law into their own hands.
Usually whenever I hear somebody say "give me back the money" what they really mean is "Don't take away my benefits and handouts go take away theirs instead". Are you willing to give up low interest school loans? pell grants? govt paved roads? public parks? tennis courts and swmming pools? Go ask your neighbors what they are willing to sacrifice to pay less taxes and every single one will say "why should I have to sacrifice just take the money away from those guys (welfare mothers, corporations, foreigh nations etc).
Yea I agree let's get the govt out of the business of welfare can we start with you?
War is necrophilia.
First of all presuming you are telling the truth you must be in the one percent of americans who has never set foot in a public school of any sort. I suppose you will also claim that you have never ridden on public roads, never had your street cleared of snow, never visited a national park, or ridden public transportation either. Congratulations on being in the .0001% of americans who do not take handouts from the federal govt.
"You are mixing issues. I am talking FEDERAL government. Not local and state."
You seemed to have missed my point. The FEDERAL govt redistributes wealth from the people who live in cities and well off suburbs to the rural states where the farmers and the ranchers live. If the taxes collected from the state of new york actually stayed in new york people of montana would starve to death. They could not maintain their state roads, their sewage systems, their police and fire resources. The farmers would all go belly up without subsidized loans and the ranchers would lose all their cattle without subsized grazing fees and price supports etc. In other words states like montana would suffer a catastrophic financial collapse.
As for your dust bowl analogy well it just does not fly. It's a different world today then it was in the early part of the century. Today people are not only armed but are willing to go half cocked when anything bugs them. Not only that but they are being whipped into a anti govt frenzy by the right wing media. You can be sure the minute the shit started hitting the fan the bullets would fly. It has already happened in Montana and Arizona and it's looking like it's going happen again in Oregon. People will take the law into their own hands make no mistake about it.
A final real world example.
A year or so ago there was a huge anti govt rally in Libby Montana. The newspapers were full of talk about revolution and kicking govt ass. Then people found out that the local mining company (W.R Grace) had poisoned the entire town with asbestos dust for years and that was the reason they had cancer at alarming rates. Now those same anti govt kooks are yelling at the govt for not providing enough money and not preventing the mining company from killing them. I wish I was the head of the EPA. I would walk into that town tell them that they don't deserve govt money and they should all die slow and painful deaths at the hands of the mining company that they worshiped for decades. Too bad the actual govt is much kinder then I am and will actually help out those who hate it and want to kill it.
War is necrophilia.
"I'd be willing to bet that least four or five percent of current citizens never went to a public school. Thats besides the point though."
Whoo hoo that puts you right up there with the homosexuals. In fact I would guess that more then five percent of the american population is homosexual. Somehow you are not suggesting that US should reorganize itself to better suit the homosexual community though are you? Why should we reshape the entire fucking country to suit the whims of the five percent?
"Likewise, the things you mention are LOCAL GOVERNMENT functions except for national parks,"
Are you reading my posts? Let me say it again.
One if you think that local services like parks and such are paid ENTIRELY by your local taxes then you are profoundly mistaken. The cost of almost all local infrastucture from roads to schools is largely borne by the federal govt. Apparently you also can't seem to get your mind around the fact that if the federal funds dry up then the state has to pick up slack for retirement benefits, farm subsidies, etc. Imagine a state like iowa which already received more from the federal govt then it gives (welfare state in other words) suddenly having to cope with not only the municipal park but also the collapsing dairy, corn and beef industries. It can't be done. Iowa and other welfare states would turn into third world countries in a hurry.
"Waco? Ruby Ridge? Tim McVeigh?"
Oh boy you are one of those people. Tim Mcveigh is a murderer. He murdered hundreds of people including small children. I can't believe he is a hero to you people. As for Waco and Ruby Ridge here is a clue for you freakazoids. The correct response to "Come out with your hands up" is not "Screw you we have guns and we are not afraid to use them". What the hell were they expecting? Why not just walk out with your hand up and deal with it in court like every other freaking American Citizen does. If you want to die resisting arrest and shoot at federal agents when they come to arrest you then don't whine about it. Just do us all a favor and die for your cause.
"I mean to say, they only got the handouts that all Americans are promised, correct?"
Absolutely not. The kind taxpayers of California, New York and other hard working states handed over their tax money so a welfare state like Montana could actually clean up the mess W.R grace left behind. You see the evil FEDERAL GOVERNMENT did not want more people in Libby dying (even though they are tax leeching govt haters). So they agreed to actually spend millions of dollars cleaning up the shit the corporation left behind. You'd think those people in libby would be thanking the hard working people of New York and california as well as the kindly FEDERAL govt but no they still curse them daily all the while spending their money. A bunch of good for nothing, ungrateful, shitheads that they are.
War is necrophilia.
" Yes, I will remember that. So next time I am asked about history I will just tell them that the correct response to the British wasn't "We The People..." but "We The Surrenderers...". I mean, they COULD have just taken it to the British courts, right? "
There is a severe difference betweent he actions of the waco/ruby ridge crowd and your example. History of the world is full of heroic and brave people who were not afraid to be arrested, jailed and even die for what they believed in. These people were not willing to be arrested or jailed or die for their cause. They simply wanted to throw a tantrum and then whine about it endlessly on talk radio. Nelson Madella spent decades behind bars in a brutal south african prisons before emerging as a world leader. Randy weaver would not have made it a day in that jail. He is a coward for hiding behind his wife and kids and leading them slaughter. He should have been a man about it and either fought to the death by himself of went to jail and sacrificed his freedom like Ghandi, or Mandella did. He is a coward of the worst sort.
"Do you believe, in both theory and pratice, that the welfare state is a destructive, addicting, and evil social apparatus?"
Absolutely not. Not only do I think the welfare state is a pragmatic solution to the varied problems our country faces but is in fact the will of the people (in fact it would not have developed if it wasn't wanted by the people). Without it the less populated states would have degenerated into pools of severe poverty and there would be serious disruption of our food, water, energy, wood and mineral supplies. The only way to assure that farmers, ranchers, loggers, etc are able to do their jobs and distribute their good to the vast expanses of the American landscape is with massive federal tax money.
Aside from the practical I also believe that as a country which professes to be Christian there is a moral imperitive from Christ and God to tend to the poor and the less fortunate. If this is a "one country under god" then we better be tending the needs of the wretched. In fact the sermon on the mount is the most "liberal" document ever written and it came out of the mouth of Christ himself.
