Slashdot Mirror


RIAA/MPAA vs. xMule Author, EarthStation 5

Two bits of news in the ongoing battle between the RIAA/MPAA and the rest of the internet: One P2P company, apparently based in Palestine, has thrown down the gauntlet to the movie industry. Meanwhile, a developer of another P2P tool who unwisely chose to live in the USA has been shut down (mirror) by the RIAA.

1,107 comments

  1. Anti Semitism? by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1, Troll

    Could this be a Palestinian kick at the Jews they figure run Hollywood?

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    1. Re:Anti Semitism? by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

      Well, whatever their motivation, those guyz over at "Earthstation" better hope that the RIAA doesn't have any friends in high places in Sharon's gov't. Can you say "bulldozer?"

    2. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Could this be a Palestinian kick at the Jews they figure run Hollywood?"

      Could this be a cheap kick at all Palestinians?

    3. Re:Anti Semitism? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Informative

      Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly be anti-semitics...

      Main Entry: Semite
      Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
      Function: noun
      Etymology: French semite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
      Date: 1848
      1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
      2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod this up

    5. Re:Anti Semitism? by grug0 · · Score: 1

      More likely it's a Palestinian kick at the American establishment that provides aid the Israeli military to the tune of a billion a year.

    6. Re:Anti Semitism? by DemoLiter2 · · Score: 1

      But in Soviet Russia ... no, I'm not going to start a joke. In Soviet Russia there were just no scientologists, but the Soviet movie industry was run indeed by jews. I can hardly remember a single actor or director who was not Jewish.

    7. Re:Anti Semitism? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly be anti-semitics...

      Sure they could...they could be filled with self loathing. ;)

    8. Re:Anti Semitism? by Lshmael · · Score: 1
      from http://www.earthstation5.com/company.html
      Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim.

      Believe it or not, we all love and respect each other.

      We all work and play together. Our families on many occasions eat at the same dinner table. We trust each other and are very close friends with each other. As a group, the most important thing in our life is our children, our families and love ones and of course our friends.


      They love their families...who they may never see again after the RIAA and MPAA come after them.
    9. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Main Entry: anti-Semitism
      Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
      Function: noun
      Date: 1882
      : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

    10. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews running the Soviet movie industry? Who was the best director, Rubin Goldsteinski?

    11. Re:Anti Semitism? by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      This is silly.

      We all know that "faggot" just means a bundle of wood, but if you call someone a faggot you're calling them a homosexual in an insulting manner.

      Likewise, anti-Semite has come to mean "prejudiced against Jews", even though Arabs and some north Africans are descended from Semitic groups and speak Semitic language.

    12. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet ANTI-semitism is recognized as hate of jews -- not hate of all semitic people:

      www.webster.com:

      Main Entry: anti-Semitism
      Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
      Function: noun
      Date: 1882
      : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

    13. Re:Anti Semitism? by DemoLiter2 · · Score: 1

      Who was the best director, Rubin Goldsteinski?
      Who's this guy? Never heard about.
      Ok, to say honestly, I think it was Tarkowsky. Doesn't change the fact he's Jewish.

    14. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought the GAYS ran Hollywood!

    15. Re:Anti Semitism? by DemoLiter2 · · Score: 1

      I agree completely, meaning of words sometimes tend to drift away from the initial.
      What we need is to come up with a catchy term that describes abuse of non-jews by jews. Hmmm, anti-goyism?

    16. Re:Anti Semitism? by zdislaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's a legitimate point and not just based on a dictionary entry. There is a lot of concern and discussion within Semitic groups over the western world's use of "Anti-Semitic" to refer exclusively to Jews.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    17. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck your dictionary definition of Semites, that is a tired old semantic game. Every Jew in the world understands that "Anti-Semitism" means that virulent racist hatred and persecution of Jews that has been a common thread throughout history for 2000+ years. Some Arabs are technically Semites, but Arabs get a pass from this kind of anti-Semitism.

    18. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, fuck YOU and your using of the term "Anti-Semite" to persecute anyone who might even hint at saying anything bad about Jews.

    19. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is to come up with a catchy term that describes abuse of non-jews by jews. Hmmm, anti-goyism?

      Agreed. I would add that what we need is a term to describe the abuse of the term "Anti-Semitism" to mean something horrible. Jews should be subject to criticism just like everyone else. Why the hell should they have the big stick of the term "Anti-Semite?" Lots of other racial groups have been persecuted and killed too, I don't hear them whining as loud as the Jews do, with zillions of organizations that exist solely to whine and ostracize anyone they deem to be "Anti-Semitic." The term is so overused that it's becoming meaningless. It's like calling someone Hitler.

    20. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > > Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly
      > > be anti-semitics...

      > Sure they could...they could be filled with self loathing. ;)

      Yes but so are Jews;-)

    21. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait... I thought that was supposed to be a typical JEWISH trait...

    22. Re:Anti Semitism? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Likewise, anti-Semite has come to mean "prejudiced against Jews", even though Arabs and some north Africans are descended from Semitic groups and speak Semitic language.

      Oh great, we'll just let special interest groups manipulate language to further their own twisted ends, won't we?
      It did not "come to mean", it was perverted into that special usage.

      Go eat some freedom fries...

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    23. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... I thought that was supposed to be a typical JEWISH trait...

      AHH... So they ARE the same people!

    24. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shutup you flaming bundle of wood!

    25. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There doesn't seem to be that much ambiguity:

      www.m-w.com

      Main Entry: anti-Semitism
      Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
      Function: noun
      Date: 1882
      : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

    26. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP!!!

    27. Re:Anti Semitism? by Jagasian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The popular trend has been total and utter disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people. Deprive them of unity as a state (no Palestinian State) and deprive them of the unity as a race (Semites only means Jews). It is subtle, but a strange movement to erase the Palestinians.

      Sure lots of Palestinians are bad people, but lots are good people and lots of somewhere inbetween. Why write off an entire ethnicity? Sounds like defacto ethnic cleansing.

    28. Re:Anti Semitism? by fermion · · Score: 1

      can anyone say Justice Clarence Thomas?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    29. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Shhh, you're not supposed to criticize Israel.

    30. Re:Anti Semitism? by zazas_mmmm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh great, we'll just let special interest groups manipulate language to further their own twisted ends, won't we?

      I'm sick of all of this anti-semantism! Enough already!

      --
      I'm a friend of a friend of the working class.
    31. Re:Anti Semitism? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I'm sick of all of this anti-semantism! Enough already!


      lol : )

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    32. Re:Anti Semitism? by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      Could this be a Palestinian kick at the Jews they figure run Hollywood?

      I'd say no (it's a "multicultural" endeavor, as they state in their site), but you can bet your ass the RIAA won't miss the opportunity to spin it that way.

    33. Re:Anti Semitism? by Mikeytsi · · Score: 1

      I think the main reason you hear so much complaining is that people have been killing and/or persecuting Jews for the past 4000 years. I know I'd get kind of tired of it after that period of time.

      --
      I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
    34. Re:Anti Semitism? by glitch! · · Score: 2, Funny

      What we need is to come up with a catchy term that describes abuse of non-jews by jews.

      Retail!

      (Oh, God. There goes my karma...)

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    35. Re:Anti Semitism? by Jagasian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I didn't think I did (criticize Israel)... at least not directly. The USA is at fault in my opinion. Without the aid of my government this crap wouldn't still be happening in Palestine. I mean, have you ever stop framed news footage from the fighting in the Middle East? You ever notice how much USA military hardware is being used by any and all sides in these conflicts?

      Sure lots of USA killing machines are used by Israel, but you will also see Palestinians using USA machine guns, though they mainly use AKs. Oh and don't even get me started on the WMDs that Sadaam had in the late 80s and early 90s... the ones he used to kill thousands of Kurds, Shias, and Iranians.

      Its just strange that people think that giving out weapons to two people that want to fight eachother is somehow supposed to pacify the situation. Hell, if you were at a bar in the states and a fight was about to break out, but before it did you gave both people a gun... I think you would end up in jail with everyone that ended up fighting.

    36. Re:Anti Semitism? by atallah · · Score: 1

      A better observation would be:
      "people have been killing and/or persecuting people for the past $number_of_years_since_we_evolved_into_people years"

    37. Re:Anti Semitism? by danon · · Score: 1

      They can
      -> don't you know that given enough time any group will split into small parts and start a war with each other? Oh, so you haven't been to the middle east lately....

      But you got to admit that the ER5 site does have a fascist ring about it. And that IS something to worry about. As much as I disagree with MPAA/RIAA or the movie industry - I don't intend on taking a fascist route any time soon....

    38. Re:Anti Semitism? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      No, they take a stand against big corporations, wich is against everything facism stands for.

      Plus, I don't like the "if palestinians bad mouth hollywood it must be because they hate the jeews" idea.
      Not at all
      A blanket racist statement accusing others of racism...yucky.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    39. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I don't hear them whining as loud as the Jews do

      Have you even met a black person?

    40. Re:Anti Semitism? by Mikeytsi · · Score: 1

      No, I was making a specific observation about Jewish people, who have been subject to consistent death and/or persecution for the past 4000 years. Pretty much every other religion has had periods where they have been in power, and thus not been the subject of persecution.

      --
      I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
    41. Re:Anti Semitism? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Pretty much every other religion has had periods where they have been in power, and thus not been the subject of persecution.

      That's reading about 120% on my bullshit meter.

      There are about 3 major religions around today which have ever been in power.
      JewMoslemianity (honestly, to someone not of one of these 3 they're basically the same), Hinduism and Shinto.

      The rest of them were, for the most part, burned, tortured murdered and oppressed by other ones; primarily the currently existing ones.

      As far as Israel goes, the only reason that the Jews even lived there originally is that they murdered every man woman and child who lived there before when they wanted it. At least according to the bible. Their god promised the land to them.

    42. Re:Anti Semitism? by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every Jew in the world understands that "Anti-Semitism" means that virulent racist hatred and persecution of Jews that has been a common thread throughout history for 2000+ years. Some Arabs are technically Semites, but Arabs get a pass from this kind of anti-Semitism.

      No, they're just called, "Dirt Nigger", "Dune Coon", "Towel Head", "Rag Head", "Camel Jockey", "Terrorist", "Infidel" and lots of other things.

      They were colonized, enslaved, hated, repressed, murdered, tortured and any other horrible thing you can think of *Just Like Every Other Race, Religion, and most likely Species* that ever lived on this planet. And you're bitching that only the Jews deserve a special word for hatred of them?!?

      Israel has no claim whatsoever on special status. If they do wrong it is wrong. If they are wronged, then it is likewise wrong.

      Fuck *your* semantic games.

      .

    43. Re:Anti Semitism? by Ecomorph · · Score: 1

      Historically, the actual word Palestinian refers to "Jews". The current vernacular use of the word was "stolen" to lend legitmacy to the stealing of Jewish land.

    44. Re:Anti Semitism? by Darby · · Score: 1

      As much as I disagree with MPAA/RIAA or the movie industry - I don't intend on taking a fascist route any time soon....

      This statement has no meaning.

      The route the MPAA and RIAA are taking *is* fascism: The merger of state and corporate power.

    45. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I rub people the wrong way and a lot of trouble keeps finding me, I look at myself and try to find in me the changes that I can make to reduce the problems. All in all I have had a fairly laid back life. Maybe, just maybe, there are some Jews that are doing something wrong?

      Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome.

    46. Re:Anti Semitism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as Israel goes...

      That's a good point. So where do we stop? Someone always took the land from someone else? Sold it, bought it, killed for it, had a former superpower deed it, whatever. The wrongs of the past can't be righted. It's part of the whole irreversibility of time thing.

      The Palestinians are just damn lucky they're fighting the Jews, who would get something of a quessy stomach when faced with the prospect of ending a people.

      Look at how that shit turned out in the US (indians? and how hard it is to be a mexican and get into texas (formerly mexico)). If we were running that show, there would be little debate, and the palestinians would have casinos, a lock on the landscaping/day laborer markets, and rampent alcholoism. Hell, most people still think Custer was some kind of hero in the US (when in fact, he was an ass, who's men let the indians kill him, and had probably lived far to long even given the early year he met his end in.)

      But I've gotta sign off, i've gotta head out to the Issaquah (translates to "many lower upper class white families overlook highway") costco to get some provisions for the Seahawks ("hope eternal brings disappointment renewed") game tonight.

  2. RIAA... hmm... by LordYUK · · Score: 1, Funny

    Its 11:15 EST... Where the heck is our daily SCO story, huh?

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    1. Re:RIAA... hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  3. Not that it needs to be said, but by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is getting fucking ridiculous.

    It saddens me as a developer that you can't even deign to write a P2P add without the assumption that it will be used for sharing copyrighted materials and thus shut down by the RIAA/MPAA. It's really amazing to see what lengths these bastards will go to to protect their industry after a major, earth-shattering shift in their profit model.

    I urge everyone reading this to be very diligent in your boycott of buying new music or going to see movies. I haven't bought a CD in 22 months and haven't seen a movie since (believe it or not) 1999. You can't cheat and plead, just one movie! It's the Matrix! I have to see it. Nothing but the bottom line is going to get through to these people. If these folks don't get the message and soon, you may find yourself asking for permission to write anything on your machine that moves bits around.

    --
    Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
    1. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Havokmon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It saddens me as a developer that you can't even deign to write a P2P add without the assumption that it will be used for sharing copyrighted materials and thus shut down by the RIAA/MPAA.

      No kidding, just posted to the Mandrake Cooker list:

      > > Could we get some kind of p2p solution up and running? With so many
      > > people wanting to keep a local cooker tree, it would seem self-evident
      > > that we should be taking advantage of this technology. A cooker torrent
      > > would be excellent! (does BitTorrent handle large numbers of files
      > > easily?).

      > This would kick ass. :) Especially if it was setup so that it can download
      > from multiple sources at a time to increase speed.

      So much for that idea. Although it IS copyrighted material, it's not illegal to distribute it. ;)

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by varith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that the entertainment industry is using dropping revenue as proof that they need to implement tighter controls to prevent file sharing. So any boycott may be backfiring!

    3. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Azureflare · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Heck, I don't need a reason to not buy cds or see new movies...They all suck, and I don't intend to see any... Well, except for the lord of the rings. I can't give that up, sorry; it's kind of a family thing.

      Other then that, I haven't bought cds since 2001 (And those were just second-hand jazz cds). I have all the music I want, and none of the new music is very interesting. Oh, except for Ben Verdery (really cool guitar), but that isn't RIAA owned, he's independant.

    4. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not that impressive when you consider there hasn't been a movie worth 8 bucks per viewing for.. oh... I don't know... EVER. Don't get me started on one-trick ponies and their $20 CDs....

    5. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      While I applaud your conviction to your principles, can't this method easily backfire? The RIAA has already been attributing declining sales to illegal P2P sharing. If your goal is to hurt them by boycotting CD purchasing, sales will slip more and they'll have even more amunition and laws against P2P may dig in deeper. True, they'd be wrong it's P2P's fault, but when has that ever stopped them?

      Likewise, one of the standard arguments against the RIAA's position is that P2P often increases sales by exposing different artists to the public, with P2P as an artist search and 'try-before-you-buy' tool.

      So, by boycotting are we not giving them more ammunition and taking away some of ours? We do have truth and reason on our side either way, but that doesn't seem to matter when it comes to lawmakers, lobbyists, and lawsuits.

    6. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole second-hand thing could be a good option. If you buy a used CD/DVD, that doesn't send anything to the RIAA/MPAA, right?

      Back in college, I had good success buying used CD's. If I recall correctly, only once did I have a problem with skips, and the store gave me a refund right away.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by SailorFrag · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I urge everyone reading this to be very diligent in your boycott of buying new music or going to see movies. I haven't bought a CD in 22 months and haven't seen a movie since (believe it or not) 1999. You can't cheat and plead, just one movie! It's the Matrix! I have to see it. Nothing but the bottom line is going to get through to these people. If these folks don't get the message and soon, you may find yourself asking for permission to write anything on your machine that moves bits around.

      Though it sounds good, I do not think that would even work as a solution. They would simply blame the declining sales on piracy and the exact same thing will happen.

      Personally, I don't listen to any music anyway, so the music industry has never received any money from me. I do watch movies though.

    8. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by BWJones · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hrmmmm. From your sig " I'm gonna drink 'till I reboot! - Bender, Futurama" I would also have to add that given the media consolidation happening with large corporations owning music, movie, television, newspaper and internet companies, you might have to swear off your Futurama as well.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    9. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by zasos · · Score: 1

      I would encourage the developers to participate in the freenet project.. if I had skills, I'd participate.. --

      --

      Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
    10. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you handle supporting music like that of Blue October who are pretty much localized to Texas but got lucky enough to briefly get a record deal? These guys are great, and I want them to get compensation, but I don't live in Texas.

    11. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just got about 52 GB of music from a friend of mine, and you know what? I don't feel the least bit guilty about it. A lot of this shit either underground bands or uncommon stuff, and even the popular stuff I don't care if I didn't buy it. To pull an axiom from The Matrix:

      The RIAA is a system, AC. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Guitarists, Drummers, Mixers, Singers...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so innerred, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to protect it. Are you listening to me, AC? Or were you looking at the free lesbian porn?

    12. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by satyap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if you buy the stuff, you're giving them money. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

    13. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by kossico · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although it's been said (and proved!) numerous times, I'll say it again here because it's just so obvious. File sharing HELPS record and movie companies. The singles that I download are songs that I like, but would never buy the full album. However, maybe while downloading that song I grab another one that I've never heard from the same band, and if I like it, I'll go get that CD. Same thing with movies. If I want to see a movie, I'll go to the theatre and pay money to see it. If there's a movie that I'm not that interested in, and my friend downloads it and I see it on his 17" monitor and end up liking it, then I'll spend my money and go see it on the big screen with the big sound in the theatre. Maybe the RIAA/MPAA don't believe this, but it's true. There's proof. Everyone I know feels the same way! Wake up!!!

    14. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about you, but I haven't bought a single CD since 2000 or so because of file sharing. And I don't go see many new movies as much as I used to since I can just get the screener from online.

      Oh yeah, I don't rent as many movies either, as I can download them.

    15. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by bytesmythe · · Score: 1
      You can't cheat and plead, just one movie! It's the Matrix! I have to see it.

      There's always sneaking in. You get to see how the trilogy ends AND screw them out of some money. Also, hide some drinks and snacks in your pockets for maximum effect.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
    16. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hey! Stop telling the truth! We all want to stay in our happy little LaLaLand!

    17. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It saddens me as a developer that you can't even deign to write a P2P add without the assumption that it will be used for sharing copyrighted materials and thus shut down by the RIAA/MPAA.

      Newsflash: most P2P file-transfer apps are used for copyright infringement. Blame the users and Napster--but you still have to live with it.

      (Oh, and if you are just working on P2P, take anonymnity out of the picture and RIAA will probably leave you alone. P2P isn't bad, but anonymous P2P is almost certinaly so.)

      I urge everyone reading this to be very diligent in your boycott of buying new music or going to see movies.

      Bah. If I care about how the law is going, I'll write a letter. /. Boycotts are simply too small to have ANY effect at all.

    18. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Come on. If we buy their products, it only takes away cash from our pockets, and fills their pockets.

      Continuing the cycle (and restoring their profits) at this point will only encourage them and prove that their recent "tactics" work. It will also keep them in business indefinately.

      I agree that a slump in sales will allow them to blame it on P2P. But they're doing that already. And it'll only work for a little while... because as soon as a REAL boycott occurs, there will be NO WAY they can blame it on P2P. There is already holes in their correlation & stats about P2P stealing their profits away. Even bigger discrepancies will work against them.

      Not only that, but the boycott should remain in place even after they "shut down" P2P. Indie sales need to go up. Our money should go towards other forms of entertainment (computer games, etc)

      Boycotts have worked in the past. Corporations only exist to create cash. Take that cash away from them, and even they won't be able to afford congress critters anymore. Not only that, but somewhere along the line, big artists could jump ship and go with alternative distribution and marketing, which could get the whole ball rolling in a brand new direction on its own.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    19. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by kryptobiotic · · Score: 1

      It's already been canceled. Nothing to swear off.

    20. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by jbottero · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It saddens me as a developer that you can't even deign to write a P2P add without the assumption that it will be used for sharing copyrighted materials and thus shut down by the RIAA/MPAA.

      Unfortunately your argument is full of shit. The idea that such applications "can" be used for legal purposes vs. the reality that this is VERY unlikely, blows huge holes in your fantasy. It's like walking into a liquor store toting a sawed of shotgun, sure you MIGHT be on your way to shoot some skeet, but is that really that likely? NOPE.

      People, you need to stop lying to yourselves on this point. YOU know as does the RIAA/MPAA that the reality is you want to download copyrighted stuff for free. Making thin arguments to the contrary only makes you look like an idiot.

    21. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now I understand the mindset of Arab Muslim terrorists, who think it's okay to kill innocent people because they're part of the evil Zionist system.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by ThePilgrim · · Score: 1

      There was a report hear in the UK that album sales where actually going up.

      So go figure

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    23. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They all suck, and I don't intend to see any... Well, except for the lord of the rings. I can't give that up, sorry...

      The Lord of the Rings. The Matrix. And next week you will have to see another movie. Just one more. Pretty soon you will have to see Mary Poppin's Christmas with the Smurfs. When will it ever stop?

      Every dollar you spend on a movie goes to the MPAA regime.

    24. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Doesn't it bother you that the RIAA could send a subpoena to /. to get your IP number, then another subpoena to your ISP to get your name?

      52GB equates as 'big fish' the RIAA says they'll go after. That equates to 5 kilos, man. You're not just a recreational user now, you're a dealer! Federal penitentiary for you!

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    25. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Kaa · · Score: 4, Informative

      It saddens me as a developer that you can't even deign to write a P2P add without the assumption that it will be used for sharing copyrighted materials and thus shut down by the RIAA/MPAA.

      Sure you can. Grokster and Morpheus won their court case, remember?

      The xmule situation is very unclear. There are three not necessarily related things happening:

      (1) The guy got a subpoena. That's basically a court order saying "come talk to us". He is not under arrest and so far hasn't been charged with anything. Hysterics about federal jails and moving to Mexico seem to be quite uncalled for.

      (2) His ISP cut him off for "unacceptable use". Looking at cable providers' Terms of Service, it seems you can't do anything but browse the web anyway, so I am sure he broke some clause there. Likely he's been running a server on his connection which most ToSes prohibit. Tough luck. Dump the cable and get a DSL line instead.

      (3) He is getting close to his bandwidth limit. Well, that's the consequence of popularity. Nothing earthshattering there.

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    26. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are used CD's allowed for resale... copyrighted material for personal profit... but not p2p file sharing? seems like essentially the same thing in principle.

    27. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but as the revenues are their life blood, while we slip around to new methods of file sharing as they close off previous ones. We can win simply because they are ONLY in it for the money. We can take the money away.

      BTW- I slipped and saw Reloaded in the theater, but no CDs in 5 years

    28. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 0

      Boycotts are simply too small to have ANY effect at all.

      Maybe a trade embargo would be a little better. Like the whole US/Cuba thing. Can somebody come up with a plausible way to explain that the RIAA/MPAA are terrorist-supporting organizations? Let's see what the Patriot Act does to your bottom lines, you asshats!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    29. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are used CD's allowed for resale... copyrighted material for personal profit... but not p2p file sharing? seems like essentially the same thing in principle.

      When you sell a CD you no longer have any rights to your copy.

      But your logic is why the RIAA would like to make used CD sales illegal.

    30. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by bigpat · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been boycotting the music industry since 1996, not because of the RIAA, but because I don't care about music enough to buy it. Nor do I care enough about music to go through the hassle of downloading it, I'll stick to just listening to brainless pop or classical on the way home if I happen to get tired of NPR and the BBC.

      "The problem is that the entertainment industry is using dropping revenue as proof that they need to implement tighter controls to prevent file sharing. So any boycott may be backfiring!"

      They can use it as proof, but that does not make it proof. It is very easy to show that with the increased popularity of Napster that Music sales went up, but when Napster was shut down music sales went down. I don't think that is proof that file sharing increases sales of music, but it certainly shows that their proof is garbage.

    31. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by lcde · · Score: 1

      I just got about 52 GB of music from a friend of mine

      Does slashdot log IP addresses? :p

      --
      :%s/teh/the/g
    32. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As usual, an opinion contrary to the Slashdot line get's FLAIMBAIT when in fact it's a reasonable statement.

    33. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rightly put.

      Is there a real artist out there who will say "if you don't give me 1 billion, I refuse to publish my symphony. You will never see it! I will take it in my grave with me! HAHA!"

      On the contrary, many of the best composers in the history died poor. An artist is happy if he/she has enough food so they can focus on the music.

      Only britney spears and the wo-wo-duh boys band need billions. That's because these "artists" are made by a whole cast of directors, song writers, dsp sound-enhancers, advertisers, PHBs, etc.

      Let them die.

    34. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      It doesnt say in his letter, but I'm assuming the subpeona has nothing to do with authoring xmule, but for his own personal copyright infringement. It doesnt even say who subpeona'd him for what. Maybe RMS subpeonad him for not living up to the spirit of the GPL, point is - noone knows.

      Which he admits to, even though he says he hasnt done it in the last "6 months". I've heard of no 6 month statute of limitations.

      He violated his ISPs AUP, and they pulled his account. He could have violated a bandwidth cap, been sharing Gigli, been portscanning, whatever.

      Sometimes it's nice to have facts before you make a hero out of someone. He might be a complete idiot who deserves what he gets.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    35. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Of course if the sales keep dropping & never pick back up, we'll have solved the problem anyhow ;)

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    36. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by nodrama · · Score: 1

      It's all a scam

      I hope that pretty soon the whole IP facade comes crashing down.

      Most IP is the world is owned by American companies - hence all the American political pressure to globally 'harmonise' IP. However with all the rewards going to a small number of recipients an inversely proportional amount of coercion is required to keep the sham going. Eventually groups will give IP/America the finger and ignore IP rules. Very marginalised groups (nothing to loose) first, but all non IP holders (the vast majority) will follow (ssssh don't tell the Chinese).

      As momentum to ignore IP increases the force of the American response will become more disproportional to the crime encouraging more disobedience, "The harder you squeeze the more slip through your fingers".

      It will be interesting in 50,100,200 years time to look back and try and work out why Billy G ended up being the richest person on the planet (is he? go pedants!). Sure he owned a large chunk of a company which wrote a couple of OS'es, a window manager or 2, a word processor, a spreadsheet, and a few other odds and sods - But the richest? Huh? Where was the competitive value created to justify this? He was in the right place at the right time to benefit from the one of the biggest scams in history - called IP.

      Stupid impractical rules are not sustainable, or "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time", or "you can fool some people for a while, but you cannot fool people for ever."

      Maybe my hope is wrong and IP (in its current virulent form) will live forever, but with so few benefiting (sharing the rewards) I doubt it.

    37. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      See my sig, ex-RIAA act (through Nothing) gone Indie. They're a little odd, but I like em.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    38. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Show me some usage stats on how much P2P traffic isn't copyright infringing. If it those files were legit, they would use web sites and FTP downloads.

      Also, I believe that the theoretical fall of sales due to a boycott would only reinforce their arguments.

    39. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by fliplap · · Score: 1

      You got it from a friend, its fair use, you shouldn't feel guilty.

    40. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now I understand the mindset of Arab Muslim terrorists, who think it's okay to kill innocent people because they're part of the evil Zionist system.

      It's not okey. I don't think that even they'd see that it's ok -- if they had a chance to stop thinking about all the violence rained on them. (I'm assuming we are talking about Israel vs. Palestinian [people].)

      I see palestine [people] being desperade. Without an army, how else can one defend his/hers country? This what pro-Israel people see as terrorism is their last option.

      Hell, I'd be doing the same thing. No matter what my religious background was.

      I think that the issue is very difficult to handle for a person living in USA for example. Yes, you've got the greatest army in the world at the moment. You don't have to be afraid of someone coming and taking your land (at least any foreign force -- domestic maybe, but that'd be another story :)).

      The bottom line is that there are palestinian people fighting against an army. I'd too die rather than let my country being overrun. You might as well. This isn't a religous matter. Army fights against an army, but people fight against people, including army.

      Posting anonymously because this is too god damn OT. But I had to write something.
    41. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by starlabs · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that the artists don't get any money either when you buy used cd's.

      But maybe that's a good thing - then they'll be forced to realize that perhaps the RIAA and the recording companies aren't the only way to get your music out there.

      If consumers don't need the RIAA.. and the artists don't need the RIAA... well that would be just dandy, wouldn't it?

    42. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by mike77 · · Score: 1
      you might have to swear off your Futurama as well.

      NEVER!!!
      They can have my futurama DVD set when they pry it form my cold dead hands!

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    43. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Azureflare · · Score: 1
      Actually, I forgot to mention I saw Winged Migration which is a really good film and everyone should see it. Does that also go to the MPAA regime? I tend to like to see foreign films; I haven't seen the Matrix Reloaded.

      Hmm...Mary Poppin's Christmas with the Smurfs....Somehow, that just seems wrong.

      Some movies, you just need to see on the big screen to appreciate. Winged Migration is a case in point. I'd still really like to get it on DVD though.

    44. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by pboulang · · Score: 1

      Nope. It is a free broadcast, and Tivo solves the problem of commercials.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    45. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Without an army, how else can one defend his/hers country?

      The palestinians have never had their own country per se, that's what everyone but them is trying to get accomplished for them. If the terrorists would knock the shit off, then maybe they could establish one. Unfortunately, the terrorists have no desire to even allow Israel to exist and are foregoing their own country for vengence. Small minded.

    46. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by pettigr1 · · Score: 1

      ummm...no, thats really not anything like fair use. But who cares. Current copyright law is so mismatched with digital technologies that it should only be obeyed if your moral stance is something akin to "you ought to obey all laws simply because they are laws." Happily though, most people dont think this way so lets all trade 52GB of music and screw the recording "industry" which is really just a distribution cartel. B.

      --
      www.benpettigrew.blogspot.com
    47. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by pboulang · · Score: 1

      "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -- Robert A. Heinlein

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    48. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean don't PAY to see a movie or get music if your payments end up supporting the RIAA/MPAA don't you? =)

    49. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by poor_boi · · Score: 1
      It seems unlikely to me that the good movie-going populace of America is going to champion the cause of peer-to-peer software at the cost of not going to the theaters.

      There's a reason the RIAA and MPAA have so much power. They control a valuable commodity.

      The RIAA/MPAA are bastards, but most people don't know that. And most people will see Matrix 3 and never have a reason not to.

    50. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Greedo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly! The obvious solution is to start text messaging everybody instead of going to see a movie or buy a CD.

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    51. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      "The only problem is that the artists don't get any money either when you buy used cd's."

      That's because they've already been paid once. If the CD was worth keeping, then maybe the original owner wouldn't have sold it. That's the way used sales work.

    52. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's what happens when 2 groups of people argue over imaginary friends.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    53. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by michrech · · Score: 1

      Show me some usage stats on how much P2P traffic isn't copyright infringing.

      Try having a complete thought. You have two different thoughts there, mushed together.

      It's people who write in this fassion that make me go home at night and drink myself stupid.

      If you sat and thought out what you were trying to say instead of typing crap and hoping for some quick mod points, you might actually get them...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    54. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by FroMan · · Score: 1

      You are equating a criminal activity with a movie?

      Are you the kid that killed his parents because he thought they were agents from the Matrix?

      You are a seriously disturbed kid.

      If you had any moral compass you'd see that the right thing would be to not support the system. But instead you claim the moral low point at breaking the law, greedily taking what is not yours, and even eating the pop culture they feed you and spouting off their own lines.

      Yeah, when someone insists on proudly taking the most low moral ground, I think they fit well on my foe list.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    55. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been boycotting the music industry since 1996, not because of the RIAA, but because I don't care about music enough to buy it

      That's not a boycott. That is just you making a choice. It is the same as me, a non-smoker, saying I have boycotted the tobacco industry. If you're not in the market and you don't buy then it is not really a boycott is it.

      We can argue all day that the music industry sucks and the bands all suck but when the bands sell out concert venues in 30 minutes then someone must like them. But why aren't their CD's selling? In 1983 I'd pay full price for a Billy Squire tape for a couple good songs. In 2003 I don't have to. Is P2P to blame? Hell yes. It might be hard to prove using sales figures. You can't look at a pile of receipts and figure out why there are more or less but when you look around at the popularity of P2P, the volume of files online, and the volume of comments HERE and other places as to why people trade there is your proof that P2P is hurting the industry.

      This post will probably be modded as troll or flamebait but it is pretty close to the truth.

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    56. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      True, I agree with all that. But for it to work it needs critical mass and visibility. If it doesn't achieve those, it's probably more likely to backfire as I've suggested.

      But, being a person of principle myself, I'm essentially boycotting CDs myself and haven't bought one in years, starting with EMI artists when EMI (and later HFA) shut down the On-Line Guitar Archive (OLGA).

      The backfiring thing is just a worry though.

    57. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by FroMan · · Score: 1

      I gotta disagree with you here PD. If someone chooses to implement a P2P app, that is their business. There are many valid uses. Such as this morning I setup BT to download the Matrix trailer. I think the RIAA has the right of it now though. They should go after the infringers, the folks using the technology to download material they do not own he copyright for, and nail them as hard as the law allows. Anonymizing P2P users is simpley research and can have uses. Just as guns can be used for sport, defense, and cold blooded killing, take out the people who break the law, not the tech.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    58. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by rworne · · Score: 4, Funny
      52GB equates as 'big fish' the RIAA says they'll go after. That equates to 5 kilos, man. You're not just a recreational user now, you're a dealer! Federal penitentiary for you!


      ROFL...

      I can see it now, mandatory sentencing for copyright violations just like drug convictions. Here's a glimpse into our near future (ripped from a current drug bust article):

      MP3 busts yield 17 GBs, 6 suspects
      Police were watching local hotels known to have WiFi

      By Sarah Huntley, Rocky Mountain News
      August 20, 2003

      Denver vice detectives dealt a major blow to local MP3 distributors this week, seizing a total of 17 GBs of ripped tunes.

      The MP3s, recovered during four separate busts, are worth at least $306,000 and would likely have traded for significantly more if bundled in smaller amounts, police said.

      Three of the busts targeted local hotels identified as WiFi hotspots along a popular route for "leeching," or people who download MP3s. The MP3's were being hosted from Texas, said Lt. Kris Kroncke of the Denver Police Department's Vice and Copyright Squad.

      Kroncke said detectives have not determined who were supposed to receive the MP3s, but investigators believe Kazaa was the final destination.

