Slashdot Mirror


MPAA, Microsoft Testify Piracy Funds Terrorism

GuyMannDude writes "[Yesterday's] Oversight Hearing on "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism" featured the MPAA and Microsoft testifying that software and movie DVD counterfeiting is an acute problem, with criminal gangs operating factories in Russia, Malaysia and other countries that have weak copyright laws. They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror." There's another article about the hearing at Infoworld.

143 of 757 comments (clear)

  1. Oh No!!! by x311 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait.......since when did Microsoft become the ANTI-terrorists?

    1. Re:Oh No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      No, P2P fights terrorism!

      If you can download it for free, that would undercut the piracy market which is funding terrorist.

      Put your wares online for America!

    2. Re:Oh No!!! by Grax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are whatever they decide will make them money today.

      NEWS FLASH!
      All black market activities fund terrorism in one way or another. That is how the black market works. Alcohol sales funded terrorism in the US during prohibition. Cocaine, stolen art, fake Levi jeans, ivory, all contribute to terrorism.

      If we had a black market in Barbie dolls the money would be used to fund terrorism.

      x "is used to fund terrorism" isn't really an effective argument for more controls over x. It is a better argument for making x freely available so that there will be no black market for it.

      Obviously the MPAA and MS wouldn't go for the idea but they are the ones creating the black market with their licensing requirements. If they really cared about avoiding the funding of terrorism they would let whoever wanted to copy their stuff copy it freely.

      Anyhow, why are they spending their energy harassing p2p users when they have the real hardcore criminal gangs to go after? Could it be because the average p2p user don't have bombs?

    3. Re:Oh No!!! by Bonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mod parent up. This is the gaping, Mack Truck-sized hole in the argument.

      The only rational way to argue that piracy funds terrorism is that organized pirates sell pirated copies and transfer the funds to terrorist organizations in order to buy weapons, supplies, Swiss-Army Knives, Freedom Fries and other terroristy things like that.

      If all piracy takes place on P2P networks, there's no cash, and thus no profit for Al-Qaida or Iraq.

      There are real activities that fund terrorism, such as the illegal sale of oil from sanctioned countries and diamond and gold mining. Trading the latest Britney Spears track, the latest Hollywood movie DVD rip, or the latest Microsoft OS ISO rip is so far removed from terrorism that it's laughable to try to associate them. This is an ad hominem attack of the most blatant kind.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    4. Re:Oh No!!! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "If you can download it for free, that would undercut the piracy market which is funding terrorist. "

      Heh funny as that comment is, there's a good point to be made here. The MPAA should not call online trading piracy if they're going to associate it with terrorism that way.

      Or should we just sling it right back at them?

      "The MPAA funds terrorism by making movies available."

    5. Re:Oh No!!! by Peterus7 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, if you consider horrible criminal acts to be terrorism, then sometimes the RIAA is terrorism...

      Wait... we're talking about P2P... oh yeah...

      The problem with the RIAA and the MPAA is by trying to stomp out P2P they are only making themselves look bad. P2P cannot die. If they use their own little P2P service that you have to pay for to its fullest extent and make it look good, all while leaving underground P2P alone, then they might be able to solve their problem. But trying to end P2P is like trying to kill Ben Kenobi. "I shall only grow stronger."

      Remember Napster!

  2. they are getting desparate by moab · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah and Osama Bin Laden is sittin in a cave in Afghanistan with a buncha cds and a burner!

    1. Re:they are getting desparate by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      my favorite is that Marijuana use funds terrorism. Funny, most of the Marijuana sold in the US is from farms in KY and TN... Unless Terrorists like to reside in the hills of KY and TN I doubt this is true...

      +5 Funny for Microsoft and the MPAA!

    2. Re:they are getting desparate by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Funny
      my favorite is that Marijuana use funds terrorism. Funny, most of the Marijuana sold in the US is from farms in KY and TN... Unless Terrorists like to reside in the hills of KY and TN I doubt this is true...

      +5 Funny for Microsoft and the MPAA!
      ...And occasionally British Columbia... And of course, you know you should fear those canucks.

      After all, anybody who preaches free health care must be "un-American." (Lately I've been thinking being unAmerican isn't all bad...)
      --
      Who did what now?
    3. Re:they are getting desparate by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know about selling Marijuana but members of the Hezbollah have been known to smuggle cigarettes from low tax states to high tax states. Cells like these pretty much deal in whatever trade they can (illegal or not) to earn money for their cause. I wouldn't doubt that they grow and sell marijuana, too.

    4. Re:they are getting desparate by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not so much funding terrorism, but increasing local gang violence. People DO get shot/robbed over drugs, incl grass.

    5. Re:they are getting desparate by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the lower end of the scale there's no doubt that someone, somewhere will hand over some cash to someone who is in a terrorist group, but while the various lobby groups try to demonise file sharing by saying that it magically 'funds' terrorism is sorta avoiding the more obvious problem that large scale money laundering or investment banking is where the real terrorist money comes from.

      So far everyone's just looked a bit embarrassed when it's been pointed out that that bank accounts all over the world hold terrorist money.

      As for funding terrorism, I believe that the US has handed out cash to 'rogue nations' for as long as memory stretches.

      Now, it might be possible to point out that Microsoft supports terrorism by selling legitimate copies of windows to terrorists and is therefore funded by them...

      The argument is only as spurious as theirs.

      OD

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    6. Re:they are getting desparate by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's been amply demonstrated that terrorist funding is not just from illegal trade.

      Snopes had an interesting article on this. Can't link directly to it, but it's in the Rumors of War subsection, do a search for "shorted".

      I'll cut and paste a small section:

      On 10 September, another uneventful news day, American Airlines' option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected -- only United and American were shorted in this fashion. Accelerated investments speculating a downturn in the value of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch (two New York investment firms severely damaged by the World Trade Center attack) were also observed. The Chicago Board Options Exchange is investigating each of these trades and at this time is declining to offer comment on its progress. The volume traded and the one-sidedness of the trades, however, make it clear that those who had knowledge of the details of the attacks (which airlines would be involved and that the World Trade Center was a target) were behind them and stood to profit mightily from them.

    7. Re:they are getting desparate by kableh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Marijuana is the reason the girl's parents didn't give her condoms, get her birth control, teach her about sex in the first fucking place?

      If these commercials were to show the truth, they would show a car full of stoners laughing as they wallk out of Krispy Kreme with 10 boxes of donuts... Harmless? =D

    8. Re:they are getting desparate by cje · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't wait for the next series of ads from Focus on the Family:

      MASTURBATION PROVIDES AID TO TERRORISTS

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    9. Re:they are getting desparate by ClioCJS · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...And notice that there generally isn't gang warfare over Alcohol and Cigarettes, is there?


      That's because they are legal. Prohibition is what creates gang warfare.


      Remember, the most powerful gang warfare we ever had was during alcohol prohibition. Because more people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana, it created a lot more funding for Al Capone and his insidious cronies.


      As long as things people want to do are illegal but still have high demand, they will fund the black market.


      Legalize it.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    10. Re:they are getting desparate by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Funny
      "If these commercials were to show the truth, they would show a car full of stoners laughing as they wallk out of Krispy Kreme with 10 boxes of donuts... Harmless? =D"

      The munchies stimulate the economy -- particularly in the service sector which, with the corps shipping all manufacturing off to overseas sweatshops, is exctly what puts money in the pockets of real Americans!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    11. Re:they are getting desparate by cindik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The direct link would be to http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.htm.

    12. Re:they are getting desparate by dubiousmike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same people who are going to shoot one another over grass are the same people who are going to shoot each other for looking at each other funny, for spare change, cause one's bitch is cuter than another.

      The majority of US anti-pot campaigns are paid for by alchohol companies. As if when I smoke, I don't want a beer.

      I have never met a stoned person that was "agro". Pot is a depressant. The folks who shoot each other over it aren't stoned. They are selling it along with Heroin, Coke, ect. It is these poeple that have enabled pot to be labeled as a gateway drug.

      I have bought pot many times. I didn't go to the ghetto to get it. I went to a guy who has a day job and a wife and kids.

    13. Re:they are getting desparate by cindik · · Score: 2, Funny

      Marijuana does not increase terrorism.

      Marijuana increases typographical errors.

    14. Re:they are getting desparate by Shabbs · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...And occasionally British Columbia... And of course, you know you should fear those canucks.

      Apparently, it's more than just occasionally:

      From this article:
      Here's what they are up against, according to the OCA: The province boasts 15,000 to 25,000 marijuana grow operations employing (at six persons per grow) between 90,000 and 150,000 people. The agency estimated the annual wholesale value of the pot crop at $4 billion. At $2,000 per pound, that is about two million pounds of BC bud each year, much of it headed south. The agency estimated that as much as 95 percent of the crop is exported to the ravenous U.S. market.

      BC sends more Bud to the US than it does Wood. Wow.

      Perhaps Marijuana is the answer to terrorism? Allowing everyone to see "clearly", thus allowing us to all get along. It's worth a shot eh?

      Cheers.
      --
      Mark
    15. Re:they are getting desparate by Twilight1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      > my favorite is that Marijuana use funds terrorism.

      Well, apparently it scares the heebie-jeebies out of John Ashcroft, and terrorism is about instilling fear...

      So does a bare breasted female statue... what's next? Enjoying the nude female will be an act of terrorism? Sheesh. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? Oh yeah... it was all a myth to begin with. Silly me... what was I thinking?

      - Twilight1

  3. I'm just not sure which way I want to fund terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, sure, I can buy drugs, or pirate music/movies/games. But, I can also drive an SUV, or use oil in other ways. I can also support terror by being critical of the government, or being supportive of the use of encryption and privacy. I mean, so many options, so much terror. Where does one start?