I don't know where you get this idea that the welfare state is evil. Perhaps you can point to a document where the devil extorts people to help the poor or tend to the sick. It seems like those values come from God not the Devil. If anything Satanism (as practised today) is the closest religion to capitalism I can see. Their main tenant is "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Your ideal of a world where it's every man for himself and the abondenment of the good of the whole is closer to satanism then to Christianity.
If you want to spend your tax refund getting yourself some nice shoes or some golf clubs then fine do it. But don't go around pretending that you are doing some "Moral" or "Just" thing by spending the money buying stuff for yourself. The Moral thing to do would be to sacrifice that money for the greater good. I think giving that money to the EFF would benefit the greater good.
I think Jesus with agree with me and Satan would agree with you.
How would Jesus spend his tax refund? OK that's a trick question. Jesus would be too poor to pay taxes or get a refund.
War is necrophilia.
"but that is not the job nor the purview of the government"
Sez who? You? Sure that's your opinion but so what? Apparently most people don't share your opinion because most people want the federal govt to be involved in many many things. My opinion is that the govt is here to serve the citizens. Yes that means farm subsidies and welfare. I also believe in a strong and activist govt to protect the "we who are not are not like you" from "you". This country has a horrible record when it comes to treatment of the "you don't think or look like us" citizens.
"I'd love to address your other issues,"
It's useless. I'll never change your opinion and you'll nver change mine.
" I certainly never ever call anyone else a satanist."
When you said that welfare was "evil" you brought religion into this discussion. Evil is a religious term. Sorry but you brought it up. I never called you a satanist I merely pointed out the following facts which are pretty much incontrevertable.
1) Jesus was an advocate of the poor and the disenfranchised. Insofar as the welfare state seeks to help the poor and the disenfranchised it is following the teachings of christ.
2)The Devil never ever advocated helping the less fortunate. The devil (and the modern satanist church) advocate the principle of "every man for himself".
3) capitalism is indistinguisable from satanism. It advocates selfishness and greed as the highest virtue available to man. More then that it uses as it's main driving force all seven of the deadly sins. Pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, covetousness and sloth are woven into the very fabric of capitalism and american society.
If you are looking for evil look at right wing Talk radio which seeks to "anger" americans and fill them with "pride" and partiotism all while running commercials to instill "envy" and "covetousness" so that people will consume to "gluttony" all those time saving devices so then can practise their "sloth".
If the Devil ever thought of a political or a social structure it would look exactly like capitalism.
Not one religous figure (with the exception of church of satan founder anton LeVey) ever said "go forth and accumulate as much wealth as possible". Not Jesus, Not Mohammed, not Budha. In fact they all advocated living simply at or near poverty and helping others. That puts them at severe odds with capitalism.
War is necrophilia.
I believe that they'll be CHARGING $250 a head, making a nice profit on the dinner for their legal funds. I can't imagine a dinner that actually COSTS $250 a head unless they're serving baked gold...
There is a distinction between civil law and criminal law. If you break only civil law (e.g. some breaches of contract), you can only be sued, not jailed, and you can't be called a "criminal" for it. However, some things are both civil and criminal violations (e.g. copyright violation). IANAL.
P.S. To anyone who knows - I've always wondered - is the MS trial a criminal trial or a civil trial? Why do posters on slashdot keep denying that it is either?
Female Prison Rape in NY
Shurely shome mishtake? Wouldn't it be low interest, relatively speaking - because the US is not going to go bankrupt?
Female Prison Rape in NY
The thugs want to see if they can get away with railroading a foreigner on DMCA before they try it on an American citizen.
The DMCA has to go. It's incompatible with liberty, and we as Americans must not tolerate it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I used the mailto link at www.boycottadobe.com, and sent them this:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is John Randolph, and I am a software developer and technical manager with over twenty years of experience in the computer industry in general, and the image processing field in particular. I was an early user of postscript, and an enthusiastic advocate of your products to my customers on many occasions.
Today however, I write to express my disgust at the tactics you are employing to try to silence a man whose only offense is that he pointed out how throughly shoddy your work was in your eBook product. Rot-13, for god's sake? Netscape Navigator can decrypt that!
A few years back, I was the global data security manager for KPMG Peat Marwick's electronic commerce group, and if anyone working for me had dared to ship such a half-assed load of crap and call it "encryption," I'd have fired his worthless carcass on the spot.
The arrest of Mr. Sklyarov at your behest is a vicious, rotten thing to do. To the best of my knowledge, not even Microsoft has ever stooped so low.
John C. Randolph,
Los Gatos, California
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
When it comes right down to it we as citzens should have and did get a tax refund because it was morally imperative. The government budgets XYZ for a year - lets say $3T. The government collects $4T. It follows that we should refund that extra $1T to the people who paid it. By the way, it also follows that if we only collected $2T that we should all get an additional "gap" tax bill at the end of the year, to cover the deficit.
We don't have a direct system like that though, and its too bad.
By your reasoning, we should send it right back to the government, because even though there wasn't a deficit, we still have a *massive* total debt hanging over our heads.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
According to David Eddings, barratry is where you sink your own ship in order to steal the goods.
Silly american lawyers..
with that Slapp thing, is that what they mean when they say "We'll slapp a lawsuit on them"
also, I saw someone say that so-and-so wasn't a crime but it can get a countersuit.. i thought you could only sue when the law was broken?
This is slightly offtopic, but I don't know why it hasn't been suggested before. The RIAA is a front to divert attention away from the record companies to save face. And we are falling for it. I suggest that from now on, whenever we would use the term RIAA, we should now use [BMG|Geffen|MTV|MCA|Polygram|Sony|Virgin|WarnerBr
Asylum Records, Refuge Records, Guardian Records
Greatful Dead Records (!!!), Woodstock Records, PBS Records
Buddha Records, Aware Records, Bliss Productions, Gospel Records, Worship Together Records, Praise Gathering
and of course, Straight Profit Records, Victory Records, Ruthless Records, Ruffhouse Records, and Psychopath Records. <-- At least these guys are for real.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Unless you plan to "save" the money by sticking under your mattress, it will eventually be used to buy stuff. If you deposit the money in your bank, they will lend it out or invest it, and it will ultimately end up stimulating the economy. If you really believe that the tax cut is a bad idea, your only course of action is to return your refund to the government. Saving it or donating it to charity only goes to show that you believe you can use it better than the government can.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Look at how much money the federal government has poured into education in the last few decades, and then look at the declining average SAT scores or any other metric of student performance. In education, overbearing government bureaucracy is far more of a problem than lack of funds.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
True enough, but it's not as if it matters... Try a quick game of mad libs...