      "(With copyright investigations,) it's feast or famine, but this was an unusually good week for us, to recover that much in intellectual property," Kroncke said.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    59. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for this to happen! I just sent my $10 to the xmule guy.

    60. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.ht ml

    61. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      They already got paid when it was first purchased. Should Ford get paid again if I sell my Mustang? That would just encourage manufacturers to produce crappier products, stuff you really want at first but then re-sell very quickly - who would then re-sell it, and so on, making the manufacturer loads of cash without doing anything.

      {Insert joke here about some crappy product that already meets this description.)

    62. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Pejorian · · Score: 1

      ...except for the lord of the rings. I can't give that up, sorry; it's kind of a family thing...

      What, you're an elf or something? Or are you related to Tolkein or somebody in a pair of rubber feet in the movie?

      --
      - Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
    63. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You can resell a CD without paying more royalties under the first sale principle. When you buy a new CD, royalties are paid. The reuirements of the law have been met. It becomes your personal property to resell. Doing so does not create another copy of the work, so copyright, i.e. the right to copy has not been touched upon.

      The RIAA is trying to kill the first sale principle so they can collect royalties each time a CD is resold. They have enlisted Garth Brooks as a high profile spokesman for this unholy crusade. To him, I say, "Sorry Garth, that would be giving you and the label way too much control. You are not being robbed because you were paid the first time. Get over yourself, you pretentious twit!"

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    64. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, I have been hit with a 'more that 10 posts have been made from this IP as AC, no more posts allowed'

    65. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Famatra · · Score: 1

      The best part about boycotting the MPAA for going against p2p is that you can just watch the movies for free off these networks :).

      Easiest boycott I ever participated in!

    66. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      And you are equating murder with copyright BS? Man, that's worse than comparing it to sea pirates. And I don't remember Ghandi getting this much crap from people for trying to fight a system. Yes, it's illegal, but it is civil disobedience in order to fight a system. Sure, it's not a important as fighting for liberty for a country, but 60 million P2P file-sharers can't be wrong.

      Yes, I realize that I'm making a bolder statement than most, but it is because I have grown weary of paying $15 for a CD, and I'm sick and tired of musicians not even supporting our cause. (Jesus, we WANT them to get more money, instead of the $.02 per CD they get now!) When the CD price drops to $7-10 and a majority of that money goes to the artist, then we'll talk about playing fair and paying for music. Until then, my money is better spent on the EFF.

    67. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, or George Bush, when he bombs the hell out of the Arabs.

    68. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. They dropped prices by about 1/3, making the price fair. People are very willing to buy when they aren't being ripped off. Here's the link. They are still boo-hooing that profits are down 2%, but if you are making a profit, stop your crabbing! It's not like you are operating in the red.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    69. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by freuddot · · Score: 1

      Whatever your mindset is, when you feel something is right, you *have* to do it. Try justifying the need for you to have a brain, otherwise...

      And although these terrorists are doing wrong (IMHO), any person who can not understand them is severly limited intellectually. That might, in fact, be the main problem with the north american culture. Not even considering that other people might have different certainties, and be ready to act on them.

    70. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with the boycott, a quick drive by the local AMC theatres up here in Canada, and the parking lot is full of mindless proles flocking to see hollywood's latest "efforts" (excepting of course Gigli, I can't imagine anyone wanting to see that one)

      I have no problem with paying money to see an occasional movie, I also have no problem with the 500+ divx movies that i've pir8ed ;)

    71. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much Garth Brooks got for his soul from Dr. Pepper? What a shamelss shill! Who respects a sellout?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    72. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Every time you share on a P2P network, God kills a kitten.

      That's only if you're sharing pr0n. He doesn't mind in the slightest if you happen to be sharing warez. mp3's, movies, etc. In fact, he completely supports that.

    73. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Civil disobediance is downloading the music, then turning yourself in. What you are promoting is anarchy. Rule by the masses. Or very pointedly, the "me me me" society we live in.

      I am glad you feel good about donating to the EFF. But, instead of listening to music you did not pay for, really hit them where it hurts in mindshare. If you do not listen to their music, they are not going to be able to advertise by word of mouth. If no one listens to RIAA's music generators, where will RIAA get their money?

      Instead, you are a loser who refuses to pay the price someone is offering and taking what they are offering anyways. Do you not feel some sort of cognitave dissidence from this? Or are you so diluded by the pop culture that you just must have it, but don't want to pay for it?

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    74. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      So, by boycotting are we not giving them more ammunition and taking away some of ours? We do have truth and reason on our side either way, but that doesn't seem to matter when it comes to lawmakers, lobbyists, and lawsuits.

      What we need is a central organization to put out press releases informing the world of our boycott. That way, when the RIAA comes out with "Pirates are stealing are music, hurting our revenue", our organization would follow it up with "No, we are, by boycotting your stuff. Put out good music again, stop calling your customers thieves, and stop whining about control. We're in control. If you ever want our money back, you have to earn it."

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    75. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Too true. Don't know why you got marked as flamebait while the other guy got Insiteful

    76. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is your proof that P2P is hurting the industry.

      Personally, I don't care if it is anymore. If someone can tell me what is unfair or uncapitalistic about a band making all of it's money through live concerts, and distributing cheap mp3's or CD's for little to no money at all.......a situation that doesn't involve any middle men (record companies) and relies solely on word of mouth to bring the cream of the crop into the public scene (seems to have worked for websites so far).......if someone can show me what is wrong with all that, then I might consider caring about the record industry. The truth is simply that they're standing in the way of progress and technology. A tactic that hasn't worked to well in the past.

    77. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 1

      And get this, if I'm right then eventually MTV and every radio station in the country will have to start relying on local bands and fans to tell THEM what is worth playing, instead of being paid to play what gets on the air, by the record companies. Imagine that! It almost sounds like capitalism compared to the current system.

    78. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      It is the same as me, a non-smoker, saying I have boycotted the tobacco industry.

      Okay, so here's a semi on-topic question I've occassionaly wondered about. When someone organizes a boycott of RIAA members or say the tobacco industry, do you only target that industry or do you target "the whole thing". For example, let's say you are boycotting the tobacco industry and therefore Phillip Morris cigarettes (Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Benson & Hedges, Merit, Parliament, Alpine, Basic, Cambridge, Bristol, Bucks, Chesterfield, Collector's Choice, Commander, English Ovals, Lark, L&M, Players and Saratoga). Are you also then boycotting Kraft and Nabisco? In this particular case I'm not sure they are still part of the "People of Phillip Morris", but they were at one point.

      Asides from arrangers in a boycott, do individual participants often actually boycott subsidiaries, parent companies, or those companies with close related business ties? Should we? I mean it seems like it would be a much better way to induce change, provided enough people did it. If all of a sudden RIAA/MPAA member AOL Time Warner were to start losing sales in all of its industries (lots of Magazines, AOL, AIM, ICQ, Netscape, cable tv, road runner, compuserve, etc), those other parts of AOLTW might pressure the Music labels to reform.

      I guess the trend I have seen among participants in boycotts is that they generally focuss only on the immediate evil, rather than the big picture. One of the barriers to a more general boycott seems to be that nobody knows who owns what. I mean there's some stuff out there like the Columbia Journalism Review, but thatonly covers media. Does anyone know of any good online resources for finding out which companies are really all part of the same company?

    79. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Master+Controll+Prog · · Score: 1
      First, you mean dare not deign, and you probably mean app.

      Second, it's possible to analyze the threat and design a p2p filesharing system with security and anonymity in mind.

    80. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      Actually the burden of proof is on the RIAA. It is them that have to show that the majority of P2P usage is copyright infringement. Bittorrent actaully has MANY files on it that are legit. It makes downloading large files more effcient since you can get the file from more then one host at a time instead of just one HTTP/FTP server.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    81. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      I have as of yet to see any factual reports put out by a non media / RIAA sponsored company that shows that there is an actual decline in sales, and that piracy is the biggest reason. While I can imagine that it is a problem, by itself it is only an insignificant problem.

      Yeah, some of the shit bands sell out, but guess what? People still buy their music and they still sell a lot. So what if they sold 4 million CD's, which is 2 million down from the last album? I wouldn't call that a failure. Perhaps a large portion of the fans just didn't like their latest stuff. It's possible. It's also possible that some people are waiting for the price to go down.

      Besides, from those kind of reports, it seems like they look at a limited time period to see how much was sold, and then make a decision based on that. Just because the first couple week sales are down lower than expected doesn't mean much in the way of 'piracy'.

      With older bands who put out newer and shittier music, their concerts are still gonna sell like hot cakes! Why? It's because people enjoy attending the live performance and seeing the band play some of their favorite songs. I'm sure people are willing to deal with hearing a few crappy songs here and there for that sole experience.

    82. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by hesiod · · Score: 2

      > It saddens me as a developer that you can't even deign to write a P2P add without the assumption that it will be used for sharing copyrighted materials

      It saddens me that people can't be coerced into reading a single word of an article without jumping to conclusions. THEY ADMIT THE FUCKING PURPOSE IS TO STREAM MOVIES ILLEGALLY! Read The Fucking Article (since I obviously have to spell EVERYTHING out for you). It is some Arab people writing the software to SPECIFICALLY piss off MPAA/RIAA. Granted, I'll probably download a copy soon.

    83. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      I have a question for you. What if your independent artist, Ben Verdery, signs with a major (RIAA) label?

      I hear many people decry RIAA music as being inferior as a reason not to purchase it. But what if your independent artist decides they want to make a little more money and sign with a major? Does the quality of music all of a sudden take a downturn? Will you still buy their music?

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    84. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Azure+Khan · · Score: 1

      Not sure I quite understand:

      I have a large monitor, great sound card, incredible speakers..but my experience watching movies in a theater are FAR more pleasing. Hell, my computer and downloaded movies (none of which are DVD quality without incredible download sizes, often on overloaded or slow P2P servers) are never comparable to DVDs. Music, sure, but video just hasn't caught up to the point that makes it worthwhile for me. I will download obscure things (see: The unedited version of the Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker movie), but if I can get it in DVD or rent it, I usually do.

      --

      --- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
    85. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose the short answer is that it costs a lot of time and money to get instruments, learn to play them, write songs, practice them, get some studio time, record, edit, master and distribute.

      If you like the music, you benefit from getting the music to listen to. Capitalism is about paying the people doing the work for things that you want. You want music, they're working to make it for you.

      Now, they can also make money off live performances. I've never been to a concert, though, and I listen to a lot of music, so the only way I support the musicians and the industry that surrounds them (most of which is legit), is by buying albums.

      I wrote a discussion once about how our economic model is ill-equpped to handle products that can be produced at zero incremental cost. By getting a free MP3, you aren't actually hurting anyone, but you're also not supporting them. It is unfair to have them spend the time and money, and you reap the benefits. Until we fix the economic model (major social upheaval, riots, wars involved), we need to pay for music somehow.

    86. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "That's not a boycott. That is just you making a choice. It is the same as me, a non-smoker, saying I have boycotted the tobacco industry. If you're not in the market and you don't buy then it is not really a boycott is it."

      Can't you detect a less than subtle trace of irony in a simple statement? Dumb Ass.

      "But why aren't their CD's selling?"

      They are selling, selling in huge numbers in a down economy in which entertainment dollars are stretched very thin. I worked for an entertainment company briefly and they always had some bullshit numbers about how the entertainment industry is recession proof, well it isn't. Expensive entertainment is the first thing that is thrown out the window when times get tough. And that's what CDs are, expensive. Blaming P2P is probably just as much about covering CEO pride and investor sentiment as it is about enacting dumb laws.

      "Is P2P to blame? Hell yes."

      Blame for what? The Business cycle? People have less money. This more than explains a slight (around 10%) decline in sales from the record high sales in 2000. 2000 marked the height of Napster filesharing, how do explain record CD sales and widespread file sharing? I'm sure you must have some sort of interesting explanation. Heck I think the decline over the last two years should have been much greater than it was, in the range of 30%. When people don't buy something from you it is economics not theft. I haven't been able to find any real numbers, but I would suspect that CD sales are not substantially different than what they were in the mid 90s, so rather I would ask you, What has the music industry done differently that one would expect an increase in sales?

      Sure, some people might not be buying CDs because they can just download what they want, but more likely those that are downloading would not have otherwise bought one and are in fact more likely to buy a copy if they like the bands music.

      So, you are wrong, stupid wrong. File sharing has nothing but helped the music industry. Just as free broadcast of songs over the radio has. Now they are ungrateful.

    87. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by blancolioni · · Score: 1

      I suppose the short answer is that it costs a lot of time and money to get instruments, learn to play them, write songs, practice them, get some studio time, record, edit, master and distribute.

      Oddly enough, it took me an awful lot of time and money to build my snot sculpture. It also took some fast talking and, let's face it, a rather large amount of snot.

      But I'd never claim that everybody who looks at it owes me a living.

    88. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Does the quality of music all of a sudden take a downturn?

      Not the back catalogue obviously, but then you don't purchase that from the major label.

      New stuff might well go downhill - afetr all, it's being produced under different management (and probably to a fixed x-ablums y-tours z-years timetable) with less focus on art and more on $. Even the big stars don't have the creative control they want with a major - ask Prince, George Michael, etc.

      Do you buy it ? - maybe if it's still good. Otherwise you put another tick in the "artist sold out" box and go look for more good independent stuff.

    89. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I'm not Jewish and I have no ties to Israel or any Jewish friends/relatives, but...

      Why does the world continue to put up with the terrorist groups among the Palestinian people? Why do the Palestinian people put up with it?

      I think every country in the world should send a small army to Israel and join them in dragging members of Islamic Jihad and Hamas out in the street to be shot (along with Arafat). We've put up with the shit for waaaay too long, and I'm sick and fucking tired of it (and I don't even live there).

      After the systematic execution of these terrorists, the international forces should establish a hard border between Israel and the newly formed Palestinian state (consisting of a DMZ made up of hog farms), and assist Palestine in building schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure. Israel should be assurred that if they attempt to build settlements beyond their border they will be blown to next week.

      They obviously are not able to handle this issue themselves (either side). The world should step in and settle it for good.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    90. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there are many more Jewish moderators than Palestinian ones.

    91. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by bobtheheadless · · Score: 1

      Wow, that matrix speach can be pretty much applied to... anything.

      --
      --- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
    92. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likely he's been running a server on his connection

      Probably an xMule server.

    93. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fscking weird! I've been anti-boycotting by accident and I haven't downloaded any MP3's in 3 months. I think I've reached saturation level and will never have to buy any new music again.
      Maybe in a couple of months (years?) when this all blows over I'll discover that you can't download music anymore, and that the dye in my CD-R's has died and I'll have to start buying CD's all over again :P
      Now why did I waste so much money on CD media and not get a decent tape backup system :P

    94. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

      When people don't buy something from you it is economics not theft.

      I agree with you there. But when they don't buy it because they already got it for free from a source not authorized to distribute it what is that?

      When you have reports like The Eminem Show being number 2 on Gracenote before the CD was even released, that goes a long way to support the RIAA's claims. An awefully lot of people had the CD before it was being sold. Therefore they didn't need to buy it on the Tuesday it was released.

      Sorry, it isn't the same as radio. The radio doesn't put the full album out there in full CD quality. And radio isn't free. It costs money to play those songs.

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    95. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, it isn't the same as radio. The radio doesn't put the full album out there in full CD quality. And radio isn't free. It costs money to play [bmi.com] those songs"

      CD quality doesn't mean jack shit to most people, before there was P2P people were making mix tapes and giving them to there girlfriends in similar volume to modern day p2p. Of course back then the industry got congress to pass a fucked up law that gave the music industry money for each piece of media sold regardless of its eventual use. Next they will want money from the sale of cars because they could facilitate the transfer of copied music. I digress. The point is that the music industry has not shown that they are harmed by music copying and even if they were, then that gives them no right to harm bystanders by enacting laws which restrict my freedom to create. Sure if you put bunches of unauthorized copies onto the internet you should be ready for a civil lawsuit, but to go after anyone else is a reprehensible act and one that must be punished. These industry groups have too much money and can do far too much damage to be acting in such a destructive manner.

      The makers of Apache have no responsibility for the contents of this post. Neither should the creators of software be responsible for their use by others when there is even the least likely of legitamite uses. That is the threshold for prior restraint of freedom of speach. If there is any conceivable legitamite use then it is allowed. P2P software is no different. Just ask the chinese.

    96. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of my coworkers is from Lebanon (he's been a US citizen and a Republican for 10+ years, but he goes back home every summer).

      A year or so ago, he said that Lebanon was ready to toss out Hamas. They live in the southern part of the country and steal their food and electricity from the country as they need it. The people were getting sick of a leech on their system.

      Then, Israel decided to attack Lebanon again. They killed some Hamas leader with a missle strike, and in the process killed a few civilians and a few kids. The Lebanese were outraged, but of course the Lebanese government and military can do nothing, because Israel would ignore them, laugh at them, or just invade them again. The only group that can stand up to Israel are those leech Hamas. Thus, the Lebanese people stopped complaining about Hamas for a while again...

      So that at least helps to explain how a terrorist group can find support.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    97. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

      Good point. I guess what is needed then is for these claims by the industry and the validity of the DMCA to be tried in the courts.

      Sears doesn't have to stop selling wrenches when someone bashes someones head with a craftsman wrench so what is so different about the digital age where people can get presumed guilty and shut down on the basis of one party's complaint without any judge or jury?

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    98. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Or he has kids that will bug the hell out of him until he takes them to see it.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    99. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you could put it in the middle of your garden and charge admission. If people wanted to see it, they would pay.

      If you choose to provide your work for free, that's your choice. If you want to sell copies for a living, the system we have says that you can do that, too.

    100. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Nothing but the bottom line is going to get through to these people.

      False. Nothing PERIOD is going to get through to these people, INCLUDING the bottom line. We've already seen evidence that when they lose profits they blame it on file sharing. A boycott is just going to be misinterpeted (or deliberately mislabelled) as more losses to file sharing.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    101. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      If you're not in the market and you don't buy then it is not really a boycott is it.

      By that definition, NOTHING can be a boycott, since a boycott includes removing yourself (even if temporariliy) from the market.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    102. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, yes. Moderators please lend their plus points.

    103. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      I agree that international intervention is needed, particularly with regard to separating the two countries and creating an independent Palestine, but I don't think your suggestions regarding a bloody progrom against Palestinian freedom fighters has much merit.

      Every people is entitled to fight for its own survival and if that means some of their enemies die, even civilians, then those enemies obviously shouldn't have threatened that survival in the first place.

      Don't forget that many Americans used the very same argument to justify the civilian deaths that resulted from America's warlike response to 9/11. The difference is, of course, that guerilla tactics and "terror" are the only tools available to the Palestinians. The US, on the other hand, whose survival was never seriously threatened, had plenty of options but preferred all the same to roll out the full war machine and kill some civilians anyway.

      Hell, I've even seen Americans claiming on slashdot that the American people are entitled to prosecute foreign wars not only for their survival, but even just to protect their military and economic hegemony and support their resource-squandering lifestyles.

      So if you're thinking there is some moral justification for singling out the PLO and their more militant cohorts for extraordinary punishment as war criminals, just consider this: what goes around comes around.

    104. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by Phil+John · · Score: 1

      Very funny, but you've got your sums wrong, 17 gigs, lets say a gig a minute, each song roughly 5 minutes, maximum $150,000 fine for each song

      =$522,240,000

      crazy, huh?

      --
      I am NaN
    105. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      Palestinian terrorists aren't fighting a war for their own well-being. If it was their well-being they were concerned with, they would negotiate a peace settlement with Israel (like the one Arafat turned down).

      Instead, Palestinian terrorist groups are only interested in the complete and total destruction of the state of Israel and Jewish people as a whole. This is very different than fighting for ones freedom.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    106. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you purchase a ticket for a venue that only sells tickets through TicketMaster, you'll be paying an additional ~$6 per ticket to their monopoly. That is a far cry from "a situation that doesn't involve any middle men".

      Local bands are different, though. One of the things that has the studio execs worried is that mp3s are driving more people to listen to more obscure (read: local) music. All in all, it sounds to me like the listener's revolt is coming along quite well.

      --
      --Be human.
    107. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by zivan56 · · Score: 1

      I havent seen a movie in a theater since 1993 and have not bought a CD since 1995, beat that.

    108. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      I am not Jewish or Arab, but I have lived a consiberable part of my life in the Middle East. My family has had to live under a personal threat of terrorism at the hands of the Islamic Jihad. I consider myself neither pro- nor anti-Israeli, just as I consider myself neither pro- nor anti-Arab. However, your comment struck me as very naive at best.

      How many innocent Israelis have died at the hands of Palestinian terrorists? How many innocent Palestinians have died at the hands of the Israeli military?

      I'm not trying to be an apologist for Arab terrorism, but I think you ought to consider the history a bit. In 1948, the Israelis may have had the moral high ground. However, the 1956 war was pure, naked aggression (and, it seems, according to many reports that have surfaced since, it was part of a plot conceived by the British and the French to resume control over the Suez Canal). Despite the massive buildup of Arab armed forces in 1967, the Israelis struck first. During the 1973 war, the Israelis again had the moral high ground. However, the current Intifada started during the 1980s, after Israel had once again committed an act of naked aggression, this time by invading Lebanon. As far as I can tell, the Intifada seems to be a reaction, not a cause, of Israeli aggression. Of course, the conflict predates the current state of Israel by several millenia, but a simple review of history since the inception of the state of Israel shows that Israelis are far from innocent in this conflict.

      As for your suggestion of a DMZ consisting of hog farms, how big should this DMZ be? Where should it be? How should Jerusalum be divided? What about Israeli demands for a *defensible* border? (remember that there are only about 13 miles between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem--a densible DMZ between Tel Aviv and the West Bank is really not possible)

      Perahps, along with the members of Islamic Jihad, Hammas, and Arafat, we ought to drag out members of the Knesset, the Mossad, and Sharon. They are no less guilty in perpetuating the conflict.

      Perhaps Israel should be threatened with annihilation if they exceed their borders. Of course, with what experts consider to be the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, annihilating Israel might very well mean annihilating the world.

      As for the world stepping in and settling it for good, it seems that this whole mess started as a result of the checkerboard-like pattern of Palestinian and Israeli territory outlined in 1947 by the United Nations. Six fairly distinct areas (3 Palestinian, 3 Israeli), literally laid out in a checkerboard fashion. The world doesn't have a good record at settling this issue.

      The Israeli/Palestinian problem is a very complex one with no simple or easy answers. Perhaps the Israelis ought to take a cue from their Jewish heritage and "turn the other cheek". Perhaps the Palestinians ought to realize that, in the immortal words of Ghandi, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." The answer here isn't more aggression, a bigger wall, and massive forced ethnic evacuation.

      To put this in a more America-centric perspective, realize that the American Revolution was seen at the time by many in the world as a group of renegades committing unspeakable acts that, if they occurred today, would be seen as terrorism. I suspect that should the anti-Israeli forces succeed in eliminating the state of Israel, several hundred years later the terrorists will be viewed as revolutionary heroes.

      I wonder if, instead of the conflict ending by the elimination of one or the other, if both sides were able to settle their differences without resorting to violence, the entire region would enter into a long period of prosperity for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. This seems a far better outcome to me. I only wish there was an easy way to get there from here. The violence committed by both sides in this conflict is reprehensible and should be condemned for the anti-human acts that they represent.

      --
      --Be human.
    109. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Send them a card with a 20 in it?

    110. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      The DMZ was slightly tongue-in-cheek. Although there would need to be some kind of buffer zone...and it would most likely need to be maintained by a third party, at least for the foreseeable future.

      Perahps, along with the members of Islamic Jihad, Hammas, and Arafat, we ought to drag out members of the Knesset, the Mossad, and Sharon. They are no less guilty in perpetuating the conflict.

      Israel's leaders are elected, and are leaders of an official country. Arafat may be called the president (or whatever term is being used today) of the PLO, but it's not an accountable position. Arafat's the stated leader of a legitimate group, but in reality is just figure head for groups of Islamic terrorists.

      As for the world stepping in and settling it for good, it seems that this whole mess started as a result of the checkerboard-like pattern of Palestinian and Israeli territory outlined in 1947 by the United Nations. Six fairly distinct areas (3 Palestinian, 3 Israeli), literally laid out in a checkerboard fashion. The world doesn't have a good record at settling this issue.

      It seemed to everyone except Arafat that the proposed agreement brought forth by then president Clinton was very reasonable, and very workable. Arafat's rejection clearly demonstrates he isn't interested in living peacefully next to the acknowledged country of Israel. If I was a betting man, I would say that Arafat will never agree to anything that doesn't include the total destruction of the state of Israel.

      The answer here isn't more aggression, a bigger wall, and massive forced ethnic evacuation.

      I think you're being very naive about this. Look at what just happened - a cease fire was in effect, and seemed to be working well, until Palestinian extremist groups killed more Israelis with suicide bombers. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa (sp?), and Hezbullah do not recognize peaceful means. Why? Because they refuse to recognize the existence of Israel. And Palestinians, like the dumb sheep they seem to be, will keep backing these groups, regardless of the fact that they hurt the cause of the Palestinian people.

      To put this in a more America-centric perspective, realize that the American Revolution was seen at the time by many in the world as a group of renegades committing unspeakable acts that, if they occurred today, would be seen as terrorism. I suspect that should the anti-Israeli forces succeed in eliminating the state of Israel, several hundred years later the terrorists will be viewed as revolutionary heroes.

      How can you logically compare the American Revolution, which was fought against another military force, to sending people into another country with the intent to maim and murder innocent civilians (please note the word intent)?

      I wonder if, instead of the conflict ending by the elimination of one or the other, if both sides were able to settle their differences without resorting to violence, the entire region would enter into a long period of prosperity for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

      It seems Israel has already learned how to be prosperous by having an open, capitalistic economy, and by having an elected government. Israel thrives, even during periods of suicide bombing.

      The Palestinians, on the other hand, live in inferior economic conditions, not at the hand of the Israelis, but due to their own choices. Palestinians could advance their own society and make things better, but everyone (up to the "leadership") would rather concentrate on building bombs and protesting in the streets. In addition, supposed supporters of the Palestinians include oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq (historically), Iran, etc. But these nations would rather see the Palestinians live in squalor and use them for political reasons than assist them in improving their existing living conditions.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    111. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by xigxag · · Score: 1

      You think your filesharing is helping the majors' profits? I disagree. I think the record companies have ample access to their own books, and the reason they are claiming to be losing money to filesharing is because...they are. Sure, maybe you are occasionally buying obscure reissues that nobody else has heard about. And maybe a lot of your friends are doing the same thing. But the majors don't make the bulk of their profits from those small runs. Due to the economies of scale and distribution, they make their profits from the multiplatinum blockbusters. So yeah, maybe they're selling 2,000 more Metric Resistance, 5,000 more Goldfrapp here and there. But downside is that they're selling "only" 3 million of the latest Justin Timberlake instead of 9 million. Or 2 million of the latest Beyonce instead of 6 million. Or 2 million of Evanescence instead of 5 million. These are huge studio backed acts that you hear about incessantly and you figure must be moving massive amounts like the Eagles or Foreigner or Supertramp or Cheap Trick used to do back in the day. Except they're not. They're just selling "okay" because every teenager knows how to download the tracks for free off Kazaa or burn a copy of their friend's CD. Check the charts yourself. You'll be surprised at how little these ubiquitous, overexposed acts are actually selling in contrast to the mountain of hype they're generating.

      Also with HDD's packed with thousands of songs, today's music is forced to compete with pristine, digitally remastered stuff from 20 or 30 years ago. And to be frank, 21st century music is by and large getting its ass kicked. Kids today are much more cognizant of '80s and '70s music than kids from the 1970s were appreciative of scratchy old 45's from the 1950s and older stuff from the '40s. There was a sea change in production values that took place starting in the late sixties and continuing into the '70s. As a result of that, any one of those dinosaur rock groups from the late '70s had just as much ear candy as the today's pop. So there's no reason anymore to automatically prefer, new, fresh stuff to the classics. The machine of innovation is running out of gas, and the fact that the older stuff is so easily available for free is just making it worse for up and coming acts.

      Don't kid yourself. The majors are hurting. Not they don't deserve to, with the recycled, warmed over dreck they're feeding us. But they are in serious pain, and it's only going to get worse for them. And like any wounded animal, they're fighting tooth and nail, hoping to keep the vultures at bay.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    112. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by rworne · · Score: 1

      I didn't write the article from scratch, I purloined an article from Google News and just swapped words:

      kilo=GB
      Narcotics = Intellectual Property

      and so on. I left the numbers alone.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    113. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "Sears doesn't have to stop selling wrenches when someone bashes someones head with a craftsman wrench [sears.com] so what is so different about the digital age where people can get presumed guilty and shut down on the basis of one party's complaint without any judge or jury?"

      exactly. Just about everything that is sold could one way or another be used to cause much greater harm than making illegitamite copies of music, the wrench is just one good example. Who would have ever thought that razor blades and utility knives could knock down the world trade center. But last time I checked it was still legal for people to shave and cut open boxes. Tools themselves should never be outlawed, except maybe in the extreme. But nobody is going to die if a few music files get copied without proper authorization.

    114. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      " there is your proof that P2P is hurting the industry"
      To which a large number of people would say: Great! Let's hit them where it hurts! Let's distribute their material for free as much as we can. Maybe that way, they will go out of business. Why on earth should an industry need to unite and form associations like RIAA and MPAA anyway? What is the point? It's only to lobby for the industry right? In that case, a lot of people would be more than happy to see them collapse.

      As long as the industry forms cartels to artificially inflate prices for their crappy products, people will get stuff for free, and some will even do whatever they can to make sure these cartels do not make money.

      If the RIAA continues its fight against its customers' rights, some customers will stop being customers and either just get whatever they can for free, or actively work against the RIAA. And some would say that this is the only thing which is morally right to do.

      They will say that fighting against an evil which is trying to take away your rights is in fact morally and ethically right. That is is inethical not to fight these illegal cartels who lobby to remove our rights.

      So if P2P is to "blame" for worse times for these cartels, I am sure a lot of people would simply tell you that it is a good thing, and to get over it.

      Fight the people and some people will fight back. It is the only right thing to do.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    115. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      I agree, it is a worry. But we've already seen that the loss of sales due to a repression (and other entertainment sectors going UP) they'll blame it on piracy. It's the perfect scapegoat. The next Britney Spears albums comes out and doesn't selling 50 jillion copies? Piracy.

      I think the key is how to reach critical mass and visibility as quickly as possible. At least the visibility they've gotten during the last month due to the 1000 subpoenas has been negative. In september when they finally sue someone, I'm hoping the fit hits the shan.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    116. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by The+Mayor · · Score: 1

      Israel's leaders are elected, and are leaders of an official country. Arafat may be called the president (or whatever term is being used today) of the PLO, but it's not an accountable position. Arafat's the stated leader of a legitimate group, but in reality is just figure head for groups of Islamic terrorists.

      Arafat was elected. Abbas was appointed. I think you are confusing the two. Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinians, while Abbas is the figure head. The US simply chooses to ignore the will of the Palestinians, choosing someone they think will do their bidding for them (or should I say "us"...I am American) instead.

      It seemed to everyone except Arafat that the proposed agreement brought forth by then president Clinton was very reasonable, and very workable. Arafat's rejection clearly demonstrates he isn't interested in living peacefully next to the acknowledged country of Israel. If I was a betting man, I would say that Arafat will never agree to anything that doesn't include the total destruction of the state of Israel.

      Yes, the peace plan rejected by Arafat in 2000 was, IMHO, quite reasonable. I'm really not trying to absolve the Palestinians of blame. I'm only trying to state that the Israelis are just as much to blame. But do remember that the Palestinians have repeatedly asserted that the Israelis should return to pre-1967 borders, with the question of Jerusalem to be discussed at a later date. The 2000 land-for-peace offering restored about 93% of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. I think the Palestinians should be more flexible here, but they weren't inconsistant.

      I think you're being very naive about this. Look at what just happened - a cease fire was in effect, and seemed to be working well, until Palestinian extremist groups killed more Israelis with suicide bombers. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa (sp?), and Hezbullah do not recognize peaceful means. Why? Because they refuse to recognize the existence of Israel. And Palestinians, like the dumb sheep they seem to be, will keep backing these groups, regardless of the fact that they hurt the cause of the Palestinian people.

      You do realize that the Israeli military has killed approximately 30 Palestinians during this "cease fire"? Yes, they did not come at the hands of a suicide bomber blowing up a bus that contained children. But the Israelis are not innocent in this matter either.

      How can you logically compare the American Revolution, which was fought against another military force, to sending people into another country with the intent to maim and murder innocent civilians (please note the word intent)?

      At the time of the American Revolution, the United States was actually not a country yet. Britain was sending people into their *own* country to maim and murder military officers. They were upset because the Americans didn't fight by "the rules"--they didn't wear military uniforms, they hid in trees rather than facing each other on a battle ground. The Americans weren't blowing up busses, but they were violating the internationally (or at least Europe-wide) accepted norms of warfare for the time. In today's world we consider acts that are outside the accepted norms of warfare as acts of terrorism.

      It seems Israel has already learned how to be prosperous by having an open, capitalistic economy, and by having an elected government. Israel thrives, even during periods of suicide bombing.

      Hahaha....I'm glad you think the Israeli economy is prosperous. I refer you to some statistics on the Israeli economy. Note the high, and rising, unemployment. Note the decreasing GDP. These are signs of an economy in crisis. This, despite the fact that Israel is the recipient of almost $5 billion in economic and military aid from the US government, as

      --
      --Be human.
    117. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      They were upset because the Americans didn't fight by "the rules"--they didn't wear military uniforms, they hid in trees rather than facing each other on a battle ground. The Americans weren't blowing up busses, but they were violating the internationally (or at least Europe-wide) accepted norms of warfare for the time. In today's world we consider acts that are outside the accepted norms of warfare as acts of terrorism.

      I'm not talking about "gentlemanly" battle here. I'm talking about the intent to maim and murder innocent civilians; no military target in mind. This is called terrorism, and demonstrates a total disregard for the life of Israelis, military or not. This is not a gray area as you would like to believe. This is wrong.

      What we see on television is a distortion, a view presented by the vocal minority. Palestinians are outraged at the behavior of the Israeli government. But the Palestinian militants that blow up busses of innocent people, many of them children--that is not the will of the Palestinian people.

      Bullshit. If the people disagree with with the militants why do the militant groups thrive? Why do families take such pride in seeing their son (or daughter) committ a suicide bombing in Israel? Why doesn't Abbas lead a systematic destruction of these terror groups? If the Palestinian people disagree with suicide bombings as you say, they need to get their heads out of their asses and realize the terror groups will only bring them more misery.