  4. Scaremoungering by The+Real+Chrisjc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't this sound like the MPAA, Microsoft a la RIAA trying to make piracy sound like terrorism, and get the public all jumpy and hate piracy?

    Next, they will be saying that filesharing funds terrorism too. ..

    1. Re:Scaremoungering by moncyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's funny. From the article:

      "Large, violent, highly organized criminal groups are getting rich from the theft of America's copyrighted products," Valenti said. "Only when governments around the world effectively bring to bear the full powers of the state against these criminals, can we expect to make progress."

      When I read this, I thought the Valenti must be talking about his own organization. After all, they're a bunch of thugs who want to take freedom away from the world (through domination of communications), hold all copyrighted material hostage (not just their own), and use this situation to steal money. Who are the real terrorists?

  5. so? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Terrorism" is just the keyword of the past 18 months or so. Everything you hate gets labelled as promoting terrorism and everything you like is an anti-terrorist measure.

    If it works for little Bush, why not for little Bill?

    There's really nothing unusual going on there. Just the usual stupidity and simple-mindedness.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  6. Bullshiiiiiiitttttt by Simon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oooookkkkkeeeey... So I'm supposed to believe that religous extremists, in thier war against the West and the Western culture, are financing operations by pirating and spreading the very thing that they are against.

    It's kind of like hardcore Vegans raising money for a campaign by holding a sausage sizzle.

    Complete bullshit.

    --
    Simon

    1. Re:Bullshiiiiiiitttttt by Thoguth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the Taliban made a lot of the money that kept them in power in Afghanistan by growing and selling opium ...

      --
      The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
    2. Re:Bullshiiiiiiitttttt by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the Opium production in Afghanistan went _up_ after the americans saved it. Yes, there was a drug trade in Afghanistan at the time, but the Taliban was not responsible for it. Not that I'm defending them, I just think you should hate people for what they did, not what they didn't.

    3. Re:Bullshiiiiiiitttttt by bheerssen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the Taliban made a lot of the money that kept them in power in Afghanistan by growing and selling opium ...

      Uh.. The Taliban had very strict laws against opium production. In fact, poppy cultivation has increased by 95% in Afganistan since the Taliban were removed. While I have no sympathy for the Taliban (certainly a brutally repressive regime), U.S. claims that they used opium production to finance terrorism seem specious to say the least. If there were terrorist groups making money by growing opium in Afganistan, they were most probably doing so without Taliban approval.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
  7. I love todays propaganda, it's so transparent by Nanite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Want to demonize something but have now real information to back it up? Just say it fund terrorism, works every time!

    Nan

    --
    God is real unless declared integer.
    1. Re:I love todays propaganda, it's so transparent by Reziac · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You took the words right outta my mouth. And I was particularly croggled by this statement:

      Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, praised the hearing for highlighting the "disastrous connection" between copyright piracy and organized crime. "I can't help but sit here and wonder ... if parents fully understand the ramifications of what it is to steal a movie or pirate a song," he said. "If more American parents understood the connection between the pirating of intellectual property and organized crime, I think then there'd be a much more effective public relations response in our own country to better appreciate the disastrous ramifications."

      Intended implication being "If your kids illegally download music, they will grow up to be Mafia shills or even terrorists!!"

      The truly scary thing is that some people will actually believe this!! One has to pity their kids. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:I love todays propaganda, it's so transparent by gilroy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Intended implication being "If your kids illegally download music, they will grow up to be Mafia shills or even terrorists!!"

      Maybe we should push file-sharing as a road to a solid career in organized crime. :) "Yeah, Bobby just ripped his millionth MP3 -- now he's a made man."
  8. Loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How does stealing something for free FUND terrorism? It can't. Lesson here kiddies, it's okay to steal for free. Don't be stupid and buy things.

  9. The bandwagon's looking a little rickety... by Natestradamus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are they sure they ought to be jumping on it like that?

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke
  10. Re:Oh Wait!!! by chef_raekwon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait.......since when did Microsoft become the ANTI-terrorists?

    since Bush let them off the hook.....

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  11. Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about we get rid of religion?

    Sounds like a plan to me.

    1. Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I think that Stalin tried that. Didn't work very well; he could rightfully be ranked as one of the worst terrorists of all time given the sheer number of people he cowed into submission for fear of his purges :/

      It's funny, he was as atheist as you can get and did more terrible things than any other of our time, but people still talk as though "religion" was at the root of these conflicts. Guys--it's used as an EXCUSE, it's not actually a cause. Even these terrorists hate us already, they're just using Islam to cloak it. Of course, it IS true that Islam is very ... prone to such beliefs what with the 'slay them [infidels] wherever you find them' type verses and they DO sincerely believe Islam however misguidedly, but I honestly think they'd still hate us just about as much even if there was no Islam.

    2. Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by Christianfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, people who twist religion into their own agenda fund terrorism and promote it.

      Funny your statement sort of does that. Are you promoting terrorism against people who have faith?

    3. Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you ought to look at the last major attempt to get rid of religion.

      They called it communism. It didn't work out so nice.

    4. Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by Durandal64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guess where the oppressive beliefs King was fighting against came from? That's right. The Bible.

    5. Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by WNight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, that seems like a valid interpretation. It talks about killing infidels, infidels are non-believers or those who try to destroy islam. He sees the Americans as fitting this, so they're infidels, and thus need to be killed.

    6. Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. by Durandal64 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Of course, it IS true that Islam is very ... prone to such beliefs what with the 'slay them [infidels] wherever you find them' type verses and they DO sincerely believe Islam however misguidedly, but I honestly think they'd still hate us just about as much even if there was no Islam.
      Then you're deluded. You're underestimating the power of religious indoctrination. Religion was originally created as a way for people to claim power by virtue of divine right; so yes, it began as an excuse to justify whatever actions people wanted, but that's changed. Osama bin Laden really, truly believes what he is doing is morally justifiable, and even if HE didn't, the people under him, carrying out the attacks, do. Do you honestly think that the men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center didn't sincerely believe that they were going to be met by 72 virgins in Heaven for sacrificing themselves to kill the infidels? Don't be absurd. You don't die for a belief system you don't believe in or are just using as an excuse to hate people. You die for it because you're utterly convinced that it's true. I'm sick of this idiotic "sacred cow" mentality toward religion. Religion is NOT inherently good, and in the case of the Judeo-Christian-Islam triumverate of intolerance, it is irrevocably flawed in numerous ways that have led to untold millions of deaths over the past two millennia. Religion has given us nothing good that couldn't be easily replaced by pure, unadulterated secular humanism and secular ethics, while giving incredible amounts of evil at the same time. The intrinsic value of religion this day in age is a negative quantity. It's a legacy. Time to get rid of the Invisible Man and grow up.
  12. News Flash: by pi+radians · · Score: 4, Funny

    This just in:

    Breathing supports terrorism. Scientists have just discovered that if you breath oxygen, you are in fact taking away necessary, life giving resources, namely oxygen from those who fight the terrorists.

    The public is now being asked to refrain from breathing so that the counter-terrorists do not run out of oxygen (although is was also recommended that if you are around any terrorist you should try to use as much oxygen as possible, because we believe that terrorists also use oxygen to live).

    --

    sin(6cos(r)+5A)
  13. Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This was out of hand before, but now it's getting really out of hand.

    When most people say "what, do you want to support the terrorists?" they're joking.

    I think these two monopolists have just showed their true selves as far as I'm concerned.

    Anyone who can say something so ridiculous is a joke themselves.

  14. does it bollocks by solidox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i certainly have never paid for any pirate software, i thought that was generally the point. even the ppl that sell cd's at markets and online, i highly doubt any of that goes towards terrorism. unless of course pirate's are now branded terrorists.

    --
  15. Where's the money? by gristlebud · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Typically, piracy in the U.S. is done on a relatively small scale, for the financial gain of small-time people.

    I dont know about the economics of international IP piracy, but I imagine that the piracy is more prevalent in areas where there is not enough money to pay for legitimate software. In this case, there still won't be enough money brought in to make a dent in the terrorists' pocketbooks.

    To make big money, you have to sell things to people with money. This means the west (especially western Europe and the U.S.) The best way to get lots of money from the west is to sell them oil, drugs, or Pr0n.

    --
    OK...
    I can do this. I am, after all,
    a superhero!
  16. This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And for those who ask why we here on slashdot bash the utter shit out of microsoft, this is JUST why. They're full of shit. They use all means they can do strengthen their position. They'll take advantage of anything they can to grab a little more legal strength as a monopoly.

    They've claimed silly things in the past to aid themselves

    They've screwed over other companies to aid themselves

    They've screwed over their own users to aid themselves ...and they'll just keep doing it.

  17. Jurisdiction by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wait a minute. We need tougher laws in the United States, because organized crime gangs in Russia and Malaysia are counterfitting Windows CDs (including the hologram, so people can't tell it's not official) and selling them, which is already illegal? What exactly can the USDOJ do to stop this?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  18. In this post 9/11 world... by sfe_software · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...everyone uses terrorism to push their agenda. I'm so sick of that phrase. Don't like something that people are doing? Tell them that it funds terrorists, and they'll stop. I suppose it works -- the average person probably believes this crap.

    I was so pissed the first time I saw the commercial with the teenagers saying "I helped terrorists because I bought a dime bag" (or whatever). 9/11 was a *terrible* event, yes, but to try to make people think they're partly responsible because they commit some petty crime? Total BS.

    --
    NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    1. Re:In this post 9/11 world... by dusty123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You forget 2 more arguments that are commonly used to push agendas:

      - Child pornography
      - Antisemitism (at least here in Europe)

      It's so easy and done so often...