Take any statement, article, or press release by those people. Do a search and replace...
RIAA/Metallica/MPAA...
They're all interchangable
Rosen/Lars/Valenti...
They're all interchangable
SDMI hack/Napster/DeCSS...
They're all interchangable.
Do the substitutions. They're all equally vile and redundant entities, fronted by equally small-minded, pitiful drones. And they're all equally fearful and resentful of the new generation and the new technology that is leaving their pathetic selves behind.
We are the future; not them.
cya,
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
that's how science works. you gotta solve all the problems, big and small.
nobody
parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
44.1Khz by 16-bits.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Don't fall for the Conservitive propaganda. The tax 'refund' is really an 'advance' on your 2002 refund. Next year you will recieve that much smaller of a refund...
Don't forget that the so-called 'tax refund' is nothing more than an advance on next year's refund. Next year's refund will be that much smaller. The idea is to get us to spend the money now to stimulate the economy and earn Bush some propaganda points.
The 'tax refund' isn't. It's an advance on next years tax return. So suppose you recieve the $300 'refund' this Summer. Then next year comes around and you fill out your 2002 return and determine that you are elegible for a $600 refund on your 2002 taxes. Guess what? You'll get $300.
If its insecure, you must stay clear.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
Here in Sweden we actually have laws to make sure you CAN keep a copy of whatever product you bought.
Key word here is "bought".
(Am I spelling this right?)
I might be off the deep end here, but it seems like European customers has a little more "rights" against companies than the average US'ian.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Ok, slightly off topic rant...
At least you got a f*ing refund. I got a little notice from the IRS stating that I would not be receiving the refund that Bush promised to ALL taxpayers. I am a student and because of that, I am still someone else's dependant (I can not claim myself on my tax return). Even though I paid over $1000 in Federal income tax last year, I have been denied this so-called universal refund. If Bush is going to ruin the fiscal well-being of the country, I'd at least like to have a little of my hard earned money back from him. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
So, first he steals the Presidency. Then he lies to us. And this man is the President of the United States? Bush is already the most corrupt president in history, and he's not even a year into his term.
Even though not directly relevant to the story (except that I have a copy of the Felten paper at the site I'm about to mention), this comment is not totally offtopic, so please don't bury it...
The URL that was
http://diddl.firehead.org/censor/
is now going to be
http://censored.firehead.org:1984/
Please update bookmarks and things. The old URL will continue to work.
-----
"Do you guys just not do any financial planning?$675,000 is NOT THAT MUCH MONEY when you consider a lifetime of work and investing."
I agree. But part of financial planning is estate planning. Assuming your mom has an estate valued at $1M, it should be fairly trivial to arrange her estate so that the taxes due on the estate are very low or even $0. I don't consider a $1M net estate to put your mom into the "rich" category. Very well off maybe. Estate planning is the key. If you don't plan your estate, then you're stupid.
"And I am not some rich la-dee-dah poofter... I'm a dotcom casualty and I am almost eating dog food right now I'm soo hard up, and there's no end in sight. But I'm not fixated on 'sticking it to the rich.' Sheesh."
Sorry to hear about your hard times. I think laid off dot-commer is probably not going to damage you too badly in the long run (easy for me to say I know). I know the comedown is a pain though. If you're living somewhere expensive, consider moving. Avoid debt like the plague (it isn't worth it for most things). If you're young and healthy enough (by your own definition), seize this opportunity. Go goof off in Mexico. Go teach English in Japan (still potentially lucrative I'm told). Go have some absurd but terribly amusing adventure. Go fall in love. Go to Bob's Donuts in SF and have an apple fritter. If your young enough, not being a wage slave isn't a crime. It's a treat! Revel in it. You can work in a cubical farm or nice office or own your own business later. Have fun!
Finally, I'm not fixated on sticking it to the rich. I do that for fun. I'm fixated on President Tinybrain. He drives me right up a wall.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
This is going to be a very long post as I am quoting huge chunks of your post. Be warned!
First off, yes, the government has X expenses, and if we collect X+Y, we should give Y back, short-sighted or not. It is possible to budget for the future, and use conservative estimates. I do it all the time, its not that hard. We have a fairly constant flow of revenue in that it will always be about a certain percent of the GDP. The costs of government should fluctuate with the costs of the GDP. In that way, if the costs of government are 10% of the GDP, then the taxes should amount to 10% of the GDP. That works regardless of the change in the GDP, and it means that the income/expense ratio will be fairly well set.
I truly don't understand this comment. You are saying that the government should give Y back. But then you say it is possible to budget for the future. On the face of it, these appear to be contradictory statements. Do you mean that the expected future costs should be budgeted in? Do you mean that the government should always take 10% of GDP (assuming that's the number) even in years when they only need 8% on the theory that sooner or later they will need 11%? Part of the problem is that although costs do fluctuate with GDP, there is often an inverse relationship and plenty of fixed costs besides. The service on the debt is essentially the same. When times are bad, more people need help. When times are good, more money comes in.
"Wrong even. I'm a big believer in the estate tax, for example."
I don't. The government has no right ever to take or force the sale of property/assets. It is immoral of them and us as citizens to allow the government to demand a tithe upon death. I frankly don't care if it applies to 1 person or too 3 people, or 30 million people. Its wrong. It may be practical, but its wrong. That being said, we all know why George Bush wants to cut it - its appealing to some very rich people who are his supporters. That weak minded, and wrong headed, and its a sham. BUT that doesn't change the fact that the estate tax is wrong, morally.
I don't understand this either. However, I think that is because it is so contrary to my world view. I don't see taxes, per se, as morally wrong. I think taxes are simply taxes. Money is simply a clever mental trick that facilitates trade as compared to barter. It has, by itself, no moral condition. In an ideal world, taxes would be used by societies to pay for the things that make society as a whole better. Of course, they can be abused. So what? They still produce, IMO, better outcomes then can be achieved without taxes. And yes, I am outcome oriented. Do the ends then justify the means? Basically, yes. They way I deal with the complaint "that means that torturing babies for pleasure is OK" is to note that I don't consider tortured babies to be a good outcome. But I do take a somewhat Lockeian view of utility and do not view the small pain of taxes as a reason to throw out the enormous benefits. And I can't even deal with the statement "the fact that the estate tax is wrong, morally." Why is that a fact exactly and not simply your opinion?
"Whatever happened to that work hard, self-made man stuff?"