      Based upon what I see in the US media, I am led to believe that the Arab people hate Americans without exception, too. This is not so. By and large, the Arab people love Americans.

      At my last job I worked with many Arabs. None were Palestinian, but all were vehemently anti-Israel. They were very nice to me, and we got along just fine. In fact, I had much fun working with them (I just avoided the mideast subject). So don't insult my intelligence by trying to imply that I group all Arabs together, and think they all hate America - this is not what I think. Neither is this the impression I get from the US media, as you say.

      As for the Saudis, Iraqis, and Iranians supporting the Palestinians, I believe you are commenting about the support for the Palestinian militants. These governments, like the US government, have their own agendas.

      Yes, I am speaking of these countries supporting terror groups - and not supporting the actual interests of the Palestinian people! These countries are not so much pro-Palestinian as they are anti-Israel. If they were truly interested in the well-being of the Palestinian people they would use funds to build infrastructure (roads, schools, utilities, police force) instead of supporting terror groups. And yes, these countries would rather have the Palestinians to use as a crutch in international debate than to have the state of Palestine exist and have to acknowledge the existence of Israel.

      I respect your exposure to different cultures, but I think the result has been to bias your opinions and not allow you to step back and take a look at the big picture. Many in Israel would love nothing more than to see the Palestinians have their own country, but Israel can't stand back and wait for the next suicide bomber, supported by all of Israel's neighbors, to come across the border and murder its citizens. If Palestinians would organize and work to disband terror groups, the entire world community would assist them in contributing to a more stable mid-East. Instead, Palestinians support Arafat, a do-nothing "leader" that only brings them more grief.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    118. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by FreakyDeaky · · Score: 1

      Well I'm sure some people might take it to that level and boycott the entire company and all its subsidiaries, but those who don't still do something, especially when you boycott a major portion of the company, a portion that the parent company relies heavily on to bring a significant amount of revenue to them. And like you said It's hard to boycott a large corporation like that becuase they tend to own ALOT of other companies. Also if we were to boycott AOLTW it would be like boycotting life THEY OWN EVERYTHING. I think they are planning on eventually staging a military coup of the world. HAIL AOLTW!!!!

    119. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      Palestinian freedom fighters are fighting for... their freedom. Duh.

      But you insist on calling them terrorists, and thereby blind yourself to their openly stated purpose.

      Yes of course they want Israel out of their lands and out of their lives. Considering what's been done to them, wouldn't you?

      I admit there are a few extremists in organization like Hamas and Islamic Jihad but this is only to be expected among a people that have been brutally oppressed for decades. Remove the oppression and the extremism will die off.

      If it were anywhere else in the world they would surely have succeeded in regaining their autonomy by now. But American money has propped up the Israeli regime and kept the Palestinians in the gutter. It is greatest crime of the postwar age.

    120. Re:Not that it needs to be said, but by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      It is unfair to have [producers of free products] spend the time and money, and you reap the benefits.

      It's essentially a transient economic dislocation... similar to how it was unfair to people who invested time creating horse and buggy operations when the automobile came along. One way to see it is not as fair or unfair but simply the way things are.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  4. Resistance is futile and we are now in control by ThulsaDoom · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow, not only do they feel the need to steal movies, but quotes within the movies as well!

  5. You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Palestine isn't a nation, it is under Israeli occupation, and since Israel is allied with the US, it will soon extradite these people to the US so they can be prosecuted. Either that or blow them apart in a helicopter raid. There is no place in the world that is safe from RIAA/US control.

    1. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no place in the world that is safe from RIAA/US control.

      What about China?

    2. Re:You forgot something... by BTWR · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      will soon extradite these people to the US so they can be prosecuted - that or blow them apart in a helicopter raid

      I'm with ya man. The NERVE of some people, trying to arrest HEROES and FREEDOM-FIGHTERS* whose only crime ("crime" is such a strong word - more like "minor social inconvenience") is blowing up buses full of 7 year-old schoolchildren while carrying dozens of picklejars full of nails and screws so that the scrapnel rips apart as much human flesh as possible. (I mean, that fucking 6-month old baby girl on the cover of the NY Post yesterday woulda taken out the suicide bomber if he hadn't taken her out first - he did it in self defense! and now Israel has the nerve to try and arrest the organizers of that heroic act???).


      *Note: I support the roadmap and i 100% believe there should be a palestine, and I am not in favor of harrasement of innocent, non-violent Palestinians (i DO fully support their right to protest, dissent, etc) - oh yeah, and i'm jewish and lived in israel for a while

    3. Re:You forgot something... by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to say "Hell" was safe. But then I realized the the RIAA already has high contacts there.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    4. Re:You forgot something... by guybarr · · Score: 1

      Palestine isn't a nation, it is under Israeli occupation, and since Israel is allied with the US, it will soon extradite these people to the US so they can be prosecuted.

      Yeah, right, exactly on the top of the IDF's agenda.
      Far more important than stoping genocide-bombers from exploding in busses.

      Do you really think anyone in Israel's army actually thinks about **AA ?

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    5. Re:You forgot something... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Do you really think anyone in Israel's army actually thinks about **AA ?
      Of course they do! The US content production "industry" is dominated and controlled by jews.

      When you pirate music or movies, you are battling against the jews.

    6. Re:You forgot something... by cperciva · · Score: 1

      ... blowing up buses full of 7 year-old schoolchildren while carrying dozens of picklejars full of nails and screws so that the scrapnel rips apart as much human flesh as possible ...

      You misspelled "collateral damage".

      I don't agree with the Palestinian suicide bombings, but all the evidence that I've seen suggests that Israel poses a far more immediate threat to most Palestinians than Iraq ever posed to the US; so if we're going to complain about killing civilians, let's start at home.

    7. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The inevitable counterpoint.

      After having been driven to desperation and despair by the occupying nation. The US has repeatedly wielded its veto to prevent the UN from doing anything about it, supplied it with money, arms (by the plenty), and positive spin on its actions. The Israelis do not consider it a problem if they bulldoze dozens of Palestinian homes, killing some of the occupants, and leaving the rest with barely the means to live. They especially enjoy declaring areas 'closed military zones' to prevent the kind of pictures of devastated people from getting to the press, so that only the Palestinians' attrocities turn up on newspaper covers.

      Just consider: if the Palestinians were given the money and weapons that the israeli's were, would they still resort to suicide attacks? Would they attack civilians rather than military targets?
      (Not that I'm advocating this.)

      The israeli army should be severely reduced, and any and all measures of defence undertaken by an international force (led by some nation other than the US, which has a clear bias in these matters.) Their free money supply from the US should be stopped, and an arms embargo imposed.
      Only when they can no longer sustain their ridiculous military superiority over their neighbours (now due singularly to the US support for them) then they will take a peace process seriously.

      The conflict... it never ends... "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, ONLY ME" as Death most elequently put it in the Pratchett novels.


      *Note: I support the roadmap and i 100% believe there should be a palestine, and I am not in favor of harrasement of innocent, non-violent Palestinians (i DO fully support their right to protest, dissent, etc) - oh yeah, and i'm jewish and lived in israel for a while

      But until the (artificial) means for the Israeli government to maintain the status quo is removed, they don't appear to want to take the roadmap seriously (or at least, only as much as to keep up the friendly relationship with the US.)
    8. Re:You forgot something... by condour75 · · Score: 1

      Fitting, isn't it, that Zion is actually in Zion.

    9. Re:You forgot something... by eyeye · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Have you missed the x month old palestinians the israelis have murdered (thanks to our tax dollars)?
      Or are they the wrong racial background for you to give a shit.

      look at the figures, more palestinians have been killed than israelis, and it is their land after all.

      poor bastards.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    10. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The server is located in Israel.

      Target Address : 213.152.100.163
      213.152.100.0/24: AS25276:Speednet Ltd, An Israel Corporation

    11. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah sure! and moslems are the only true people of God? yeah, sure... what ever is wrong with the jews the Lord will do what he has to, but don`t think it won`t go easy for anyone who is against Isreal.

    12. Re:You forgot something... by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      The UN offered the Palestinian people the same land which they're now complaining about not having back when Israel was formed. In response, the arab states convinced the Palestinian people to vacate their land (which they did - there was no Israeli policy which stated they had to leave and no occupied land was destroyed) and attack Israel to regain control. They lost the war.

      Just so you remember, Israel is given that large defense budget because they've been attacked more times than any other nation in the last 55 years, all by their surrounding neighbors. People like to bring up the fact that Israel has an enormous US defense grant while at the same time failing to realize that Israel has never once started one of the wars that it has participated in.

      Your point is well taken - Israelis have killed Palestinians in the violence. However, it should be noted that there has never been a strike against an unimportant figure. Never do you see in the news: Israel kills busload of Palestinian schoolchildren. Why? It doesn't happen. Also remember that there have been many failed suicide bombing attemps - many - which are all recorded as Palestinian fatalities.

      I don't support killing anyone, but before you talk out of your ass, do it with some background in the subject.

    13. Re:You forgot something... by RealSalmon · · Score: 1

      I think *you* forgot something. Palestine isn't under occupation. Modern day 'Palistine' is a made up thing. The 'occupied lands' were occupied as a result of aggression against Isreal.

      The problem is that Isreal's (political) neighbors don't want peace with Isreal. They want its destruction, and they have the people fooled into thinking thier cause is backed by God.

      The people to blame for the plight of the Palestinians are not the Israelis, it's the PLO, Hamas, x Islamic Jihad, etc. They *need* for the people to remain poor and hungry so that the people look to them for support, which gives them strength to carry out their misguided notions.

      --

      -B

    14. Re:You forgot something... by Xerithane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree with the Palestinian suicide bombings, but all the evidence that I've seen suggests that Israel poses a far more immediate threat to most Palestinians than Iraq ever posed to the US; so if we're going to complain about killing civilians, let's start at home.

      I'm pretty sure that Israelis wouldn't fuck with anybody if people stopped blowing them up. I've never lived there, but talked to quite a few people who have, and have family members and that seems to be a general consensus amongst them.

      That should be their new slogan, "Stop blowing us up and we'll stop taking your land."

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    15. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they should do it by dropping laser-guided bombs from 10,000 feet like real men. Or, even better, sitting a continent away, ordering someone else to drop the bombs.

    16. Re:You forgot something... by operagost · · Score: 1
      There already IS a Palestine, and it's called Jordan. Once it was the eastern two-thirds of the British Mandate of Palestine, then was split off as Transjordan, the new homeland for Arabs in the region. This already was quite generous for a people who already control the Middle East. However, this wasn't enough - and not because the Arab Muslims need or even want more land, but because they want to eliminate Jews from the earth. They won't be happy until they do because it is prophesied in the Qur'an. It also says in the Bukhari Hadith, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

      Any Muslim who tells you their religion is based on peace and that they wish no harm on Jews is a liar or an apostate. That's the simple truth, and before anyone mods me down for it, you need to check up on your history. This is a good summary, but coming from a Jewish site you may well call it biased. Feel free to find some OLD history books from the 1950s-1970s, before anti-Jewish sentiment became in vogue again, and the sanitizing of history began.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think anyone in Israel's army actually thinks about **AA?

      The Israeli Army is funded by the US government, which in turn is funded by Disney and Warner Bros. You figure it out.

    18. Re:You forgot something... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      The UN offered the Palestinian people the same land which they're now complaining about not having back when Israel was formed

      Not true. You forget that the UN offered the Palestinians ALL of east jerusalem as well. :)

      Funny how anti-israel people never bring this up...

    19. Re:You forgot something... by Squareball · · Score: 1

      MOD this guy up! There has never been a country of palestine. AND 90% of the so called Palestinian's home land is actually the country of JORDAN. JORDAN slaughtered thousands of them and they fled. If they want their 'home land' back, then go right over to Jordan and take it. Oh.. I see.. the Jordanians aren't jews. I am going to just claim my entire block that i grew up on as my 'home land' and i'm going to just start calling it a country that is occupied. ::rolls eyes::

    20. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But even during all these ceasefires, the Israelis were the first ones to roll the tanks back in. In 9/2002 they came back into bethelhem unprovoked and there wasnt a suicide bombing to precede it. And today they asssasinated somebody, which broke the ceasefire.

    21. Re:You forgot something... by misterpies · · Score: 5, Informative

      Israel has never once started one of the wars that it has participated in

      Sorry, I think you must have forgotten about the six day war in 1967 (OK so it was a "preemptive strike". Name a war where the first person to attack hasn't claimed that). You also seem to have overlooked the 1978 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon -- the last one being condemned even by the US. So by my counting Israel was invaded twice in the last 55 years: the 1947 independence war and the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Perhaps you were confusing Israel with Lebanon, which has never started a war but has been invaded three times in the last 30 years (by Syria in 1976, Israel in 1978 and 1982).

      However, it should be noted that there has never been a strike against an unimportant figure.

      I suppose that depends how you defined important figures. Even if you count any suspicious looking palestinian as "important", I don't see how you can include people like James Miller, a british reporter, or Iain Hook, a UN aid worker. Of course the Israeli army admits these were "mistakes", but does that exonerate them?

      Never do you see in the news: Israel kills busload of Palestinian schoolchildren. Why?

      Because the Palestinians don't have the option of sending in helicopter gunships to assassinate Israeli politicians. I'm not condoning suicide bombings, but your comparison is laughable. In a conflict, each side will naturally make use of the means at its disposal. Moreover israel's "targeted assassinations" invariably kill many more people than just those being targeted -- but obviously a 6-year-old girl who happens to live next door to a Hamas leader doesn't matter as much as a 6-year-old killed in a suicide bombing.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    22. Re:You forgot something... by SUB7IME · · Score: 1

      What you are referring to is the hotly-contested and widely-disagreed with (in Israel) plan called "Land for Peace". No, Israelis don't want that. No, most Palestinian organizations won't stop until they get part of Jerusalem. Fat chance that this will be successful.

    23. Re:You forgot something... by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      And today they asssasinated somebody, which broke the ceasefire.

      I'm thinking the 20 dead Israelis broke the cease-fire.

      I've yet to see Israelis strike first, but if you have any links feel free to provide them. Just from what I've seen, it's been over the top retaliation.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    24. Re:You forgot something... by pboulang · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is precisely why Matrix Reloaded sucked as a movie. Should have been a short with just the fight scenes... or at least not a "talkie"

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    25. Re:You forgot something... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      "This already was quite generous for a people who already control the Middle East."

      Don't lump all arabs together, not all of them are so enfranchised.

      And your Bukhari hadith is completely out of context. Its referring to the end of the world, when Jesus returns and fights the antichrist. Long story short, many Jews will mistakenly join up with his side, and lose in the end. Its not about all Jews. Let me throw another hadith your way: "Anyone who murders a [Christian or Jew] will not experience the fragrance of paradise."

      Dont lump religion with politics. Islam is based on peace. Muslims say Assalaamu alaikum (peace be upon you) daily, and attribute peace to God. The Quran says that if your enemy offers to stop fighting and make peace, you are commanded to work for peace.

    26. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true.

      Forcing Palestinians to live in Jordan is like forcing native americans to live in Canada.

    27. Re:You forgot something... by M$+Mole · · Score: 1, Troll

      failing to realize that Israel has never once started one of the wars that it has participated in.

      Actually, Israel started the last 3 wars in which it particpated. Even their last war against Egypt, which they claimed was started by the Egyptians, was started by Israel. US intelligence (satellite photos and SIGINT) showed that Israel attacked Egypt's air force while it was still on the ground (an odd posture for an invading army) and had moved into the Sinai before Egypt had any clue what was going on.

      The US had an intelligence gathering ship sunk by Israel for their troubles (the USS Liberty).

      --
      Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
    28. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except for "natural growth." And that big wall they're working on.

    29. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there was no Israeli policy which stated they had to leave"

      The ones who did not leave where just killed.

    30. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about in 1948 when they declared the area a Jewish state after terrorizing the local population that had lived there. That's about when all this started. Its well documented that the original zionist organizations were composed of radicals and terrorists.After kicking out the existing population and stealing their houses and land, they are confused as to why someone wants to hurt them!

    31. Re:You forgot something... by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      Read about how the war was started. The hostile action was started by Egypt.

    32. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe if you stop watching CNN as your main source of news, and instead read the Independent, the Observer or Gush Shalom(which is an Israeli peace organization), you would find plenty cases of Israel trempling on many Palestinians' rights. These include, but are not limited to:

      - the demolition of homes due to the lack of a "permit". However, Palestinians have almost zero chance of obtaining this permit from the Israeli government, so they can't even build homes on their own land. (Note that this doesn't include the demolition of homes of families of suicide bombers)
      http://gush-shalom.org/archives/btselem. html

      - Restriction of drinking water to Palestinians, since most wells are in the Israeli controlled territories. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=our WorldNews&storyID=3209807

      - Building the "Fence" throgh the middle of a Palestinian house, so that its residents will have to seek a permit in order to step out of the house.
      http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.h tml

      - Shooting of a child

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,100705 1, 00.html

      This, in no way, is a justification for the killing of innocent Israelis!! But it gives an excuse to the fanatical organizations, like Hamas, who have their own political agenda. The region needs more people with the ideals of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

    33. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They want its destruction, and they have the people fooled into thinking thier cause is backed by God."

      Apparently everyone is the area believes that. Last I checked Jews did not have a country called Israelbefore 1948 and in fact the area was called Palestine. Somebody's God favored Zionism (assisted by the anti-semites in England and America who really did prefer that the Jewish refugees not come to their countries.)

      "Because its in the Bible" is a pretty weak excuse for a lot of things these days.

    34. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That suicide bombing was a response to an Israeli air strike - the first strike after palestinians announced a cease fire - so there...

    35. Re:You forgot something... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      I think you must have forgotten about the six day war in 1967 (OK so it was a "preemptive strike".

      There were 6 nations lined up at the border of israel ready to invade. By your logic, if Americans had attacked the Japanese airplanes that were ready to bomb Pearl Harbor instead of waiting for the Japanese to attack first, your logic would say that "America launched an unprovoked attack on the Japanese"

    36. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.
      Most of those that stayed kept their land... though they did have to survive a war about them.
      Some remain in Israel to this day.

    37. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read about how the war was started.

      Why don't you summarize? You seem pretty familiar with the history.

    38. Re:You forgot something... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      There already IS a Palestine, and it's called Jordan.

      Sorry, friend, I have to disagree. We need to keep our terms true to history. (I know it gets confusing with so many competing definitions.) All of the land from Azah, undisputed Israel, Judea, Samaria, and Jordan comprises Biblical Palestine -- the Promised Land. Jordan is the eastern half of the true Palestine, which was given to the Jews by God.

    39. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      israel commits US funded terrorism (condemmed many times by the UN) and thats why its ok. palistinians are not funded by the US, therefore its not ok. the point is, neither is right.
      lets all believe what our politicians tell us, we might be dumber but hell, we'll be happier.

    40. Re:You forgot something... by BasilBibi · · Score: 1


      Israel regularly bulldozes homes and kills Palestinian mothers, fathers and children.

      Isreali troops standby while pregnant mothers and new born children die at checkpoints.

      Isreali troops have shot and killed countless children in Jenin. As well as raped mothers and dsughters and desecrated homes.

      First examine your own ass for verbal outbursts before claiming the moral high ground.

    41. Re:You forgot something... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I'm thinking the 20 dead Israelis broke the cease-fire.

      52 is the latest murder count I've heard.

      I can't stand it when the news talks about the "fragile cease-fire." Umm, if guns are blazing, bombs exploding, and missiles firing, it's simply NOT a cease-fire. The firing has not ceased. Even more maddening, this morning the terrorists were threatening to cut short their cease-fire because the IDF killed a terrorist leader. LOL, whatever.

    42. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never do you see in the news: Israel kills busload of Palestinian schoolchildren. Why? It doesn't happen.

      Because the Israeli military kills them one by one on the streets.
      If you ever bothered to read more than Ha'aretz, CNN, NY Times, and especially the Associated Press, you would know these things.

      Here's some background on the subject: The ratio of Palestinians to Israelis being killed is 3:1
      Most of them on both sides are innocent bystanders.

    43. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that Israelis wouldn't fuck with anybody if people stopped blowing them up. I've never lived there, but talked to quite a few people who have, and have family members and that seems to be a general consensus amongst them.

      That should be their new slogan, "Stop blowing us up and we'll stop taking your land."


      I'm pretty sure that Palestinians wouldn't fuck with anybody if people stopped taking their land. I've never lived there, but talked to quite a few people who have, and have family members and that seems to be a general consensus amongst them.

      That should be their new slogan, "Stop taking our land and we'll stop blowing you up."

      Which was first: Israelis taking land, or Palestinians blowing up?

    44. Re:You forgot something... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      Palestine isn't a nation

      You're right on that point.

      "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It has also been a 'conceptual' war for the ownership of the term 'Palestinian' which has been transferred over to the Arabs, whereas before 1967, 'Palestine' has always been synonomous with the land of Israel."

      - Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee member, to Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977
      Israel is a nation, and large parts of it are under Arab occupation.
    45. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because the Palestinians don't have the option of sending in helicopter gunships to assassinate Israeli politicians.


      So they target busloads filled with children? I'm sorry, but for me that's the sole reason I won't even try to listen to the palestinians. Israel targets the people blowing up innocent people ON PURPOSE while the palestinians target innocent people. The fact that Israel sometimes kills innocent people around the terrorists sucks, but at least they're trying to target those responsible instead of anyone around them.

      If the palestinians really had balls they'd be blowing up the military installations they claim to hate instead of sneaking bombs into restaurants and busses filled with innocent people (who more than likely supported the palestinians getting their own state!)

    46. Re:You forgot something... by Luscious868 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because the Palestinians don't have the option of sending in helicopter gunships to assassinate Israeli politicians. I'm not condoning suicide bombings, but your comparison is laughable. In a conflict, each side will naturally make use of the means at its disposal. Moreover israel's "targeted assassinations" invariably kill many more people than just those being targeted -- but obviously a 6-year-old girl who happens to live next door to a Hamas leader doesn't matter as much as a 6-year-old killed in a suicide bombing.

      You are totally missing the point! The Israelis never go after civilians just for the sake of going after civilians. Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers will attack innocent Israeli men, women and children for no good reason other than to kill as many of them as possible. Why else do you think they send suicide bombers onto busses and into nightclubs? How many Israeli soldiers and politicians do you they think they think they are going to get by setting a bomb off in those places? The answer is zero. They aren't after politicians or soldiers when they set off a bomb in a public place, they are after innocent civilians specifically.

      Do the Israelis kill innocent civilians too? Yes, but it is always result of collateral damage. They never target a Palestinian bus or nightclub just so they can kill civilians. They target terrorist leaders and operatives. Sometimes innocent civilians die in the process and that is a horrible thing but it is a much different situation when civilians are dieing as a result of collateral damage than it is when civilians are being killed just for the hell of it!

      If the Palestinians would quit sending suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli's then they could have their own state. The bottom line is that there is a certain percentage of Palestinians who do not want Israel to exist and they will continue killing Israeli's in a futile attempt to drive them out of existence. These people need be eliminated or locked up for good and the only ones that are going to be able to do that successfully are the Palestinians. The Israeli's can't do it and the Israeli's don't want to do it but since the Palestinian leadership seems either unwilling or incapable of doing it themselves then it doesn't leave Israel with a whole lot of options.

      Almost every country in the world, the USA included, would put enormous pressure on the Israeli to withdraw from the West Bank and Gazaa completely if suicide attacks stopped tomorrow and a substantial amount of time passed without any additional attacks. The problem is, as it stands now, when a cease fire is declared it just gives the terrorist's time to rebuild, regroup and re-arm and then launch more attacks. These groups must be dismantled and eliminated or they must agree to a permanent cease-fire and put down their weapons for good before there will ever be peace in the middle-east.

      If the Palestinians show a good faith effort in trying to dismantle and disarm these groups then the Israeli's must give them whatever time and assistance they may need and not resort to military action is response to terrorists attacks but allow the Palestinians themselves to respond.

      It's going to require a good faith effort from both sides. Right now though, Abbas is still trying to reason with these groups rather than dismantle them and Arafat, as far as I can tell, is probably either working with them or is totally complacent. This has to change before anyone can reasonably expect the Israeli's to try and work with the Palestinians.

    47. Re:You forgot something... by SilentMajority · · Score: 1

      First, I don't condone the actions of either side but I can understand each side's frustrations and why they might take such undesirable actions.

      Having said that, I wanted to comment on something specific you mentioned:

      Never do you see in the news: Israel kills busload of Palestinian schoolchildren. Why? It doesn't happen.

      That statement obviously leads people into believing that Palestinians kill more schoolchildren than the Israelis.

      I recall being shocked last year when Amnesty International's body count of children killed by both sides reflected a different reality (there were more Palestinian children killed than Israeli children).

      The point of this post isn't to say one side is worse than the other--both are killing children either directly (terrorism to all) or indirectly (collateral damage to some, terrorism to affected parents) as a means to accomplish their political goals.

      The point is to mention that people from both sides and their allies are bombarded with heavily biased news which makes it even more difficult for the masses to see the other side's perspective.

      As long as the Palestinians fail to take the moral high ground, the USA will continue to provide funding and weapons to Israel--and partly as a result, anger the Palestinians & their allies who might resort to terrorism against the USA out of frustration.

      The only realistic hope for all of us to benefit is if the Palestinians begin (without exception and without retaliation for any Israeli action) to use proven and peaceful tactics employed by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to end occupation or civil rights injustices. Unfortunately, it is like the USA drug war--there are players that benefit by maintaining the unsuccessful status-quo of violence so we'll probably never observe one side taking the 100% peaceful approach successfully.

      This is tragic for many reasons, including the death of innocents on both sides. For selfish reasons, it is also tragic because it would appear that the USA will encounter more frequent terrorism if this cycle of violence continues with us taking sides.

      ------
      As an American, are you comfortable with our soldiers taking $200/month pay cuts and many veterans losing medical benefits in order to help offset tax cuts that helps folks like VP Cheney receive over $100,000 in tax cuts this year?

      As an intelligent adult, do you actually believe that tax cuts for the wealthy will boost the economy if there are no requirements on how that money must be spent? If you gave $100,000 to a complete stranger and expected him to spend it all in ways that would help you (ie hire you or a friend) without actually requiring him to do so, what do you think will happen? No difference from the tax cuts.

      Tax cuts given to companies aggressively moving jobs offshore is retarded. We lose the money in tax cuts and we lost the income tax we could have collected if the jobs stayed in the USA. At this rate, we are totally screwed and they'll have to raise taxes (probably on the middle class) in order to fix this mess years from now or get rid of services like public schools and FIRE people working for the largest employer in the USA (the government). Hint: raising taxes drastically and firing lots of people won't improve the economy but we'll be forced to do so if this mismanagement continues.

    48. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Are you trolling?... because it's hard to believe you are serious: there have been many aggressions throughout history which have not been initiated by a preemptive strike. Or are you denying that (in the cases you cite) there was no immediate and mortal threat to Israel?

      2) Somehow, Palestinians are getting into Israel, undetected, with bombs strapped to themselves. If you are determined and willing to give your life, it is not impossible to kill anyone you have targetted... the focus, as always, is on the justice of your actions. Of course, it is far easier to kill innocents if you are disgruntled with your life, but that is obviously not just.

      3) The point is that Israel targets specific murderers (those who target innocents), while Palestinian terrorists target innocent people (i.e. my, and I would suspect most people's, definition of terrorism).

      To put it in the reverse: If an Israeli intentionally targetted innocent people (Palestinians) for murder, anyone would be justified to target that Israeli. Relatively rare though it may be, this has actually happened, and, interestingly enough, it has been the Israeli police who have caught and prosecuted the aggressor (generally preemptively). This is what Israel expects any Palestinian government to do as well.

      To put it simply, intent is not irrelevant and neither is incompetance. The fact that Israel targets terrorists goes a long way toward exonerating them if they happen to kill innocents surrounding those terrorists. The question is not simply whether one innocent life is more valuable than another innocent life, but whether one innocent life is more valuable than many innocent lives. It is a sad but necessary conclusion that there comes a point when collateral damage can be justified.

      Perhaps more importantly to your example, if the Palestinian community (or government) knows where a Hamas leader lives, everyone surrounding him knowingly takes a big risk with their life. They, in a very real sense, harbor him. Israel wants the Palestinian government to take these matters into its own hands and deal with them effectively. It is only because they have been unwilling to do so that Israel has taken the drastic steps they have.

    49. Re:You forgot something... by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      So killing someone just because you belive he did something wrong is ok?

      What happend to the justice system?

    50. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's up with Hamas and all those terrorists? You can't keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace when the majority of conflicts going on in the world today involve Muslims. Yeah I know it's all more complicated than that--look up Bernard Lewis for more--but still...

    51. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews bought most of the land from absentee landlord Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs that lived there got nervous, and minutes after the State of Isreal was declared they attacked. Subsequently, they lost the rest of the land through fighting. As the refuges streamed out, the surrounding Arab states kept them from resettling in their land. The Egyptian army even went so far as to block the roads. For all their shouts of brotherhood and solidarity, the other Arab nations don't even want their Palestinian bretheren in their lands.

    52. Re:You forgot something... by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      Ugh .. I'm sorry but I've talked to Palestinians, the Israelis take their homes, their land and their jobs. Sure killing civilians is wrong and the Palestinians should attack legitimate targets.

      However the Israelis are no better. Their "targetted killings" always happen with no proof that a crime was actually commited, they are always in response to a suicide attack. Its not justice, its tit for tat. Also there are a certain percentage of Israelis that believe the whole region belongs to them and continuosly build settlements further and further into Palestinian territory, technically the Israeli government is opposed to these actions (*nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*) but their complete lack of action on the issue leads me to believe that they really support such settlements.

      The Israelis are practicing segregation and discrimination based on race and religion, targetting people without due process, antagonizing people for political reasons and, I dare say, violating human rights. Quite frankly I'm outraged that a group of people thinks so highly of themselves that they would so quickly forget the attrocities committed against them only half a century ago (the holocaust) and commit the very same kinds of crimes against another people group.

      Both sides are wrong but one side has money and political favor from most of the world, while the other has rocks which it tries to defend itself with. /rant

    53. Re:You forgot something... by sometwo · · Score: 1

      Palestinians blowing up- Here's an article about Arab terror before the 6 day War.

      Palestinian and Arab spokesmen commonly claim that the recent Palestinian terrorism is the result of the Israeli 'occupation' of the West Bank and Gaza, adding that the violence will cease only when the 'occupation' is ended.

      Despite this claim, it should be recalled that the many Palestinian and Arab rejectionist factions (such as the Hamas and the Hizbullah) repeatedly declare that even if Israel would fully withdraw from the territories they will continue their attacks, since they refute Israel's basic right to exist.

      More importantly, however, the basic premise of the Palestinian claim - that the 'occupation' causes terrorism - is historically flawed. Arab and Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the Six Day War of June 1967, and even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948.

      For example, Arab terrorism was rampant during wave of anti-Jewish riots in 1920-21 (which was characterized by the brutal murder in Jaffa of the prominent Jewish author Y. Brenner), during the 'Disturbances' of 1929 (which included the massacre of the Jewish community in Hebron), during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39, and in many other recorded incidents of wholesale anti-Jewish Arab violence throughout the pre-state period.

      The Palestinian terrorism campaign was stepped-up on the eve of the UN Partition Resolution of November 1947, and led to the joint Arab invasion of 1948-49 which delineated the boundaries of the newly established State of Israel.

      Indeed, this deplorable violence can be traced back to the beginning of the renewed Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel over a century ago.

      After the War of Independence, Arab terrorism expanded in scope. In 1952, when 'fedayeen' terrorist border incursions reached their height, there were about 3,000 incidents of cross-border violence, extending from the malicious destruction of property to the brutal murder of civilians. In the years 1951-1955, 503 Israelis were killed by Arab terrorists infiltrating from Jordan, 358 were killed in attacks from Egypt, and 61 were killed in attacks originating from Syria and Lebanon. This anti-Israeli violence encompassed both frontier settlements and population centers, and was perpetrated, for the most part, against innocent civilians, most of them new immigrants.

      In conclusion, the oft-repeated Arab claim that the Israeli 'occupation' is somehow to blame for the Palestinian terrorism is nothing more than an empty retort, repudiated by the facts, and disproved by a century of historical reality.

      The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab terrorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967:

      Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War

      Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

      Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.

      June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

      June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

      June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Aya

    54. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure no Palestinians would blow themselves up if the Israelis hadn't taken their land, would stop taking their land and would stop executing them.

    55. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you putting these forth as unbiased? Because that would be sad.

      The entire argument is about land, and as such, I would recommend you read about the creation of Israel. e.g. Did Palestine exist as a country with its own government? What happened to most Palestinians who remained during the wars against Israel? Has Jordan incorporated the Palestinian refugees from Trans-Jordan? If all the Arab states really care about Palestinians, why don't they incorporate them as citizens? Why not make Palestine out of Trans-Jordan? Why is Israel, a small part of what was called "Palestine," the focus?

      the demolition of homes due to the lack of a "permit"
      It is not their land.

      Restriction of drinking water to Palestinians, since most wells are in the Israeli controlled territories.
      It is not their land.

      Building the "Fence" throgh the middle of a Palestinian house, so that its residents will have to seek a permit in order to step out of the house.
      It is not their land. And even if it were, in most countries, the government has the right to force purchase of land for a fair price.

      Shooting of a child
      This is the only article I read in full. The shooting of innocent children is a shame. Of course, I have observed several occassions wherein lies have been told to promote the Palestian cause and children have been used and basically brainwashed (take a look at palestinian children's tv programming and their history books), so I am skeptic. If it is true, those responsible should most definitely be prosecuted, rather than (as you point out) unjustly killing innocent Israelis.

      Fanatical organizations like Hamas do not need an excuse to murder innocent Israelis. It is their goal to destroy Israel regardless of how Israel behaves.

    56. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've got your order of events confused.

    57. Re:You forgot something... by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      fuck the 6 day war, you're forgetting that israel itself was created while taking palestine away from the palestinians. It was always about the fact that the UN stole this land from the palestinians to give to the jews after WWII because no one wanted them in their country.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    58. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well documented? Huh?
      Radicals, true.
      Terrorists? (defined by attacking innocent people) Not most of them.
      Israel was approved of by the UN, being essentially given the land from the UK through the UN.

      In case it matters to you, most of the land called "Palestine" (which was governed by the UK) was taken by Jordan (called Trans-Jordan)... a separate Arab state for Palestinians was rejected at the time. Why don't we hear about the Palestian refugees in Jordan? Jordan isn't incorporating them. Why not make a Palestinian state out of that land?