  19. Microsoft funds terrorism.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously,..remember the Muslim Charity that was nailed funneling money to al Qaeda? Well here's the news story.. (Google Cache)

    In case you don't have time to read the story, MS admitted to giving Benevolence International, the Muslim charity that funnled money to al-qaeda, around $20,000. You can buy a lot of box cutters with that money.

    MS had better not throw stones in their glass house. And if you're going to start giving money to charities, it's a good idea to research them and make sure they are legit. Say what you will but MS is SUPER guilty of not doing research on this "charity".

    1. Re:Microsoft funds terrorism.... by cybercuzco · · Score: 3, Funny

      So does that mean when you BUY microsoft products youre supporting terrorism? Support free linux today!

      --

    2. Re:Microsoft funds terrorism.... by slashtom.org · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nothing new with americans funding terrorism, the IRA were funded well enough with american donations.

      It may seem strange, but some countries have suffered terrorism long before 9/11. And yeah, it would have been funded by drugs, protection rackets and maybe even piracy. This article really is nothing new, as stuff like this has been going on for decades, bombs and guns dont come cheap.

    3. Re:Microsoft funds terrorism.... by Dman33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone else elluded to this point but I wanted to elaborate... where does the $$ start, and where does it stop? Look at global economics. My dollar will go everywhere!

      So, I just bought a Bic pen. Blue, medium ball.
      The money I used went to Bic, which went toward software licensing for BICWORLD web server which is IIS which is a Microsoft product.

      So... MY$$ -> BIC -> MSFT -> Benevolence -> Al Queda -> Terror

      Best not spend money. Of course that would ruin the US economy and the terrorists have won. So spend the money to stimulate the economy but then the people in the US will drive their SUVs more...

      Nothing left to do. Might as well move to a cave but then your landlord is likely to be a tall guy named Osama. We are screwed!

  20. Terrorism? by siphoncolder · · Score: 3, Insightful
    See, the problem here is I doubt they really KNOW this. It's certainly possible, feasible, and plausible, but I don't think they know what they're talking about in this case.

    Upon thought & inspection, this sounds more like they're throwing more fodder on the fire which is quickly razing the USA's foreign policy & relations.

    --
    i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
  21. shame funds terrorism by abe+ferlman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The way people seem to avoid it today, you'd think shame funded terrorism too.

    But not oil companies, oh no.

    --
    microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
  22. Just keep it coming... by terraformer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more small minded corporate shills and their bought and paid for politicians keep this up, the more weakened and desensitized people will become to words like terrorism and war. Soon, they will be hiring PR firms to craft new words to symbolize people worse than "terrorists" and armed conflict will no longer be called war but something else. The current administration would no doubt prefer "liberation". This is absolutely ridiculous. The rest of the world must think we are the biggest bunch of un-educated sheep.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    1. Re:Just keep it coming... by e2d2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      armed conflict will no longer be called war but something else

      You mean like: police action? enduring freedom? liberation? conflict resolution?

      Double speak has been perfected to a point that would make George Orwell blush.

  23. Finally! by volve · · Score: 2, Funny

    For the love of the DMCA-Bush-MPAA-alliance, how long does it actually /take/ to equate everything under the sun to an act of terrorism!?!

    Come on people, we need to start whipping out these unfounded defacements quicker!

    We've already renamed 'French fries' in the capital, but that may not be enough, we actually have to stand up in a court of Bush^H^H^H^Law and accuse anyone that still refers to them as 'French' as being a TERRORIST!

    Ha! That'll teach them! Now I must go formulate my plan to charge all McDonalds franchises as terrorist havens thanks to their newly proposed WiFi!

    -VolVE

  24. no no, it funds tourism by blandthrax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because, with all the money saved on a pirated copy of MS Office, you can afford to go on vacation.

    1. Re:no no, it funds tourism by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LOL! Seriously, home piracy must contribute to the wider economy in a big way, because personally I've been able to spend about 3000UKP on Other Stuff - some of which creates local jobs rather than profits in Redmond - because my MS software is knocked off. Charging 430UKP a go for Office doesn't create wealth, it just sucks it in. When billg has so much cash he has to give half of it to charity, surely his pricing structure is a bit awry?

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  25. Simple solution by shepd · · Score: 4, Funny

    If Microsoft and the MPAA were to release everything under the public domain, there would be nothing to pirate. Ergo, terrorism would end.

    Seems like a good solution for everyone. Microsoft and the MPAA, I implore you to end terrorism! Only you can do it!

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  26. supporting terrorism by MasterD · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like to listen to mp3's and watch SVCD's in my SUV while I am high.

  27. Microsoft promotes terrorism by chiasmus1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The last time I looked into the Webster's dictionary it said, "the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy"

    Now, can Microsoft truthfully claim that they are not terrorists? They use force in getting OEMs to only distribute machines with Microsoft tax. They threaten companies who have decided to support Linux or other operating systems. They strive to demoralize and intimidate everything and everyone. They use Microsoft as a political weapon and have changed laws with their money. Microsoft has fit the definition of terrorism perfectly.

    Microsoft is a terrorist organization and they know it. I would not be suprised to see Osama Bin Laden hiding out at the Gates getaway.

  28. Drugs are bad, mmkay? by nervous_twitch · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Of course, even if money from piracy funds terrorism, this assumes you're going to buy the copies these piracy groups make. Why should I buy something pirated in another country.... when I can copy it myself in the privacy(or not) of my own home?

    I don't think terrorism is a good thing, but I'm getting sick of all the reports:

    "Sometimes, _________ is used to fund terrorism, so _________ is evil."

    Drugs are bad because buying them funds terrorism. Yep, that's right. Even when it's homegrown. :P

    I know that all those media conglomerates are the true source of funding for these things. So I'm going to buy my movies from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends from now on.

    I'm sure I could find just as sketchy of a connection between the media companies and terrorism as they can find between [insert comman activity here] and terrorism.

    --
    Trees everywhere, and not a forest in sight.
  29. Re:Taliban by devaldez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know why you wouldn't believe that...after all, the Taliban had agreements with the opium producers in Northern Afghanistan. Why should a religious extremist care if you, an infidel, violate God's laws? And if your stupid enough to fund your own destruction, what delicious irony for them.

    While I don't like the scare tactics and I'd like to see proof of the cash flow, it should be neither surprising nor controversial that illegal activity feeds on itself to society's detriment.

    --
    "... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
  30. Oh Great .... by Usagi_yo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here comes the DMCTA ... The Digital Millenium Copyright Terrorist Act. We all knew Napster was domestic terrorism.

  31. Re:Love America? Lower your prices! by ignoramus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, I agree! They can raise their prices, once the war is won - i.e. we will have lower prices forever, yay!

  32. We can laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but undemocratic countries around the world are using exactly the same trick to get rid of everybody who talks about free elections too loudly. Let's shoot the suckers, we're fighting terrorism! It has been 1 1/2 year since 9/11 and the Bush administration still has no exact definition of the word "terrorist". That is good for US foreign policy, but non-US citizens pay for this with their lives.

    1. Re:We can laugh... by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      undemocratic countries around the world are using exactly the same trick to get rid of everybody who talks about free elections too loudly. Let's shoot the suckers, we're fighting terrorism!

      Sure. Care to share an example?

      Further, regimes like that have always existed - and everyone knows they use the flimsiest of excuses to justify their dirty work. Welcome to the real world. At least the US is trying to clean up one of the worst offenders.

      It has been 1 1/2 year since 9/11 and the Bush administration still has no exact definition of the word "terrorist".

      Try Webster's Unabridged:
      "a person who uses or favors terrorizing methods"

      I hope that cleared things up for you.

      (BTW, don't get me wrong, I have issues with the 'war on terror'. For instance, when will 'terror' surrender or sign an armistice? This could be the modern version of the 100 Years War, which can't be a good thing. Our 'temporary' loss of civil liberties could turn out to be as 'temporary' as income tax.)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    2. Re:We can laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, sir, the Bush regime does not recognize the proper definition of the term terrorist. If you will examine the list of known "terrorist" organizations they released, you will see quite a few political groups that have never been involved in acts of terror, nor advocated them.

      Furthermore, your suggestion that America is right to attack Iraq is ludicrous. There are only two types of people dying in Iraq: children who die because we have imposed harsh restrictions on the nation of Iraq, and criminals who die for violating the laws of Iraq. How is this any different from America? Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone. The primary difference, you might say, is that some of those criminals in Iraq are merely political dissidents who oppose the Iraqi regime.

      This thinking is flawed in two regards. First, America itself has begun to jail political dissidents as part of their war on terrorism. I can think of no better example than of the three men who were arrested for donating money to help Iraqi citizens. Members of our government have repeatedly claimed that financial contributions are protected as political speech, and yet the same rights have been denied to critics of our government. We jail dissidents while Iraq kills them. Obviously, we are morally superior to Iraq, no? Obviously he's a horrible despot who slaughters his citizens by the hundreds. Yet, from the perspective of nations like France or Britain, we are the morally depraved for we kill our common criminals. By the hundreds, we kill them. Should we expect the British or French to wage war against America to stop us from immorally killing our own citizens?

      Of course, you may counter by reminding us of the Kurds, whom Saddam willfully exterminated. However, America has comitted a similar atrocity against its own people. You may suggest that that was long ago, and that it no longer matters; that we no longer butcher our citizens. This is true, but only because we instead murder the citizens of other nations. How can we claim, then, to be any better?

      Despite your concerns about the loss of our civil liberties, you nonetheless advocate war with Iraq. I promise you that, once Iraq has been bombed and Saddam killed/deposed, that the loss of our liberties will continue, but at an increased rate, for the invasion of Iraq would further strengthen the resolve of the many anti-American rebels who remain in this world.