I believe in that fully. I am a self-made man. But the question is: should the government force that on everyone? Put it this way: if the estate tax is designed for that purpose, why not take ALL wealth when you die. That way, your children, and their children, etc etc will have to be a self-made person. Does that sound right? How about life-insurance? Shouldn't you just get enough to pay your VISA bill and mortgage? Why should you put your kids through college? Isn't it better to be self-made?
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
Then what use are estate taxes if it is so easy to get out of them?
It is only easy to get out of estate taxes in relatively modest estates. Truly large estates (more than $10 million) are harder to steer around estate taxes. And many of the techniques to avoid estate taxes have other problems and costs.
"but that's an artificial profession (lawyer) that does absolutely no useful work."
As opposed to who? Programmers?
Tax laws should be simple and straightforward; there should be no loopholes, no different ways of "structuring", and any social manipulation being done should be as direct as possible (i.e. with direct subsidies, matching funds to charities rather than charitable deductions, etc).
The problem is that social engineering, which is part of what tax laws do, is complicated. Einstein (I think) said "Everything should be as simple as possible but no simpler." You want "social manipulation to be as direct as possible." What if it already is? What if blunt force incentives don't achieve the desired result? There is definitely room in the tax code for simplification. But how to do that is terribly tricky. It's hard to even tell where the room is.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
Exactly, thank you. First he says we gotta have estate taxes, then he says that you can worm out of them. So which is it?
<SARCASM>Oh gosh. I never thought of that! If only there was some way to differentiate between the estate I am likely to leave behind and Larry Elison's likely estate. What can we do? *Sigh* I guess you're right. Every situation is identical and should be treated accordingly.</SARCASM>
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
No statement more accurately captures Americans' beliefs about themselves than this. Americans overwhelmingly perceive themselves as middle-class. I know millionaires who think of themselves as "moderately well off... though by no means wealthy". I don't really have a point; it's just some bizzare psychological block I've noticed in my fellow Americans.
I think you're right. I also think that is largely a source of strength for the US. But to clarify, I make less than $60K a year, have excellent benefits, and live in New York City. I think calling myself "moderately well off" may even be bragging given the cost of living here.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
a. I have never taken federal government money for my education. I have never been to a public school, not for headstart, not for kindergarten, not for grade, middle, or high-school. My parents created me, and they paid up to high-school, when I promptly got a job and paid my $5k tuition bill four years in a row. For college, I first went to a private school with scholarships and private loans and then transferred to an in-state University where I volunteered to pay the out-of-state unsubsidized costs (which still were 1/3 of the private school, btw).
I have to say this is impressive. I admire people who can put their money where their mouth is. I'll point out that you probably do benefit, however indirectly, from federal spending. But that is mostly to tweak you. You are probably doing all you can to live as you think you should. (BTW, if you aren't already, you might consider buying food (at least vegetables) from a farm coop or community agriculture program. Cheap food is another fed subsidy. And the community agriculture stuff often tastes better as a bonus.)
b. As for welfare, my parents nor myself have ever accepted welfare. My parents, who both make a very small amount as city workers and later as a stay-at-home dad, had six kids. They never took welfare, WIC, food-stamps, or any of that "assistance". They bred us, and they fed us.
Again, very admirable.
c. Now, as a member of the workforce, and as a member of a rather low but still sufficient pay-class, I could have taken state-subsidized prescription drug benefits (in Maine). I feel the laws that allow them to be unconstitutional on server levels, so I refused the 'benefit'. I pay for my drugs out of pocket and with my private insurance benefits. What makes these benefits unconstitutional in your opinion? And do you go to Canada to buy drugs? That would be a sensible alternative given you live in Maine. Or would that be cheating?
Futhermore, I don't like your ad hoc attacks.
This doesn't count as a spelling flame: I think you mean to say ad hominem rather than ad hoc. Just an FYI.
Finally, if we reformed our system, and got the government out of our lives, you would see what we as Americans are really capable of. If Oregon was a truly droughted and changed state then a few things would change, if not for government bailouts: farmers would relocate or move out of the farming business, then due to low supply food prices would go up, then people in more fertile areas of nation would see the opening for more farming and take it and supply would increase, and prices would once again stabilize, along with supply.
I agree that subsidies distort markets and cause inefficient and undesirable resource allocation.
All we need is for the government to leave us be, to allow us to exploit our natural and progressive talents, and to rise to the challenges facing us. The process has been started, mostly by freedom minded people like myself. Our day is rising, and as it stands, we are quickly growing. Five years ago we in the LP numbered less than 100,000. Today, we number over 500,000 - and that's only those of use who registered. That number is likely over 1 million, and everyday we grow stronger.
I think you believe what you say and that is good. I think you try to do what you believe and that is rare and admirable. I think you are wrong about what would best benefit the world but that's life. Saying "that number is likely over 1 million" is meaningless. The web site only claims 224,000 registered voters. If you want to prove something, pretend I'm from Missouri. Show me.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
I may be an off topic troll but what the hell:
"When it comes right down to it we as citizens should have and did get a tax refund because it was morally imperative. The government budgets XYZ for a year - lets say $3T. The government collects $4T. It follows that we should refund that extra $1T to the people who paid it. By the way, it also follows that if we only collected $2T that we should all get an additional "gap" tax bill at the end of the year, to cover the deficit."
Well, commies like me will tell you giving huge chunks of change to incredibly wealthy people even while their overall share of the tax burden is decreasing is unfair. Wrong even. I'm a big believer in the estate tax, for example. It typically affects only extremely rich people or moderately rich people that are astonishingly stupid (or unlucky) when it comes to tax planning. There are other mechanisms for dealing with the 9 or so farmers affected. The beautiful thing about the estate tax is that it, like property tax, is a tax on wealth. Being rich is a cool thing and fun and, take alone, morally neutral. But passing that wealth along as a means of entrenching power? The hell with that. President Tinybrain, err, Bush is the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush III. He in turn was freakin' Queen Elizabeth II's 13th cousin twice removed (check it: http://www.genealogyspot.com/know/president.htm). Whatever happened to that work hard, self-made man stuff? (To be nearly fair: Bush the Elder is not a moron. He worked damn hard and definitely bettered the Bush family fortune and prospects by his ventures into the oil business. This was an independent step for him. At worst he may be an evil CIA spook who should have been fitted with a radio collar for surveillance purposes. But at least he actually went out and did stuff unlike his useless kid.) Maybe Tinybrain would be a better prez if he'd had to work for a living?