    59. Re:You forgot something... by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      What's always puzzled me is that western countries have targeted civilians in the past in order to avoid occupation. I'm thinking about Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. In fact the number of innocent civilians killed by the Allies in these actions greatly outnmubers the civilians killed by Paestinians. So the question is: Why do we ask of them what we would never ask of ourselves? How can we ask Palestinians, in the face of occupation, to refrain from tactics which we ourselves have used many times in the past?

    60. Re:You forgot something... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The UN offered the Palestinian people the same land which they're now complaining about not having back when Israel was formed.

      They stole 50% of the country to give to someone else and said "here have the rest" Of course they rejected and attacked.
      How would you like it if someone drew a line down the US and gave one part away to another country because of superstition?

      Just so you remember, Israel is given that large defense budget because they've been attacked more times than any other nation in the last 55 years, all by their surrounding neighbors.

      Because after the suffering their people experienced during the second world war, they now believe they perpetrated all kinds of crimes and get away with it.

      Your point is well taken - Israelis have killed Palestinians in the violence. However, it should be noted that there has never been a strike against an unimportant figure. Never do you see in the news: Israel kills busload of Palestinian schoolchildren. Why?

      Because you live in a country where they censor TV? (Make no mistake, capitalism is a greater censor than any dictator. Can't upset the sponsors, can't upset the viewer!)

      For instance the in 19th October 2000 resolution, UN Human Rights Commision writes they:
      "Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians...including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity;..."
      and "...that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity"

      Both parties are slaughters who would rather kill (because of the voices in their head) than make peace. And Isreal keeps ignoring UN resolutions, and have weapons of mass destruction - why hasn't the US invaded them? No oil perhaps?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    61. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone I know has an excellent sig.

      News: Peace hampers war process in middle east.

      Casll me cynical or whatever but I'd actually like to see Dubya *NOT* get a fscking Nobel peace prize over this roadmap farce

    62. Re:You forgot something... by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that Israelis wouldn't fuck with anybody if people stopped blowing them up. I've never lived there, but talked to quite a few people who have, and have family members and that seems to be a general consensus amongst them.

      That should be their new slogan, "Stop blowing us up and we'll stop taking your land."


      Of course the slogan of the other side is "Stop stealing our land and we'll stop blowing you up" - clever point there bub.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    63. Re:You forgot something... by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      Zionism and Kibbutzim existed before the second world war. Jews were in Palestine far longer than the founding of Israel.

      Read this:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/internati onal/mi ddleeast/21ISRA.html

      Explain how you're justifying that?

    64. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The UN offered the Palestinian people the same land which they're now complaining about not having back when Israel was formed. In response, the arab states convinced the Palestinian people to vacate their land (which they did - there was no Israeli policy which stated they had to leave and no occupied land was destroyed) and attack Israel to regain control. "

      They fled during the war you moron! And afterwards they weren't allowed to return to their country!

    65. Re:You forgot something... by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      There was no formal country called "Palestine." Jews moved to the land and ended up declaring it a country called Israel in 1948. No Palestinians were "pushed out" until they became violent.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    66. Re:You forgot something... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The moderators got it right. You are a troll.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    67. Re:You forgot something... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      This whole thing is one revenge action after another. It no longer matters who threw the first rock, if it ever did.

      It seems to me that it is a matter of religion. On one side, you have the Israelis (the Jews), on another you have the Palestinians (the Muslims), and on the third side you have the Westerners (the Christians).

      The Jews think that God gave them the right to come in and simply take the land of Isreal for their own, regardless of the views of it's then current residents. Notice that the Israelis do not even claim it as an ancestral home, but one given to them by God after they left their original lands. Of course the current residents, the Muslims, think that the SAME God gave THEM the right to occupy the same land. After all, their ancestors were the same Jews. Now we get to the Christians. They believe that the world will descend into Armageddon - starting in Isreal - which will be followed by Heaven descending to Earth, ushering in eternal peace throughout the universe. Since that is the plan revealed by God in the Book of Revelations, it follows that Armegeddon must happen before any peace can be had on Earth.

      All of that amounts to one hell of a fight, one which the Earth may never recover from. People must realize that western religion is nothing but a destructive tool used by ancient politicians to control a blind and gullible population against their will. Hell, it's still being used that way.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    68. Re:You forgot something... by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      The Israelis are practicing segregation and discrimination based on race and religion, targetting people without due process, antagonizing people for political reasons and, I dare say, violating human rights.

      The Israelis are practicing segregation and discrimination based on reality. If you know that all of the suicide bombers are coming from Jenin in the West Bank, what do you do? You set up roadblocks and harass any Palestinian that wants to come into Israel proper from Jenin.

      Contrary to what you say, there are Palestinians that live/work in Israel. There were actually many more before the suicide bombings intensified several years ago. Israelis have no problem living/working with Palestinians. They do have a problem with terrorist groups forming suicide bombing clubs at the building down on the corner.

      Quite frankly I'm outraged that a group of people thinks so highly of themselves that they would so quickly forget the attrocities committed against them only half a century ago (the holocaust) and commit the very same kinds of crimes against another people group.

      You can't even be serious. Are you actually trying to compare the plight of the Palestinians with the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany? Have you ever opened a history book?

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    69. Re:You forgot something... by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      And where did you hear about this, al-Jazeera?

      I can accept that attrocities happen. They happen in every war, and it has to do with sick individuals committing the act. Individuals like that should be pushished.

      But I do not accept that all of these things happen as a matter of planning and premeditation. Besides, Palestinians have earned a reputation for inflating casualties and outright lying about attrocities (remember the Jenin "Massacre?")

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    70. Re:You forgot something... by microvax · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the destruction of the USS Liberty by the Israelis during the six-day war. They call themselves our friends, and perhaps they are, but nationalism seems to override their friendships. Remember when they were caught spying? (Sorry, no references). It's nationalism, and we're all guilty of it.

    71. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that Israel targets specific murderers

      You misspelled "alleged muderers."

      Oh, due process only matters in democracies. My bad, never mind.

    72. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time Israel attempted to arrest alleged terrorist personnel? Trials are so inconvenient, assassinations are SO much quicker....

    73. Re:You forgot something... by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

      Saw his comment in M2, and was going to say exactly what you just said. Whoever said that was "Insightful" is getting an "Unfair."

      --

      Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

    74. Re:You forgot something... by IdleLay · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry, but for me that's the sole reason I won't even try to listen to the palestinians."

      It is when we give up listening to the otherside of the argument is when we stop being heard also. The argument over in there is deep in complexity and history. We all need to leave an open mind to the other side of the argument.

    75. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a palestinian kid (or a peace worker with an orange vest) has as much chance of going to school as a fat gopher does rooting in my lawn. Both are targeted by high-powered, scoped rifles loaded with hollowpoints.

    76. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing about Israel - they say 'it was our land to begin with so long ago!'

      But, you don't read in the Torah (or bible) about the Israelis being happy where they started out. You read about them going to Cannan and killing all the folks they find there.

    77. Re:You forgot something... by pepper_pusher · · Score: 0

      Lebanon... give me a brake. Like few years already that israel has withrawn completely and still Lebanon bombs israel frmo the border everyday. Of course it's not lebanon, it's teh hizbullah and they can't fight them. pretty easy to come out clean of blame when you got another unofficial army to throw the blame on.

      --
      girl
    78. Re:You forgot something... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      that's a *load* if I've ever heard one. That's like denying Native Americans their land-rights because they did not have a capitol city and migrated across THEIR land, like Moses in the desert. Palestine is what the Romans called the land. It is historic. Just because it was a conquerred land run by other empires does not give you or anyone else the right to denying their [Palestinians] nationhood and simply label them as other arabs that can go live in some other arab land. If one were to follow the slippery-slope fallacy that is your argument then perhaps Poland shouldn't exist in its present location since a good portion of that last is East Prussia, aka Germany. Or how about the Czechs? And if you really want to get historical, the Palestinians claim to be one-in-the-same with the Caananites, the *original* inhabitants of that contested land you speak of (especially since the archaeological evidence supports the theory that the walls of Jericho did not fall). Maybe the Greeks should claim the area since the Phillistines were 95% likely to have been a Greek people with an advanced culture(based upon the ruins in Phillistinia), not the barbarians the Torah proclaims them to have been... The founders of the modern State of Israel were terrorists (excuse me, *freedom fighters*) themselves...go ask the British about that...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    79. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The entire argument is about land, and as such, I would recommend you read about the creation of Israel. e.g. Did Palestine exist as a country with its own government?

      Did Israel exist as a country with its own government? No! Were the majority of the people Jewish? No! Did they own the majority of the land prior to the formation of Israel? No!

      Has Jordan incorporated the Palestinian refugees from Trans-Jordan?

      Yes! Jordan has granted a huge number of Palestians citizenship in their country. I believe, more than 50% of Jordanians are actually of Palestinian descent.

      If all the Arab states really care about Palestinians, why don't they incorporate them as citizens?

      Apparently some of the Arab nations have. Others aren't so open to an influx of immigrants, and there's a one-in-a-million chance that a non-national will be granted a citizenship. I think Saudi Arabia has the most restrictive citizenship granting laws -- you could be born there, live there for 20 years, and still never be a citizen.

      Why not make Palestine out of Trans-Jordan?

      Well, obviously not all Palestinians want to move. Some ethnic-Palestinians in Jordan are okay with being called "Jordanian", just as some ethic-Arabs in Israel are okay with being called "Israeli-Arabs". But a significant number of people still persist in the West Bank and Gaza that refuse to be called anything but Palestinians.

      And besides, why take the easy way out and surrender to the enemy? They've lost friends and family in the feud over land, that their mind has been ingrained that the creation of a Palestinian-state is the only solution.

      And ofcourse, there's numerous other motivations here, such as Arab brotherhood, Muslim brotherhood, etc.

      But once again, if the West really cares about Israel and the plight of the Jews, why not carve out a little part of Europe or the US to form a Jewish state? That's basically what you're suggesting the Palestinians do out of Jordan.

      Why is Israel, a small part of what was called "Palestine," the focus?

      The Arab and Muslim world is primarily interested in Jerusalem, and secondly interested in the fair-treatment and well-being of their Palestinian brethren.

      Jerusalem is obviously important to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and the best way to ensure peace among all is to let a multi-religious force, or even the UN become the custodian of the area. [NOTE: We do consider Moses and Jesus to be prophets of our religion too!]

      Now, ideally, the Muslims should be able to trust the Israelis to the safe-keeping of the Muslim holy-sites, but their are obviously trust issues, political proxy battles, and other such matters that make the situation more complex. But recent history has shown that a fanatical group of people can cause havoc [i.e. Babri Mosque in India], and there are no shortages of fanatics in Israel (likewise with any other religion).

      I say, let the peace process go on, there will be some blood-shed along the way, Israel may have to suffer a little, but it will only be temporary if Israel can prove to live up to their side of the bargain, and eventually, the Palestinian side will cease fire.

      GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!

    80. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Umm... thats called "war", you know. When you have the enemy in your sights, you don't arrest him and try him - you shoot him.

      And how would you arrest Palestinians terrorist, when they reside in a hostile territory? I assume you've seen the "Black Hawk Down" movie, maybe even read the book or - god forbid - followed it in the news. Well that's what happens. Launching a Hellfire into that gang leader's window, even if it ment a few dead civilians, would've been much better than the actual result.

    81. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy too verify: How many Pal. kids went to school this week? How many of them died? How many peace workers (or "peace" workers in some cases) reside in The Territories this week? How many of them died?

      To the best of my knowlage, we're talking a minute percentage. I guess you either really care for those gophers or aer a really lousy shot.

      As for hollowpoint - can you show a single incident where the IDF used hollowpoint bullets? Just one? No? That's probably because the use standard, full-metal jacket bullets or less lethal rubber-covered bullets.

      But hey, those are facts, don't let the confuse you.

    82. Re:You forgot something... by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      I am serious, and yes I have studied history other than watching CNN, maybe you should try it ;-). I didn't say that Israel has committed genocide, though I don't think it would surprise me. And yes I can compare it to the Nazi's ... the Nazi's (before they actually started killing them), harrassed the Jews, limited their movement, branded them with little stars, took away their jobs and homes ... all in the name of "security" ... this is different how exactly?

      I love slashdot, we get all up in arms when Ashcroft says he's going to monitor the net or that some new draconian law is passed because the entainment industry wants it ... we cry foul when someone mentions tighter security and suspecting citizens of terrorism, holding people without charging them etc. ... I have seen several people compare the Bush Admin to Nazi Germany (and I can even sometimes understand why) .. but when another "free" society's government sponsors oppression against a certain people group in the name of "security" we turn a blind eye.

      I'm not complaining about Slashdot being America centric but if we really want to talk about people's rights then we should support the rights of everyone.

      As for your specific points: Israel obviously has a problem with Palestinians working in Jerusalam otherwise there wouldn't be checkpoints that take literally hours to get through, there wouldn't be walls all over the place, and palestinians wouldn't have a greater than 70% unemployment rate and growing. I have a very large problem with Israel simply rolling tanks into towns and road blocking Jenin. No due process, no hunting for the actual perpertrators of a crime, just lock them all up because they're only Palestinian! That's wrong, and while Hamas and other groups may have political agendas, and killing civilians is in its own right an atrocity, the average Palestinian Joe has a God-given right to be angry about the erosian of his freedom.

      The killing is terrible, and the islamic groups should be brought to trial, but Israel is not guiltless and they are fanning the flames.

    83. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jordan has incorporated them! More than half of Jordan's population is ethnic-Palestinians. Most have full Jordanian citizenship, with voting rights! [voting for members of parliament]

      Most, but not all of the Palestinian territories fall into Jordan. There were obviously many ethnic-Palestinians who used to own land in parts of Israel and the Occupied Territories. Land that was rightfully theirs, but was seized by the Israeli government upon occupation.

      This is a situation where a peace agreement is drawn out, and terms are discussed to compensate the previous land-owners.

    84. Re:You forgot something... by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      Go back and read my post again. Israel has no problems, per se, with Palestinians living or working in any town. The problem comes when you have regular suicide bombings taking place, and the bombers are coming from a particular location.

      To say Israel is wrong for having extremely tight border security is ridiculous; they're trying to prevent the death of innocent civilians on busses, or pizza shops, or discos. Your argument is the equivalent of saying it's not fair it takes so long to get through customs when flying from a foreign country into the US.

      And you wanna complain about unemployment among Palestinians? How about complaining first to Arafat and the PLO. Arafat has been in power for several generations, and has done absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people. Nothing. Years ago he could have lead a crackdown on Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah, and Himas, which would have done wonders for the Palestinian people. Instead, he tells the world one thing while encouraging violence from terrorist groups.

      Another contributor to the Palestinian economic situation is its neighbors. Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc., all decry the abuses of Palestinians by the Jews. What do they do? Nothing. In fact, some of those countries harbor or pay terrorist groups. Others pay families of those who commit suicide bombings in Israel. Imagine if some of these countries instead would committ such efforts to improving the economic conditions of the Palestinian people by providing schools, hospitals, a clean police force, etc.

      And the last group to be taking some of the blame? The Palestinian people. For years they've been used and abused by Arab groups all over the world in order to support the Islamic cause-of-the-day. Arafat is a sorry excuse for a leader, yet they don't remove him. Terrorist groups continue to recruit young Palestinians to kill themselves in suicide bombings, which only brings reprisals from Israel, and gets the Palestinian people absolutely nothing. Yet they still hold on to these groups as if they've been helping all along. Geez...open your eyes, Palestinians!

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    85. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really know how to rub it in with the "bus load of children" crap. I haven't heard of any suicide bomber specifically targeting a "bus filled with children". What I have heard is of them targeting buses with "buses filled with people", sometimes (not often) consisting of children. NOTE, a 18+ disco-goer is not a child.

      Ok, so the Palestinians can't form a military to attack Israel. Israel is occupying them, and restricting sale of guns. And Israel gets lots of military aid from the US, and the numerous wealthy Jews scattered all over the US and Europe. How is a Palestinian supposed to fight back?

      When you compare current state of the art military technology to the ordinary rock throwing Palestinian, they're obviously not going to get their voices heard. But suicide bombing, now that really hits at the heart of the enemy. It's their only remaining effective choice, as gruesome as it may be.

      Why not suicide-bomb, politicians and military personnel? Well they are trying to do that, but the Israelis have an excellent security apparatus that makes it extremely difficult to.

      The only other choice would be to passively resist like Gandhi did in British-occupied India. That worked for Gandhi because once most Indians started passively resisting, the economy of the country grinded to a halt, and was basically useless to the British empire. And I suspect the Brits were more gentlemanly about foreign affairs.

      But Palestine is completely different. Israel has managed to completely isolate itself from a weak to non-existent Palestinian economy. Passive resistance would be like surrender. The Palestinians lose, the Israelis win. And I suspect, the Israelis may use other deceptive techniques to thwart such a campaign if it meant the Israelis could lose some.

    86. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be glib, but that was funny... actually its "alleged murderers" (where's the "r"?) :)

      But you make a valid point.

      Of course, it doesn't help their case that the terrorist organizations claim responsibility for their misdeeds. I would imagine it is also difficult to find an unbiased court which both sides would trust. Furthermore, the fact that this is basically a war and not a domestic problem (citizens have rights to due process) complicates the matters even further.

      Perhaps Israel could be more forthcoming in their evidence... of course, if that would compromise their sources of intelligence, that might not be the wisest thing to do. Though I have not investigated it... perhaps there is some judicial involvement in their assassinations. If so, does that alleviate your concerns?

    87. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the information... I was unaware that Jordan no longer had a Palestinian refugee problem... but I still maintain that Palestine (the state) should be created from the Arab portion of Palestine (the territory), rather than the Jewish portion.

      The land was rightfully theirs?
      1) Just because they claim the land does not make it theirs.
      2) Abandoning land is akin to releasing your claim on the land (even if you claim to be a refugee).

      More importantly, can your government take away your land? Most likely, yes, which is what happened in this case:

      The UN divided the UK governed territory of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish state became Israel. Non-Jews who remained in Israel were not evicted: they kept their land.

    88. Re:You forgot something... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Um... if israel never arrests anyone, who the hell are all these prisoners being released?

      (oh, and we all know all these ACs are just one guy)

    89. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Palestine was relatively desolate before the influx of the Jews... and, yes, there were some Jews there before Israel became a state. It was governed by the UK and divided by the UN into Jewish and Arab states.

      In terms of Jordanian Palestinians, I was unaware that they no longer have a palestinian refugee problem... Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
      And besides, why take the easy way out and surrender to the enemy? They've lost friends and family in the feud over land, that their mind has been ingrained that the creation of a Palestinian-state is the only solution.
      Stopping to fight and going to a country that welcomes you is not "surrendering". Losing friends and family is not a reason to keep fighting: it's a reason to stop... especially if those friends and family died by intentionally killing innocent people.

      btw: Who has "ingrained the creation of a Palestinian-state is the only solution" into their mind? It certainly wasn't Israel.
      But once again, if the West really cares about Israel and the plight of the Jews, why not carve out a little part of Europe or the US to form a Jewish state?
      That is basically what happened in the creation of Israel... the land was under British Mandate and was divided by the UN into Jewish and Arab states.
      That's basically what you're suggesting the Palestinians do out of Jordan.
      No... I am referring to "Trans-Jordan" (which was taken by Jordan) which was the Arab state created by the UN when it divided the territory of Palestine. Why is Israel a better place to carve out "Palestine the country" rather than Trans-Jordan?
      Jerusalem is obviously important to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and the best way to ensure peace among all is to let a multi-religious force, or even the UN become the custodian of the area.
      Jerusalem has been better cared for and more open to *everyone* under Israel's ownership than any prior (Arab) owner. With so many religions in close proximity, it is likely to be a hotbed under anyone's control.
      [NOTE: We do consider Moses and Jesus to be prophets of our religion too!]
      Not to be inflammatory, but Christians do not believe Jesus to be a prophet, but rather the Son of God... there's a big distinction.
      Now, ideally, the Muslims should be able to trust the Israelis to the safe-keeping of the Muslim holy-sites
      Well, for the most part, it looks like they've done a good job with Jerusalem so far.
      and there are no shortages of fanatics in Israel (likewise with any other religion).
      Heck, you don't even have to be religious to be a fanatic. :)
      and eventually, the Palestinian side will cease fire.
      Part of the problem with that is (for the most part) Israel is a unified front, while Palestinians are not. Palestinians incorporate terrorist factions which (reportedly) operate independently. Without the Palestinian government itself taking responsibility for the actions of these factions (and squashing them) there is no way to come to a meaningful agreement since there is no body which authoritatively speaks for all Palestinians.
      GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!
      I agree. :) How many chances is debatable... i.e. if you would have said "peace at any cost" (which is often what I hear), I would have differed. Truly nice chatting with you.
    90. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palestinians are stupid... (a whispher in a dark world:)

    91. Re:You forgot something... by misterpies · · Score: 1


      You are totally missing the point! The Israelis never go after civilians just for the sake of going after civilians...If the Palestinians would quit sending suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli's then they could have their own state.

      Recall that before Israeli independence, what was then Palestine was a British protectorate under a League of Nations and then UN mandate. Israeli independence was won through precisely the kind of sustained terrorism that the Palestinians practice today. In 1939 the the Irgun militant group bombed a marketplace, killing 24 (Arab) civilians and injured 39. In 1946, they bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people. In 1947 they threw grenades into a Jerusalem cafe, killing 11 civilians.

      Another group, Lehi or the Stern Gang, sent parcel bombs to British politicians. In 1948, they assassinated the UN mediator, count Bernadotte, who had negotiated the truce ending the 1948 war of independence. During that war, Irgun and the Stern gang together killed 107 civilians in an attack on the village of Deir Yassin. Following independence, these "heroes" were incorporatedn into the future Israeli army. One member of the Stern Gang, Yitzhak Shamir, later became Prime Minister of Israel.

      These attacks -- which cannot be described as anything but terrorist -- succeeded in their aim of driving the British from Palestine and creating an independent Israeli state. Israel is a nation born in blood, with (Zionist) terrorism as its midwife. What the Palestinians are doing now may not be morally defensible, but they are merely following the highly successful example set by Jewish freedom fighters 60 years previously.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    92. Re:You forgot something... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      No due process, no hunting for the actual perpertrators of a crime

      That can only be done by the local police force. Israel relinquished control of Jenin in 1996, turning it over to the Palestinian Authority.

      Do you dispute that there were a multitude of attacks on Israel based in Jenin? Do you dispute that the Palestinian Authority was in gross failure to effectively police that activity?

      The most charitable interpretation is that the Palestinian Authority was ineffective and the area was a haven of anarchy, and at worst the Palestinian Authority willfully allowed it to continue making it a hostile power.

      I have a very large problem with Israel simply rolling tanks into towns and road blocking Jenin.

      Military action is the only option available in an area not under that government's authority. Israel cannot use Israeli police and police methods where it has police force or police authority.

      Perhaps you are advocating annexing Jenin under Israeli rule to give Israel police authority?

      Israel is FAR from faultless, but Israel is being blamed for a catch-22 situation. They're the bad guys if they DON'T give up the land, and they're the bad guys when they DO give up the land and proceed to take legitimate action against para-military organizations and attacks based there.

      The situation just plain sucks and innocent people are certainly suffering. But for any measure of blame carried by Israel the surrounding arab nations carry at least as much blame - they intentionally make the Palistinians suffer more to exploit them as pawns against Israel. And the terrorists carry the most blame of all.

      Israel is at least attempting to do the right thing, but there is simply no way to appease countless terriorist cells and it's virtually impossible to negotiate with countries who's primary declared gaol is to exterminate Israel. I think Israel would love nothing more than to end the hostilities and that they would be willing to give up quite a lot to get it. Do you really think the hostilities could be ended by anything less than the death of every last Israeli?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    93. Re:You forgot something... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I think you must have forgotten about the six day war in 1967 (OK so it was a "preemptive strike".

      Lets see, the surrounding nations all signed military pacts, consolidated command structures, authorized foriegn troop access, massed an army on the Israeli border, ordered the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force who were in place specificly to stand in the way of an attack on Israel, blockaded and mined Israel's sea lanes - specific UN recognized sea rights, and finally Syria shelled Israel. And all the while the heads-of-state involved made specific statements such as "we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel".

      And then those filthy jews started a war.

      Riiiiight.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    94. Re:You forgot something... by misterpies · · Score: 1

      Lets see, the surrounding nations all signed military pacts, consolidated command structures, authorized foriegn troop access, massed an army on the Israeli border

      Lucky Stalin didn't react in the same way to the formation of Nato or we'd be eking out a post-nuclear existence by now...

      And then those filthy jews started a war.

      Indeed, many of my relatives among them. I spent passover with a retired Israeli general last year (who fought in the 1967 war). He was of the opinion that no amount of military crackdown by israel on the Palestinians could ever stop the suicide bombings; peace could only be achieved if Israel pulled back, including the settlements. He also thought that Sharon was a disaster.

      No-one looking at the current situation in Israel should forget that the two best chances for peace was ended not by Palestinian terrorists, but by Israeli extremists. The first chance was ended when fanatics opposed to a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. The second came with Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, which he made in the full knowledge that it would spark violent protests among the Palestians. The first brought down the Labour government that agreed the Oslo accords and was about to implement them, and ushered in the Likud era; the second resulted in the Al-Aqsa Intifada that would see Barak's administration - which was also close to a peace deal - replaced by Sharon's hardliners.

      It is a regrettable fact of Israeli history that whenever one group of Israelis is close to achieving peace with the Palestinians, another tries to undermine them. It is the tragedy of Israeli history that they always succeed. It's notable that whereas in Northern Ireland, continuing attacks by hardline elements (eg the Omagh bomb) led to the strengthening of the peace process by increasing the resolve of people on both sides to eschew violence, both Israelis and Palestinians appear to be unable to see beyond the next spiral of revenge attacks.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    95. Re:You forgot something... by BasilBibi · · Score: 1

      Phew! I don't know what's 'real' to be honest but sifting through the claims and counter-claims there must be some truth.

      I don't take much notice of Al-Jazeera, no. I prefer to read Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Friedman and Noam Chomsky and listen to some of the other independent voices. Voices that are not stifled by Corporate Media.

      You might be one of those people who dismisses the accounts of independent journalists, aid workers and peace activists who were on the ground at the time of these human tragedies. Just because a British Territorial Army Officer supported claims that Isreal was right to deny a massacre does not mean that senseless and systematic killing did not happen.

      What does seem to be happening though is that Isreal *is* commiting genocide and ethnic cleansing. Brutally repressing an entire population, torturing, murdering, raping, forcibly evicting people and destroying homes with the justification that it is their 'God Given Right (tm)".

      When people run out of sensible justifications for things they make God responsible.

      I mean, what would you do if 'Palestine' happened to you? My Dad was 6 when my family were driven from their homes by Zionist forces. Some of my great uncles were hung in the streets in front of their wives and children...

      Given the circumstances I know that I'd resist to the bitter end and I suspect that you would too.

      But I suspect that these words will fall on deaf ears.

      If you want some facts about "Poor 'Lil Isreal (tm)"...

      Israeli forces have killed an estimated 13,000 Palestinians since 1948. They forcibly evicted over 737,000 Palestinians from their homes and land. 503 Palestinian villages were entirely depopulated and destroyed?

      503 villages.

      Isreal and America are the only members of the UN who have consistently vetoed calls to ban torture.

      Isreal has the largest stockpile and is the largest manufacturer of WMDs in the Middle East.

      Isreal is in violation of half a dozen UN resolutions - again "God Given Right (tm)"
      http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0303 /page2b .htm

      Please stop. Take off your blinkers and listen to the other voices that have been silently fearful in the shadow of Zionist influence for too long...

    96. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually its "alleged murderers" (where's the "r"?) :)

      No, actually it's "alleged mudders" -- people who like mud. I'm only joshing you of course. Ya got me.

      But seriously, folks. You have some good points, but this one is a common misconception:

      the fact that this is basically a war and not a domestic problem

      It's not a war -- the Occupied Territories, are, well, occupied territories. As such they have a specific legal status under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and other international law. I'm not an authority on international law (although I know a few) but it wasn't too hard to find a brief summarizing the obligations of an occupying power under the law. Quoting from "The Law of Belligerent Occupation" by Michael M. Schmitt:

      Pursuant to both humanitarian and human rights law, they may impose punishment only after a regular trial in which the accused has been informed in writing of the charges.

      No one, no matter how partisan, would say that Israel has been living up to this obligation.

      For those who don't care about international law, here's another way of looking at it. Israel is the de-facto government of the Occupied Territories. (I won't bother arguing why the Palestinian Authority isn't.) Now, consider one well-known democracy, the United States. (I'm an American, if you're not perhaps you'll indulge me here). In this country, if someone commits a heinous act, we don't rocket their cars on a city street. No, we arrest them, put them on trial, and show the evidence to a jury. In fact (modulo recent civil rights abuses) we do this even for foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes on American soil. Some people think this is a pretty good way to do things (I do, though John Ashcroft doesn't).

      So from two points of view -- that of international law and that of the "reasonable person" looking at how other (?) democracies behave -- I argue that if Israel wants to be called a "democracy" then it needs to give due process even to its enemies. In fact, especially to them, since we are best judged not by how we treat our friends, but how we treat our enemies.

      Am I holding Israel to a high standard? I guess so. But we hear all the time that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East." Well, if they want to use the Democracy (tm) label in their advertising materials, then they're asking to be held to those high standards. If they changed their tag line to "the only Jewish Theocracy in the Middle East" I guess that would take the wind out of my sails.

      Aw, but now I got all serious. Whoops.

    97. Re:You forgot something... by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      What does seem to be happening though is that Isreal *is* commiting genocide and ethnic cleansing. Brutally repressing an entire population, torturing, murdering, raping, forcibly evicting people and destroying homes with the justification that it is their 'God Given Right (tm)". When people run out of sensible justifications for things they make God responsible.

      The only parties referencing a deity are the Palestinians and other Arabs in the region. You know...Allah? The one that supposedly told the Arabs to kill the Jews and Christians?

      Since you are Palestinian, tell us - what would it take for the Palestinian people to live in peace next door to the acknowledged state of Israel? Do you insist, as do many other Palestinians, that the Jews and Israel must be driven into the sea?

      Do you want real progress? Kill Arafat, destroy Palestinian terror groups, and stop allowing other Arab nations to use the Palestinian people (a la Osama bin Laden) for their own agendas. The worldwide community will join together and push for a Palestinian state. And Israel will be the least of your problems.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    98. Re:You forgot something... by BasilBibi · · Score: 1

      Why are you so aggressive?

      Saddly (and typically of a lot of Jews that I speak with) *your* suggested 'progress' is riddled with the kinds of action you supposedly deplore...

      I quote...
      "Do you want real progress? Kill Arafat, destroy Palestinian terror groups..."

      More killing, destruction, death & suffering.

      Sorry but you don't get my vote Mr. Durrin. You're just as bad as Arafat, Sharon and all his henchmen. Like them I suspect that you barely qualify as a human.

      Since you are Palestinian, tell us - what would it take for the Palestinian people to live in peace next door to the acknowledged state of Israel? Do you insist, as do many other Palestinians, that the Jews and Israel must be driven into the sea?

      Not at all. In fact, I think that Isreal needs the Palestinians as much as the Palestinians need Isreal. Isreal needs a work force, a gene pool, a cultural shakeup and *peace*. The Palestinians need an economy, a security force, decent ocean frontage, an apology, some plain old human respect ans *peace*

      As you ask, here's my wish list:

      In line with UN resolutions, stop building settlements in the occupied territories.

      Take down your "wall of hate".

      Give back lands and properties (or make substantial reparations) to those 'displaced'.

      Stop treating Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Christians, Jewish moderates and anyone who dares to be critical of Isreal as subhumans and criminals.

      Stop marginalising people, stealing their water, destroying their olive groves and orange plantations.

      Stop being so paranoid. Poor 'lil Isreal. The whole world is starting to realise that it has a real reason to fear and hate you. You people will stop at nothing to get what you think is "rightfully yours" and I have a feeling that we will all suffer for the price.

    99. Re:You forgot something... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Lucky Stalin didn't react in the same way to the formation of Nato or we'd be eking out a post-nuclear existence by now

      Perhaps you'd like to finish reading my sentence? In particular I don't recall direct statements from the heads of every single NATO head of state that they were doing so for the specific purpose of obliterating Russia, and I don't recal NATO shelling Russia. I admit at one point there was a hotly disputed navel blockade, but that blockade was not run by NATO, and the blockade was absolutely no where near Russia.

      Then you drop the 1967 issue and move to the plight of the poor Palistinian people. Israel had no probem with the formation of a Palistinian state - it was the 1943 arab attack that prevented that. Isreal TRIED to return all of the land captured in 1967 in exchange for peace - only Egypt accepted and the Sinai was returned. So Isreal DID try to pull back, the answer from arab nations was essentially 'keep the damn land we'll take it back ourselves when you're all dead'.

      The PLO charter is for the "liquidation" of all of the jews in Isreal and states that the only acceptable course of action is violence. The surrounding arab nations don't WANT to help the Plaistinians, and have in fact intentionally made them suffer as much as possible to be the vanguard in obiterating Israel.

      No-one looking at the current situation in Israel should forget that the two best chances for peace was ended not by Palestinian terrorists, but by Israeli extremists.

      LOL. Sure, there are Isreali idiots. But to dump blame for the failure of the peace process on Isreal? I think the lionshare of blame goes to the various fanatical terrorist groups and active sabotage by arab nations that want it to fail. They will accept nothing less than the obliteration of every last Israeli.

      I'd certainly love to see an end to Isreali military raids, as would the vast majority of Isrealis. But seeing as how it is "intolerable" to annex these area into Israel and institute an Israeli police force, that surrounding governments have refused to provide such a government/police force, the only glimmer of hope is turning the area over to a peaceful non-PLO Palistinian government. And that fragile fledgling government is being activly attacked and sabotaged by the PLO, by fanatical terrorist groups, and by arab nations with a different agenda.

      I certainly hope a peaceful Palistinian government succeeds. But in the mean time it has been unable to deal with the para-military war against Isreal. Suicide bombers must be either imprisoned or killed. Isrealis have a right to defend themselves. It sucks that innocent Palistinians are suffering, but they are suffing because of genocidal lunatics.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    100. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be their new slogan, "Stop blowing us up and we'll stop taking your land."

      is that like "stop reacting and we'll stop provocing"?

      both sides have generations raised in hatred for the other, this can't be solved with asking one party to stop, while both are doing very, very, wrong

    101. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a war -- the Occupied Territories, are, well, occupied territories.

      Why isn't it a war? and why are they called "occupied territories"? ... and does calling them that necessarily make them so? Until these are answered (especially the "war" question), I wonder at the applicability of your "international law for occupying powers" which seems more suited to dealing with isolated crimes in a relatively well controlled area.