    3. Re:We can laugh... by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government funded Taliban and Saddam a couple of decades ago, and now they employ similar tactics used in repressive regimes (imprisonment without due judicial process). It's just a different matter that the guys wear suits and look cool and the new networks pander to them.

      The current article (P2P pirates funding networks) is an example of how effectively the people in power can mask their own agendas. Everyone knows that file sharing is more an "el cheapo" way of getting software/multi media/pr0n etc. It is also an effective way for mirroring legitimate content (say, GNU/Linux iso images). However, do you think the news networks would address that issue?

      The real terrorists are the ones that benefit a lot when there is a conflict in the world. And, that my friend are the military hawks, and not some cheap bastards trading files 'cuz they can't afford buying that stuff.

      S

    4. Re:We can laugh... by RapaNui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you know the definition of a terrorist?

      If you agree with what they're doing, they're freedom fighters...

      If you don't agree with them, they're terrorists,

      If you're not quite sure yet, then they're guerillas.

    5. Re:We can laugh... by scenic · · Score: 4, Informative
      While I want to agree with your point, be careful with your facts. 299 people have been put to death in Texas since 1982 when capital punishment was reinstated. Your statment
      Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone.
      is misleading no matter how I read it. Also, you're omitting certain facts about the three men who were arrested... for example facts about the charitable group they were donating to and the specific donations they had.

      Your most cogent point is the last one you made... a war will simply continue the cycle of hate that has prospered in these times. In fact, my main concern is that no comprehensive plan and, more importantly in today's world, no long-term money has been committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we drop that ball, so to speak, we're going to just create more hate and more terrorists.

      Sujal

      --

      politics, food, music, life: FatMixx

    6. Re:We can laugh... by bel_slashdot · · Score: 3, Informative
      How is this any different from America? Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone.
      In point of fact, only 300 people have been executed in TOTAL since the death penalty was reinstated in Texas, not just in the month of March.

      Here is a story from back in January predicting the 300th execution in Texas. I recently saw on the local news in Houston that they just now executed the 300th inmate.

      Belgarion
    7. Re:We can laugh... by Yet+Another+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      which stated that, the US tricked Iraq into attacking Kuwait in 1990, claiming "There are no defences in Kuwait".

      Wow, that really is a stretch. Iraq, despite having a great deal of national income from oil revenue, ran up massive debts during the Iran-Iraq war. Their greatest source of extra funding during that time was loans from the other rich Arab countries (remember that Iran is not an Arab country, but instead a Persian country, so it was easy for the other Arabs to take Iraq's side). Chief among these creditors was Kuwait. Upon the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait began agitating for Iraq to begin repaying those debts. This pretty much soured relations between Iraq and Kuwait, and Saddam, being the model of restraint that he is, decided that it was simpler to take Kuwait and make it an Iraqi province than to pay back the loans. The fact that he could then control the single larges oil supply in the world (Iraqi reserves + Kuwaiti reserves > Saudi reserves) was just icing on that cake.

      Its pretty easy to keep following a train of responsibility until you get to a villain that suits you. The US gets a lot of crap that way, although most of our current entanglements we could easily blame on France and Great Britain and their respective colonial influences (almost all of the Middle East, Pakistan/India, and Vietnam are all directly attributable to either France or Great Britain, and what wasn't associated with those two was touched by Russia and China during the Cold War).

      This is the same tactic being used by the MPAA/RIAA/BSA and the drug-war/abolition movements to blame all terrorism on counterfeiters and casual pot smokers. Its all bogus. I want to blame all terrorism on people who drive SUVs, and there are good arguments to support that theory. But to discount all the other myriad funding methods they have is just political opportunism. As of course, is asserting that 'All instability in the word is the US.'

      --
      if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
  33. Re:Microsoft Could Wipe Out Most Piracy by Caball · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And if GM gave thier cars away, auto thefts would be wiped out immediately.

  34. Federation Against Copyright Theft by digitaltraveller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    VHS movies in Australia already have an extremely lengthy copyright notice that is specifically designed to be played at fast forward and still impart it's propaganda. I had not rented a new release in awhile so was I in for a surprise. The old copyright notice was still there, plus a new one from the "Federation Against Copyright Theft". It featured a glowing-red eyed psychotic making frenzied movements with a branding iron from a blacksmith's oven stamping CD's and other paraphenlia. His movements were similiar to the way a mentally retarded person acts when they are confused or upset, scattering CD's everywhere, etc. The voice over claimed 'pirates' fund terrorism AND drugs and that THEY MUST BE STOPPED.
    More hysteria for soccer moms everywhere. I've seen mainstream media pick up on this meme too. As the wise George Castanza once said: "Remember Jerry, It's not a lie if you believe it".

  35. well, yes ... but - by the+bluebrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A) so does money laundering, organised extortion, illegal dealing with weapons, and so on - only more so.
    B) and they would know, wouldn't they. Yes, software & media companies are the best judges on funding of international terrorism, I'm sure.
    C) one more excellent reason to use open source, live concerts, local talent etc. etc. and open source. Did I mention open source? Good.

    --
    yes, we have no bananas
  36. So.... by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If purchasing pirated music promotes terrorism and you can't tell what's a pirate and what's not, your only choice is not to pay for it. Buying music may promote terrorism. Sharing it however does not.

  37. BSA by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Funny

    And how is that different that buying M|cro$oft products that fund the BSA?

  38. RTFA by Christopher_G_Lewis · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wish people would read the articles before summarizing them *incorrectly*.

    Yes, Microsoft & MPAA stated that pirating is rampant and bad.

    They did *NOT* state that pirating=terrorism. That statement was made only by the Justice Department (which is not necessarily better, IMHO, but significantly different to the slant that the article lends).

    From the article:
    John Malcolm, a Justice Department official who oversees the computer crime division, warned the panel about the connections between copyright piracy and terrorism.

    "Organized crime syndicates are frequently engaged in many types of illicit enterprises, including supporting terrorist activities," Malcolm said. "All components of the Justice Department...will do everything within their power to make sure that intellectual property piracy does not become a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror."

    1. Re:RTFA by mjh · · Score: 2
      They did *NOT* state that pirating=terrorism. That statement was made only by the Justice Department (which is not necessarily better, IMHO, but significantly different to the slant that the article lends).

      No but what they're trying to do is equate copying of copyrighted materials with organized crime... even fair use copying of those copyrighted materials. Does this article state that? No, not explicitly but it doesn't take too much reading between the lines to discern that.

      Disclaimer: I have copyrighted materials out on the net. I expect the license (GPL) to be upheld. Hence I respect the copyrighted materials of others and I do not violate the terms of their licenses. And in most cases, that means not using their software, music, movies, etc. In the rest of the cases, I pay for a licensed copy.

      Still fair use is not copyright violation, no matter what the DMCA says. The DMCA is wrong. IMHO, the best post on this topic was the one that said that the MPAA and MS are citing cases in Russia and China. How exactly is the US DOJ supposed to impact those cases? There is already strong laws against such activity in this country. The ONLY possible conclusion MUST be that the MPAA and MS are trying to create stronger laws against what they see as loopholes in US law. Namely: fair use.

      Yes, you're right that this is not explicitly stated in the article. But I think they're threatening fair use, and I wish to be diligent in protecting that doctrine. So if it looks to me like they're implicitly threatening it, even though they aren't explicitly doing so, I'm going to get my guard up. And I think it's ok to do so.

      Look at this paragraph:

      Last year, as previously reported, a bill was introduced to Congress that originally was designed to address the hologram issue. But it morphed into something that would make it a federal felony for people to try and trick devices into playing their own music or running their own computer programs.

      The article implies that the "morphing" was unintended. Do you think that? I certainly don't.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  39. Ever Notice... by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How stock fraud doesn't fund terrorism? Funny how that works...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  40. Simple Solution by LegalEagle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft software "indirectly" funding terrorism? Well there is an easy solution! Just GPL all MS software. The price would drop to $0 and the terrorists would be deprived of a source of revenue.

    Come on, Bill. Do your part.

  41. All Together Now, With Feeling by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    BULLLLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

    This is nothing more than a power grab. Plain and simple. That's the only explaination.

    You want to know who's funding Osama bin Laden? Osama himself is. That wacky guy has almost $300 million dollars, and it's all his. He's bankrolling his own operation. We've already proven that his buddies have also been funding him, too. Hardcore militant Arabs are all about one thing: sticking to their guns and ousting technology in favor of hardline Muslim rule. That means oppressing women, forcing their will on people, and keeping things in the stone age. The only two uses they have for technology is A) Keeping Osama alive (he's on kidney dialasys) and B) using it against us to further his agenda.

    Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA are only concerned about two things: losing money, and keeping control over their respective industries.

    I have only two words for them: Fuck 'em.

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
  42. Re:Taliban by arkanes · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There's a long Islamic tradition of mild drug use - opium, marijuana, and (most famously) hashish. It's hardly a violation of thier ethics to sell it. That said, I seriously doubt that a whole lot of the money that American prep kids spend on mild drugs goes to them, although I certainly don't have the full facts available. But then again, neither does anyone else.

    I was also under the impression that the major piracy houses in places like Malaysia were actually semi-legitimate companies - that they operated openly, since it's not illegal there. They might very well still have ties to organized crime, which might in turn have ties to various terrorist groups, but it's not any different than a Mafia boss owning a nice resturaunt.

  43. Alcohol by luzrek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Technically the Koran bans alcohol produced from fermented grains and fruits. That rules out beer and most wines as well as most distilled liquors. There is one major exception though. Mead, which is made from honey.

    --

    Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

  44. Uh, yeah by Thoguth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Burning a mix CD of Moog Cookbook supports terrorism, but a "Christian" country unilaterally declaring war on a Muslim nation doesn't?