Cynical and bitter lovers of freedom and democracy like me will tell you that offering a tiny bribe to people who are more likely to have not voted for you than not is a cheap way to distract them from the coup you accomplished last fall. We will also point out that had you given the money "back" in the form of credits on payroll taxes (the largest category of taxes for most people and tremendously regressive [not that that is always a bad thing; c.f. my estate tax rant above]) you would have helped far more people than this did. It apparently wasn't a question of "your" money as it was "some of your money." Of course then you wouldn't be able to reward the people that helped overthrow our government.
But most of all, pragmatic people like me will tell you that flushing the surplus we have now so we can borrow it back later (plus more to pay the debt service!) is astonishingly short sighted. The heart of my beef with your post is your take on the budgetary process.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
-Legion
It reads like a high school debate topicality arguement (college debate is slightly more detailed, but T-violations always suck).
It's a detailled, line-by-line arguement about how the court shouldn't be considering this motion.
The only thing that it says is that the court should throw out this motion because the RIAA never sued and this case has no grounds.
I agree with some of the earlier posters, the RIAA is maintaining that the DMCA is a tool to intimidate, not rule on.
Interestingly, pulling the paper was apparently voluntary, and the RIAA argues that this case is about fishing for good publicity and a ruling on the DMCA.
IANAL, but I think that they may be right... we shall see.
Alex
44.1khz/96bit (I think those are the numbers... someone verify me, please. I'm lazy tonight.) .wav file. Lossless digital media. Huge as hell, tho.
Oh... you mean from the microphone to the cdpress... well that's another story.
BTW, if you're reading this rot26 encrypted post, you're in violation of the DMCA.
EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
AC's need not reply
Sorry to burst your bubble, but please tell that to Sklyarov. FBI agents handcuffed and arrested him, under the DMCA, as it was claimed. I don't think the RIAA, MPAA, or Adobe is joking. At all.
I have no problems with having faith in the courts. We need to keep this from being a shouting match between the techies, who shout "bad law" and the RIAA and gang, who shout "good law". For this, we need REASONS, not contentions, not moral one-upmanship, or legal maneuvring. Because you are presenting this case before the courts, and we do believe these are reasonable judges, right?
The United States of Australia has also enacted a similar piece of legislation to the DMCA. Whilst not quite as draconian (because you can't get slammed just for having DeCSS or DiXV on your PC), it is still one sided nevertheless. Our weak-kneed government seemed to roll over and play dead when asked by the US to enact these type of laws. (No wonder Asia calls Australia the US's deputy... and our dumb Prime Minister is proud of it). Here is where you can find the Australian legislation Copyright Amendment (Digital Amendment) Act 2000 Unfortunately, since Australia does not have the first amendment, there is nothing that an Australian academic can do to defend themselves against s132 (5B)(c) which makes it an offence to "distribute a circumvention device with the intention of trading, or engaging in any other activity that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright
First, they raise money (probably about $180 out of the $250.) Attendees know they could get a much better meal for $500 a couple by eating out at a real restaurant.
Secondly, big donors get a chance to meet the people behind the foundation, and judge for themselves if their money is being put to good use. I.e. does this foundation have smart, honest people working for it? If it looks good, donors may write a big check based on their belief that the money will be well spent.
I donated a decent sum to the EFF last year, but if I wanted my father to donate, I'd advise him to go the dinner: it's a painless way to get an education, especially because he has better things to do than read /.
Don't forget to invite the chairpersons of the SDMI companies, and the bigwigs behind the whole SDMI thing. You may also want to invite some people from RIAA, and the MPAA. From what I hear, Jack Valenti gives one hell of a toast.
-------
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
As I understand the law, making threats of lawsuits that you do not actually intend to follow through on in order to bully someone into doing what you want is a criminal offense. Isn't it?
Yeah but lying to the public and telling them you weren't going to sue when you were isn't.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I read it as a fund raiser, but if it isn't please remember that sometimes you need to wine and dine influencial people who expect that kind of thing. If by spending 250.00 dollars a plate got them the attention of the right politician, then I'd say it's money well spent.
Still, I do believe its a fund raiser.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It is clear that you and I have very different and incompatible definitions of "rumor", e"heresay", nad "attribution".
No-one has cited any evidence to support anything in the original poster's message. The original poster copied an unattributed post from another board. That post was speculation on the treatment of Mr. Sklyarov, and there has been absolutely no evidence provided to substantiate any of the speculation in that post.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
I wonder if judges or state legal boards look favorably on lawyers who send out intimidating letters and threatning lawsuit, and then later backpeddling and say, "Oh, we were just kidding. We never meant to sue!"
It would be good if tactics like this had reprecussions for the arrogant jerks involved.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
No, it was attributed.
No, the person who made the original post to this thread did not indicate that he had copied a post by Mr. Hamrick. He did not, in fact, mention Mr. Hamrick's name at all. Instead, a helpful anonymous poster replied to me, and attributed the source of the original post to Mr. Hamrick.
The original poster did not attribute the source of his materials.
In fact, Declan McCullagh, the well-known Wired magazine reporter, has written about just this subject.
Yes. Although it is a very interesting article, it does not claim that Mr. Sklyarov is held in solitary confinement, or that the Russian embassy has been denied access to him.
Before my original reply to the thread root, I did search the net, I read the article the original poster linked to at cryptonomicon, and I read the EFF press release, the DOJ press release, and the AP story linked to by the cryptonomicon story. None gave any indication that Mr. Sklyarov is being held in solitary confinement, or that the Russian embassy has been denied access to him.
Look, what is happening to Mr. Sklyarov is bad. The DMCA is bad. We must fight these things, and make it our goal to get him released, and get the onerous parts of the DMCA struck down. But the contents of the original post in this thread are nothing more than wholly unverified rumors. Nothing is gained by ranting in these forums about unverified rumors. Calling the US State Department and ranting about unverified rumors about the treatment of Mr. Sklyarov can only be detrimental to our goal.
Please, people -- when talking to others about this, please be very clear in your mind what is verified fact, and what is unverified rumor. And remember, the facts in this case stand as testament on their own.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
By definition, if he's being held in solitary confinement we wouldn't find out until afterwards.
OK, I'm done with this thread.
You've proven to anyone reading that you're seriously clueless, and I've proven to anyone reading that I argue with clueless anonymous cowards. I may as well be tilting at windmills.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Speaking as a musician...that might not be a bad idea, either. :)
Yes, but I don't WANT it to go to THAT cause.
I want it to go to THIS one.
And the beauty of it is that I now have a choice -- and the irony of it all is that I have George W. Bush to thank for it.