      On the other hand, I can see that the land that Israel took (outside the UN bounds) during the wars against them creates a complexity for those who actually lived on that land during that whole process (and didn't abandon it). It is my understanding that Israel took that land for strategic reasons (excepting perhaps what they returned to Egypt), so relinquishing it would necessarily weaken their defense. To incorporate the current residents (who may not have even been the original residents) as citizens would be to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state (which is many terrorists' goal), likely bringing it under the control of Israel's current enemies (via Democratic processes). So what should be done? Shall they return to the country from whence they previously "belonged"... i.e. Jordan?... since Jordan took Trans-Jordan?

      I feel that perhaps the country of Palestine should be carved from the bulk of what was intended by the UN to be the Arab state of the Palestine Territories (basically, the rest of Trans-Jordan). This could be seen as a "punishment" for attacking Israel in the first place (and for taking the Arab state that could have / should have been the country of Palestine).

      No one, no matter how partisan, would say that Israel has been living up to this obligation.

      True enough that I haven't heard of Israel sending out papers to terrorists they assassinate... HOWEVER, as I mentioned previously, I honestly don't know... there may be some judicial backing to their assinations. Though I also haven't heard of the US doing so in Afghanistan (with Al Queda / Bin Laden) or Iraq (with Saddam). The gall of the US to try to assassinate Saddam without serving him papers. :)

      The US problems with Ashcroft aside, I think it is because the US considers itself "at war" that they do not follow such Democratic formalities (with enemies), which is more reasonable to me. That said, I certainly feel that US citizens should ALWAYS be given due process... and even those captured deserve to have at least some charge brought against them and some sort of due process... although I also recognize the complexity of that since, ideally, we would let their new government handle their case rather than keeping them in US prison or simply releasing them.

      It is sad what Ashcroft is doing to civil rights of US citizens and I agree that it would be ideal if formal open trials would occur.

      In this country, if someone commits a heinous act, we don't rocket their cars on a city street. No, we arrest them, put them on trial, and show the evidence to a jury.

      I agree that this is a good way to do things... the more open and transparent, the better. The problems with this are:

      a) "police" will very likely die in attempting to arrest them. Should they be tried in absentia?

      b) process servers would probably even die if the suspect were served papers... at the very least, the suspect would be tipped off that they are being targetted.

      c) a jury of their peers would probably be Palestinians, possibly even terrorists themselves.

      d) an open trial would likely reveal intelligence which would not be wise to release.

      Hence, Israeli officials would likely have to judge the suspect in secret (so as not to tip him off), using classified evidence (so as to protect their spies), and at best use Israeli citizens for the jury, but more likely (for the secret and classified reasons listed ab

    102. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c) a jury of their peers would probably be Palestinians, possibly even terrorists themselves.

      I'll address the rest later, but wanted to just quick remark that actually U.S. law does not require (or mention) "peers" for a jury trial. Don't take my word for it, google "sixth amendment" for the authoritative text. IIRC, the "peers" thing is a fallacy and is related to the Magna Carta.

      Also, while a jury trial (and not assassination) is certainly the desirable way of dealing with an accused criminal, anything even approaching the "international law" standard of any kind of real trial would be a step in the right direction.

    103. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the correction... I'll look it up when I get a chance. It's interesting how such fallacies work their way into common understanding (e.g. another is the separation of church and state and even income tax). But I wonder if there is some court precedence or common law for having a "jury of your peers"... then again, my source for this impression is probably television. :)

      - I assume you mean, "not simply assassination", since judgement for assassination (extermination / death penalty) could be the result of a jury trial.
      - I agree that the closer we can come to an open, formal trial, the better.
      - I don't know (and don't know an easy way to determine) what Israel's current procedure is for ordering assassinations... for all I know, some subset of the Keneset could vote (as the jury) based upon the evidience presented to them... which is probably similar to how the US Congress does it.

      In terms of "international law" specifically, my concern is still the applicability and feasibility of it (e.g. in the situation Israel is in), for the reasons I mentioned previously.

      Of course, simply being "international" does not necessarily make the "law" just and I therefore tend to avoid depending upon it... especially in our discussion, since we seem to agree (for the most part) upon the ideal case (formal, open jury trials). As far as I can tell, our main point of contention is the extent to which a formal, open jury trial can be applied to Israel's case.

      I look forward to your further response.

    104. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the majority of the conflicts going on in the world today dont involve muslims. The State department isnt making that claim. Just the ones you hear about on tv. What about the Hindu extremists in India? Rebels in South America? North Korea? IRA?

    105. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where to begin, where to begin? At the beginning, I guess.

      Why isn't it a war?

      Well, despite the deliberate spin our (the U.S.) government has put on it recently ("war" on drugs, etc) the term "war" has a specific meaning. m-w.com (yes, I'm lazy) has as its first definition (there are lots) "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". The Israelis would claim that the Palestinians do not constitue a state or nation. Furthermore, to be a state or nation you typically must control geographical territory, which the Palestinians do not. They want to be a state or nation, but currently are not.

      QED, it ain't a war.

      and why are they called "occupied territories"?

      Cuz they're territories... which are occupied? I don't know if you consider Wikipedia to be an authority, but this article lists the West Bank and Gaza ("The Occupied Territories") as being so defined under international law... while noting that Israel disputes this definition (few if any other nations do though).

      Until these are answered (especially the "war" question), I wonder at the applicability of your "international law for occupying powers" which seems more suited to dealing with isolated crimes in a relatively well controlled area.

      I think I've established both of these points, at least to my satisfaction. Furthermore you should observe that if you want to talk about areas and crimes, most of the bombings have taken place within the borders of Israel, which I imagine you'll agree constitutes a "well controlled area" for the purposes you seem to mean. (I would also argue that the Occupied Territories fit this bill in that Israel exercises near-absolute military control over them.)

      I more-or-less agree with your next paragraph insofar as the facts go, and I think I agree with the following:

      I feel that perhaps the country of Palestine should be carved from the bulk of what was intended by the UN to be the Arab state of the Palestine Territories (basically, the rest of Trans-Jordan).

      I think the Palestinians (i.e., the non-Israeli people who live in the Occupied Territories) would agree with you.

      Moving along,

      as I mentioned previously, I honestly don't know... there may be some judicial backing to their assinations.

      If you google "israel extrajudicial killings" you'll get lots and lots and lots of hits from sources I would characterize as credible either intrinsically, or by virtue of the fact that they are well known to be basically sympathetic to Israel, such as Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department. I think the use of the term "extrajudicial" makes the situation quite clear.

      The gall of the US to try to assassinate Saddam without serving him papers. :)

      Let's not get started on Iraq, OK?

      Regarding the notion that alleged criminals should be apprehended and tried rather than assassinated, you point out that (summarizing), "police" might die in the process of apprehension, process servers would be in danger, and a trial might disclose intelligence sources (I've previously addressed the "jury" item).

      As regards the first two issues, there are two things I'd like to point out. One is that in the U.S. or other democracies, these exact same issues exist with respect to apprehending suspected domestic criminals. But we still don't rocket their cars in the city streets. The second is that the quote regarding the accused being "informed in writing of the charges" doesn't mean (AFAIK) that you have to serve process papers before hand like on a TV court show. It means that you can't just kill the guy without giving him a chance to answer the charges. Absurd in some cases? Perhaps, but that's the price we pay for what we laughingly call civilization and not just the law of the jungle. Even Slobodan Milosevic

    106. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". The Israelis would claim that the Palestinians do not constitue a state or nation. Furthermore, to be a state or nation you typically must control geographical territory, which the Palestinians do not. They want to be a state or nation, but currently are not.

      Luckily, my American Heritage Dictionary includes "parties" :) : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

      More importantly, there are many conflicts which are considered to be wars which do not fit your definition: e.g. US Revolutionary War (successful), US Civil War (unsuccessful), etc. Basically, any conflict involving the potential creation of a nation or state (i.e. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) cannot be considered a war by your definition (which, I would therefore suggest, is fundamentally incorrect).

      Furthermore, as I mention further down in this post, the Palestinian terrorists have targeted Israel as a whole and not simply an individual or a faction: It does not matter to them who they kill, as long as they are Israeli. As such, this is a threat to the entire nation of Israel and seems to quite clearly comprise an organized act of war.

      So I'm still not convinced that the Israeli - Palestinian conflict cannot be classified as a war (and therefore subject to at least slightly different standards from non-war domestic conflicts)... though I am accutely aware of the misuse of the term "war" in order to impinge upon the rights of US citizens (i.e. "safety is more important than our rights and freedoms, because we are at war").

      Cuz they're territories... which are occupied? ...

      My main point in bringing up the question of "occupation" is that the major basis of the conflict is over ownership of the land. If Israel owns it, then the Palestinians are squatters... if Palestinians own it, then Israel is the occupier. It is a PR technique to use nomenclature which implies a judgement which is actually in question.

      If you google "israel extrajudicial killings" you'll get lots and lots and lots of hits from sources I would characterize as credible either intrinsically, or by virtue of the fact that they are well known to be basically sympathetic to Israel, such as Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department. I think the use of the term "extrajudicial" makes the situation quite clear.

      Thanks for the pointer... I'll peruse it when I get a chance. I have not known "Amnesty International" to be particularly sympathetic to Israel. The "U.S. State Department" is sympathetic to Israel in action, but often not in words (I believe because they want to appear impartial). Furthermore, I have seen many cases of Israeli groups, claiming to be impartial, though clearly not so... which is in fact another key factor of a Democracy.

      More importantly, the use of the term "extrajudicial" signifies that the writer / speaker believes it to be extrajudicial, not necessarily that Israel views it as "extrajudicial"... i.e. this may be a case wherein Israel's judicial basis for their actions is viewed as "foul" and therefore not even acknowledged as being judicial.

      One is that in the U.S. or other democracies, these exact same issues exist with respect to apprehending suspected domestic criminals. But we still don't rocket their cars in the city streets.

      I don't think the issues are exactly the same (with respect to apprehending suspects)... at least not on the scale and persistence as Israel has had to deal with (consider the US handling of Waco). e.g. I don't think you can fairly equate the Palestinian neighborhoods with a "bad neighborhood" in the US (the closest analogy I could think of)... especially in as enormous a country as the US. Consider the fact that the terrorists i

    107. Re:You forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. There is a frequently updated chart available where there a world map showing shaded areas of war and civil unrest. A majority of the conflicts involve the 5 billion normal people fending off the 1 billion islamic cultists in one way or another. Sorry pal, your religion, and its presence begets more voilence than any other on a huge scale.

  6. Full text of article by mskfisher · · Score: 5, Interesting
    He mentions having reached 90% of his bandwidth allocation for this month, so I would guess a Slashdotting wouldn't help things.
    Here's the full text of the article, to hopefully stem some of that tide.

    Today's Featured Article I've been personally shut down...

    Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 12:46 AM CDT
    Contributed by: Un-Thesis
    Views: 788
    Apparently I have been subpoenad, personally, on 8-17-2003 by an as-yet unknown entity under the DMCA clause, because of xmule, when it went on to gov'ment radar w/ the e-matters.de alert :P The subpoena lasts, suposedly, until Dec 6, when i must stand infrotn of a federal appellet court

    100% of My job is online
    100% of My school is online
    100% of My friends are online
    100% of My hobbies are online

    and if i can't use a comptuer at all, they might as well put me in a federal
    prison taht allows me to read and purchase any book i want...

    As of 7:43AM MST (-7 UTC) my personal internet connection was shut down due to "unacceptable use". It took me 6 hours to finally contact my ISP customer support, a local cable modem provider, because they were swamped with MSBLASTER calls.

    I was redirected to a 1800 number who redirected me to some other number, etc, until i finally reached a federal clerk's office in Washington, D.C. who informed me that it *seems* as though I have been personally subpaened by the USA Gov'ment on behalf of the RIAA. They told me that they were limited in their search for information due to the late hour (8PM EDT (-4 UTC)), but that the prosecuting body that issued under hte auspicies of the DMCA and NOT in the same category as the other 8,000+ copyright violation affidavits issued by the RIAA in recent months.

    Additional bad news: xmule.org has reached 90% of its allocated monthly bandwidth. It is the 19th. I am very incapable of rectifying this decision w/out knowledgeable outside assistance in the United States (due to telephone communication required). If you can help me set up the other webserver, please contact me at 520-296-3408.

    Unless DRASTIC action is taken within the next 48 hours, or my internet connection is restored, xmule.org forums will be permanently shut down until the bandwidth issue can be resolved.

    Supposedly, the subpaena was filed on 8-17-2003. For those that know, the e-matters.de published xmule ni its security bulletin, thus, probably, raising us to teh level of teh RIAA's notice for the first time. Since I am the only american developer, and since i am really the only main developer, it seems they struck at the source.

    I have not received written or otherwise announcement of the subpaena, and i still do not know the ramifications of my injunction. I may be able to use dialup or even DSL, cable is certainly out, or I may be completely barred form teh internet (this message might be illegal)

    At this point i *know* i will need to hire a civil rights attorney, and if I am not liable to a prison sentence, then I might be able to leave the United States to either Mexico or Canada, at which point i will also need money to relocate...So any donations are greatly appreciated. PLEASE use the Amazon donation box, since it requires no online access by me, while paypal erquires a connectino.

    I wont' know what my options are until some time tomorrow or later. Development of xMule seems to be the most likely target of me, since I have downloaded very little copyrighted material over the last, o, 6 months. I figured that before i found out i was banned completely from the internet i would send this mesasge...

    Keep it real...weclome to the Fourth Reich of Amerika.

    Un-Thesis
    --
    0x0D 0x0A
    1. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear US,
      I intend to flee if you try to arrest me.
      - xmule guy

      PS What is xmule?

    2. Re:Full text of article by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      The site is slashdotted now and I can't get any browsing done, so I ask the slashdot community. What is xMule? What does it do, how does it work, and how is it any different from other P2P serivces? I'm not a linux user, so I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the popular linux apps (I assume it's a linux app, and that the "x" is for X-Windows).

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    3. Re:Full text of article by fault0 · · Score: 1

      A emule clone, which in turn, was a clone of edonkey2000. I don't think the authors of emule or edonkey2k, which are both MUCH more popular than xmule (used mostly by Linux and OSX users), lived in the United States of RIAA, so they seem to be safe for now.

    4. Re:Full text of article by darkov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I intend to flee if you try to arrest me.

      Not quite, I think he is saying that he has to relocate to continue his work. Let's face it. The US is a pretty fucked place to live unless you're rich and have several lobbyists on the payroll.

    5. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xMule is a eMule Unix port/clone. eMule is a client for the eDonkey network.

    6. Re:Full text of article by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

      Isn't xmule a X windows capable client for use on the edonkey 2000 peer-to-peer network? I think that at one point, eMule started making clients to connect to the edonkey 2000 (ed2k) whic proved far superior then the native client. Because eMule was/is/might once have been open source, various forks for other operating systems sprung up, xmule being one of them.

    7. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      X-Mule is a P2P app for Microsoft's X-Box. You need the broadband adapter and to have Linux running using one of the publically available hacks to get it to work. Once it's up, you basically use the X-Box as a set-top box and can select music - the app supports both Gnutella and Kazaa - which will both play immediately - via the X-Box's SPDIF ports if you have that hooked up - and be saved to the hard drive.

      Kind of cool. The GUI is very similar to iTunes, so you can build playlists and stuff. I use it at work for our telephone hold system.

    8. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HELLO

      GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=xmule

      DO THIS NEXT TIME BEFORE ASKING

    9. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's being charged with atrocious spelling / grammar.

    10. Re:Full text of article by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      But I got you to do it for me. :P In fact, I got 4 people to do it for me. And instead of having to search, I get my answer in a quick, consise summary form.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    11. Re:Full text of article by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      What I don't get is that the RIAA has already lost in court that the program KaZaa is not illegal. The judge said that it has legitimate useage.

      Now I know that it's under appeal, but how can they go against another programmer of a similar product? Not only that, but doesn't that mean the infamous WASTE programmer, Justin Frankel, could be in danger too? I mean, *THAT* genius is active! Winamp, Gnutella, Waste?!

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    12. Re:Full text of article by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It was probably unwise for him to suggest that he would flee the US to avoid prosecution. If he is facing criminal charges they would be able to hold him without bail and remove his passport.

      This is one of those cases where you don't make threats, you decide to flee or fight and do it immediately.

    13. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      HELLO

      LINK #3 IS WHAT YOU WANTED

      http://freshmeat.net/releases/131350/

      About: xMule is a multi-platform clone of the popular eMule client for the eDonkey filesharing network. Currently supporting various Linux/Unix/BSD platforms, it aims at higher stability and portability than the competitors.

      HOWEVER I APPLAUD YOUR SUCCESS

      BEST WISHES ON YOUR FUTURE ENDEAVOURS
    14. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not saying he'll flee the country to avoid prosecution. He is stating that if he is not liable to a prison sentence, he might be allowed to leave.

    15. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I know that it's under appeal, but how can they go against another programmer of a similar product?

      Because they have more money than he does. He will lose. They will get what they want.

    16. Re:Full text of article by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      If that text is real, then I must wonder what he was thinking when developing P2P related software in the US, given the current circumstances surrounding it. The P2P software still developed is mostly developed outside the US because it is outside of direct US prosecution.

      I also wonder what the point in feeing to Canada or Mexico would be. I thought there were extradition treaties in place.

      It is too difficult to muster sympathy in this case.

    17. Re:Full text of article by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I might be able to leave the United States to either Mexico or Canada

      Come to Canada. We've already established that file sharing is legal...

    18. Re:Full text of article by Just-A-Buck · · Score: 1

      The author of the original eDonkey client, Jed McCaleb, lives in NYC, afaik.
      Emule was originally coded by some germans, and there still many (only?) europeans in the dev team.

      --
      Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats
    19. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't believe the hype. File sharing is certainly not legal in Canada. Don't think that the Private Copying provision will protect you from RIAA-style lawsuits. All it allows you to do is to make a copy for your own personal use. The second you share copy with friends, play it at a party, or transmit it over the Internet, you are infringing on copyright.

      As much as we'd all like to think we're safe from RIAA-style action up here, we're not. Don't be fooled into a sense of safety.

    20. Re:Full text of article by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1

      You don't need a passport to go to Mexico. I doubt you need one for Canada either. If he wants to go, he'll go...

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    21. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't you cap the hyperlink and description text? You capped everything else.

    22. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The second you share copy with friends, play it at a party, or transmit it over the Internet, you are infringing on copyright.

      This could probably be argued either way, since it has never been tried in court we will have to wait to see. No doubt a good lawyer could make it fit as there are no provision that states that transfers for person use over electronic means is disqualified under the act.

    23. Re:Full text of article by gte910h · · Score: 1

      He's not saying to avoid a sentence. He's going to move to advoid further prosecution.

      --
      Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
    24. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HELLO

      IT WAS A QUOTE I FELT IT UNNECESSARY

      ALSO LAMENESS FILTER DOES NOT ALLOW IT

      zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy
      zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy
      zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy zzygy

    25. Re:Full text of article by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 1

      If that text is real, it's a wonder he ever programmed anything that compiled at all, much less anything that threatened the RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    26. Re:Full text of article by kryliss · · Score: 1

      [snip]
      As the RIAA's "sue your customer" campaign begins to run into stiffening opposition and serious procedural obstacles it may be time to think about a "Plan B". A small levy on storage media, say a penny a megabyte, would be more lucrative than trying to extract 60 million dollars from a music obsessed, file sharing, thirteen year-old.

      So that means your log of 100 blank CD's would cost you $800.00 for the "small levy of a penny per megabyte" plus the actual cost and tax so for the small price of around $8.20 to $9.00 per CD you can copy any album you want.. What a hell of a bargin.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    27. Re:Full text of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

      How about getting a life?

    28. Re:Full text of article by corkhead0 · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a Canadian who was just on vacation, you need a passport to get into Canada, but not Mexico.

  7. M.U.L.E by Tei · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Haaa... maybe the be^H^H^H^H THe bETTer gAMe in tHe wORLd!

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  8. Extracts from ES5 press release by borgdows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (...) Earthstation 5 is at war with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Record Association of America (RIAA), and to make our point very clear that their governing laws and policys have absolutely no meaning to us here in Palestine, we will continue to add even more movies for FREE.
    (...)
    ES5 (http://www.es5 .com) does not require any signups, registration, credit cards and/or any other personal information to watch the first rate streamed movies like TERMINATOR 3, BRUCE ALMIGHTY, MATRIX RELOADED, etc. Our secure software protect our users who use our P2P application and there is nothing that you can do to stop us, says Ras Kabir, president of Earthstation 5 (http:/www.earthstation5 .com).
    (...)
    Ras Kabir's warning to the RIAA and the MPAA, "The next revolution in P2P file sharing is upon you. Resistance is futile and we are now in control".

    OMG! It's what I call a man who has BALLS!!

    1. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1, Insightful
      ...to make our point very clear that their governing laws and policys have absolutely no meaning to us here in Palestine, we will continue to add even more movies for FREE.

      Admitting that they enable the distribution of pirated movies won't really help their cause. Whatever their cause may be.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    2. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by fault0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the Palestinian government just has a tad bit more to worry about than to shut down file sharing companies over the internet.

      Of course, given proper threats, bribes, etc.. to the right people..

    3. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by mccalli · · Score: 5, Funny
      OMG! It's what I call a man who has BALLS!!

      He certainly does. Calling Bruce Almighty a first class movie takes something special.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    4. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not admitting it, it's shouting it from the rooftops. Why the hell should they care? As the MP/RIAA apologists keep pointing out, it's not about what's right, it's about what's legal. As Palestine isn't recognised as a state, it can't sign up to the Berne Convention, and so the MP/RIAA can go screw themselves.

      The cause might be to get the MP/RIAA to strongarm the Whitehouse into accelerating the creation of a Palestinian state, so that they can start taxing it. It'd be a roundabout route, but, hey, money means a lot more in world politics than principles.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, just a really big dick.

      Ras Kabir is not his real name, nobody would name their kid Ras Kabir.

      Ras Kabir translates to: Big Head

    6. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      more than that it seems to even work(educational testing).

      they could use some help on video encoding options though. the films are like vhs..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Frodrick · · Score: 1
      OMG! It's what I call a man who has BALLS!!

      That just gives the RIAA (or the Israelis) a really good place to kick him.

    8. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to be outdone, Kazaa is out to prove that they have bigger balls by declaring "Gigli" a first-class movie.

    9. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Abm0raz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Normally I would joke about something like this, but ... well, ok, I'll still joke about something like this.

      Way to go, **AA. Hope you got bomb sniffing equipment outside your buildings. We all know what happens when you piss off the Palestinians. KA-BOOM!!!! That is one terrorist bombing I don't know that I'd feel angry about (as long as they didn't get any hapless civilians walking past outside or any protesters busy pissing on the doors in protest).

      -Ab

      --
      Nothing fails quite like prayer.
    10. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And from this mans blog :

      So I just tried installing ES5 on my Windows machine. The first thing
      it did is attempt to connect to an IP in the Gaza Strip. The
      administrator for that IP block is someone with an earthstationv.com
      email address. Then my keylogger warning program popped up and
      complained that the program had attempted to hook to my keyboard. I
      killed it, and ran an uninstall. The uninstall failed because some of
      its DLL's were still 'in use' despite no matching processes. I rebooted
      and was able to do a successful uninstall manually. Afterwards, I
      checked my registry and removed a fresh entry from "Intertrust," a
      company that makes DRM software.

      Overall, an entertaining experience.

    11. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Jonner · · Score: 1

      You see all kinds of odd quotes in sigs on Slashdot, but I never thought I'd see the Bunny Song.

    12. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Knowing our government, they will probably just choose to help increase the defacto ethnic cleansing being carried out in Palestine, as opposed to creating an official Palestinian state.

      Why take the long process of taking some guy to court, when you can just kill him and everyone that works for him?

    13. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Foxnews has trained you well.

    14. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Hey, it was a great movie!

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    15. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by promethean_spark · · Score: 1

      All your base are belong to us!

    16. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      I'm doin' it for my mom.

    17. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keylogging, eh? Sounds like a terrorist plot to me.

    18. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Snaller · · Score: 1

      OMG! It's what I call a man who has BALLS!!

      For brains?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    19. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a coincidence. I'm doin' it to your mom.

    20. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post is a troll, there is no proof or whatever. I suggest moderators install it and test as I did with ipsniffing tools etc.. The software installs clean there is no spyware.. also the install is clean. What this person might not know is that cause the software runs as a service you need to reboot after installing to completely the dll removals.

    21. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this person might not know is that (be)cause the software runs as a service you need to reboot after installing to completely the dll removals.

      Dynamically linked services can and must uninstall without the need for a reboot. If it does require a reboot, then it means that either the service cannot complete its shutdown (and thus remains in the memory) or it does something funny with system dlls. Either way it's suspiciuos.

    22. Re:Extracts from ES5 press release by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Even if there is no spyware, the interface sucks.

      It does not (as Kazaa does) tell us how many people are currently on-line. They claim 15,000,000 (whereas Kazaa routinely has about 3,000,000 at any given time) -- but no proof.

      It requires reboots to install and uninstall. This is going overboard -- ZoneAlarm installs a service, and does not require rebooting after installation.

      I set it to put my files (both incoming and shared) on my G: drive, and it's downloading to my K: drive (where the OS is installed). The G: drive have 6 GB free so it can hold a few movies -- but the K: drive only has 80 MB free, so it's going to fill up in a few minutes and I'll let you know how it handles the error condition.

      I don't see a whole lot of content on the system, either. (I wouldn't be surprised if I had been keylogged. Good thing I run ZoneAlarm!)

      Well, I didn't wait for it to fill up the drive as it started to slow down after a period of time. So I exited it, uninstalled it, then ran Ad-Aware. Lo and behold, Ad-Aware found some spyware.

      Mostly it was "navexcel" which I don't know much about but here are some links: PestPatrol knows about it; there's a forum discussing it, and another here ; and perhaps more but I couldn't find them...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  9. That's probably why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Israel bombed Gaza, they just needed a scapegoat...

  10. Earthstation5's motivation by GreenJeepMan · · Score: 1

    I'm a little worried about what their motivation is. Do they see themselves as an Anti-American group? Or do they actually plan to make a profit out of Illegal movies?

    1. Re:Earthstation5's motivation by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      How can they be "Illegal"? Palestine isn't recognised as a state, so it can't sign up to the Berne Convention, and so all of those "Illegal" movies are just bunches of 1's and 0's as far as any international law is concerned.

      If it were recognised as a state, it could sign up, and the MP/RIAA could start taxing it.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  11. Oy. by NaugaHunter · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's all we need. The MPAA and RIAA getting involved in the Middle East. I wonder if Big Oil will like the competition.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    1. Re:Oy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's all we need. The MPAA and RIAA getting involved in the Middle East. I wonder if Big Oil will like the competition.

      Don't laugh too hard. I wonder how much pull the MPAA/RIAA has in Washington... back channels, perhaps? With Israeli bulldozers regularly mowing down the houses of suspected terrorists, I can imagine ES5's offices being-- uh-- mistakenly targeted. Granted, it's not clear how much pull Washington has with Israel these days, but stranger things have happened.

    2. Re:Oy. by sharkey · · Score: 1
      I wonder if Big Oil will like the competition.

      Why don't you ask? Try president@whitehouse.gov

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Oy. by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Great, now we'll get suicide bombers in Hollywood, and Girls Gone Wild will release the video.

    4. Re:Oy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say that like it's a bad thing.

    5. Re:Oy. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Hollywood has, or had in the past, tremendous leverage with the Israeli government. I'm not quite sure how that applies currently, or whether it extends to the ??AA.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Oy. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Maybe the **AA will get tied up for a few years, looking for those hidden Weapons of Mass Downloading ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  12. Palestine? by BTWR · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Do they mean Palestine, Texas... or Palestine, West Virginia?

    Wait! Maybe they mean the middle-eastern country "Palestine" that the Jordanians and Egyptians gave to their Arab brothers when they controlled 100% of Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem from 1948-1967.

    (oh, wait a second, that never happened...)

    1. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they mean the Palestine whose ongoing suppression directly led to 9/11.

      "Think about it, punk motherfucker" - NWA

    2. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they mean the Palestine whose ongoing suppression directly led to 9/11.

      By whom? Israel or their arab "brothers". Or is it ok to suppress Palestinians as long as you're not Israeli.

    3. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they mean Palestine, Texas... or Palestine, West Virginia?
      I believe that's Palestine, Uranus.

      signed,
      Your Anus.

    4. Re:Palestine? by DebianDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well that working out well for them. There are more Americans up their ass now then ever before. Plus, about 100,000 right next store in Iraq.

      Oh, and Palestine is NOT a country.

      Here is some good info for you
      --

      Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands, his response was "It's our land."

      Here are overlooked facts in the current Middle East situation. These were compiled by a Christian university professor.

      Nationhood and Jerusalem

      1. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

      2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

      3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E., the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

      4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

      5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their
      capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

      6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

      7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

      8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

      Arab and Jewish Refugees:

      9. In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

      10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and programs.

      11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

      12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

      The Arab - Israeli Conflict:

      13. The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended its self each time and won.

      14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

      15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

      The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs:

      16. of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

      17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

      18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

      19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

      20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and Wall.

      These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role shou

    5. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot how jews thought they could pull a fast one on the roman empire and got asskicked and scattered eventually around the world.

      and fuck, 70% of western countries are on 'invaded' land.

    6. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By whom? Israel or their arab "brothers". Or is it ok to suppress Palestinians as long as you're not Israeli.

      WTF are you talking about? Israelis are the party most involved in supressing Palestianians. And yes, it's not okay.

    7. Re:Palestine? by gspr · · Score: 1

      1. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

      Oh come on, we all know that it isn't that easy! If it were, why haven't the US, Canada and Mexico returned North America to the natives yet? I mean, they were there for a much longer time before the Europeans came, than the jews were in the middle east before the birth of Islam!

    8. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These were compiled by a Christian university professor.

      Wow, real credible source. A "Christian university professor" -- why not a TV evangelist?

      Why should I believe anything a Bible-believing, "Christ isn't coming back until the Jews rebuild the temple" cultist says?

    9. Re:Palestine? by hoofie · · Score: 1
      Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

      Its is indirectly :

      We read: " . . . They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qibla), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other's dixrection of prayer... "(Koran, Sura 2:145, "The Cow")
      All Koranic commentators explain that "thy qibla" is obviously the Kaaba of Mecca, while "their qibla" refers to the Temple Area in Jerusalem.

      Also :

      Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

      See the paragraph above : Muslims face towards Makkah to pray - in some parts of the world south of Makkah they may indeed be pointing towards Jerusalem.

    10. Re:Palestine? by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Oh, and Palestine is NOT a country.

      I know. I was being sarcastic - i.e. "Isn't Palestine the country that is apparently SO desired by the arab world that they MUST have made it when it was 100% in their power to do so when they controlled ALL the land in question from 1948-1967?"

    11. Re:Palestine? by wayward_son · · Score: 1

      Hey, maybe we could give them West Virginia.

      Not too bad of a place to live and the locals are leaving the place in droves.

    12. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are all fucking nut's. Stop staring at the sun and smoking cow shit. Get a job, hug a kid, christ. Oh wait, thats the guy who started it all.

    13. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them."

      Although i agree with most of the statements made in your post you have to realize that If someone is given something with conditions and limitations placed on it then it isn't truly theirs. What is freedom if you're not free. Entire books have been written for both sides of this debate and all that can really be said is that the current situation in Israel had been poorly managed and will continue to be until a time that both sides are willing to grow up and quit bitching about religion and focus on more important things that no amount of faith will fix.

    14. Re:Palestine? by operagost · · Score: 1
      Because it's true?

      Why don't you look it up if you're interested in the truth? Or do you prefer to spit your AC venom all over and accomplish nothing?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      95% of what you said is complete BS. Not to mention the information that you chose to leave out. I would elaborate, but it is a waste of time to inform people who do not wish to be informed. And if you want credibility, try referencing credible sources, rather than *no* sources. All I see when I look at Isreal today is Rasicm and Tribalism. As a matter of fact, that pretty much describes everywhere.

    16. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's true? Why don't you look it up if you're interested in the truth?

      Hey, even L. Ron Hubbard said some things that were true. Doesn't mean I swallow his dreck, hook, line and sinker.

      A "Christian professor" has a vested interest in promoting the Israeli side, because he believes that Israel taking over and rebuilding the temple will eventually lead to the Second Coming of Christ.

      That's why his list of "research" is designed to show that the land REALLY DOES *cough* belong to the Jews.

    17. Re:Palestine? by incom · · Score: 1

      And it really sucks that I have to post this as AC. Damn I never have mod points when I need them.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    18. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an exceedingly biased and actually on many points downright false description of the whole state of affairs. It contains quotes from biased people that don't mean anything, and misleading numbers. Fair enough, you support Israel. This isn't a forum for propaganda (and that's what it is) about Israel.

    19. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Israel became a nation in 1513 B.C.E., when Moses led them out of Egypt. They conquered the "Promised Land" about 40 years later, in about 1473 B.C.E. They were eventually conquered by the Babylonians(Chaldeans) in 607 B.C.E., giving a total of 866 years in power.

      They were restored to their land in 537 B.C.E., but were always subject to a much stronger nation from then on, starting with Medo-Persia.

      In 66 C.E., the Roman armies under Cestius Gallus marched on Jerusalem and almost took the city, undermining the wall as far as setting foot on the temple grounds. Then the Romans left, for no immediately apparent reason. This riled the Jews up to a patriotic fervor and they stayed that way until 70 C.E. In that year, General Titus led a Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem. All records of who was or was not a "real" Jew were destroyed. The last remaining records were kept at Masada, which fell to the Romans a year or so later. In Jerusalem, "not a stone remained upon a stone." And the Jews ceased to be, since they could no longer prove their lineage.

      The people claiming that land right now cannot prove that they are descendants of Abraham. They are Jews by their own claim only. They can't claim that that land is theirs any more than the Arabs can claim it's theirs.

    20. Re:Palestine? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

      That's a rather asinine statement, you know. Muslims pray facing Mecca. The only Muslims who pray with their backs to Jerusalem are the ones who live between the two cities.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    21. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any true christian knows that "the second coming of christ" has already happened.

      He said he would be coming back the same way he left, which was with only a few faithful followers looking on. It happened in 1914, while everyone else was watching the world prove just how much we all need God's Kingdom.

    22. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Israelis are the party most involved in supressing Palestianians. And yes, it's not okay.

      Palestianians have been treated as third-class citizens by their arab brothers for hundreds of years (and still treated as such in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc). It wasn't until Israel came along that, suddenly, these poor, mistreated people had to be given their own country (translation: they are a convenient stick to beat Israel with).