    --
    The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
    1. Re:Uh, yeah by Christianfreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just like the US is far from a "Christian" nation Iraq is far from being a "Muslim" nation.

      Not that I think that war is a good idea, just thought I'd point out that its not a religious conflict. In fact I think now its mostly about re-electing Bush, and power hungry military officials trying not to look like idiots. Sort of the "We couldn't find illegal weapons but they're still there because we're never wrong!"

  45. convenient bandwagon by nano-second · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's just jumping on a convenient political bandwagon in order to get support for their cause. Same reason marijuana "funds" terrorism, it's something they want to label as bad and right now, terrorism is a safe excuse since regardless of what people think of war, it's hard to dispute that terrorism is bad.

    If the current big evil was pollution, I'm sure they'd be coming up with some way to say that piracy was causing pollution... surely all those poorly run pirate factories are big polluters, right?

    I would guess that a lot of the anti-civil-liberties laws that got shoved through recently were not created recently. I bet they were just waiting around for a good enough excuse that the public would accept it.

    --
    I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
    1. Re:convenient bandwagon by computechnica · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bin Ladden's money came from his family that does construction work for the Oil industry in Saudi Arabia.

      So does this mean that Oil use funds terrorism??

    2. Re:convenient bandwagon by Swamplor · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So does this mean that Oil use funds terrorism??
      Definitely. Oil is the main/only export of the countries which support terrorism. SUV drivers are actually funding terrorism, but since they have money, its more convenient to go after P2P-using college students, because they aren't funding anyone's re-election campaigns, whereas car and oil companies are.
  46. So... by TaranRampersad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Conversely, we could say that Free Software and Open Source are not helping terrorists because they cannot be pirated...

    So, we could say that proprietary software is evil.

    And there's a War on Evil!

    Do they really think these things through?

  47. Bad Day by milo_Gwalthny · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, driving to work in my Lincoln Navigator while smoking dope and listening to my pirated copy of Rage Against the Machine was probably not the best way to start the day?

    --
    Milo
  48. What DOESN'T fund terror? by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What they are basicly saying is that some people sold some stuff, then MAYBE gave the money to the bad guys. This is like saying that capitalism fund terror.

    This is like the really awful adds they have been running in the states where they talk about drug money funding terrorists.

    What this means is that the US "War on drugs" fund s terrorism, as it is the current laws that artificially inflate the prices of narcotics to the point where it is highly profitable to sell them. You would think the US would have learned this lesson during Prohibition when the banning of alcohol pushed usage through the roof and funded the growth of organized crime.

    Artificial scarcity has created the whole drug economy. Remove that factor and it will no longer have the huge profit margin. Remove the profit margin and incentive to produce and distribute will be reduced, as well as the money available to be spent on weapons, bribes, and other criminal/terrorist groups.

    Will it end drug traffic? No. Will it make it a heck of a lot harder for the organized groups involved to pay for weapons, transport, and bribes? Yes. You have to ask yourself which is more dangerous. People screwing themselves over of their own free will as they already do, or large well funded, armed, influencial groups that are activly working to increase their sales and protect their profit.

  49. You know... by Millennium · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Enough of this. The "x funds terrorism" crap is getting just stupid. In fact, now I'm thinking of making a Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type game: "Everything Funds Terrorism".

    Basically, the user searches on an industry or activity, and -ideally in six steps or less- it's put into a chain of other industries or activities, leading back to terrorism.

    I'm only half-joking; this would make an interesting project, and I hope it would get the point across: that terrorism must not be allowed to significantly impact our lives. Because that really is how they win, by dominating us through fear.

  50. There is but one solution! by cgreuter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The only way to make money from piracy is to actually sell pirated copies of things. So by promoting file-sharing networks, cheap CD-ROMs and burners and the like, you can let average people copy things themselves, thereby undercutting the commercial pirates.

    Likewise, DRM technologies generally work by making it inconvenient or expensive to make copies. As a result, the only people who do make copies are professional pirates--those who can make money off of the copies to pay for the equipment and, presumably, use the excess to fund terrorism.

    Therefore, Hollywood and the music industry must immediately stop using any sort of copy protection at all and lower their prices worldwide. Furthermore, all file-sharing networks must immediately be legalized and legitimized worldwide. Only in this way can they undercut the pirates and dry up this source of funds for terrorists.

    I realize that it's a big sacrifice for the content industries, but it's one that must be made and I, for one, salute them for it.

  51. Recent conviction on cigerette smuggling and terro by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I understand the skeptism that surrounds claims such as "piracy funds terrorism." Everyone will try to jump on the latest bandwagon. We need to see proof.

    At the same time, don't trivialize a claim. For example, the recent convictions on cigerette smuggling used to fund terrorism. The smuggling was done right here in the old U.S. of A. So it is plausible that other avenues of crime are being used, including sales of drugs.

    What I am trying to say is be skeptical, but don't dismiss outright.

  52. Re:I'm just not sure which way I want to fund terr by Simon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    For the benefit of the MTV generation, here's some quick info about where terrorists get thier money from:

    Where Do Terrorists Get Their Money? (Real format embedded)

    If you can't view Real format video directly in your browser, here is a complete URL that you can cut 'n' paste into the "Open Location" menu item of Real Player, or use "Open With":

    http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/movies/spotlight/Thi nkTank3/real_high.rpm

    Thanks go to Adbusters.org.

    --
    Simon

  53. The Problem by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny
    This problem is not completely intractable. My regime would require a breeding license in order to breed. Reversable sterilization would be mandatory prior to the onset of puberty and reversed when the license is issued.

    All children will be confiscated and raised in state-run facilities in a standard ISO Certified Environment. Care takers will work in pairs and those pairs rotated on a regular basis. Any hint of subversion (IE: Mentioning any form of religion, attempting to molest or otherwise mishandle the children, etc) will be reported and punished appropriately. Secret police agents will be rotated into the caretaker list from time to time to insure that caretakers are reporting suspecious behavior on the part of their co-workers. Any form of religion will not be mentioned and critical thinking skill development will be encouraged.

    Forcing the interbreeding of the diverse races will also be a long term goal of the regime. At some point the state would probably find it necessary to require citizens to breed across racial lines, until everyone is a single ISO Certified color of Tan. Personally I think this is the only way to resolve the Israel/Palestinian problem too, but I have yet to find a way to a position to force the issue in those populations.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  54. war on terror = the new communism by phrantic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the political version of FUD.

    Pick something that people hate and use the hatred of as a vechicle to drive all kinds of crap under the nose of joe public

    "Uh huh, we'd like clean air too buddy, but you know it's them damn terrorists"
    "Drilling for oil in the rain forest, before we sell it to the corporate burger guys to raise cattle in inhumane conditions, we'd love to stop it too but you know it's them damn terrorists"
    "we'd love to stop bugging your phone but you know ...."
    repeat until the next election, kiss baby, smile, wave at camera.

    I am taking suggestions, on what will take over from Terrorism, open source anyone?

    --
    --My sig is bigger than your sig--
  55. how about the truth? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How bout we all, ie. we in this country, get back to the truth and simply recognize that smoking up, driving a car, etc., isn't supporting terrorism. Supporting terrorism is knowingly giving money to terrorist groups, helping to aquire arms, and actually committing the acts of terror. This bullshit is getting really tiresome.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:how about the truth? by Swamplor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, yes, the good ol' American dream of sticking like glue to your principles as long as you don't have to change your lifestyle. You're right that driving your car doesn't fund terrorism, but refilling it with gasoline certainly does. That gas you are buying is refined from crude oil by some large oil company. That company got some of its crude oil from the US, but more than half of it was purchased from Middle-Eastern states, and some of those states use the money to fund terrorism. Sure, it would be nice if the big oil companies only dealt with "good" countries, but that isn't the case. Yes, it is currently fashionable to link anything you don't like with "terrorism", and that bullshit really is tiresome. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some things which really do have a connection to terrorism.

    2. Re:how about the truth? by iSwitched · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The other posts have got you on your 50% statistic, for my part I'd like to remind you that the original poster talked about "supporting" terrorism - I buy gas so I can take my children to school, and myself to work so I can provide for them. Does this mean I "support" terrorism, I think NOT!

      One might argue that if even a few pennies of each of my fuel purchases goes to support blowing up innocents, that is too much - and in a total vacuum of other information, I would agree.

      But who's to say which country my 12 galons comes from on any trip to the pump? In addition, I pay taxes to a government that ostensibly is charged with handling such things (OK, OK, I agree that's a stretch, but I do pay taxes!) So either I should be given the choice to purchase alternative fuel vehicles, or recieve protection from accidentally funding terrorsim with oil purchases, or be absolved of paying any taxes at all, and be all on my own for such things.

      One can only do so much, my priorities have to be:
      1. My family
      2. My extended family and friends
      3. My community
      4. My country
      5. My planet

      The truth is that nothing any moral, law-abiding US citizen does supports terrorism. Trickle-down economics will put some small portion of my purchases into the pockets of terrorists, and I'll do my best to minimize the effect, but it is also up to each of us to demand that our government, which we pay for, take immediate action to stop the flow of oil money by climbing out of the hip-pocket of the American auto and oil industries and start doing what is right for the long-term health of our country.
      --
      "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
  56. The only logical conclusion... by airship · · Score: 5, Funny

    is that you should create your own pirate copies at home, rather than chance buying a pirate copy that could fund terrorism.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  57. what doesn't fund terrorism by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So the point is that criminal gangs run counterfeiting operations, make money, and use the money to fund terrorism. This statement may almost be a tautology. When terrorism and support of terrorism is defined broadly enough, everyone supports and encourages terrorism.

    For instance, both Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols received their training in the U.S. army, does that make the U.S. army a terrorist organization? The U.S. trained most of the high level participant of the mass murders in central and south America, particularly during the Reagan/Bush administration. Does that make Reagan a terrorist? There are several countries that would love to see Kissinger brought up on crimes against humanity charges.