If I hadn't lost moderator priveleges for posting to the thread, I'd give you a (+1, Funny) on the spot. :)
You make some very good points.
:)
Before I got the note from the IRS, I'd completely forgotten about the refund. I'd already budgeted the rest of the year, and I didn't have any money available for the EFF, especially since I was still financially recovering from my jobless period, but most everything else was covered.
Now, I do have money to give. It was really only a "bonus" because of my own forgetfulness.
At first, I was thrilled with my IRS refund because $300 is a lot of money to a guy who had no job for two months.
But now, I'm thinking that this money was intended to serve others. It was set apart to serve causes higher than myself, and now I have the chance to actually choose where that money goes. I don't have to worry about it going to build bombs, or how much overhead the government bureaucrats will take from it.
I can take this money and choose whom it will serve.
Perhaps what we all can do, those of us who find the tax cut irresponsible, is to use our power of choice to send the money where we think it will be valuable.
Right now, the EFF is doing the right thing. But they can't do it all for free. Perhaps it would be best if I were to send my $300 refund to them?
What do you think? What are you going to do with your IRS refund?
Fight Spammers!
B^)
Thats some highly vitriolic lawyering there!
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
...all the security holes in my software are protected under copyright. If you find one, you cant publish it, nor reproduce it in anyway without writen permission.....
Do you believe in original sig?
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Thats the problem with todays media security. Once someone figures out a way to jimme the lock they blame the locksmith.
His project was quite open and had a resonably sound goal, which was to find weaknesses in the media security system.
If you were going to sell a security system like this wouldnt you want a third party to check your work and find holes before you released it to the mass market? (and as a bonus it was free (comparatively) to them).
Hell they should have funded the project or sponsored one of there own so as to try to avoid that whole DeCSS thing.
But this is the real world and in the real world we put locks on things to keep honest people honest and anyone who says "The emporer has no cloths!" gets thrown in jail. Well at least thats the threat.
But I have to admit, this is not the way I expected this case to go.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Typical saber-rattling maneuver used by RIAA. There is an inversely proportional relationship between the shrillness of a given RIAA threat and the firmness of the legal foundation upon which it rests.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
P.S. To anyone who knows - I've always wondered - is the MS trial a criminal trial or a civil trial? Why do posters on slashdot keep denying that it is either?
(IANAL) Antitrust laws are the source of much confusion on /. First, the MS trial is definitely ciminal, as 15 USC 1 & 2 say that violators are guilty of a felony (one could infer this, though, from the fact that it was the U.S. Govt that brought the suit). I think the conflicting posts come from the odd nature of the remedies. In this article, I unintentionally contributed to this confusion. Courts have become rather laid-back about dealing with monopolies, and the current thinking is that monopoly abuses shouldn't be punished, but rather corrected. This is why the government refers to a "rememdy", rather than a punishment. The goal of any rememdy is to restore the marketplace to a point where the guilty party faces as much competition as if they hadn't acted illegally. It is believed that part of MS's strategy is to stall for so long, that some token competition arises. If it can manage that, then the marketplace has corrected itself, and the courts will conclude that no remedy of any kind is needed.
Oops! I somehow managed to misspell "remedy" twice. My bad.
I like this part of the Felten Amended Brief the best: "M. A permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the DMCA because it is in excess of Congress' enumerated powers." A request to flat out declare the DMCA unconsitutional.
Think of all the legal cases in the past year that would effectively overturn. Damn near every RIAA and MPAA lawsuit there was! Wouldn't it be great to see the RIAA and MPAA put into bankruptcy by countersuits by people who's civil rights were violated by the bastards?
And, the best part is that they'll send me 12 DVDs for my $300 pledge.
Beats a tote bag any time.
Carthago delenda est!
A victory would set a great precedent for the future and make a clear statement that such intimidation won't get very far in the courts
The EFF is smarter than that, from the defendant list: "JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES"
Should they win, this makes DMCA criminally unenforceable too.
agreed, parent got it wrong. What attendees probably will get is some finger sandwitches and a cup of kool-aid.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Since Dr Felten's paper is not submitted to the USENIX conference because of RIAA's threat and that it is now too late for him to do so. There is definite damages done to his academic reputation. There may also be potential financial loses, eg future research grants may depends on works he has done/published etc.
Sorry, but just taking it back now is a bit too later.
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
It's not the MPAA. It's the RIAA.
Please, Slashdot posters, before you post, at least get the facts right! And BTW, there is no such thing as the "DCMA"--it's the "DMCA", which stands for "Digital Millenium Copyright Act".
----------
qslack.com
That was a superb rant that beautifully pokes holes in the Bush-sponsored tax cut. Bravo! It's nice to see someone smart enough to think beyond this week's checking account balance.
What it all boils down to is self-centered greed. I've got a six-figure income. Bush's tax scheme gives a lot of money back to me. But I'm not so self-centered that I am for it. I do not believe that I should get a tax refund at the expense of people who really need the government assistance -- whether they are poor widows or struggling farmers. I also have enough sense to recognize that we, as a country, need to save up for the greying of America when a much greater percentage of Americans will be retired and drawing on Social Security.
The amount of money that you will get out of Bush's tax scheme is inversely proportional to the amount that you need. If you are a widow struggling to make ends meet on a small, fixed income, you will get little to nothing. If you have a six (or seven or eight) figure income, you will get lots back. That's Bush's idea of a "fair" tax plan.
My tax refund is going to the EFF, but I only wish it was $300 or $600.
I got the IRS notification yesterday and my special gift from George Dubya is a measly $13.25 (this for for me and my wife and yes, we both work full-time or close to it).
All of you out there who have been hearing the media hype about our $600 checks, don't hold your breath.
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
then who is responsible to press the charges. Wouldn't these sort of charges be at the states discresion (and in their perrogative) and not the offended party? Or does the offended party have to file some form of official complaint? For example in Washington state what would be the procedure (since we seem to have an expert - or at least an informed individual - on washington state law.
IANAL but,0 01 0606_eff_complaint.html)
0 626_amended_felten_complaint.html)
From the original complaint.
(http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/2
"The Declaratory Judgment Act was designed to relieve potential defendants from the Damoclean threat of impending litigation which a harassing adversary might brandish, while initiating suit at his leisure -- or never. The Act permits parties so situated to forestall the accrual of potential damages by suing for a declaratory judgment, once the adverse positions have crystallized and the conflict of interests is real and immediate.