      I can't condone Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Israel (or visa versa), but I think it's hypocritical to ignore their treatment as third-class citizens in other arab countries. Especially when those same countries encourage Palestinian terrorism and condemn Israel for the same treatment of the Palestinians.

    23. Re:Palestine? by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Ancient history doesn't matter as to determining whose land that is. Palestine was to become a country as a result of the Ottoman Empire dissolving (after losing WWI) and the British tried to give it part of it over to the would be Palistinians. The Israeli's declared independance and illegally took it over. This is from the UN's history of the Palestine problem. There are many sources that show how Palestine was supposed to be a larger state than just the West Bank and Gaza strip. Why is this even an arguement?

      These aren't incredible times. This has been going on since the beginning of the last century.

      We should ask what our roll should be, but it's important to know what our role has been.

      --
      -no broken link
    24. Re:Palestine? by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1
      Wait! Maybe they mean the middle-eastern country "Palestine" that the Jordanians and Egyptians gave to their Arab brothers when they controlled 100% of Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem from 1948-1967.

      Well, certainly Israel wasn't in control of those lands prior to 1948, and it was in fact a largely palestinian area.
    25. Re:Palestine? by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      You really expect some "christian professor at some college" to realise this? It's just religious propaganda.

    26. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do they mean Palestine, Texas... or Palestine, West Virginia?

      That was my first thought exactly. Besides the handful of cities in the U.S. called Palestine, there is no other legal entity in the world with that name.

    27. Re:Palestine? by Dagum · · Score: 1

      I can't say for a fact that _everything_ you wrote is a lie, but I didn't have to read very far at all to realize I needed to read no further.

      Of note: The night of Muhammad's revelation included a trip which took him to Jerusalem.

      Only Muslims positioned between Jerusalem and Mecca actually face away from Jerusalem when praying.

      At the beginning of the 20th century, the Jewish population of "Transjordan" (not "Israel") was somewhere around 1%. The rest were primarily Christian and Muslim Arabs.

      During British occupation, after the Ottoman Empire, the area was not known as "Israel" but as "Transjordan."

      Please inform yourself and stop sending your apocalyptic misinformation. Jesus did not preach peace for everyone but Jews and Christians.

    28. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't condone Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Israel (or visa versa), but I think it's hypocritical to ignore their treatment as third-class citizens in other arab countries. Especially when those same countries encourage Palestinian terrorism and condemn Israel for the same treatment of the Palestinians."

      I think it's all pretty funny, so I can't lose.

    29. Re:Palestine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's all pretty funny, so I can't lose.

      Black humor, surely.

  13. ho hum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like Arabs like American big business anyway. The language of 'declaring war' on American interests isn't too new for the region either.

    I just can't figure out whether they are trolling for publicity or really mean it...

  14. Kicked off the Internet?? by lone_marauder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy's talking about being barred from use of the Internet as a result of a DMCA subpoena. WTF? Is this sensationalism or is there legal basis for this claim?

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    1. Re:Kicked off the Internet?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article, his ISP disabled his account.

    2. Re:Kicked off the Internet?? by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      I did read the article. Legally barred from using the Internet != having your particular ISP cancel your account, unless it's the only ISP available to him.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    3. Re:Kicked off the Internet?? by pilot1 · · Score: 1

      I know Un-Thesis, and I haven't had any contact with him, whatsoever since this was posted on xmule.org.

      What I understand, from the article, is that his ISP shut down his connection, because of the subopeana. I don't think anyone has specifically told him he couldn't use the internet, but that's the conclusion he drew from having his internet service shut down, and talking with his ISP.

      Either way, he still can't get on the internet, until he's able to find out what's going on, or get a new ISP.

  15. no links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how prnewswire.com 'avoided' linking to the sites they were discussing.

  16. Correction.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, a developer of another P2P tool who unwisely chose to live in the USA has been shut down (mirror) by the RIAA.

    More like, the developer has been shut down by slashdot

  17. Ironic.... by argoff · · Score: 1

    The terrorist wannabes are attacking people in a country known to harbor terrorists.

    Perhaps the MPAA/RIAA are just jealous.

  18. Advantage to living in Palestine! by siskbc · · Score: 1

    Hard to say anything. They didn't sign any international copyright agreements. And I think Israel's a little to busy with Hamas currently to do anyhing about file traders.

    Viva la es5!

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  19. It's Idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, there is a problem with digital rights management. Yes, Hollywood DOES have the right to make money. No, you do NOT have the right to broadcast their copyrighted info, and even the most fanatical, devoted, peer to peer sharing folks will agree.

    Why exactly is this on slashdot? It's not a freedom movement. In no way can it be given a good slant. It's out-and-out copyright infringement. Period.

    Even the most cockeyed activists have to see that far from making Hollywood "wakeup", this kind of thing is going to give them the ammunition they need to get more draconian laws passed in congress.

    Moronic.

    1. Re:It's Idiotic. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have the right to do anything you want until the state takes that right away. The ES5 live in a country where american copyright is not recognized. You may argue that what they are doing is unethical. You might have a point, law does not dictate morality.

      Now users of this software may be be breaking the law, but I would argue that they are doing nothing unethical. After all law does not dictate morality.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:It's Idiotic. by wheeda · · Score: 1

      Yup, it is legally copyright infrigement. The issue is that none (very few...) of us accept the laws. Maybe once the US rolls back the copyright laws, and maybe IP laws in general, to a more reasonable time period and interpertation of fair use, there won't be so many techno heads running around sticking thier touges out at the RIAA/MPAA.

    3. Re:It's Idiotic. by Dunark · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...Yes, Hollywood DOES have the right to make money. ...

      No they don't. They have the right to TRY to make money by making movies that people want to see. They have no right to expect a profit if they make crap, no matter how much they spend making the crap.

    4. Re:It's Idiotic. by Kaa · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Yes, Hollywood DOES have the right to make money.

      Really? A RIGHT to make money? How do I get one of those?

      Hollywood (just like everybody else) has a right to TRY to make money. It goes hand-in-hand with the right to fail miserably.

      Yes, it's illegal to publish copyrighted material on P2P networks if you don't have proper license/permission. So what? Jaywalking is illegal, too. So is speeding. So is not paying state's sales tax on stuff bought mail-order. And your point is?

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    5. Re:It's Idiotic. by aeoo · · Score: 1

      "Yes, Hollywood DOES have the right to make money."

      Ah, yes... Sure thing. Please explain to me (and to a homeless guy on the street) how making money is a right .

    6. Re:It's Idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're doing the RIGHT thing. They're sticking it to the corps, and refusing to suck their dicks. WTG.

    7. Re:It's Idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what the difference between a Lawyer and a common person is? A lawyer will hang on the meaning of every word, and argue that point. A common person will take the INTENT of a statement, and accept it.

      OF course I didn't mean they have the RIGHT to make money. They have the RIGHT to try, and the RIGHT to expect that their PRODUCT isn't taken and given away for free.

      There Mr. Lawyer boy. Is that better?

    8. Re:It's Idiotic. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " No, you do NOT have the right to broadcast their copyrighted info"

      ummm, depends. It is in the USA because of our law, however if Another country does not have copyright law, or it is differently, then they are committing no crime. The US congress applies to the USofA.

      "and even the most fanatical, devoted, peer to peer sharing folks will agree."
      our you dim, or just stupid? clearly e5 does not agree and I would certianlly qualify them as fanatical, devoted, peer to peer sharers.

      then there is the ol' tea/harbor anology.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:It's Idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ammunition they need to get more draconian laws passed in congress"

      Proposal: The MPAA would like to propose annexation of the west bank and Gaza strip for the purposes of removing piracy that can destroy the families of hardworking Hollywood peons.

      Y'know, I suspect that the war on drugs might be successful without Hollywood...

    10. Re:It's Idiotic. by enkidu55 · · Score: 1

      No 20 million dollars a movie is idiotic. Just like 252 million dollars to hit a ball with a stick is idiotic. Just like George Bush is idiotic.

      How much is enough? When does it stop?

      You are idiotic

    11. Re:It's Idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a corporation, it's unethical to it's very roots. i see stealing it's "property" as far less of a crime than the exploitation of the workers, artists and the consumers

    12. Re:It's Idiotic. by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      My variants of Kaa's law are:

      Theorem: People are idiots
      Corrolary: I hate people

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    13. Re:It's Idiotic. by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, if societal morals went up a notch and we actually respected people's right to their property, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. It's people who trumpet their kleptomaniacal desires for every CD or movie out there that cause media execs to regard filesharing as a threat to their revenue, or to implement DRM laws to protect that revenue.

      Theft is theft, and trying to make theft legal by saying "everyone is doing it" or "it's just for evaluation purposes" or "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is evidence of moral bankruptcy.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    14. Re:It's Idiotic. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Or, perhaps, if societal morals went up a notch and we actually respected people's right to their property

      What do you mean? I respect people's property. I just don't like people telling me what I can do with MY property (as long as I'm not hurting anyone else with it).

      Here's a clue, although you seem to be fairly brainwashed: intellectual property _isn't_.

    15. Re:It's Idiotic. by ksheff · · Score: 1

      They have the RIGHT to try, and the RIGHT to expect that their PRODUCT isn't taken and given away for free.

      Yep. Ask the CEO of Spyglass about that. Moral of the story: get all of the money up front from Microsoft.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    16. Re:It's Idiotic. by fermion · · Score: 1
      Hollywood DOES have the right to make money

      To an extent, a person in the U.S. is given the right to try to pursue the making of his or her fortune. This is often misconstrued as the right to make money, which is totally untrue.

      For instance, a person has every right to sit on a corner a wash windows for money. Such a person does not right to expect people to stop and actually pay for service. Likewise, the state has the right to take that opportunity away if it enough people complain. The same is true for any shop on main street. They have right to try to push a product or service or whatever. No one has a responsibility to do trade with them, and the state has a right to disallow trade if norms are not met.

      And your statement even goes on further to an assumption that many wish to make, but is not at all clearly a norm. Specifically, that a fictitious legal entity has a right to try to make a fortune. That is a dangerous assumption that has deep implications in the morality of responsibility.

      The right of the opportunity to make money is considered a basic human right. It is the right for persons to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their families. The copyright laws are clearly a derivative of these basic rights, but are themselves fictional constructs that are increasingly being utilized to benefit other fictional constructs rather than to meet basic human needs. As such, if the laws no longer meet the needs of the real and tangible populous, but only the needs of the fictional entities, perhaps such laws are best ignored.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    17. Re:It's Idiotic. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Given the actions of the MP & RI AA, I will weep bitter salty tears about them being so abused.

      While I figure out whether to write a letter of congratulations.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:It's Idiotic. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Why exactly is this on slashdot? It's not a freedom movement. In no way can it be given a good slant. It's out-and-out copyright infringement. Period.

      No, not period. Its an encroachment on human rights and freedoms.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    19. Re:It's Idiotic. by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Insults. Always the way to make your weak argument appear to have some validity. Don't worry, lots of people do it. I'm happy to know that I bothered trying to reason with your idea of logic.

      I recognize a difference between telling someone how to use their property and telling someone that they can't give away pristine copies of their property for free.

      Consider:

      If I have (a legally purchased copy of) the LOTR:FOTR DVD set and want to watch it under Windows or Linux, nobody should have the authority to tell me that I can't watch it under Linux. This is the "how to use" distinction that I make. I'm sitting in my chair, minding my own business, violating no laws by watching it in the privacy of my home, whether on a computer or in a DVD home entertainment system.

      If I decide to make copies of the same DVD set as backups and store them in my house in case the original goes bad, I still haven't caused anyone harm (and I'm legally allowed to do so since it is simply space-shifting the copy for archival purposes).

      If, having made those copies, I then offer them to anybody who wants a copy, I'm engaging in piracy (read: theft). What is the distinction? It's whether the person who created the work can profit by selling it. If he can't sell copies because a pirate is giving them away for free, he is definitely suffering a loss from income that he would have received if piracy wasn't an option.

      Consider another example. Suppose that you buy a BMW. Now, for example's sake, let's suppose you have a replicating machine that will make copies of anything you want. You set up shop and start cloning your BMW. Then you start giving your BMWs away for free (or charging nominal fees for them). Don't you think that BMW would consider the act theft because you are taking away their market with pristine copies of their product?

      You can deny if you like (in my experience, denial and justification are always used as a conscience salve for people who know what they are doing is wrong), but the fact of the matter is that depriving someone of their livelihood is theft. It's no different than if I make a clone of you, send it to your job, and collect its earnings.

      However, much as I hope you get the point, you've probably decided that your lack of morals are superior to what you perceive as my being "brainwashed".

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    20. Re:It's Idiotic. by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Of course, now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't be trying to reason with a "31337 h4x0r" like yourself that thinks it's "k3w1" to "mIx cAsEs". It's like trying to explain advanced algorithm analysis to a 4th grader...

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    21. Re:It's Idiotic. by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      Excelent proposal!
      MPAA: Take! TAKE! PLEASE TAKE!
      On behalf of the state of Israel, I GIVE!

      And Ummm... Could we have California in return?

      --
      -
    22. Re:It's Idiotic. by borgasm · · Score: 1

      The law absolutely dictates morality...

      It shouldn't, but it does:

      Abortions, marijuana (or weed as those crazy kids call it), gay marriage, even the school system.

      Somebody has a sig "Once something has been approved by the government, it is no longer immoral"

    23. Re:It's Idiotic. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      It's whether the person who created the work can profit by selling it. If he can't sell copies because a pirate is giving them away for free, he is definitely suffering a loss from income that he would have received if piracy wasn't an option.

      In the absence of copyright law, trying to make money by selling easily-copied data would be called a poor business model. It is only the artificial scarcity imposed by copyright law (and other "intellectual property" protections) that gives people the ability to force other people to give them money for repeated copies of information. Without such enforcement, people would actually have to make money the honest way: by providing goods & services for customers.

      Consider another example. Suppose that you buy a BMW. Now, for example's sake, let's suppose you have a replicating machine that will make copies of anything you want. You set up shop and start cloning your BMW. Then you start giving your BMWs away for free (or charging nominal fees for them). Don't you think that BMW would consider the act theft because you are taking away their market with pristine copies of their product?

      They might call it "theft", but they would be wrong. I would call it competition, and it would be their job to figure out how to make a product that people would want to buy instead of mine. I would hazard a guess that they would probably want to know how I was cloning their cars, since it would reduce their manufacturing costs quite a bit.

      You can deny if you like (in my experience, denial and justification are always used as a conscience salve for people who know what they are doing is wrong), but the fact of the matter is that depriving someone of their livelihood is theft.

      Ah, so the all the car manufacturers were thieves when they deprived the buggy manufacturers of their livelihood. Somehow I doubt they thought of themselves that way.

      However, much as I hope you get the point, you've probably decided that your lack of morals are superior to what you perceive as my being "brainwashed".

      No, I've pretty much concluded that my viewpoint is more rational than yours. Nothing to do with morals.

      Oh yeah, I'm sure you felt quite smug putting together a jab at my alias, defining me as some kind of script kiddy-type. I _was_ a young kid when I started using that alias, ever since the 'net was only at about 300 hosts, but that was a _long_ time ago. Based on your resume, our work & educational experiences seem to be around the same time periods, therefore we are probably pretty close in ages. I keep using it because a lot of my online associates are familiar with it (and yes, for a bit of nostalgia).

    24. Re:It's Idiotic. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I smoke pot every day. Does that make me a bad person? No, what would make me a bad person is to give up my own conscience and let the state decide for me. Sadly, there are a lot of people who do this.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  20. RIAA/MPAA edits other companies's P.R. now? by kindbud · · Score: 3, Informative

    No other press releases that I can find on prnewswire.com have had their company website URL link made inactive. Looks like the MPAA/RIAA can strongarm Prnewswire to remove what they allege are offending links from press releases, even if its a corporate website.

    Watch out Apple, your press releases may be next to have links disabled.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
    1. Re:RIAA/MPAA edits other companies's P.R. now? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

      Had the ??AA really tried, they could have said "here's a nickel, now nuke that press release off the prnewswire web site" to the right person. Now, it looks like some poor fool forgot to check the links. On a plain text document.

      After all, if ??AA just tried to mess up the links instead of removing them, what would they gain? You don't exactly need to be a rocket scientist to fix the URL or type "earth station 5" to Google...

  21. RIAA and the legality of filesharing. by rkz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Portable MP3/Ogg players get better every year. While I was searching the internet for a suitable present to give my SO, I have considered purchasing an iPod for my SO, what brought it to my attention was that it costs the same as a Ruger .357. Both are lovely little pieces of engineering although with a bit of thought I realised both are bad things, instead I decided to put down my first down payment on a BMW X5. Back to the iPod, is this device legal? Will those of us who use it bring the wrath of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) down on our heads like a corporate version of Maxwell's Silver Hammer?

    Music is a creative process. Today, when a musician publishes music, i.e., exposes it to the outside world, only a privileged set of individuals are able to use the music as they please (RIAA). However, the artist has drawn from the creativity of many other musicians and there is an existential responsibility placed upon them to give this back unconditionally, so creativity is fostered among people. This is why peoples using music how they like is imperative.

    Consider: RIAA-bought legislators are trying to get insane bills made into law. Whether or not they succeed, there are plenty of confusing copyright protection regulations out there already, and the latest tactic the music industry is using in its attempt to slow the death of their obsolete business model is to target individual users, not just commercial CD duplicators or large-scale file-sharing networks.

    There seems to be this big RIAA push to outlaw all devices that facilitate file copying. Computer operating systems, for example, all have ways to copy files, and all those new little USB memory devices are certainly handy places to stash files and give you an easy way to move them from one computer to another, even if neither computer is hooked to the Internet or a LAN.

    And then there's that MP3/Ogg player. My SO has many years' worth of legally-purchased CDs, and loves the idea of being able to transfer the music on them to a small solid-state device instead of using a portable CD player and lugging stacks of CDs everywhere. But would my Stevie suddenly become a criminal if he started ripping all his CDs?

    Apparently not. Yet. It seems the recording industry powers-that-be haven't gotten around to suing customers who transfer music (that they've paid for) from one medium to another to make personal use more convenient. But will this largesse on their part continue? Could my SO be at the beach one day and find himself tossed in the back of a police car if he has music in his possession for which he has no receipt on his person?

    (Yes, this is one of those "slippery slope" arguments, and the idea of an innocent music fan getting arrested is as farfetched as the ideas of copyright terms getting extended by Congress every time Disney?s copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire.)

    But it looks like the RIAA is now going after music fans who share as few as five songs with friends over the Internet.

    What if my SO hands his headphones to a young friend who may not have heard a piece of 'classic rock' he enjoys? What if he shares five songs with ten friends at a party? What if he makes a compilation CD full of MP3 or Ogg Vorbis files for a friend by using a 'copyright circumvention device' like, say, his laptop computer? So far, the nasty old Internet hasn't come into play. But if my SO emails those same files to a few friends, is he suddenly a pirate?

    I have given up trying to sort out all this music filesharing stuff. The only 100% safe solution I've come up with is to avoid owning any music whatsoever produced by RIAA member companies. If you look around a little, you can find plenty of interesting pieces, in almost all genres, sold directly by the artists or by small recording companies that aren't trying to make trouble for their customers.

    Hopefully you'll take similar steps yourself to eliminate the risk of being arrested by the FBI or other law enf

    1. Re:RIAA and the legality of filesharing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting story the first time I read it in the last RIAA article.

    2. Re:RIAA and the legality of filesharing. by JudicatorX · · Score: 1

      I thought I'd seen this comment before somewhere...

      --
      "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
    3. Re:RIAA and the legality of filesharing. by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1

      Nice try, jackass. You just copied an article written by Robin "Roblimo" Miller, almost word for word. Is slashdot-karma so important to you that you have to plagiarize? Welcome to the world of Google.

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  22. And guess who? by sjwt · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Earthstation 5 is at war with the Motion Picture Association of America
    (MPAA) and the Record Association of America (RIAA),"

    IMHO Earthstaion 5 hasnt declared war,
    they are formalising it, the war has
    been on for years now.

    I dont suport ppl braking copyright laws,
    but i hate companys that dont allow
    there arhived copyrighted matrial to be
    bought...

    what is the point of having copyright and
    sueing left right and center and yet not
    makeing it avaible for purches at a resonable
    price..

    some companys out there want top $ for
    products 20+ years old, even anchent
    computer games and the like, it sickens me.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  23. Over Trekked? by LordYUK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "...Resistance is futile and we are now in control."

    Someone has been watching too many Star Trek reruns...

    So if P2P is the Borg, does that make the federation the future of the RIAA/MPAA??

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  24. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've just had a chat with George III (you probably didn't know he's still alive) and he had just read your post and thoroughly agrees. "So-called "America" will never exist until Samuel Adams and his cronies stop killing innocent civilians" he told me.

    Ironically, he said this while we were both drinking Sam's delicious Boston Ale.

  25. Won't last long. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIAA will send a suicide bomber to their front door and end the argument. Anything can be bought for enough money.

  26. New HTTP error message by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Funny
    Earth Station 5 is spyware free, adware free and contains no popups and/or annoying advertising. Earth Station 5 is located both in Gaza and in the Jenin Refugee Camp of Palestine.

    HTTP error 506:

    Server has been ran over by an Israeli tank.

    1. Re:New HTTP error message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a different error #: M1A1

    2. Re:New HTTP error message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTTP Error 507: Server shorted out by blood splattered from 5-year-old child riding in exploding school bus.

    3. Re:New HTTP error message by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      that's not the real server, the real server is www.es5.com(the first link on that page links there). and they have naked news for free!!! and without slashdot i would've never known.. ;)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:New HTTP error message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      HTTP error 506:
      Server has been ran over by an Israeli tank.

      That would be HTTP Error 23
    5. Re:New HTTP error message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good call! ;-)

    6. Re:New HTTP error message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was truly lame.

    7. Re:New HTTP error message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      HTTP error 506:

      Server has been ran over by an Israeli tank

      Ho ho ho, that's almost as funny as this one. I recieved it on 9/11 when I was trying to access a server at the top of the world trade center

      HTTP error 578: Server overheated due to burning jet fuel. Please contact network administrator. Oh wait, he's been incinerated.

      You crazy yanks. You get to witness the greatest piece of performance art that we have ever seen and you don't even appreciate it. What a bunch of philistines.

  27. Copyright treaties in occupied countries by dowobeha · · Score: 5, Interesting
    OK, so here's a question for you....

    Most countries are signatories to one or more copyright treaties that commit them to recognizing and protecting international copyrights. They are therefore more or less prohibited from allowing the explicit breach of copyright declared in this PR release.

    But who is responsible for enforcing copyright in an occupied country? Palestine has been recognized by the UN as an occupied territory, with Israel as the occupying power. With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions? Or is that for Israel to do?

    The same situation would apply, I assume, in Iraq. America is the occupying power, so I would think the same criteria should apply as in the Israel/Palestine situation. There is no true Iraqi government to enforce copyright, but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq.

    Interesting situation....

    --
    I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
    1. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq.

      If by absurd you mean brain-dead stupid, then yes that would bet he gist of it.

    2. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      I think they've got much more important things to worry about in Palestine than copyright violations. Heck, getting through the day without a suicide bombing or tank & missile attack should be considered a major success.

      As for Iraq, I think existing Iraqi law is still in place, administered by the vestiges of civil infrastructure still remaining...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by NagaNine · · Score: 0

      RIAA/MPAA should go after the ISP and cut off ES5.COM air supply.

    4. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by dowobeha · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree! There are much more important issues to be dealt with. But I still wonder who, if anyone, is responsible for such matters in Palestine - Israel or the Palestinian Administration?

      --
      I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
    5. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by DingoBueno · · Score: 0

      IANA Jew, and maybe this is flamebait, but I think we're talking about two *totally* different things here. I bet nobody is responsible for protecting fucking copyright in Palestine. I think they're all a little busy with exploding buses, suicide bombers at Sbarro, and destroying Isreali towns. Something tells me this guy at ES5 is not afraid of a subpoena. He probably wishes he could afford a vacation to US federal prison.

      I really hope nobody is suggesting that the US military sacrifice thousands of lives so Lars Ulrich can buy another house, but I'll bet that the RIAA has at least mentioned it in a board meeting. And when the day comes that the MPAA dispatches troops I know I'll be giving up my citizenship.

      International copyright is the absolute last thing that should ever be addressed in this situation. I think I'd take it on the chin if I wrote a song and somebody in Palestine listened to it without paying me.

      Nothing against the parent, but it disturbs me that this subject even came up. If it's posted here, you can be sure that somebody with a lot of power is thinking the same thing...

      --
      ascii art
    6. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well te occupying country is ultimately responsible for Law, Order and Justice in the occupied country.

      However they can delegate authority to the local government (If the local government accepts it), but if the local government fails, it is the occupier who is ultimately responsible.

      So yeah if Israel and the PA could decide that the PA shall handle such issues, or not.

      In either case ultimately Israel is responsible.

      Anyway, there are MUCH larger issues at hand.

    7. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Jagasian · · Score: 1
      I bet nobody is responsible for protecting fucking copyright in Palestine. I think they're all a little busy with exploding buses, suicide bombers at Sbarro, and destroying Isreali towns. Something tells me this guy at ES5 is not afraid of a subpoena. He probably wishes he could afford a vacation to US federal prison.


      Uh dude, there aren't any Nazis here, so chill out. You need to redo your google search because this isn't a neo-nazi site. Read the title, it says "News for nerds", NOT "News for Nazis".
    8. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by zx75 · · Score: 1

      An interesting question, one that I don't have an answer to.

      However I would like to point out in the occupied countries that you've mentioned, they have more pressing matters to deal with than copyright infringement. I'm pretty sure than everyone (except the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO of course) would agree that stopping ongoing murder is preferrable to stopping copyright infringement in the short term.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    9. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Jonner · · Score: 1

      These people are probably counting on the fact that both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government have bigger fish to fry than copyright infringers. They probably just expect to be ignored. Why are they openly challenging the MPAA? Do they want yet another foreign power trying to exert pressure in that part of the world? They might just get themselves blown up, since some Muslims may see them as spreading Western evil.

    10. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by superyooser · · Score: 3, Informative
      Palestine has been recognized by the UN as an occupied territory, with Israel as the occupying power.
      "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity... In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. It has also been a "conceptual" war for the ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs, whereas before 1967, 'Palestine' has always been synonomous with the land of Israel."
      - Zahir Muhsein, PLO Executive Committee member, to Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977
    11. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by volkris · · Score: 1

      Who else's laws would govern? The US has excluded the UN at every stage so far,

      Umm... that's complete nonsense...

    12. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      And of course, that one man speaks for ALL the people currently living there.

    13. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by dowobeha · · Score: 1
      This was posted by an AC and got modded down as flamebait - I think it's worth people seeing, so here's the post:

      "With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions?"

      That is a pretty good summation of the situation in Palestine in general. With little real power (and what power there is effectively being granted by an occupational force, historically a poor position for popular support), how is the Palestinian Authority supposed to enforce anything?

      "...but on the other hand it seems a bit absurd to think that American laws should govern Iraq."

      Who else's laws would govern? The US has excluded the UN at every stage so far, there's no reason to think they might start being inclusive now. On the other hand, the Berne Convention is an internationally recognized treaty regarding copyright, so the concept of copyright would still theoretically be applied by any interim administration. The devil is in the details. I said theoretically; you need electricity to run a P2P network...

      Then again, the beauty of military occupation is that you can selectively apply laws as it suits you. "That wasn't a political assasination, he was resisting arrest (looting/breaking curfew/looking at me funny). Honest!".

      Here's a troll for the conspiracy theorist neo-nazis: what if EarthStation5 is really a Mossad cover operation selectively distributing files in such a way as to shore up the Jewish dominance of the American entertainment industry by distributing non-Jewish financed productions? Its paranoid, its whacko, and you heard it here first, now flame away!

      --
      I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
    14. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Snaller · · Score: 1

      But who is responsible for enforcing copyright in an occupied country? Palestine has been recognized by the UN as an occupied territory, with Israel as the occupying power. With little real power, is the Palestinian Authority still supposed to enforce copyright restrictions? Or is that for Israel to do?

      And of course Israeal has been ignoring UN resolutions at the rate of about 1 a year for the last 30 years, so P2p should be homefree, eh?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    15. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palestine has been recognized by the UN as an occupied territory, with Israel as the occupying power.

      Ur, no, not exactly. There is no such place as "Palestine." There hasn't been since it was partitioned in 1947. (Before that it wasn't a country, but rather a British-controlled mandate of the League of Nations. Before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire.)

      What used to be the British Mandate in Palestine was partitioned into Israel and Transjordan. Israel was the Jewish state, and Transjordan was the Arab state. Transjordan consisted, as the name suggests, of both sides of the Jordan river. The nation of Jordan plus what we now call the West Bank made up Transjordan. What we now call the Gaza Strip was part of Egypt.

      Over the course of the various unsuccessful attempts on the part of the Arab states in the area to invade and occupy Israel, Israel seized the territories we now call Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan respectively. The Golan Heights were seized from Syria. These weren't acts of invasion and occupation on the part of Israel, but rather defensive actions by the IDF that pushed the attacking forces back over the previously accepted borders, establishing security buffer zones between Israel and its neighbors.

      At some point, somebody along the line decided that these territories, which were previously part of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan but now belong to Israel, should be called "Palestine." And that the people who lived there under Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian rule should be called "Palestinians."

      This is, in fact, bullshit. There has never been a nation of Palestine--nor, does it appear, will there ever be. There have never been people called Palestinians. To the extent that Palestine was a meaningful geographic division, it encompassed everything from the Mediterranean coast to the Tigris river, and from the forests of Lebanon down to the Suez. So the nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia (in tiny part) can all be considered part of "Palestine" today.

      Now, there's a political entity called the "Palestinian Authority" that nominally governs the West Bank and Gaza. That political entity, however, appears to lack either the will to enforce order or the ability to do so. So they're basically irrelevant.

      War is coming. Choose sides wisely, because there will be no neutral parties.

    16. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by superyooser · · Score: 1
      That man is Zahir Muhsein, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee (i.e. the government), which was the former incarnation of the Palestinian Authority.

      What he said is validated by history. "Palestine" had always referred to Israel. Classic usage of the term "Palestinian" was synonomous with "Jew." Go read some old newspapers or books. At first, Arabs were extremely offended when called Palestinians, because that was a name for Jews. Only when they were convinced by Muslim leaders that Palestinian nationalism could be a tool to occupy and conquer Israel did they embrace their new-found political identity. The modern "Palestinians" have no common national heritage. They are being forced to occupy parts of Israel in refugee camps by the Arab nations they came from. They are being used in the Arabs' grand anti-Israel scheme.

    17. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a troll for the conspiracy theorist neo-nazis: what if EarthStation5 is really a Mossad cover operation selectively distributing files in such a way as to shore up the Jewish dominance of the American entertainment industry by distributing non-Jewish financed productions? Its paranoid, its whacko, and you heard it here first, now flame away!

      The horrible thing is that's about the most reasonable rumor among many that people in the Middle East subscribe to. It would be tedius to get into all that blood libel and Elders of the Zion crap again.

    18. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty sickening, what you just said.

    19. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by ShinyBrowncoat · · Score: 1

      I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
      Relax, these guys aren't treating you as either: you're a first-class potential pirate to them!
      --

      "They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
    20. Re:Copyright treaties in occupied countries by mericet · · Score: 1
      IANAL:

      If it really is in Jenin, the PA is responsible for law enforcement according to the intrim oslo accords.

      Except for the occasional anti-terrorist raids, the Palestinian Authority has absolute power there.

  28. Nope.. by fault0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Their company page (http://www.es5.com/company.html) says:

    "Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim.

    Believe it or not, we all love and respect each other.

    We all work and play together. Our families on many occasions eat at the same dinner table. We trust each other and are very close friends with each other. As a group, the most important thing in our life is our children, our families and love ones and of course our friends. "

    1. Re:Nope.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Their company page (http://www.es5.com/company.html) says:

      "Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim.

      Believe it or not, we all love and respect each other.

      We all work and play together. Our families on many occasions eat at the same dinner table. We trust each other and are very close friends with each other. As a group, the most important thing in our life is our children, our families and love ones and of course our friends. "

      These craven economic terrorists must be DESTROYED!

    2. Re:Nope.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a group, the most important thing in our life is our children, our families and love ones and of course our friends.

      Bunch o' freaks! The most important things to me are my computer, my iPod, and my broadband connection.

      Those crazy palestinians ;- )

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Nope.. by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim. Our families on many occasions eat at the same dinner table."

      So... how hard would it be to find a group like with a t3 line in a refugee camp?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  29. Cuts both ways by cyranoVR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IMO The Earthstation 5 dudes are pretty arogant and naive to to think that their foreign location prevents the RIAA from taking action. Since they are in Palestine and outside the US borders, I would imagine that the RIAA has a carte blanch to unleash mercenary hackers/crackers upon their servers. I really doubt the Israeli gov't will do anything to protect them.

    And now that I think about it...Israeli-US relations...bulldozers...the apache strike-helicopters are probably powering up even as I write this.

    Provided this whole thing isn't some kind of hoax of course.

    1. Re:Cuts both ways by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Arrogant?

      Like the man at Tiananmen Square standing in front of the tanks was arrogant?

      I'm sure these guys are just making a point. And even though it seems to be written in child-like way, what the hell? It made me laugh. Made me damn proud to see someone else do something like this.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:Cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm, who is arrogant when enforcing rules with no legal basis?

    3. Re:Cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do very many slashdot readers really live in this bizarre paranoid dreamland?

      I'm seriously asking. This kind of post is quite amazing. Suggesting you need to get out more would be a cliche, but...

    4. Re:Cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll!
      Are they different from the creators of Napster, GNutella, Kazaa, etc.? Simply because they are in a different country doesn't mean they are "naive" or "arogant". You like to hate? Because your entire post is full of it. You would love to see them attack the Earthstation 5 dudes wouldn't you? Sick!

    5. Re:Cuts both ways by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

      Choice quotes from Earthstation's Press Release:

      Earthstation 5 is at war with the Motion Picture Association of America
      (MPAA) and the Record Association of America (RIAA), and to make our point
      very clear thattheir governing laws and policys have absolutely no meaning to
      us here in Palestine
      , we will continue to add even more movies for FREE.


      and finally:

      Ras Kabir's warning to the RIAA and the MPAA, "The next revolution in P2P
      file sharing is upon you. Resistance is futile and we are now in control".