    In this country and in this world we love to buy diamonds and emeralds. Both come from parts of the world where so-called terrorist operate. The sale of both, but particularly diamonds, likely directly benefit organizations that commit act of terror, not because they receive donations, but because they control the supply chain.

    Of course we buy oil directly from the people that we accuse of being the terrorists.

    Of course some people might say all the examples are for legal trade, and it is ok to support terrorism if the product is legal. For instance it is perfectly ok to support your local church even if your local church terrorizes children, doctors, minorities, or expectant mothers. This may be true.

    OTOH, it is still clear we pick and choose those things we wish to link with terrorism. For instance, in the U.S. Cuba is certainly considered a terrorist county. Whether we agree with it or not, it is the one country we seriously boycott. When left wing fanatics go to visit, the right wing fanatics call them supporters of terrorism. So why is it, then, that Cuban cigars are not linked to support of terrorism, even though they are illegal in the U.S? Why is it that Cigar Aficionado can run articles praising the cigars? Why is it that we do not have hearing in Washington to include Cuban Cigars in our war on drugs, and punish the possessors of such illegal drugs as we would any other addict? Why isn't Cigar Aficionado labeled a supporter of terrorism in hearing on the hill?

    Why is it that we are so jaded that we are more concerned with using death and destruction as a political tool rather than trying to stop death and destruction?

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  58. yeah by gyratedotorg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yeah! and dont forget that open source software is supportive of terrorism too! in fact, anything that causes big business to lose money is supportive of terrorism! im not being sarcastic at all right now! not one bit!

    --
    Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
  59. Microsoft is supporting terrorism too by Sam+Lowry · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is an english version of a recent article in Pravda (influential russian newspaper) that uncovers where Microsoft donations were going for years.

  60. agreed by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've never smoked marijuana myself, but I've known plenty of people who have/do. Never have I known someone who crashed their car, got pregnant, or etc., while high on marijuana. OTOH, I've known people who have run off the road or done other stupid things while drunk. And I've never known anyone who got pregnant while drunk or high... Like people need any outside influence to make that mistake.

    "It's more dangerous than we thought"... What a bunch a shit...

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  61. Re:The Ghost of Senator McCarthy by mrkurt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You nailed it. I get the feeling a new McCarthyism is creeping into American society, and if it is allowed to continue, people will be ostracized for not believing anything the Nazional Republikan regime in Washington wants them to. There is a hidden agenda among these people to destroy freedom, to co-opt individual rights in favor of the corporation, and to create what amounts to an American empire in the world. It is this arrogant, corrupting agenda that the rest of the world opposes, and this proclamation by MS and the MPAA is another example of the absurd lengths they will go to get their way on what matters most to them-- the almighty dollar. In their eyes:

    • GPL == Communism
    • BSD == Pinko Socialism
    • Mac User == Liberal Extremist
    • MS Windows Toadie == Good Republican
    • Speaking out against War in Iraq == Anti-American
    • France == Enemy (Just because they disagree with us!)

    When will it end?

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  62. kinda makes you wonder by xeeno · · Score: 2, Funny

    No wonder I always get stomped by the arabs while playing my pirated copy of C&C generals, al quaeda musta funded it.....

  63. This sets a dangerour precedent.. by Lysol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If more talk like this get's to the people in congress and the government, this could soon encompass the 'you're either with us, or against us' attitude the infects the current administration.

    Why is this not good?. For quite a few reasons. Many in the free software and open source community face various uphill battles when trying to use or get others to use non-commercial, specifically, non-m$ products. Linking piracy of IP to terrorism starts sending the message that anyone interested in not buying software could be deemed a non-patriotic (think France and the Florida Freedom Fries and Liberty dressing if you don't follow me) and someone helping anyone that doesn't necessairly fall in line with the accepted point of view of what's legal and what isn't, is gonna soon be in trouble.

    I'm all for supporting the software industry and making money selling software. However, the price barrier for purchasing software in other countries is sometimes so high, that the only alternative is to get a pirated copy. This monolithic view of buy our software at the price we set, period!, can only play well in economies that can support the cost. If m$ would instead take this as maybe their customers outside of wealthy countries cannot afford $199 for a version of XP and we will then adjust accordingly and fairly, then I think there would actually be less piracy. However, Bill did not become the worlds richest man being fair.

    That said, when a proven monopoly, who got off scott free, links these circumstances to terrorism, it basically opens the door for the U.S. govt to now start not only being the morality police of the world, but the information police. This is not far fetched. When a company pushes the way m$ has for Palladium, Digital Restrication Management, and product activation, closed 'standards', they basically start controlling how you can and cannot access information. As time rolls on this will become more and more critical as more and more of the world hits the net and connects with other. This is textbook civics/government high school class stuff.

    These issues are well documented through many writers on many sites. The connection of information, freedom to own what you buy (not a license to use it), intellectual property, and the linking of piracy to terrorism makes for a dim future for everyone who does not want to, cannot follow along (land of the free?) or cannot afford ot license every idea and process under the sun. The America for the individual will be fine as long as you play within the boundries set by the few like Valenti, Gates, Ashcroft (remember how he said the latest m$ court 'ruling' was a victory for the consumer??) - their vision of morality and what constitutes fairness.

    Frankly, this persuades me more and more to let friends and family know that their use of products that these companies crank out, will restrict their freedom more and more as time rolls on. As technologies like Palladium and DRM mature and are used more widely throughout the world, these issues will be harder, if not impossible to dodge and the way the net and our machines work now, will not exist. It is up to everyone who sees this to do their part, however small. Support the FSF, Non-M$ anything, your local/fav Linux distro, contribute some code or time to a os/gpl/free project, or purchase hardware from alternate non-M$ only hardware manufacturer (are there any?). Along with our voices, our dollars will be the most significant in making sure that we will have a choice in the future.

  64. Think about who is talking here. by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'd like to remind the readership of Slashdot that we are, of course, discussing remarks made by the illustrious Jack Valenti.

    You know, that Jack Valenti.

    "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

    "What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."

    And my fave,

    "I sleep each night a little better, a little more confidently, because Lyndon Johnson is my president. "

    That's an old one, but sort of illustrates the point. Jack Valenti is a ridiculous dinosaur from the Johnson administration, and he still thinks like a military guy from that era. He's not an idiot, but he is massively self-deluding, and you can count on him to not concede anything he doesn't absolutely have to. Like many old-school execs, Valenti will never totally grasp the fact that scarcity of media is history. He'd rather fight than adapt. Which is a shame - as these types of organizations (MPAA studios, etc.) essentially have a first-shot opportunity when situations like P2P arise, through startup capital and established contracts.

    It's rhetoric. He does it to get a rise out of people. It's the Bigger Hammer approach. You can try and yell louder, or you can ignore him.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  65. The Gummi Bears Go To Washington by Viking+Coder · · Score: 4, Funny
    Before I begin, let me say that I really, truly, hate the SlashDot lameness filter. You have no idea how long I spent trying to format this to have more than 39.7 characters per line!

    Hostettler (R-Indiana): "Before we begin, I'd like to thank all of the Gummi Bears for making the long journey from GummiGlen in the Kingdom of Dunwyn."

    Zummi Gummi: "It is an honor to come and speak to you, today, your honors!"

    Waters (D-California): "I used to love your show!"

    Jenkins (R-Tennessee): "Not as much as I did, Waters! I used to watch it every Saturday! And then, later, when it switched to be one of those 'After School' cartoons, I used to watch it then, too!"

    Gruffi Gummi: (mutters to himself)

    Hostettler (R-Indiana): "Yes, well... Ladies and gentlegummies, we face a very serious issue today. One that affects all of us. From the smallest child in the heart of the Midwest, to the greatest of Gummies, bouncing in the forest. The issue is that of Duke Igthorn supporting terrorists!"

    (collective gasp from the audience)

    Sunni Gummi: "That's right, your honor! He's a terrorist!"

    Lofgren (D-California): "If you would, Mr. Gummi, explain in your own words why you think this Duke Igthorn has ties with terrorism."

    Zummi Gummi: "Certainly. Well, it seems to happen every week, Saturday morning, at about 9:00 AM, Eastern Time (8:00 AM Central). We're bouncing here. And there. And everywhere. And then all of a sudden, we're forced to have a high adventure, far beyond compare."

    Jenkins (R-Tennessee) and Waters (D-California): (start humming)

    Tummi Gummi: (Eats a cookie. And another, and another, and another...)

    Nadler (D-New York): "Yes, that's all well and good, Mr. 'Gummi', is it? Yes. But that hardly constitutes a terrorist action!"

    Cubbi Gummi: "But, your honor!"

    Grammi Gummi: "Now, now, Cubbi! Let the others do the talking."

    Zummi Gummi: "I see what you mean. Well, they're always trying to steal our Gummi Juice!"

    Nadler (D-New York): "Uh huh. And would you please describe this 'Gummi Juice'?"

    Zummi Gummi: "Well..."

    Nadler (D-New York): "Isn't it true that it is this 'Gummi Juice' which makes it possible for you to bounce" (reading) "'Here and there. And everywhere', Mr. Gummi?"

    Zummi Gummi: "I uh..."

    Nadler (D-New York): "And isn't it true, Mr. Gummi, that the effects of this 'Gummi Juice' can best be described as being an analeptic amphetamine!"

    (collective gasp from the audience)

    Gruffi Gummi: "Why you!"

    Zummi Gummi: "No! Gummi Juice isn't a drug! It's harmless!"

    Nadler (D-New York): "'Harmless', you say? 'Harmless'? Well, if you're so certain that it's 'harmless', perhaps you could educate us about this 'Gummi Juice' by giving us the recipie?"