Japan Gas Lighter Ass'n v. Ronson Corp., 57 F.Supp. 219, 237 (D.N.J. 1966). "
What the EFF is curently suing for is; (from the ammended complaint http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/2001
"Declaratory Relief (First Cause of Action)
A. A declaration that the individual Plaintiffs are not liable under the DMCA for (1)
submitting the SDMI Paper to IHW or the USENIX Security Symposium, or for
presenting or publishing the SDMI Paper at the USENIX Security Symposium or
elsewhere; (2) submitting the ICASSP Paper to the ICASSP conference and
presenting or publishing it in the ICASSP proceedings or elsewhere; and (3)
publishing or presentations based on Chapter 10 of Dr. Wu's dissertation in electronic
form or otherwise.
B. A declaration that Plaintiff USENIX is not civilly liable under the DMCA and is not
subject to criminal liability for publishing the SDMI Paper or presentations based
upon the paper at the USENIX Security Symposium, or elsewhere.
C. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are not liable under the DMCA for the presentation
or publication of any research resulting from, or related to, the SDMI Public
Challenge.
D. A declaration that the DMCA is not violated by the publication or presentation by
the Plaintiffs or others of future scientific and technical information (including computer
code) related to access and copy control measures and copyright management
information systems.
Declaratory Relief (Second Cause of Action)
E. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication or presentation
of the SDMI Paper, the ICASSP Paper, Chapter 10 of Dr. Wu's dissertation and/or
any scientific, technical or academic research related to the SDMI Public Challenge
violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
F. A declaration that the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
G. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication or presentation
of scientific, academic or technical speech, including the publication of computer
programs, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Declaratory Relief (Third Cause of Action)
H. A declaration that the individual Plaintiffs did not and will not violate the
Click-Through Agreement by (1) submitting the SDMI Paper to IHW or the
USENIX Security Symposium, or for presenting or publishing the SDMI Paper at the
USENIX Security Symposium or elsewhere; and (2) submitting the ICASSP Paper
to the ICASSP conference and presenting or publishing it in the ICASSP proceedings
or elsewhere; and (3) by Dr. Wu writing, defending and publishing Chapter 10 of her
dissertation in electronic form or otherwise.
Declaratory Relief (Fourth Cause of Action)
I. A declaration that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it is not a valid exercise of
any of Congress' enumerated powers.
Injunctive Relief
J. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the private Defendants, the Doe
Defendants and their respective agents, employees, attorneys, successors in office,
assistants and all persons acting in concert with them from initiating an action against
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
The Dmitry Sklyarov case might ultimately lead to the same thing, though I doubt that's much comfort to him as he rots in jail...
Yes infact I have donated money to the EFF as well as the ACLU and the Libertarian Party. Sadly most that talk about supporting free speech like to cheer for it but choose not to support it by voting with their dollars. Sorry about the MPAA mistake. With all the **AA's you sorta screw em up from time to time.
I know donating some cash to the EFF would do some good. This seems like a perfect case to push for a trial. The MPAA needs to lose some to let it know it cannot push around some of our scientists without getting stung!
If you have not already done so donate some currency to their cause (our cause).
Actually, in many states, it is. It's called barratry. For example, in Washington State:
RCW 9.12.010
Barratry.
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
=====
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.
In this particular case, there should be another avenue for redress. The letter was clearly intended to prevent the recipient from making a speech, and it succeeded in that (I presume due to it being timed so the legal issues couldn't be worked out before the conference). That sounds to me like a civil rights violation -- which is both a tort and a crime. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Bushies to prosecute a corporation, but the professor doesn't have to get permission from the (in)Justice Dept to sue.
IANAL, but...
Threatening to sue someone frivolously is grounds for a countersuit. It is not a crime.
Threatening to report someone to the police if they don't do what you ask is a crime (in some jurisdictions yada yada IANAL blah blah blah).
Threatening to sue someone is just the first step in civil law. If you have a case under the law, you might win right there. If you don't, you fight. Countersuit, appeal, drain the bank account, settle whenever, are all options for what happens after. Welcome to our world.
So no, it's not a crime, but an idle threat might be grounds for a countersuit, and a filed, frivolous lawsuit is definitely grounds for a damn solid countersuit.
IANAL, I just know this one thing. And it might be wrong.
--Blair
"What I say three times is true."
"The best part is the EFF and Felten are planning a victory dinner at $250 a head!"
:D
Damn, where the hell are they that prices are so expensive? Here in NY, its far less than $250 to get head.
Now, if this were actually a DMCA case, there would be some interest, because I do believe it is important to establish legal precedent that allows researchers to do this sort of thing. But the RIAA has backed down. The Adobe encryption case seems like a much better avenue to pursue.
Is the EFF going to defend him?
I think this is *another* great opportunity to have the DMCA overturned as unconstitutional.
Secondly, people don't pay $250 a plate for such dinners because the food or the service is just that good, but because they want most of the money to go to the EFF. On the other hand, I can't think of anybody who buys a CD because they want Sony or AOL-Time/Warner to have most of the money.
Third, if you want to get food from somebody else, or get the recipe from the chef and make it yourself, you can. You'll have a hard time legally getting CDs or even guitar tabs from someone other than the RIAA, though.
And last (that I can think of at this second) but not least, the EFF hasn't tried to make the act of jumping a fence a felony offense in and of itself.
The sad truth is, the RIAA has already bought the Judge off, who will after much "Careful Consideration" throw the case out and will never get to trial. Mark my words the RIAA's lawyers are too smart for this.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
In Texas it seems that the threating to sue some one makes you liable for the cost of prepairing to defend your self. So if I threaten to sue some one and don't they can sue me for there legal costs that were incurred while prepairing to defend them selves against my possible suet.
Kinda puts a crink in there letters.
They basically tried to get the DMCA drafted to be so tough that nobody would want to risk taking it to court. Backing down to an intimidating letter that alludes to the dire consequences of violating ridiculously draconian law is much safer for corporations, and especially individuals who don't want to go to jail for a decade or so. To them, the possible consequences are too grave, even if the risk factor is low.
...
string* plamenessFilter =
...
string* plamenessFilter =
*plamenessFilter = "Flaming Death!!";
Facing the DMCA is like playing chicken with a cardboard Mac truck. It's big, it's bad, but if you were to ever call its bluff, it probably won't survive.
...
string* plamenessFilter =
...
string* plamenessFilter =
*plamenessFilter = "Flaming Death!!";
In a rather unexpected move however, the Dutch PTT, through Planet Internet added themselves to the defendant list, giving the little ISP's some more weight and causing another court to handle the case. I may be off on the details here, but those are not relevant at this point, it's the idea that matters now.