      I would wager that - barring support from say, Saudi millions - the RIAA and MPAA has just a little more combined resources (man-hours, money, contacts) then Ras Kabir and EarthStation5 has in their refugee camp. And, let us not forget the fact that the US has incredibly tight diplomatic relations with Israel - so diplomacy may very well allow the RIAA/MPAA to extend their reach over there in a physical sense (ever hear of "extradition"?).

      As for the Tiananmen Square/tank analogy...I think one David of Goliath makes much more sense.

      (Of course, it would seem that the author of the statement would prefer to be compared to the Borg - those villians from the Start Trek series that slaughtered millions).

      Anyway, that brave soul, who stood down a column of tanks, did so without beating his chest and boasting that he was going to single-handedly take down the Chinese government. Nor, for that matter, did he brag about self-perceived criminal behavior as the proprietors of Earthstation clearly do - note their reference to defying "governing laws and policies."

      Instead, he became through his deeds, a symbol of the triumph of non-violent resistence against oppressive forces. While certain parties in the struggle against the RIAA/MPAA certainly are certainly kindred with the spirt of Tiananmen Square, Earthstation5's obnoxious tirade and actions demonstrate that they is not among their number.

    6. Re:Cuts both ways by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Well I certainly agree that some of the stuff (well most of the stuff) that was written in that announcement was kind of silly. And like one previous poster mentioned: "1997 called, and they want their web designer back!" heh.

      Personally, I think the RIAA is going to walk up the ISP connection-chain and find out where they do have pull, and have them stop the connection. Kind of like how shakey the whole Sealand fiasco is.

      ES5's whole site (even before this announcement - I read it a month ago) reminds me of some kid who just got on the internet for the first time on AOL. But then again, we don't know the age of the writer at ES5, or how long they've been exposed to the internet. I'm sure there's a language barrier, a culture barrier. Or maybe they purposely wanted to act silly because the whole situation is silly, or they think lawmen will look at the RIAA/MPAA's complaints incredulously because it seems silly, or maybe they're trying to connect with 13 year olds who will think this is funny (maybe 40% of the users are about this young)

      Whatever the reason, although this isn't the way I would have made a stand, I am just glad someone is willing to make some type of stand. 100 more silly people please stand up, it's better than 100 of me cowering down waiting to see what happens.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  30. Just A Publicity Stunt by JavaSavant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't "throwing down the gauntlet," this is just a publicity stunt. They'll milk this for what it's worth from the flash in the pan they become from this press release, and then fold.

    1. Re:Just A Publicity Stunt by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      After trying EarthStation5, I'll stick with kazaa, emule, waste, gnutella, open napster, winmx, freenet, ftp, newsgroups and google.

      Simple.

  31. SCO/MPAA by G33kDragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, if P2P development needs to move out from the U.S. in order to survive, does this mean that our SCO-based Linux developers need to depopulate the U.S. and move to non-applicable foreign countries as well?

    1. Re:SCO/MPAA by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Probably. Especially since lots of our jobs are going to India and Pakistan :)

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
  32. Maybe not. by Tei · · Score: 1

    Bah! USA is not stronger. Need to invade a whole country to show the world is still the big dog. And need to fuck UN to show that. This is how USA show is weakness. Anyway no other guy can be the bad guy, and actually corporations have take over the real powers. As laws fit Corporations needs, real citadines lose more and more power and become a item to fuck/use/abuse for corporations owners. Of course, this is in longterm, and I supose this will change, as is a wrong way to evolve or democracy. My first option is that USA will change first, has is the oldest democracy alive, all is system is old and new optimization, and become more democracy and less money sugestable. If this occur is posible that some change in the world, and some anti AIDS ... hell what hard is to write english! :P

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  33. Es5 by swtaarrs · · Score: 1

    Es5 looks interesting, has anyone here used it and had good/bad experiences?

    1. Re:Es5 by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      I installed it, just to see what the GUI was like. The much touted "anonymous" and "secure" p2p functions of ES5 depend entirely on the end user's ability to find a Proxy Server, and for the "secure" part, that Proxy Server has to support SSL Proxy. Maybe there are some easier to use secure p2p functions in ES5 I'm missing.

  34. Earthstation 5 has one thing really going for it by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny
    The amazingly out-of-touch theme of the web site.

    Hey! 1997 called! They want their web developer back!

  35. At least ES5 makes a good distraction by EarwigTC · · Score: 1

    ...from the easily-harrassed domestic sharers. Now you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the guy who's jumping up and down, yelling and poking the bear with a stick.

    --
    Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
  36. Precedent against this sort of suit by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering that the left wing weirdoes launched the same sort of attack against gun manufacturers to deny citizens of their rights, and it was struck down that they can NOT be held liable for what the end users do, I would think that could be used in court against nonsense like this..

    I don't know if the bill was passed to bar this type of action, but the legal precedent is there at least.

    You cant blame a tool for its improper use.. or the tool maker..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by fault0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > and it was struck down that they can NOT be held liable for what the end users do, I would think that could be used in court against nonsense like this..

      There was no DMCA-type of law for guns, however. Apparently stealing copyright is more important than stealing lives in this country.

    2. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      left wing weirdoes ... to deny citizens of their rights

      You mean the decent people who tried revoke the absolutely unreasonable right for everyone to own and carry firearms?

    3. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another American nutter who wants a big gun because he's got a tiny penis.

      No, I want a big gun, because someone stole my bike. I'd like to protect my property, not to whine about it when trying to 9-11 and reach a physical person.

    4. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, we should make guns illegal to ensure that only criminals have them.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by killmenow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lives are arguably not profitable. Copyright is.

    6. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Guns are specifically enumerated as a right in the Constitution. P2P file-sharing apps are not. Just as with the VCR, unless a P2P app can be found to have "substantial legal uses", it's probably not good.

    7. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by lovebyte · · Score: 1

      Sure, we should make guns illegal to ensure that only criminals have them.

      This reasoning has been debunked several decades ago. Replace gun by (grenade/sub machine gun/rocket launcher) and you see how ridiculous it becomes. In most civilised countries only the criminals and the police have guns. And these countries have a much lower crime and murder rate than the USA.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    8. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently stealing copyright is more important than stealing lives in this country.

      Well, examine the costs:

      Social Security Death benefits (cost of a life): $255

      Political donations from the movie industry in 2002 (cost of copyrights): $10,498,466

      I think it's pretty obvious which one is more valuable in America.

    9. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Qacker · · Score: 1
      Yay! Someone here besides me is pro-gun. The USA needs more people like you. Remember Kennesaw, Georgia - the town that has manditory gun ownership and very low crime since 1982!

      --
      Learn lisp today!
    10. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      You cant blame a tool for its improper use.. or the tool maker..

      Unless its tobacco.

    11. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Where's my flamebate moderation when i need it? Its true, but also means nothing. Its the same as me saying only criminal jaywalk.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    12. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. And tanks, we should all have tanks. Just in case. Oh, and nukes. North Korea would soon stop threatening the US if the average citizen could launch from their back yard!

    13. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Ah well, if you say it's been debunked, it must have been. Replace "criminal" with "terrorist" and you see how ridiculous your counter argument becomes. You'll also be well aware that areas in the USA with high registered gun ownership have lower crime rates, nearly as low as Switzerland with its mandatory gun ownership.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      You might consider modding the grandparent as off topic before considering my response to it. Also, it does mean something. When's the last time you were mugged with "Stick 'em up, or I'll jaywalk." ?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    15. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You cant blame a tool for its improper use.. or the tool maker..

      Unless its tobacco.

      Or Microsoft, right?

    16. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by another_mr_lizard · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to see the statistics for gun crime and gun related accidents in the US.

      I would guess (please prove me wrong if possible) that most of the incidents would happen at home and have nothing to do with these pesky criminals.

      Also, you do realise that violent crime in your country has dropped year on year in the last 10 years? So why exactly do you need all this weaponry?

      --
      "My parents were strict, but they never pitted me against livestock" - Doug Stanhope
    17. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Upphew · · Score: 0

      No! We should make music illegal, that and Britney would take care of all crime.

    18. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Monokeros · · Score: 1

      Yah, I used to live in Kennesaw. When I was in high school my jackass friend shot out our neighbor's basement window with a bb-gun.

      Then my jackass neighbors called the cops instead of confronting us themselves. On that day the cop informed us all that it is illegal to fire any projectile weapon in the city limits of Kennesaw. Including guns, bb-guns, blowguns, bow-and-arrow, . . .

      I was confused since is manditory under the law that you keep a firearm in your home if you live in Kennesaw. Hooray for the crazy interactions of crazy laws.

      --
      The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
    19. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by lovebyte · · Score: 1

      Replace "criminal" with "terrorist" and you see how ridiculous your counter argument becomes.
      What do you mean? Everyone should have guns to protect themselves from terrorists?

      lower crime rates, nearly as low as Switzerland
      I have been to the USA 4 times. I was close to being shot at twice (by criminals). I live in Europe and I have never been shot at. I don't even know someone that has been shot at in Europe! People in the USA don't even realise how much safer the EU is.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    20. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by pboulang · · Score: 1
      "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. " -- Robert A. Heinlein

      Why is it that there isn't a push one way or the other to amend the constitution to clarify the "right to bear arms"? Maybe I should quote Jay Leno, too: "Iraq and Afghanistan should adopt the US Constitution. It served us well for over 200 years, and we're not using it any more"

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    21. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but it was a rough morning. I'd hate to have seen that guy get hit by a car when violating a traffic law.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    22. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by SpikeSpiff · · Score: 2, Informative
      This is silly. 5 times more children die of backyard-pool drowning then gun accidents. We must hold the pool-industrial complex responsible for their reckless murder of thousands of innocents!

      Ban concrete, water, and rubber inflatable animals!

      On slashdot, its banning inflatable dolls that would be unpopular.

      --
      "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    23. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
      Well, for one thing, to shoot the RIAA/MPAA thugs when they try to bust your door down. . . .

      And the sad thing is, it may end up coming down to that. . .

    24. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 1

      Nah, man... who is gonna buy all that copyrighted material after they are dead?

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    25. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Also, you do realise that violent crime in your country has dropped year on year in the last 10 years?

      You don't suppose that could have anything to do with (1) getting tough on crime and (2) criminals don't know who's armed and who isn't, do you?

      Go ahead. Be a slave in your country if you want. I place a higher value on liberty than on security...besides, if you try to trade liberty for security, you frequently end up with neither.

      Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns...going by your "logic," does that mean we should outlaw cars?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    26. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Ditto bud.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    27. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Fryed · · Score: 1

      You cant blame a tool for its improper use.. or the tool maker..

      Unless its tobacco.


      Actually, I think that the problem with tobacco is not what happens with improper use (I refuse to make any jokes regarding improper uses of cigars...), but the fact that using it properly will eventually result in the death of most of it's users.

    28. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by KUHurdler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ""I have been to the USA 4 times. I was close to being shot at twice (by criminals). I live in Europe and I have never been shot at.

      You must be French

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    29. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kissing+Crimson · · Score: 1
      Also, you do realise that violent crime in your country has dropped year on year in the last 10 years? So why exactly do you need all this weaponry?


      (I know, I know, this whole thing is offtopic, but still...)

      Actually, that violent crime rate drop directly correlates with the issuance of concealed carry permits, and the rates have dropped more in states where carry permits are easily available (notably FL and TX). When the criminals know that any of the customers at the gas station / liquor store may be packing, they leave their own guns at home.
      --
      What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
    30. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by KUHurdler · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we just outlaw Ted Kennedy

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    31. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      And these countries have a much lower crime and murder rate than the USA.

      Really? Then you wouldn't have much trouble proving that, would you? There should be plenty of hard stats on the 'net. I'll check back in a bit and see whay you found.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    32. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by rworne · · Score: 1

      I've lived in the US since birth. I also live in a major city: Los Angeles.

      I am 35 years old.

      I have never been shot at (with the exception of military service - and that was overseas) and I own a gun.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    33. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, corporate copyright is now lifetime of the author plus 90 years. Why do you think all the "artists" out there are so young?

      Someone remaining alive can be very profitable unless they actually enforce the actual corporate copyright.

    34. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. More students die each year in football accidents than they do in school fights, but we don't see 'zero tolerance' foolishness implemented on the field.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    35. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Do deaths/injuries by suicide & accidental gun-related accidents get figured into the "lower crime rate" statistics?

    36. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by MadBiologist · · Score: 1
      I have been to the USA 4 times. I was close to being shot at twice (by criminals).
      Where in God's name did you go that almost got you shot? I've lived here for 20 odd years or so.. and never gotten close to getting shot... shooting others... well, that's a different story. Maybe you should stay out of the ghetto?
      --
      'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?'
    37. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Canada isn't in Europe.

      What do you mean by being "close to being shot at"? Did someone who may have been a criminal may have decided to shoot at you but didn't? I was close to being crowned Queen of England, on four different occasions, but due to a butterfly flapping its wings in China, at the very last second, it didn't happen at all.

    38. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Other areas with high gun ownership also have high crime rates. Maybe the problem here is that crime rates aren't neccesarily linked to gun ownership, and there's some other determening factors. Try checking things like standard of living and poverty levels.

      People don't live in vacuums, and they don't become criminals just because you give them guns. They also don't NOT become criminals just because you DON'T give them guns.

      I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus.

    39. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but if you read about X number of gun-related deaths, some of those are justifiable homicides where a law-abiding citizen kills, in self-defense, a criminal in the commission of a violent crime. So if a crazed madman tries to kill you, rape your wife, and kidnap your kids and you kill him, that's still counted as a homicide. Somehow the anti-gun people always forget to mention that when they quote gun statistics.

    40. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Please remember your comment next time your pansy ass country cries for help from the USA.

      Furthermore, its not about 'who's got the bigger gun', its about exercising ones fundamental right to protect themselves with an 'arm', as our foundational documents dictate we have, in my country.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    41. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Couldn't we just outlaw Ted Kennedy

      If you'll start the petition, I'll sign it. :-)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    42. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, yes. By definition, surely?

    43. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To answer your question, read this thread:

      http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=d5c26178 ed6db0ee8def1858e69d7d53&threadid=126319

      Start at Repman's post about 7 posts down. I think that this guy had a reason to own a gun. Do you disagree? He and his girl should have been raped and killed?

    44. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by retards · · Score: 1

      Some links for Mr. Living In Denial:

      here

      and

      here

      ... next time maybe you can do your own fucking googling.

    45. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the several tens of thousands of people who have saved their own life or the lives of their families by defending themselves with a gun would disagree with you.

    46. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also, you do realise that violent crime in your country has dropped year on year in the last 10 years? So why exactly do you need all this weaponry?"

      Gee, maybe crime went down because we have all this weaponry?

    47. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Marietta, right next door to Kennesaw. The Kennesaw law is not enforced, it was meant purely as a political statement. Another nearby city responded by passing a law requiring that every citizen own a rake. That one's not enforced either. :)

    48. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      No, I want a big gun, because someone stole my bike

      So let me get this straight. Somebody stole your bike, and now you want to go around shooting people?

      Don't you worry that in those circumstances, bicycle theives will also start to arm themselves, and then what you'll have is the wild west, where scores are settled by the person who is fastest on the draw?

      I mean, it's a nice fantasy when you're ten years old and you've just finished watching an old John Wayne movie, but when you get a little older, you start to realize that these things are better off being left up to the sheriff.

    49. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Pejorian · · Score: 1

      Wow,

      As a Canadian, I thought your "DMCA-type of law for guns" comment was clever. Most of us (except for some cowboys in Alberta ;) don't even consider gun ownership an issue, let alone a right...

      By the huge gun argument you started, it would seem that there are lots of geeks in the NRA.

      Well, you can take my P2P ... out of my cold, dead hands!!!

      --
      - Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
    50. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Theatetus · · Score: 1
      I seem to recall that the Constitution distinguishes between "arms" and "ordnance". Tanks would probably fall under the latter category.

      Anyways, despite all the heroic tales of the man defending his home from brigands or visigoths or whatever, I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms for two reasons:

      1. So that when the British/French/Iraqis/Djiboutians invade the US and destroy our field armies, the states can call out their citizens as a militia.
      2. So that when the US government becomes tyrannical the citizens can resist it.
      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    51. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by op00to · · Score: 1

      How is the EU safer? You only said you were "close to being shot at". What does this mean? You saw some minority, and assumed they would shoot you?

    52. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      And on that same token, I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who have had friends or family members murdered by a gun. The odds of you getting to your gun before you're shot are extremely slim, even if you don't have it locked up as it should be. If you have children and one of them kills themselves while playing with your gun, you deserve to die. Plain and simple.

    53. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      People in the USA don't even realise how much safer the EU is.

      Really? Is that why you're six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City? A number of you also made sure to mention in the days following 9/11 that terrorism has been a more-or-less-constant threat over there for decades (IRA, Red Army Faction, Baader-Meinhof Gang, Direct Action, etc.). Are you still sure you're safer over there than we are over here?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    54. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, you do realise that violent crime in your country has dropped year on year in the last 10 years? So why exactly do you need all this weaponry?

      I could care less about having a gun for my personal civil protection. The chances of me getting to a firearm before a criminal shot me are next to nothing. But the fact of the matter is, we don't trust our Government. That's why America was founded with so many checks and balances; one of which being the people shrugging off a tyrannical government. I believe it was either Jefferson or Washington who said that it was essential for a people to revolt every so often so as to keep the government clean and honest. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, but the truth is, we want to have the ability to protect our rights (if it ever came down to it.)

      That is why I believe in the 2nd amendment. I don't care that it's a sport, I don't care that it "protects" people from criminals (which I don't believe justifies the many more deaths as a result of illegal gun violence each year). I just want to make sure that, if it ever came down to it, I, or my children, or my children's children would have the means to do what they need to do if the situation were to call for it. I don't mind gun control. I'll lock my guns up in 3 safes and bury them if I have to. But I want to have access to a firearm if it were needed.

      Paranoid? Probably. But I'd rather be safe than sorry. Like someone else stated: I value my liberty over security. The Patriot Act, gun banning, etc, etc, while potentially keeping me safer draw perilously close to trading my freedoms for a little more "safety".

      I'd rather be free and fighting (or dead) than safe and a slave.

    55. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by RCO · · Score: 1

      I was close to being shot at twice (by criminals). I live in Europe and I have never been shot at.


      First, you weren't shot at, so apparently you have been to the US and haven't been shot at there either.

      Second, you claim that this was done by 'criminals', why is it that I should give up my weapons because yo managed to meet an idiot. I've met many idiots from other countries, that doesn't mean that everyone from those countries is an idiot.

      Third, Any weapon, is nothing more than a tool and any tool can be used in a manner that causes harm to someone or something else. Notice, that I'm not saying firearm, I'm saying weapon, because if I understand correctly, and I think I do, my hand is a weapon depending on how you wish to define weapon.
      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    56. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      I mean, it's a nice fantasy when you're ten years old and you've just finished watching an old John Wayne movie, but when you get a little older, you start to realize that these things are better off being left up to the sheriff.

      Call for a cop. Call for a pizza. See which arrives first. When it's your life on the line, do you really want to be stuck waiting for Officer Barbrady to finish up at the donut shop and get his ass over to you?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    57. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by RocketRick · · Score: 1

      I agree that the crime-rate statistics are meaningless in the context of justifying and/or opposing gun ownership, but for a far different reason.

      The framers of the US Constitution were smart men. They had recently fought a war against an oppressive regime, winning their freedom by fighting tooth and nail to do so. They had also recently discovered that their first attempt at a replacement government had failed (see "Articles of Confederation"). They knew, on a gut level, that governments *can* be replaced, and may *need* to be replaced when they no longer exist to serve the people.

      The second ammendment to the US Constitution was an attempt to guarantee that the people would always have the means available to replace the government again, in the future, should it become necessary to do so. They'd already done so twice; there was (and is) no reason to suspect that that would be the last time.

      Regardless of what is written on paper, the fact will always remain that all governments govern solely by the consent of the governed. When the people get sufficiently fed up with the way their current covernment treats them, they can (and do) replace their government. Guaranteeing them access to the tools necessary to do so is just smart planning on the part of the framers; if the government knows you can fight back, they're (hopefully) less likely to do the sort of things that would make you want to do so.

    58. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by tarawa · · Score: 1

      You know, if we banned all the guns, then only the criminals would have guns. Then we would know who to shoot.

      Unfortunately, to shoot them we would have to become criminals as well, shoot them, and then shoot ourselves.

      Hope nobody picks up my gun and becomes a criminal after I have to kill myself. ;)

      Ridiculous? So are banning guns IMHO. :)

    59. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus.

      Just as we have the right to defend ourselves, you have the right to not defend yourself.

      We don't insist you have a gun in your house, you shouldn't insist that we don't have one.

      When anti-gun politicians (i.e. Ted the Swimmer) stop using heavily armed bodyguards, then I will believe that we don't need them either.

    60. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus.

      Then you have missed the whole point of gun ownership. The self-defense argument is really a straw-man. The whole point behind the second amendment was to uphold the rest of the Constitution. Remember, the US was founded on violence, and the thinking of our founders seems to have been that, at some point in the future, it would be necessary for the populous to violently remove an oppressive govenment again. Now, it could be argued that it would be difficult for a lightly armed populous to take on the military, in which case I would point you to the US involvement in Vietnam, and Somalia, or our current deteriorating situation in Iraq for that matter. Any time the military is put in a situation where the vast majority of the populous doesn't want them there, the military has a bad habit of getting kicked around. It would be the same thing in the US today, if there was a popular revolt. Assuming that the people in the military didn't have huge problems with shooting at the US people, eventually the military would be worn down, as they would be destroying the very infrastrucure which supports them. And there's that whole problem of trying to figure out who your enemy actually is.
      So please, give up on the self-defense argument, its a straw man that tends to get beat up all the time. The real reason for gun ownership is as an investment against the day that it becomes necessary to remove the govenment through violence. Something which is, I hope, a long way off.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    61. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flaimbait? maybe, but I haven't laughed that hard all day.

    62. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, I really wish the government would give up the crusade against tobacco companies. As far as I see it, let the stupid people kill themselves. It gets them out of the job market and reduces overcrowding. Of course, the other part of that needs to be that, if you get cancer from smoking (e.g. you are a smoker and get lung/throat cancer) you are denied any sort of socialized medical care, you decided to run the risk, I don't need to be paying for your bad choice.
      Along these same line, I would like to see "drugs" legalized, including hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. Start selling them cheaply, and let people overdose themselves.
      My personal view on it is, this is just a bit of chlorine in the gene pool.
      And for those who are wondering, no this is not meant to be sarcastic, I really do believe in letting people kill themselves in new and intersting ways.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    63. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've spoken with folks in England who are deathly afraid of gun crimes. One knows where to buy guns and he never looked for it. So as a law abiding citizen he can't get guns.

      Oh, and about the grenades and launchers... criminals do have them. Check out some of the extreme militia groups the government is watching. A lot of them do have such illegal weapons.

    64. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      I have been to the USA 4 times. I was close to being shot at twice (by criminals). I live in Europe and I have never been shot at. I don't even know someone that has been shot at in Europe! People in the USA don't even realise how much safer the EU is.

      That is very subjective. Not only have I lived in the US for all of my life (29 years, about), but I have spent a lot of time with so-called gangsters and other criminals, and I've never been shot at. Neithr have I seen anybody get shot. You come to the USA 4 times and get shot at twice? What did you say? What did you do? I'll bet you provoked it somehow, with EU arrogance and conceit.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    65. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by arkanes · · Score: 1
      You don't need one to overthrow the goverment, either, and even if you did, the current situation is such that it wouldn't help you alot.

      Basically, the country is too large for that sort of thing - if we broke the US up into the states, and made the federal goverment a sort of UN, and did alot of other things that might be a good idea and might not, then it'd make more sense. As it stands, it really doesn't.

    66. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      The idea of people being able to physically defend themselves from the government is actually quite interesting, but how do you take into account the fact that governments now have tanks, helicopters, bazookas, planes, aircraft carriers and NUKES? Do you allow citizen militias to have that sort of hardware?

      Disclaimer: I don't actually think outlawing guns is a good idea. I don't think outlawing inanimate objects is a good idea in the general case. But ownership of them should be at least as scrutinized as ownership of automobiles.

      And then there's that whole Guns-Are-Cool-And-Fun-And-Patriotic zeitgeist you have. That is a problem no legislation will solve.

    67. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid. There's not really any good reason for it. I know you'll argue and I'm sure you've got some example of a guy who protected himself against a home invasion but I don't give a shit and don't feel like digging out statistics - suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus


      You are an idiot. Self-defense is bogus? (And you want to forget about statistics and real events, because they'll prove you wrong.)
      You honestly think that you should be prohibited from defending yourself and your family? And you think making self-defense harder doesn't make crime easier?

      People don't live in vacuums, and they don't become criminals just because you give them guns. They also don't NOT become criminals just because you DON'T give them guns.

      Way to miss the point jackass. THE POINT IS:
      IF I HAVE A GUN YOU ARE LESS LIKELY TO TRY AND COMITT A CRIME AGAINST ME, THEREFORE CRIME GOES DOWN.

      It's one thing to have a different opinion than someone else. It's a totally different thing when you want to force your opinion on an entire population, without even the slightest bit of concern for its validity.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    68. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Psyqlone · · Score: 1

      [[In most civilised countries only the criminals and the police have guns. And these countries have a much lower crime and murder rate than the USA. ]] ...which suggests a little and proves nothing. 100% of ALL crime is caused by criminals. That is a proven fact.

      The USA has more crime and a higher murder rate because we have more criminals and more murderers. That is also a proven fact.

      Inanimate objects such as firearms are not capable of mis-using themselves. That is also a proven fact.

      Old arguments and business models don't cut it anymore. Contemporize, man!

    69. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by DaveJay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >IF I HAVE A GUN YOU ARE LESS LIKELY TO TRY AND COMITT A CRIME AGAINST ME

      That would only be the case if (a) all criminals KNEW you had a gun (so a concealed weapon, or one in your nightstand, wouldn't be a deterrent) or (b) all criminals knew EVERYONE had a gun (so they would take the trouble to wear bulletproof vests, sneak around more and be brazen less, plan to grab hostages as quickly as possible so that you wouldn't shoot, and so on).

      Either way, crime wouldn't go down...in case (a), crime for YOU would go down, but up for other people*, and in case (b) crime would not go down, the nature of it would merely change to suit the new circumstances**.

      *this becomes a "blame the victim" argument eventually, by the way -- the way that the "I drive an SUV to protect my family" justification becomes the "I don't worry about killing another family who owns a small car, they should have bought an SUV, too!" argument, which fails because satisfaction of the argument requires everyone else to own an SUV, at which point SUVs cease to provide any practical advantage.

      **Consider the "chipped" ignition key, wherein a computerized key is required to start an expensive car. Thefts from parking lots for these vehicles went down, but carjackings (where key and owner are both present, often with tragic results) went up. It didn't stop the crime, it just changed the nature of the crime, in this case arguably for the worse. Unless all carjack victims own guns. ;)

    70. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      Unless its tobacco.

      In the case of tobacco, users were following proper directions concerning use - lighting up, inhaling, etc. - see billboards, old TV commercials for examples - so there is more liability there.

      If tobacco companies had included instructions that the cigarettes were to be placed unlit in your ears and not your mouth and inhaled while lit, then they might have had a better chance of escaping from the product liability consequences they're currently facing.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    71. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Well, in the last ten years, the economy exploded. The number of unemployed shrank, and kids growing up weren't staring at a hopeless life. The crime rate shrinks when prosperity grows.

      The correlation between conceal-and-carry and the crime rate drop is fantasy. Think of it. When you think that the clerk and customers at the gas station are armed, you shoot them before they know what is happening. Simple self-preservation. This is born out by interviews with criminals. Also, tough sentencing laws give reason to kill the victim. Dead victims don't testify and put you away for life.

      Anyway, people were packing concealed heat before, and the crime rate was still high. People have always packed weapons. C&C just made it legal. I've been in gun- and knife-happy parts of the country. You can buy weapons AT the gas station. They still get robbed.

      Psychos will always want to kill, and no guns or laws will stop them. A businesslike robber will avoid killing at all costs -- unless it is likely he will be killed if he doesn't incapacitate the victims.

    72. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can take my P2P ... out of my cold, dead hands!!!

      says the man to the gunowners.

      :p

    73. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      Yes, hand gun deaths are higher. That fact, while true, is also irrelevant. The statement was "...a much lower crime and murder rate...," not a lower handgun death rate. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    74. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by 2short · · Score: 2, Informative



      "5 times more children die of backyard-pool drowning then gun accidents"

      An Informative for one probably made up statistic with no source? I'll show you informative.

      Best I could find was for all ages, total accidental deaths in 2000:

      Drowning and submersion while in or falling into swimming-pool: 567

      Firearms discharge: 776

      I suppose it's probable children are a larger percent of the drownings than the gun accidents, but your 5 times number is seeming improbable. On the other hand, I don't see why child vs. adult matters. And of course, we could add in the non-accidental deaths by assault with a firearm: 10,801, which pretty much dwarfs the other numbers. Yes, I know, some of those people might well have been killed by other means if their assailant didn't have a gun. But total deaths from assault was only 16,765 (i.e. 64% of people killed by assault were shot.) I think it's safe to say some fraction of those would have survived if their assailant didn't have a gun. Probably an even more significant fraction of the 270 killed by "Legal intervention involving firearm discharge" would have survived if the deceased hadn't had a gun, because the police wouldn't have felt the need to shoot him.

      More debateable is what fraction of the 16,586
      killed by "intentional self-harm by firearm" would have found another way to do themselves in. Probably quite a few, but firearm was more than half the intentional self harm deaths.

      In short, I think that cutting the number of firearms in the country by (for example) half would clearly save more lives than cutting the number of swimming-pools by half.

      And lest I forget, source:
      http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

    75. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by rainer_d · · Score: 1
      Really? Is that why you're six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City?

      Yeah, but you can drink beer openly in the park. Can you do that in NY, too ?
      And you don't need to be 21 to do that.

      A number of you also made sure to mention in the days following 9/11 that terrorism has been a more-or-less-constant threat over there for decades (IRA,

      This is only a threat in London and parts of Northern Ireland.

      Red Army Faction, Baader-Meinhof Gang,

      These two are essentially the same. But both are more-or-less dead. And they threaten(ed) only politicians and high-level execs from the "capitalist establishment". They believed to represent "major parts of the working public", which would have made killing ordinary people rather silly. Most of the first-generation RAF-terrorist hid in the former German Democratic Republic ("DDR"). When that state imploded, they were quickly caught and put in the prison.

      Direct Action, etc.).

      This is only in France, and I haven't heard anything of them for a very long time.
      You could have mentioned the ETA (the Basque Terror Group). They really _are_ a threat.
      If you take a hard look at it, though, you'll see a pattern here: most of these "terrorist" are to some degree mostly separatists that want to gain or maintain political, cultural, economical independcy from their state. And thus those conflicts are very local and don't affect all of Europe.

      Are you still sure you're safer over there than we are over here?

      Of course. And due to our more balanced foreign politics, we also don't have that many enemies in the world.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    76. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      You must be talking about those bleading heart delusional idiots that want to make sure we can't defend ourselves when Big Brother comes to take away our rights to free speach and peacable assembly, our rights and against unreasonable search and seizure. People who believe guns should be illegal seem to be operating from the attitude that they are dangerous to everyone around them.

      These people are correct in one aspect, guns are dangerous. That is the nature of a deadly weapon. It is also completely immaterial to the argument.

      The second ammendment is not about personal defense. It's not about hunting. It's most certainly not about any right to shoot at paper targets. First and foremost, the second ammendment is about ordinary Americans having the means to protect the rest of their rights. Against whom, you might ask? The goverment, that's who. This nation's founders recognized that governments do not always act in the best interest of their populace, that they can be corrupted and led to do awful things. In such a circumstance, the number of dead babies would far outweigh the current number.

      I do not currently own a gun, but if I feel that right is seriously threatened, you can bet your ass that I will get one just as quickly as I can. Probably several.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    77. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Way to miss the point jackass. THE POINT IS:
      IF I HAVE A GUN YOU ARE LESS LIKELY TO TRY AND COMITT A CRIME AGAINST ME, THEREFORE CRIME GOES DOWN."

      No.

      It means criminals are MORE likely to carry guns and MORE likely to use a gun - after all, firing the first shot has a distinct advantage. Kill the guy guy and he doesn't shoot back.

      You don't get it, do you?

      Arms races make the world more dangerous for *everyone*, no matter what level they take place at.

    78. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      As successful as the US form of government and the US Constitution have been, it's not entirely unreasonable to look at history and realize it won't be like this forever.

      There will come a time - maybe not today or tomorrow - when the US will self-destruct (or be invaded). When that time comes, I would feel much more comfortable if ordinary citizens were able to own arms and understand how to use them.

      Should nut-cases, or hardened criminals be allowed to own guns? No. But your short-sided view could end up costing you and your family your lives someday. I'm not apocolyptic, just realistic.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    79. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and the "to protect ourselves from the gubmint" argument is trotted out regularly.

      Tell me, how are you with your sidearms and the odd rifle going to protect yourself from tanks, helicopters and large bodies of well trained armed and armored troops?

      It was a good argument back in the late 1700's.

      In the 2000's, it's pretty ridiculous.

      To stage a revolution against the Federal Government, you'd need the Army on your side. At which point, you've got all the guns you need.

    80. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by renehollan · · Score: 1
      I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid.

      When I can be guaranteed, that no criminal will be able to use an illegal firearm against me, I might be pursuaded to support gun control.

      Alas, that Utopia does not exist, and until it does, to leave law-abiding members of society without the most convenient and basic means of self-defence, is an abhorrent crime.

      Perhaps, you should replace "stupid", with "sad" in the above sentence... it is sad that we can not all simply surrender firearms that we own to reduce the likelihood of related accidents and deaths.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    81. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's a mighty impressive level of ignorance and naivete you're displaying there.

    82. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      suffice it to say that I feel that the self-defense argument is bogus.

      Fine, the first time someone breaks into your home and proceeds to rape and/or murder your family at gunpoint, you just sit on your ass and watch, all the while being thankful you don't have a gun of your own because the "self-defense argument is bogus."

      Me, I'll blow his fucking brains out with my 12 gauge before he gets through the window. And as has been said, "You can pry my guns from my cold, dead hands." You and the rest of your anti-gun cronies aren't getting them from me, period. And I dare you to try to take them by force.

      Moderators, do your worst.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    83. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      Funny this. Maybe we should stop fixing up drivers who got hurt in a car accident. It was their own choice to drive, right? Pedestrians deliberately take a risk when crossing the street, no need to help them when it goes wrong, right? Accidents in the house. You took the choice to move around. I shouldn't be paying if you're a blithering idiot that falls down the stairs. Ok, more apt example: if you're a regular at McDonalds, you'll not be treated for cardio-vascular problems.