    Cubbi Gummi: "Wait a minute! That's not Jerrold Nadler, the Democrat from New York! That's Duke Igthorn!"

    (collective gasp from the audience)

    Duke Igthorn (D-New York): "Curses! Damn you Gummi Bears!"

    Hostettler (R-Indiana): "Goodness! Explain yourself, Jerrold!"

    Duke Igthorn (D-New York): "Yes, I am Duke Igthorn! But that doesn't change the fact that these Gummies have taken part in terrorist activities themselves!"

    Grammi Gummi: "That's not true!"

    Duke Igthorn (D-New York): "Yes it is! You Gummies have ruined my castle so many times that I'm not sure there's anything left of the original!"

    Gruffi Gummi: (chuckles)

    Duke Igthorn (D-New York): "Silence! And that's not all! These Gummies have helped to defeat fingerprint sensors!"*

    (collective gasp from the audience)

    Gruffi Gummi: (mutters to himself)

    Zummi Gummi: "We didn't want to defeat those fingerprint sensors! We were forced to!"

    Duke Igthorn (D-New York): "And so, I move that this special session be called to a close!"

    Jenkins (R-Tennessee): "You can't do that!"

    Duke Igthorn

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.
  66. Why should we trust them since... by WarDancer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Isn't it Microsoft that not too long ago testified that opening their source code would be a treath to national security? And yet they did not have a problem sharing their source with the chinese goverment to increase their bottom line.

    Let's face it, Microsoft has time and time again (explorer can't be removed from windows anyone?) proven in the past that their testimonies aren't worth anything.

    Curiously I was under the impression that lying in these circumstances was against US laws. Then again, I'm not from the US, are they required to tell the truth in these testimonies?

  67. To be fair... by gilroy · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... it isn't clear that Microsoft or the MPAA made the terrorism charge. From the article,

    John Malcolm, a Justice Department official who oversees the computer crime division, warned the panel about the connections between copyright piracy and terrorism.

    For now, at least, the corporations are not exactly synonymous with the government.... even if they do pull the strings.
  68. Jack Valenti, terrorism expert by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Riiight, Jack Valenti and Bill Gates just happen to be experts on where terrorists get their funds.

    There are three possibilities:

    1. They are pulling this speculation out of their asses.
    2. They have personal ties to terrorists and were able to witness it first hand.
    3. It is just common sense that everything eventually funds a bad guy somewhere, since when you get down to it, there's just one big world economy.
    So which one is it, Jack?

    BTW, Microsoft people, what's it like to have your company's name spoken in the same breath as MPAA? What charming company you keep.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  69. BS from the M$ Government Front-Line by malachid69 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "John G. Malcolm, deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice did say there seems to be some connection between illegal copying and organized crime"

    Does anyone remember the rules about statistics? Or specifically about correlations and cause-effects?

    "These groups will not hesitate to threaten or injure those who tend to interfere with their operations,"

    Wait, are we talking about P2P users, or M$ themselves? "Illegally copied materials can have markups of 900 percent"

    Get real. That is what the LEGAL versions do. I used to work at a major retail chain. The MOST expensive DVD we bought was $1.69. Most were less. The cheapest we sold was $40. Some, like Caligula, we bought for $1 and sold for $100! P2P users, on the other hand, usually get 0% markup, as it is shared free. Sometimes, it even COSTS them (time, energy, hard drive space).

    "For too long, people engaged in piracy believed that if they were outside the borders of the United States , they could violate our intellectual property laws with impunity," Malcolm added. "They were wrong. This indictment and the extradition sends a clear and unequivocal message to everybody involved in illegal piracy that regardless of where you are, the Justice Department will find you, investigate you, arrest you, prosecute you, and incarcerate you."

    BS. If this were true, big companies (like M$) couldn't get patents on things that are in common usage. People like AOL couldn't force pengaol to loose their domain. You only get persecuted (yes, persecuted) if you are the one with lower-paid lawyers. Not to mention, even if NO ONE made illegal copies of M$ software, they could STILL claim a 20% loss - due to the law assuming pirating is taking place.

    "I can't help but sit here and wonder ... if parents fully understand the ramifications of what it is to steal a movie or pirate a song,"

    Why don't we ask the recording label? I am sure that many artists feel like they have no rights over what they created. An artist (musical artist, author, whatever) is not ALLOWED to give you permission to use their work -- because they don't own it. They loose all rights to it to get it published.

    "Jack Valenti, president and chief executive officer of the MPAA, described a couple examples of copying operations that had been raided outside the U.S. , and he said 26 copying factories in Russia can copy 300 million DVDs and CDs a year. He claimed his industry is losing billions of dollars a year to piracy,"

    The MPAA's entire industry is based off doing exactly that! You think the artist gets full price per DVD/CD? Many artists claim (in interviews) that they receive NO MONEY from cd sales, just from gigs and memorabilia. Sounds like the MPAA is pissed off that the people are fighting back against their piracy.

    "I think it'd be a good idea to go out and actually bust a couple of these college kids," Carter said. "If you want to see college kids duck and run, you let them read the papers and somebody's got a 33-month sentence in the federal penitentiary for downloading copyrighted materials."

    If that was true, no one in college would do drugs now, would they?

    All in all, my solution? Don't let the government take advice from M$ or the MPAA -- everyone knows they are bigger crooks than the people they complain about.

    --
    http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
  70. Actually... by Mullen · · Score: 2
    Microsoft funds terrorists!

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
  71. supports terror you say? by igottheloot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror.

    what about selling flight simulator software with accurate depictions of major u.s. cities, as well as national land marks?

  72. This is true. Here's proof. by Didion+Sprague · · Score: 4, Funny

    This doesn't surprise me one bit.

    In the early 1980s, I tried a similar tactic with my parents. I was hooked on video games, and attempted to explain that if I didn't get an Atari 2600, they'd be funding terrorism.

    I also explained the lack of quarters for the Aladdin's Castle in the mall was probably funding terrorism. When I wanted a TRS-80 Model I Level II computer and my parents refused, I urged them to rethink their stance. "Not buying the computer probably means you're funding terrorism."

    My dad looked at me, told me to go to my room and not come out for a while. From behind my bedroom door, I yelled out that by grounding me, they were supporting the Soviets in Afghanistan. By not purchasing the Mattel 'Big Trak' remote control car I coveted, they were essentially supporting the Argentinians in the Falkland Island dispute. But they held firm.

    When, many years later, my parents refused to fund the purchase of my first automoble (a little Buick Opel), I wondered whether or not their recalcitrance wasn't actually helping Manuel Noreiga in Panama. I explained that by refusing to do what I asked was probably assisting rogue regimes across the globe.

    And now, take a look around. The North Koreans are threatening to rain missiles down on America's cities. Sadaam Hussein is sitting in his bunker with some sweet tea, watching Tony Blair struggle for his political life. General Idi Amin Dada is still exiled in Saudi Arabia, but I'm betting he's got a funding pipeline that comes directly from all those times my parents refused to give me five dollar bills so that I could go to Aladdin's Castle and get the five extra tokens when you stuck a five dollar bill in the cash machine.

    The rise of rogue regimes is the direct results of doing things I didn't want done. Microsoft is absolutely right.

  73. Re:I'm just not sure which way I want to fund terr by XSforMe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oil? Being critical? Driving a van? Copying a CD?

    Bullshit, lets start with the basics: weapons and explosives. Which person provides the most support: the one who sells them an 5 Kgs of C4 or the one who turns on their heat during winter? How come you are willing to boycot the people who sell oil and not say a word against the people who the very means terrorists use? Is it because the people who sell weapons are not arabs? Or is it because selling weapons to foreign countries is a major source of income to US business?

    And guess what, neither of the two measures (boycotting oil or weapons) will probably serve in the long run. To solve this problem you need to attack its source, which has been for the last 50 years, US foreign policies.

    --
    My other OS is the MCP!
  74. Anti-SUV ads... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You've probably already seen this, but this group has ads that say just that.

    Of course, SUV's fund terrorism only to the degree that oil producing countries support terrorism... hence the (possible) war.

    Note that I did not say if I was against or for the war, just the motive for it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. America is going down ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


    This is not funny, its downright scary. This fascistoid picture completes, democracy in the US has ended. Truth is dead. You are being derived of your civil rights, and the american people stand aside and either dont care, dont know or are being silenced by the stupid mob. In terms of civil-rights, justice, arrogance and moral, your country is reaching new extremes every new day.

    Sad.

  76. Chilling quote by PhrackCreak · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Last year, as previously reported, a bill was introduced to Congress that originally was designed to address the hologram issue. But it morphed into something that would make it a federal felony for people to try and trick devices into playing their own music or running their own computer programs.


    Read that again - federal felony for ... playing their own music or running their own computer programs.
    --
    - You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!
  77. Impossible by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless you're actually a member of a terrorist organization using piracy to directly fund your group, NO professional pirates would give their funds away to terrorists, for one simple reason: profit.

    Professional pirates are businessmen. (Also see: professional drug dealers). If they invest money in anything, they want to see some sort of return on it - giving the money to terrorist groups is about as financially effective as setting it in a pile and lighting it on fire. Why would anyone trying to maximise their profits give their money to people who can't make it into more money, when sound investment opportunities are right there for the taking?

    Having terrorists blow things up and wreck the economy is also not exactly something that someone who wants to make good investments would probably be very interested in. So, now you have two great reasons not to give your money to these people. So, seriously, NO ONE is doing this, and the entire concept is bullshit.

  78. Oh really... by geekoid · · Score: 2

    If someone gives me a copy of a game, I fail to see where the money is for the terrorist.

    A far greater tool to be used by terrorists are Operating Systems the consistantly fail any real security scrutiny.