I am wondering if the US court system allows this kind of 'adding yourself' to the list of defendants (is 'defendant' the right word? I hope so...). IF there is no secret agenda behind this courtcase, like KGB/CIA meddling or earlier crimes comitted in the US by Sklyarov, and the whole case is ONLY about publishing/speaking on how to break a ROT13 encryption, I would be HAPPY to 'add' myself to this case and share Sklyarov's destiny. The same would apply for Dr Felten actually (just to not get smacked down as being 'Offtopic') but hey, I cannot claim to be as smart as Dr. Felten.
I figure if enough people and perhaps companies (there MUST be companies out there that are very much AGAINST this DMCA) will rise against this (from what it looks like, and admitting that I don't know all the facts) GRAVE INJUSTICE. I just cannot stand people being treated like the most vicious criminals for violating laws that go against every common sense, and not violating it in a brutal way, but merely by exposing pure STUPIDITY.
Anybody with legal knowledge, please post on here if this is at all possible and if there have been precedents like this where many many people voluntarily added themselves to a courtcase.
Great idea: EFF can retain the best attorneys in the world (perhaps german attorneys?) and send the legal bills to RIAA. RIAA has to pay! What, do you think attorneys work for free? Perhaps EFF can run the legal bills up to the billions.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Its a deal with the devil, and like all such arrangements it looks wonderful until you realise that you have sold your soul for trinkets.
Others may see that we have 'support' from the USA, and a relatively healthy western economy. What they don't see is that our 'support' lasts right up until the point where it is inconvenient for our masters^H^H^H^H^H^H valued partners, whereupon it is instantly dropped, but we are never allowed to question the dictates that come the other way. And they are dictates, make no mistake. What they don't see is that our economy was a lot healthier before we gave up England as our overlord and switched to Uncle Sam.
Being a 'valued ally' of the United States of America means that if you disagree with them, you are 'threatening that friendship'. Ask Noriega or Hussein what that means. If you show sufficient agreement, however, the rest of the world will dismiss your views - rightly - as a subservient echo.
It is a Faustian deal, and many Australians wish we had never made it.
____________
''Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it.''
Mephistopheles, Marlowe's Tragedy of Doctor Faustus
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
Oh, hell, why not go against the RIAA in court for BOTH?
Because the RIAA have huge lawyers and loads of money. They could theoretically get away with nearly anything. If you really think that you could win, then go for it, but I don't think it will yield any results other than you losing a ton of money (and the case).
---
------
Sig
Adobe's prosecution of Katalov is going to provide the lawyers with more to work with...
RIAA threatens with lawsuit... someone else is actually arrested with the help of the FBI, for basically the same thing... This well respected Professor could have been arrested for the paper...
This should give a very clear picture to even the more uninformed judge, so that true problems with the DMCA are obvious...
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
In other words, only those who can afford a $250 meal are worthy of attendance. The rest of us can continue reading slashdot in our dirty gutters, rolling in filth and sending in our measly pennies and nickels to the EFF while believing it all makes a difference.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
for real
You're joking, right? You think they're going to take the funds earned from the dinner and blow it on Armani suits and caviar, or what? Court cases cost money- lots of it. You're not paying $250 for dinner, you're making a donation and getting an enjoyable evening out of it. Then we'll have an organization that can actually afford to pursue these cases in the future.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
And I choose to invest them in my new web site, http://GlobalFreePress.com
Now I know its a stretch thinking that a few measly few dollars is gonna stack up much against the competition (the usual suspects), but i felt i had to try anyway, if only as a kind of clumsy salute to the open source community in general, and slash in particular. ( Guttenberg must be proud! )
I am including an e-mail i sent to one of my home towns popular radio stations, in the (vain?) expectation that it might get mentioned, and therefore, however unlikely drive some traffic my way.
I know that even this post could be construed to be just another veiled scheme at more promotion, maybe it is, but as the subject of the following e-mail explains...
------ Forwarded Message
From: Lionel Mandrake <lmandrake@GlobalFreePress.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:19:00 -0400
Subject: I'm not sure if this is news, but...
I thought I'd send it in anyway. And let you be the judge
A "native son", announces the launch today of a new, global, real-time,
community based, "printing press" called GlobalFreePress, where else, but on
the web, thru. July 19 @ http://GlobalFreePress.com . ( I am no marketer,
but ain't those the buzzwords, well maybe not the printing press )
AKA: a webzine
Feeling increasingly alarmed at what makes it on the news today, and even
more so by what, is in fact, left out, a new web site is inspired.
Tired of waiting for the industry to change and adapt. Uncommon sense said,
"You know the power of the web is not just a cliché, or at least it
shouldn't be, and there actually is a whole lot of power to be harnessed out
here, especially for democracy, within this wild, wild, web."
In the spirit of the year 1776, and the city of brotherly love itself, the
site's focus is, "Democracy".
Just as the pubs, of Whitman's day, provided a common ground, for the common
and not so common fork to express themselves, learn, and inspire, the goal
is the same at GFP (GlobalFreePress).
By harnessing the collective wisdom, and talent of net citizens around our
globe, open source software has made "mote", the recent anti trust suit
against, probably the worlds largest, and most obvious monopoly of our time,
Microsoft.
By leveraging the enormous, diverse, distributed, evolving, and demonstrated
power of the open source community, the GFP hopes to provide a platform
which gives voice to the issues of great importance of our day, and allows
everyone to speak up. We hope to provide a new commons for commonsense
instead of the trash that somehow passes as news on many traditional media
outlets.
By using today's most modern, open source Internet technologies ( Linux,
Apache, PERL, SLASH, etc. ) the GFP allows the user complete control over the
content published to the site. And is able to customize the flow of
information to meet his or her needs. The site also allows the user to
publish their own thoughts, ideas, and feedback on today's most relevant
issues. The site will allow a conversation to be inspired by one of the
sites informative, issue oriented, articles. The site also allows for the
dynamic importation and exportation of information for many other similar
web sites, also completely controlled by the user.
So, as an alternative to just being talked at, while the powerful play goes
on, everybody may contribute a verse.
I created TaxRebatePledge.org. I pay for the ISP with my own money. How could I not posting comments people send to my site be censorship? If I went to your house and painted "Moron Inside" on the door, would it be censorship if you painted over it?
Besides, the only thing the people who don't like the site seem to be able to come up with is: "Your a socialist", "I'm giving my money to the NRA" or "I'm buying a gun with mine." That gets a little old after you've heard it about 100 times.