    So what they are saying is everybody should use free software whenever it is available. not a whole lot of money selling something thats free. Unless you have a value add, like support. Some how I don't think I will be able to call Bin Laden to ask him how I can get AQLinux to read my win2k partition.

    Now as far the industry of creating illegal copies is concerned, I could see where that could fund terrorist. If you needed money, didn't care where it came from, and had fanatical followers, wouldn't you make money from any revenu stream possible.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  79. Re:Recent conviction on cigerette smuggling and te by intermodal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In SOVIET RUSSIA, Terrorism funds piracy!

    after all, it seems that companies are so fucking terrified by copyright violation that they resort to stupidity, such as calling other countries' copyright laws 'weak' when in fact american copyright law is simply too strong. So if the companies are to be believed, anyone who buys bootleg copies of something is a terrorist, and is therefore funding piracy out of russia, china, and so forth as stated by many a post. And you know what? if companies are terrified of this inappropriately-labelled "piracy", then I'll speak out in its favor. I for one am sick of companies, especially ones that screw the little guy both during production and at the cash register, getting away with it. Now these alleged 'pirates' need to figure out a way to make the companies either simply die to be replaced with more ethical versions, or to change their ways...seems pretty hopeless actually.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  80. 100% backwards by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prohibition is the sole reason why "drug violence" exists. Think about it. Do people kill each other over market share for beer, tobacco, or coffee? Of course not. Those products are bought and sold in a legitimate market -- a market where the buyers and sellers are responsible for their own actions. In the black market (under prohibition), the buyers and sellers are criminals. They are not obligated to play by the rules.

    Sorry to bust your bubble, but your own government is 100% responsible for all "drug-related" violence. Perhaps you should read up on the US government's attempt to prohibit alcohol early last century -- which, surprisingly enough, failed miserably and created organized crime in one shot.

  81. Re:Recent conviction on cigerette smuggling and te by tigheig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We shouldn't dismiss outright, but assertions require proof, and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. Without proof a claim must be considered mere speculation.

    Minds certainly should remain open, but if the claimant provides no facts to support the claim and instead depends on an appeal to a pre-existing emotion for validation (in this case justified outrage over the results of terrorism) then the claim trivializes itself.

    Don't we see similar "appeals to outrage" here on /. whenever a story about the DMCA or Microsoft is posted? Such arguments are no more valid when they are presented by a corporation to a Congressional committee than they are when presented by one of us in this forum. They just have a larger and more influential audience.

  82. Who was laughing? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "terrorism" has been a catch all since 9-11 for most anything people want to get rid of.

    Get it to fall under the patriot act and let the feds help you stamp it out..

    Regardless if its a crime, or just something ( or someone ) you don't agree with..

    Its use is spreading like wild fire.. Much as the overuse of the DMCA to sue people into non existence on a whim..

    This path we are on scares the hell out of me.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  83. Here's the catch... by MediaBoy77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...if only our elected officials had the cojones to say it out loud.

    The black market in software and pirated DVDs only exists because there is a profit to be made by selling those pirated items.

    If you make it possible to obtain those items without paying for them (i.e. P2P networks), then there's no profit to be made by selling individual discs!

    Thus: Napster, Kazaa, and Gnutella are fighting the war on terror!

  84. And do you know why? by RatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you?

    Hlack market economies create violence. All of them. They have no real choice. The reason is simple: no recourse to the law.

    What do you do if you buy a bottle rum at a liqour store and find out it's nothing but water? You call the police and have that jackass arrested for selling bogus merchandice.

    What do you do if you buy some weed from a dealer and it turns out to be catnip and oregano? Call the cops? Last person I heard about that did that was arrested. No. You either live with the fact that you got ripped off or you shoot the sonofabitch.

    Because the sale, puirchase and distribution of pot, or any other illegal drug, requires that the manufacturers/growers, distributors, sellers and end consumers all operate outside the law. This leaves them only one recourse when things go bad. This also leaves them no choice in how to deal with conflicts of any kind.

    If legalized and sold through normal sales channels, drugstores (hey, that's a catchy name) drug-related violence will drop like a stone. If you can call the cops because that jackass at the corner pharmacy cuts his stock of Vantage Ultra Gold Columbian with catnip then you don't have to shoot him for it. If he knows that he can call the coips because you passed a bad check he knows he dowsn't have to shoot you for trying not to pay.

    It's like the liqour business durring prohibition, or the porn industry when it was illegal to make blue movies, or like prostitution is right now. When you make something that people want illegal, you create a lawless subculture that is infested with violence.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:And do you know why? by chiller2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "What do you do if you buy some weed from a dealer and it turns out to be catnip and oregano? Call the cops?"

      You could give it to your cat and it'd love you forever. Always a silver lining ;)

      --
      --- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6 :)
  85. The Merits of Drug Prohibition by jimsum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the big successes of the anti-drug propaganda war is what you have pointed out, the way the authorities have been able to blame the problems of prohibition on the drug itself.

    Now, just because prohibition causes problems is not necessarily an argument against prohibition; it is simply part of the cost-benefit analysis. Alcohol prohibition worked to some extent, it cut alcohol consumption in half. However, the general public decided that the costs of prohibition outweighed the benefits of reducing alcohol use.

    When it comes to pot, all the scientific evidence shows that it is less harmful than alcohol; it isn't possible to overdose (unlike alcohol "poisoning"), there are no serious diseases proven to be caused by it (unlike cirrhosis of the liver), and it is not nearly as addictive (read up on delirium tremens, then find any description of pot addiction). Since pot is even less harmful than alcohol, there is even less reason to accept the cost of prohibiting it, as compared to alcohol.

    Now with other drugs, like heroin, the benefits of reducing consumption may outweigh the costs of enforcement. Unfortunately, governments rarely bother to even admit the costs of prohibition, preferring to blame everything on the drug. The result is that people are forced to choose the more dangerous mind-altering substance, Alcohol. They must risk arrest in order to make the more responsible and intelligent choice of using pot, the least harmful mind-altering drug.

    --
    -- Pot is safer than Beer
    1. Re:The Merits of Drug Prohibition by clockwork18 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate to tell you, but this is entirely untrue. Neuropsychologists are still unsure about the method of action of THC, but believe it lies in its similarity to the neurotransmitter anandamide. Pot has never been shown to cause any sort of brain damage in the short or the long term (discounting the fact that smoking any plant releases noxious fumes, this can be bypassed by vaporizing the drug). Pot can indeed cause paranoia, but this is akin to saying that alcohol can cause recklessness and poor driving abilities--it just comes along with the positive effects of the drug. About the reference to schizophrenia, current research does indeed show a small correlation with extremely heavy pot youth pot use and depression/schizophrenia in later life, but none of these links are causal, and many of the researchers performing the experiments indicated that the data may be skewed, as the individuals could have been self-medicating for preexisting depression or mental illness. One has to face the fact that marijuana is orders of magnitude safer than alcohol or tobacco.

  86. Re:Take it one step further... by symbolic · · Score: 2, Funny


    Just ban Microsoft, since it supplies the software being pirated.

  87. Haven't you heard of Gas or Coal? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Coal power stations provide energy for electric trains / trams / trolley buses / light rail. Lots of that in Europe and other places. Not great carbon emissions though.

    Gas (propane or butane) powers many vans and cars (e.g. my dad's van). Lots of it in Russia, though elsewhere it is being got through quite quickly. Gas cars were very common in New Zealand in the 1980s.

    But more environmentally sustainable fuels would be nice.

  88. i wish i had ARTICLE mod points by bmajik · · Score: 4, Informative

    because i had normal mod points when i saw this, but unfortuneately the story submitter is an IDIOT, and michael is also an IDIOT, and many of the people posting responses haven't read ANYTHING related to the article except the posted blurb by the first IDIOT, and thus look like IDIOTS themselves.

    The slashdot submissions clearly says that microsoft and the MPAA are both testifying that piracy supports terrorism.

    "[Yesterday's] Oversight Hearing on "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism" featured the MPAA and Microsoft testifying that software and movie DVD counterfeiting is an acute problem, with criminal gangs operating factories in Russia, Malaysia and other countries that have weak copyright laws. They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror."

    BULLSHIT

    http://www.house.gov/judiciary/lamagna031303.pdf

    Here is the exact testimony of the microsoft lawyer. Terrorism is not mentioned a single time.

    Microsoft's only contention here is that the majority of large scale piracy is done by very well funded operations with links to organized crime, primarily backed by and operating in countries with less strict or non-existant IP laws. It then goes on to say that much of the profit (and its nearly ALL profit) of these operations goes to funding other activity within those crime organizations, some of which is violent crime. There is PROOF of this cited in the comments. The only part of it that is conjecture is the estimated revenue and job losses due to piracy, the arguments against which are well known and do not need to be repeated here.

    Nowhere in the microsoft testimony, nor in the ZDNET article is there any link between MS testimony and terrorism _at all_. Nowhere is MS claiming that piracy causes terrorism. Nowhere is there anything to indicate that MS and the MPAA are best friends in crushing your inner child.

    This website might as well change its name to "microsoft_enquierer" or "microsoftdailysun" or some similar such tabloid name.

    Oh wait! we already have theregister (which nearly every MS related article on slashdot invariably links to as an authoritative or credible source of "journalism")

    If slashdot is going to try and act as a political or any other kind of entity, stick to the facts, clearly differentiate conjecture from reality, and at least make a half hearted attempt at being accurate.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  89. Re:good grief! by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 2

    Uerm... there's is no god.

    If you define God as being all-mighty then look at this:

    If god can do anything it could create a stone it can't lift. But then, it can't lift the rock, meaning it can't do everything. Or, it could lift the rock, but then the first thing won't happen.

    --
    ^_^