      Face it, life is lethal. If you're a smoker and die of lung-cancer, that saves you from dying of any other illment. Almost any death in our society costs money, in fact, old age seems to be the most expensive bad habit of all. Why should I, as a smoker, pay for the pensions, medicines and operations of all these old geezers that refuse to die before their 90's. I'm going to be gone way before that. I want a refund!

    84. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      "If you have children and one of them kills themselves while playing with your gun, you deserve to die. Plain and simple."

      Probably true, however locking it up isn't really the only reason... now, granted in a suburban area I would definatly lock up the guns, not because My kids aren't smart enough to not touch them, but because there are tons of other parents that don't teach their kids about guns and avoiding them.

      I grew up in the country where everyone had guns out in the open on the walls in gun-racks. Usually at least 1 was loaded (and we all knew which one). A child killing someone by accident did not happen, because from the age of like 4 we were taught to not touch. And at the age of around 10 we started getting lessons on how to use a gun, so that 2 years later when we finally got to touch one, we had it through our thick skulls that they weren't toys.

      Most of the "accidental" gun deaths were from ignorance and a lack of gun-safety training. The problem would be much easier to solve with training than trying to get rid of guns.

      If one half of the amount of money being spent on getting rid of guns was spent on safety, the whole argument would disappear.

      If you really want to keep your kids safe, call up the NRA, they'll let you know the closest location to get gun safety training.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    85. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      When the criminals know that any of the customers at the gas station / liquor store may be packing, they leave their own guns at home.
      ....or they shoot first.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    86. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      This subject doesn't beak up into (a) and (b).

      There is always the POSSIBLITY that I may have a gun. The higher this possibility is, the less likely you are to try and 'jack my car. Gun control laws (the stupid, clinton style ones; There are actually many which I agree with) reduce this possibility.

      Besides, criminals would wear vests? Mmmmkay. Right. Because they're all so worry about the consequences of their actions? Or maybe because they typically have their #$%& together and think things through?
      That argument is nonsense. Using that logic, I could say that there is no point to bank vaults, crimnals will just get shaped-charge explosives.
      Nothing is going to elimate crime, but it is possible to reduce it.

      Your SUV amd "chipped" key arguments are just as nonsensical. Maybe you can compare the situation to eating a burrito as well?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    87. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      You don't need one to overthrow the goverment, either, and even if you did, the current situation is such that it wouldn't help you alot.

      Yes, I do. History has provided too many examples of well intentioned govenments turning into despotic regimes. As for the current situation, you're right, it would be really tough to pull off an armed revolt at the moment, mostly because the populous wouldn't be behind it. The only time an armed revolt is going to work is when there are enough people behind it that it moves from being a small fringe group to being an army that is as large, or larger than the standing police/military. Or, more likely, that much of the standing police/military personel are involved in the revolt as well. As I stated above, I don't think we are at, or even near this point. So do I need a gun at the moment for this purpose? No, but some distant future desendant will, and if I give up my guns now, he won't have them then. Its like a medical insurance policy, most of the time you are just paying into it, and getting nothing back out, but when you need it you really need it.

      Basically, the country is too large for that sort of thing - if we broke the US up into the states, and made the federal goverment a sort of UN, and did alot of other things that might be a good idea and might not, then it'd make more sense. As it stands, it really doesn't.

      I don't think its quite impossible, its mostly a matter of scale. If the griveances against the govenment are such that they are only pissing off a small majority, an armed revolt is probably not in order. But if the govenment was to reach a state, such that a majority of the population was pissed off enough to take up arms, then an armed revolt would probably be necessary, and possible.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    88. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Pro sports players are statistically much more likely to rape and do drugs than ordinary people, but you don't see folks asking for a basketball or football ban...

      The difference here is that people actually care about pro sports. Freedom of speech be damned, there's a football game on tonight!

    89. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I've lived here all my life and haven't ever even been near someone brandishing a firearm in a dangerous manner, and I live in Texas. What kind of broken-down shithole were you staying in, dude?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    90. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Against whom, you might ask? The goverment, that's who.

      Incorrect. Sort of. It's to defend everyone against anything that they need defending against, not any one specific thing. Since the second amendment specifically states that a militia is neccesary for a free society (which may or may not be true today) it is implied that the right to keep and bear arms is intended to keep out OTHER country's goverments (such as England).

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    91. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Apples and Oranges here. You're comparing two wholy separate things. Driving a car has become a necessity in our society, and also, the risks tend to be managed. Walking across streets, again, unavoidable realistically, but again a risk that can be managed. Accidents in the house, now you are just getting absurd. Again, this is necessity of life, you're not going to be able to do basic day to day things without it.
      Now the regular at McDonalads that eats his way to cardiac arrest, probably shouldn't expect help out of the rest of us, this is an unmanaged risk. It could be very easily avoided and/or mitigated. This is the same thing with smoking, you know what its going to do to you, there is nothing necessary about it, people can get along just fine without it, so it shouldn't be supported by society.
      Ya, if your a smoker my position sucks, basically I want to let you kill yourself, but I don't want to pay for it while you do. If you make a choice that increses your risk factors, without working to seriously manage those risks, I see no reason for the costs to come out of my pocket. If you can pay for it yourself, that's fine, do as you please.
      So, please, if you are going to try and make comparisons, at least choose ones that aren't so absurd.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    92. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Durrik · · Score: 1


      Why is it that there isn't a push one way or the other to amend the constitution to clarify the "right to bear arms"?

      Being a Canadian I always thought this was a better interpretation. You have all the right to go out into the woods with a pen knife and get all the bear arms you like.

      Or just interpretate it to mean you're allowed to wear short sleeves. But this would make all the $5 T-shirt producers, who put something on them and sell them for $25, happy.

      --
      Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
    93. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by spareparts · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that a citizen's militia would be able to hold a candle to the military of the United States of America, even if every milita person had a gun. In principle, I agree with your stance, but the US government will always have more fire-power than its citizenry, and the only way that will change is by partially disarming the government.

    94. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      It's not that crazy. It's a law on the books to keep dipshits like your friend friend from running around shooting shit up. Having a gun and using it are two different things, and it is up to the officer on the scene generally to decide whether or not to bother charging someone with a crime. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him in the foot, when the cops come to haul his ass off the officer can, at his discretion, not charge you with anything. Someone higher up than him might change their mind later, but I doubt it.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    95. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Noren · · Score: 1
      Yes and no.

      If we all lined up in neat lines and fought on a clear plain, then yes, you're right, the US military would defeat the US nominal militia.

      On the other hand, the US Military has nowhere near enough strength to hold(in military terms) the United States if the bulk of US citizens became openly hostile to it. (Holding a hostile US would be much, much more difficult than Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq...) This is in large part due to the fact that so much of the US populace is armed. This scenario is more relevant than the "Who'd win on a battlefield if we all lined up" question.

    96. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Homburg · · Score: 1
      I could care less about having a gun for my personal civil protection. The chances of me getting to a firearm before a criminal shot me are next to nothing. But the fact of the matter is, we don't trust our Government.
      So, what, you think you've got a better change of getting to a firearm before the government nukes you?

      Look, I'm sure I'm at least as anti-government as you are (I'm an anarchist), but the naivety of this defence of the second ammendment never ceases to amaze me. To paraphrase Weber, the government is the government because they've got more guns than you. If the government is strong, no amount of guns in private hands are going to be able to overthrow it; if the government is weak, any laws it makes prohibiting gun ownership will be trivial to ignore. The idea that opposing gun control is some kind of stand for freedom, rather than, in practice, a call for more Columbines or Tony Martins, is one American Dream I'd like to see well and truly disposed of.
    97. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Homburg · · Score: 1
      Me, I'll blow his fucking brains out with my 12 gauge before he gets through the window. And as has been said, "You can pry my guns from my cold, dead hands." You and the rest of your anti-gun cronies aren't getting them from me, period. And I dare you to try to take them by force.
      You know, I'm so not bothered by this kind of posturing. If the US government ever enacts sensible gun control legislation, they can send the fucking army to get your oh-so-scary 12 guage. Or, maybe, they'll shoot you. Either way, the number of guns in the community goes down, and everyone's safer. (Statistical point - the majority of gun-related deaths are accidents. The danger isn't criminals with guns, it's people with guns).
    98. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A link for the clueless:

      here

      Next time learn to fucking google.

    99. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Actually, as anyone in the military will tell you, the high likelyhood of you having a gun doesn't make me any less likely to jack you. It just means that I'm that much more likely to shoot in the head without warning than I am to try to scare you off. This is one of the reasons people like hostage negotiators don't show guns - because pulling your own gun escalates the situation and something that you were going to walk away from becomes much more serious.

    100. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by arkanes · · Score: 1
      I'd like a nice listing of all the things you've done with your 12 guage shotgun that a) have protected you or your family from harm and b) couldn't have been done with anything else.

      I've taken a gun away from someone who wanted to hurt me with it. I'd say that gives me about 1000% times more right to be against them than almost anyone else on slashdot.

    101. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Ores · · Score: 1

      The biggest inhibitors for a change of government are apathy and blind patriotism, not a lack of arms...

    102. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Arkanes wrote:

      >the high likelyhood of you having a gun doesn't make me any less likely to jack you. It just means that I'm that much more likely to shoot in the head without warning than I am to try to scare you off.

      Exactly. The possibility of a gun merely modifies the approach and behavior of the criminal when committing the crime.

      - - -

      TheLOUDroom wrote:

      >criminals would wear vests? Mmmmkay. Right. Because they're all so worry about the consequences of their actions?

      Well, criminals pick their targets to increase the likelihood of success.

      Example: a car thief skips the car with the alarm and breaks into the car without one, right?

      So now we introduce LoJack. What does the criminal do? They steal a car and park it overnight in a parking lot nearby to see if the cops come for it, just in case it has LoJack.

      Voila! They worry about the consequences of their actions ON THEMSELVES, and so have changed their behavior accordingly.

      >Or maybe because they typically have their #$%& together and think things through?

      The successful criminals do. That's why they don't get caught. As the security staff spokespeople in Vegas always say after talking about someone they caught: "...of course, there may be others that we don't know about, because they didn't make mistakes."

      >That argument is nonsense. Using that logic, I could say that there is no point to bank vaults, crimnals will just get shaped-charge explosives.

      You could say that, but I wouldn't. I would say this: If you make the vaults strong and difficult to break into, criminals will stop trying to steal the money from the vaults and try to steal it from the transfer points, or electronically, or by taking a hostage who has the key instead. Which is exactly what they do.

      >Nothing is going to elimate crime, but it is possible to reduce it.

      I would suggest that, while reduction is possible to a certain extent, the majority of reduction will occur in the areas of opportunistic crime; i.e., if there is no easy opportunity presenting itself, the crime may not occur. This is why weak laptop locks work so well; a casual thief won't likely have bolt cutters handy to cut the cable, and laptops are a highly attractive casual crime target.

      On the other hand, any crime that is premeditated will simply be redistributed -- either to another victim of the same type of crime, or to a different type of crime with a lower risk but similar reward. Continuing the laptop example, a motivated criminal committing a premeditated laptop theft will bring bolt cutters. Improve the lock so it can't get cut, and the motivated criminal might wait outside for the laptop's owner and mug them instead.

      >Maybe you can compare the situation to eating a burrito as well?

      Okay, I'll bite:

      Suppose you want to order a plain burrito, but it's too boring, so you want to add a sauce. The burrito shop offers three sauces. Oh, but you HATE spicy sauce -- you are highly motivated to get a tasty burrito without inflicting the harm of spicy sauce upon yourself.

      If none of the sauces are labeled as spicy, and none of the sauces ARE spicy, then you can pick any sauce you want.

      If none of the sauces are labeled as spicy, but you suspect that some of the sauces are spicy, and the guy behind the counter doesn't know, you might take your chances -- or you might ask for multiple sauces on the side so that you can sample them before making a decision.

      If some of the sauces are clearly labeled as spicy, you will pick a non-spicy one.

      If all of the sauces are labeled as spicy, you probably won't order a sauce -- but you might put some salt on your burrito, or pull some mild salsa out of the salsa bar, or next time you might bring your own non-spicy sauce... ...or if your desire for sauce was just a whim, and you're not highly motivated to have a tasty burrito, you might skip the sauce altogether.

      The ab

    103. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by sbszine · · Score: 1

      I could care less about having a gun for my personal civil protection. The chances of me getting to a firearm before a criminal shot me are next to nothing. But the fact of the matter is, we don't trust our Government.

      Having an abundance of small arms didn't help David Koresh and Co in the Waco siege.

      (This is not a troll, BTW -- whatever you think of Koresh, the fact was he tried to fight the government using the small arms he had the right to bear, and it didn't work.)

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    104. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your sentiment, but by the time you need guns for that purpose, it'll be far too late.

      Ever seen a recipe for boiled frog?

    105. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please learn to use the English language correctly.

      Have you one iota what "grammar" is?

      You're the kind of moron that gives the USA the reputation it has of being arrogant in the extreme.

      Have a nice day!

    106. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Aussie · · Score: 1
      And I dare you to try to take them by force.

      I wouldn't. I'd find another means, one where your gun won't help you. Guns are not a panacea.

    107. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by retards · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, so the statistics do not link firearm homicide directly to crime. However, in my opinion homcide cannot be categorized into "normal" crime.

      However, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the orignal post was about _violent_ crime and gun ownership.

      Still, the United States has the highest percentage of incarcerations in the world, so I guess that pretty much speaks for the crime rate too, unless a lot of people are in jail for no reason. You can look up that statistic yourself ;)

      There are statistics that will will show that the US is not very crime ridden in comparison to other Western countries. However, if we were to "convert" ALL instances of crime in a country to homicide, the statistics would not change, but I'm sure the quality of life in that country WOULD. So much for statistics.

    108. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Mmm, boiled frog....

      You mean like this?

    109. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by chefren · · Score: 1

      Shooting at people because they are arrogant europeans would be a very bad excuse. Is it considered excusable in the US?

    110. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by chefren · · Score: 1

      If you have a gun you are more likely to commit a crime because it it easier to commit a crime with a gun than without one. If everyone have guns the entire question becomes moot, but you end up with a bunch of gun related accidents instead.

    111. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Ah well, if you say it's been debunked, it must have been.

      If there are not so many guns out in public, less guns will be available for the criminals. And, if the usual criminal doesn't have to fear that the guy next door has a gun like in the USA, he is less likely to get himself a gun before he breaks into his house.

      Replace "criminal" with "terrorist"

      Why should one, the latter belong to the former.

      You'll also be well aware that areas in the USA with high registered gun ownership have lower crime rates

      And it's proven that the latter comes straight from the former?

      Switzerland with its mandatory gun ownership.

      What? The people who were in the army have their rifle at home, but usually no ammo for it. Nobody else is forced to own a gun! The low crime rates in Switzerland result mainly from much less poverty and racial problems there.

    112. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      So that when the US government becomes tyrannical the citizens can resist it.

      Don't worry, this won't take long, non-democratic they are already. :)

    113. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Any weapon, is nothing more than a tool and any tool can be used in a manner that causes harm to someone or something else

      OK, by your logic, hydrogen bombs for everyone would be perfectly ok. Where can I fetch mine?

    114. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Guaranteeing them access to the tools necessary to do

      These tools are called democratic elections, not guns!

      Ah, but, wait, GWB sitting in D.C. proves that these tools failed, but I haven't read about any attempt of the U.S. citizens to remove this parody of a president.

    115. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Gun control laws [...] reduce this possibility.

      Nonsense. If this was true, the numbers of carjacking incidents should be much higher here in Germany than in the USA. The lesser the possibility that a potential victim carries a gun, the lesser it's likely for a criminal to carry a gun!

    116. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1
      Social Security Death benefits (cost of a life): $255

      Political donations from the movie industry in 2002 (cost of copyrights): $10,498,466

      ~2,450,000 deaths x SSDB: ~ $624,750,000

    117. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Me, I'll blow his fucking brains out with my 12 gauge before he gets through the window.

      Better get yourself a brain first. Then you would be able to realize that there were and are enough people killed although they own(ed) a gun.

      The higher the possibility that you as a victim own a gun, the higher the risk that the guy who breaks into your house shoots you at first sight.

    118. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      It's not the fact that I think I'd win. It's the fact that, if it came down to it, I'd rather have a gun in my hands than a few rocks and a rolled up Britney Spears poster.

      "So, what, you think you've got a better change of getting to a firearm before the government nukes you?"

      Then they take out the city of Pittsburgh as well. Probably not in their best interests.

    119. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      You're perfectly right, it didn't.

      Now imagine that there are 60,000 people doing the exact same thing that you are. The situation changes slightly.

      I don't want revolution ~now~ (change, yes, revolution, no), but if it ever came to that point, it'd be more than just me and a few other people who would do their duty (and yes...I believe it's a duty to revolt if the situation truly merits it). I'm not likely going to attempt to take on anyone by myself (or even with a few dozen people with me), whether it be the local police, state police, ATF, FBI, National Guard, Marines, Navy Seals...

    120. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      The question isn't about firearm homicide. The question is, do firearms lead to more crime? Is it really any worse to be held up at gunpoint in the US rather than at knife point in the UK? Certainly, there is more gun-related crime in the US than in other countries where guns are less common. But when guns aren't available, people turn to alternate means. So banning guns isn't an effective solution to crime, and it hinders law abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves.

      As for the US incarceration levels, it's shameful but true. It can be attributed directly to our misguided war on drugs, not to higher levels of violent crime. (However, much of the violent crime, particularly gun homicides, are the result of the War on Drugs.)

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    121. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      It isn't an excuse. It isn't right, it isn't justifiable. But it's still common sense. Kinda like why people tell women not to dress too "provocative" when they go out for a night on the town. There's definately an increased chance of being raped. Is it their fault? No. But they should still use some common sense and at least ~attempt~ to save their hide. You can't expect people to act as you would act. Always be on your guard and always attempt to be safe. That's the bottom line.

    122. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by RCO · · Score: 1

      Where can I fetch mine?


      The same place everyone else gets them, from a book.

      I think a bigger question is not whether something is a weapon, or can something be used as a weapon, but do you have a legitimate use for the tool/weapon? Oh, and yes, self defense and/or self-preservation is a legitimate use as far as I'm concerned.
      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    123. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      I think a bigger question is not whether something is a weapon, or can something be used as a weapon, but do you have a legitimate use for the tool/weapon? Oh, and yes, self defense and/or self-preservation is a legitimate use as far as I'm concerned.

      The purpose for my hydrogen bomb is self defense against a country which just lately has threatened the world with the use of nuclear bombs against any target they see fit.

    124. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by RCO · · Score: 1

      Ok, so how realistic is it that you personally are a target of this country? I will lay odds that you are a lot more of a target in your mind than anywhere in reality. This then leads to the question of legitimate need/use of such a tool.

      Besides that, you are apparently trying to bate me into a political discussion about foriegn policy, which of course is going to turn into a trashing of Americas foriegn policy, which, frankly, I'm not interested in discussing since I'm not prepared to defend it. I do not have enough information at this point to defend all of our actions. Also, what I do know, raises questions in my own mind and points to policies that I'm not sure I agree with.

      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    125. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, we should make guns illegal to ensure that only criminals have them.

      Sure, sounds better than minors having access to their parents' gun.

    126. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather be free and fighting (or dead) than safe and a slave.

      Fighting what, the government, as Jefferson said? Your post doesn't make sense to me.

      If police protection is deffective in the US, then you have a good point in the guns (even better if the people made something for it to work, though). But all that brainless "look, momma, I'm a rebel" phrases sound really stupid.

    127. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Right....because you can just treat the US and Germany as the same country, but with different gun control legistation.

      If were going to make silly assumptions like that, perhaps you should rescearch Switzerland a litte...

      They have fully automatic rifles in their homes, ya know.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    128. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      !!???

      If you're going to comitt a crime, is breaking gun control laws going to be a big concer of yours?

      Gun control legislation only applies to law-abiding citizens. With the amount of guns already out there , it's complete idiocy to think otherwise.

      I also never said that everyone should have guns. People should be able to get one, but they shouldn't be forced to. Of those that have guns, yes there will be a possibility for accidents. By your reasoning we should ban cars too. If everyone has car, we're going to have a whole bunch of vehicular accidents every year, so the whole point becomes moot. Right?

      See how nonsensical that is? Everything has a cost. That's a given. They idea is to make the benefits greater than the cost.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    129. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Ok, so how realistic is it that you personally are a target of this country? I will lay odds that you are a lot more of a target in your mind than anywhere in reality. This then leads to the question of legitimate need/use of such a tool.

      And how realistic are the chances that you will find yourself in a situation in which you couldn't defend yourself with other weapons than firearms, e. g. a taser, a tear gas spray or gun?

      Besides that, you are apparently trying to bate me into a political discussion about foriegn policy,

      No, but this was a perfect reason why someone would wish to have such a weapon to defend himself. :) I could have used Northern Korea as the reason, but living here in Germany I fear the US doing bullshit much more than those "stoneage communist" assholes in NK.

    130. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      They have fully automatic rifles in their homes, ya know.

      Yes, but without ammo. And only the people who served in the Bundesheer. And IIRC all those rifles are registered including the marks the barrel leaves on the bullet, so if someone gets shot with one of those, the cops would know to whom this gun belonged immediately.

    131. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. You are correct. Imagine, for a moment, a powerful Mexico that wants to invade the U.S. It would be much harder to do so if nearly every citizen has access to a weapon.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    132. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by RCO · · Score: 1

      And how realistic are the chances that you will find yourself in a situation in which you couldn't defend yourself with other weapons than firearms, e. g. a taser, a tear gas spray or gun?


      I understand what you're saying, but your argument stands on the point that the only use for a firearm is to kill or hurt another person. On that note the gun control argument fails, since there are many other uses for firearms, to include collecting, sport shooting and hunting. Oh, and for those that wish to get into the argument that firearms promote violence, you will notice that two out of those three uses are NON-violent.

      As a side note from my violent side, I don't have a lot of respect for tear gas or pepper spray, etc. I've been hit with it; the person that sprayed me regretted it. Oh, BTW, I didn't have a weapon except for my hands, and I was not threatening the individual that sprayed me. He used the spray in a manner in which he attacked me, which seems to be contrary to the intended use of that tool.

      Think about it, a tool is nothing more than that, it doesn't matter if it is a knife, wrench, firearm or a bomb, and it is still nothing more than a tool. The person controlling/manipulating the tool is responsible for how it is used. If a person decides to harm himself or herself or someone else, they will find a way to do it, even if they have to use a rock or their hands. You can't blame the instrument for the intentions of the person.
      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    133. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      The higher the possibility that you as a victim own a gun, the higher the risk that the guy who breaks into your house shoots you at first sight.

      Not possible. Why? I have electronic sensors on all doors and windows, and exterior motion detectors all tied into an AMX home automation controller & security system. I will know he's there before he can open the window or door far enough to get through. By the time he finishes stepping into my home, he'll be dead.

      That's assuming every light in the house coming on immediately doesn't scare his ass away first. I'm hoping it does, because quite frankly, I don't want to shoot anybody. But I will if I have to.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    134. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      I'd like a nice listing of all the things you've done with your 12 guage shotgun that a) have protected you or your family from harm and b) couldn't have been done with anything else.

      I don't have any, thank God. Nobody has tried to break into my home and/or harm my family - yet. But I'll tell you something, I'm a 5'7", 135lb computer nerd. I'm not going to be able to do shit with a knife or other similar weapon against some burly criminal. He'd snap me like a twig. So I have guns to even up the odds.

      I've taken a gun away from someone who wanted to hurt me with it. I'd say that gives me about 1000% times more right to be against them than almost anyone else on slashdot.

      Look, I'm glad you took the gun away from the criminal who was going to shoot you. And I hope they locked his ass up for life, although they probably didn't. But that doesn't give you the right to take MY guns away.

      Even if legislation was passed to make owning any gun illegal, do you think the guy who pulled one on you would have cared? Of course not! He's a criminal! If he's planning to kill you, a law against gun ownership isn't going to stand in his way. And don't tell me you believe for a second that you can actually get the guns off of the streets. We've been throwing people in jail over drugs for a long, long time, and I can still get pot or coke or LSD or heroin or anything else from damn near anywhere.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    135. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      If the US government ever enacts sensible gun control legislation, they can send the fucking army to get your oh-so-scary 12 guage. Or, maybe, they'll shoot you.

      You're an idiot if you think that could ever happen in the USA. Our military, attacking our citizens? HA! Our military is MADE UP OF our citizens! That's my brother in law, my cousin, and my nephew. That's my neighbor's sister, father, brother, uncle, and best friend.

      Ask any active serviceman if he would forcibly attack the citizens of the United States for the purpose of disarming them, given the order to do so. The vast majority of the military would refuse and overthrow the corrupt government demanding such action.

      Even if they didn't, our military isn't big enough to take us all out. Look at Iraq, for crying out loud. Small militias are moving with freedom throughout the cities, killing our troops. There are millions of gun owning citizens like myself who would setup camp and wipe out small military convoys one by one. And you think we can go to every city in the U.S. and get away with rounding the citizens up and taking their guns away? Nobody has that kind of firepower. Not even the U.S.. Not even close.

      You're dreaming if you think something like this can happen here anytime within the next several decades.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    136. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      I have electronic sensors on all doors and windows, and exterior motion detectors all tied into an AMX home automation controller & security system

      Man, are you paranoid!

      By the time he finishes stepping into my home, he'll be dead

      That would be murder, as it is not in self defense if he does not threaten or attack you.

      But I will if I have to.

      You just told, you'd shoot on first sight, not in self defense only, what's your real point now?

    137. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      >Yes, but without ammo

      The ammunition in a sealed box. You can unseal it. You're not supposed to, but what are you going to do, let Joe Burglar to murder you because it's illegal to break open the ammo tin? Oh, and why wouldn't you buy ammo from one of the 3,000 shooting ranges?

      >And only the people who served in the Bundesheer

      Every male Swiss citizen. Argue the figures either way, but the issue is that there's a good chance that a Swiss household has an assault rifle in it.

      Whether that deters crime, or whether it's the compulsory military service, or whether the Swiss are just more civilised that USians, is open to deabte.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    138. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Hey Walter, what's the weather like on your planet?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    139. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Waco.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    140. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      You're not supposed to, but what are you going to do, let Joe Burglar to murder you because it's illegal to break open the ammo tin?

      Why are you so paraniod about people breaking into your house to murder you? The average burglar is not equipped with firearms. I know a rather large number of people and have never heard from anyone whose house has been broken into except a burglary in the apartment under mine. Besides, if you had to open that tin first, Joe B. had plenty of time to stop you from killing him.

      why wouldn't you buy ammo from one of the 3,000 shooting ranges

      Because I doubt that they will sell you ammo for take-away. But I don't know how they handle this in Switzerland.

      Every male Swiss citizen

      Even the ones who did not serve in the Bundesheer?

      compulsory military service

      The also can do civilan service.

      Swiss are just more civilised that USians

      There is less poverty and discrimination, in combination with a lack of the "wild west"-history of the USA. Which means violence is a much more common and accepted thing in the US society and poverty and discrimination are best suited to bring this violence to the surface.

    141. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Man, are you paranoid!

      So everyone that has an alarm system on their home is paranoid? Hmmm. That's a lot of paranoid people out there. The fact that mine is tied into a home automation system so I can manage it from any touchpanel in the house is a convenience. And yes, it adds some safety to the mix. But it took all of 5 minutes to integrate the two systems and I'll never wake up to find an intruder standing at the foot of my bed. Ever.

      That's not paranoia. It's a wise decision.

      That would be murder, as it is not in self defense if he does not threaten or attack you.

      Bullshit. If he breaks into my home, I get to shoot him. I have a concealed weapons permit and I've researched the laws in my state, as everyone who owns weapons should do.

      You just told, you'd shoot on first sight, not in self defense only, what's your real point now?

      If he's in my house, I'll shoot on first sight. Damn straight. That doesn't mean I WANT to shoot him. I'd prefer that the second he breaks in, the alarm system goes off, he runs like hell, and I never see the guy. If I could choose how a break-in would happen, that would be my choice. Don't think I'm some sadistic asswipe who is itching to shoot somebody. I'd feel horrible if I did that. But at the same time, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, he's up to no good. And I'm not taking any chances. The lives of my wife and children are a hell of a lot more valuable than the life of some scumbag who just broke into my home.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    142. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Waco.

      An isolated incident, with a small team of people trying to apprehend a single individual.

      That's nothing like what the parent was talking about - our entire military being called up to take on millions of gun owning citizens. Pigs will fly before that happens.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    143. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Er, what Waco are you talking about? I'm talking about the military (not paramilitary, military) raid by ATF goons, FBI, National Guard and god damn fucking Delta Force to seize weapons from a group of nutty people that they managed to demonize by manipulating a sheep-like press corps that tripped over itself to report as pedophiles, lunatics, terrorists even. Memories seem pretty short round here.

      But it's OK, when they come for your gun, I'm sure they'll take the time to smear you as some baby buggering cannibal psychopath, so nobody will have to get upset over your charred, bullet ridden corpse.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    144. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      So everyone that has an alarm system on their home is paranoid? Hmmm. That's a lot of paranoid people out there.

      I know no one who has an alarm system in the private appartment ot house, only in business.

      I'll never wake up to find an intruder standing at the foot of my bed.

      That's why I call you paranoid! Such thing is highly unlikely.

      If he breaks into my home, I get to shoot him. I have a concealed weapons permit and I've researched the laws in my state, as everyone who owns weapons should do.

      It may be legal in your country, but shooting a person without the need of direct self defense is IMO murder. Death sentence may be the law in some states, but I call that murder, too.

      If he's in my house, I'll shoot on first sight.

      IMO shooting only is justified in self defense. That means, when you are being attacked, not only because this asshole broke into your house!

      The lives of my wife and children are a hell of a lot more valuable than the life of some scumbag who just broke into my home.

      The usual burglar does not come for murder, you know?

    145. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      I know no one who has an alarm system in the private appartment ot house, only in business.

      Perhaps you are not from the US... Millions upon millions of homeowners have private, monitored alarm systems.

      The usual burglar does not come for murder, you know?

      No, but that's what it often boils down to. Burglars come in with a weapon looking to steal your stuff, and when confronted, are likely to attack you.

      Furthermore, I should be able to shoot his ass just for stealing my property. (Actually, I can, in my state) That property represents a portion of my life in which I worked hard to save the money to obtain it. When someone steals that property, they are effectively stealing that portion of my life from me. Well, I'm not letting it happen.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    146. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are not from the US... Millions upon millions of homeowners have private, monitored alarm systems

      No, I'm from Germany. You'll find alarm systems mainly in really rich people's houses.

      Burglars come in with a weapon looking to steal your stuff, and when confronted, are likely to attack you.

      Here the usual burglar does not even carry a weapon.

      Furthermore, I should be able to shoot his ass just for stealing my property.

      That are wild west manners in best judge Lynch style which do not suit a civilized person. And this attitude is one reason why I think firearms and several other kinds of weapons should be banned with as little exceptions as possible (hunting, sports, police).

      (Actually, I can, in my state)

      This may be so, but it does not make it morally justified.

      That property represents a portion of my life in which I worked hard to save the money to obtain it.

      Man, wake up! It is just material stuff! If it was property which you really can't live without, ok, I could understand. But do you really think it's ok to shoot someone just because he steals your new 50" TV set?

    147. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      But do you really think it's ok to shoot someone just because he steals your new 50" TV set?

      Yes, if I find him in my home in the process of stealing my TV, I do think it's ok to shoot him. What would you do? Ask him to "please leave"?

      The criminals over here aren't so nice. If you catch them in the act of stealing your TV, it's highly likely that you'll be shot or stabbed because they don't want you calling the cops. Who knows how a criminal is going to act in a sitation such as this?

      It's nice that your criminals would drop the TV and run without harming you or your family. I'm still not taking any chances. If I catch someone who has broken into my home, they'd better run like hell, because if they don't turn and run they're going to be shot.

      Oh, and as an aside: My property is worth more than the life of a person who would break into my home and steal it.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    148. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Yes, if I find him in my home in the process of stealing my TV, I do think it's ok to shoot him. What would you do? Ask him to "please leave"?

      That would depend on the situation. If I was that scared and the risk was higher than it's here, I'd have a gas gun or a taser in my home to stop a criminal being a threat. Then there's plenty time to call the cops.

      it's highly likely that you'll be shot or stabbed because they don't want you calling the cops

      As I said before, it's rather unlikely for such a criminal to carry a gun. Other weapons May be, but so could you use other weapons.

      Oh, and as an aside: My property is worth more than the life of a person who would break into my home and steal it.

      You are an asshole. Material stuff can never be worth more than a person's life!

      EOD.

    149. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      You are an asshole. Material stuff can never be worth more than a person's life!

      I see. You're one of those left wing bedwetting liberals who believes a person's life is worth more than anything. You're probably against the death penalty, too.

      What about some sick fuck rapist who does little children? Is his life worth more than a material item? How about a murderer? Was Ted Bundy's life worth more than a material item?

      Here's the truth: A pile of shit is worth more than the life of a hard criminal. You're a fucking idiot if you think that someone who would rob, rape, or murder is worth anything. Period.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    150. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by Kosi · · Score: 1

      You're one of those left wing bedwetting liberals who believes a person's life is worth more than anything

      Oh my, shall I call you a right wing facist murderer now? No, I'm one of the reasonable persons who thinks that nobody should presume the right to kill other people.

      You're probably against the death penalty, too

      Sure, and for several reasons. First of all I think that no man has the right to kill another man except in direct self defense. Second, death penalty is useless, it does not decrease the number of crimes, in fact it *increases* the number of murders because the criminals don't want to have a witness who can send them to death row. Then look at the number of wrong death sentences already happened in your history and you have one more reason, which alone is reason enough to eliminate death sentence from the law, as it's pretty hard to rehabilitate. Death sentence's only real purpose is to satisfy people's thirst for revenge.

      What about some sick fuck rapist who does little children?

      You say it yourself, such people are really *sick*. People must be protected from such persons, not by killing them but by keeping them for the rest of their lifes where they belong: safely locked away in a psychiatry.

      Is his life worth more than a material item? How about a murderer? Was Ted Bundy's life worth more than a material item?

      Sure.

      A pile of shit is worth more than the life of a hard criminal. You're a fucking idiot if you think that someone who would rob, rape, or murder is worth anything. Period.

      No comment on this one, and now really EOD before I lower myself on your brainless-aggressive level.

    151. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      and now really EOD before I lower myself on your brainless-aggressive level.

      Right -- because I started the name calling when I said, "You are an asshole."

      Oh, wait. That was you. Looks like I lowered myself to your level. I apologize; it won't happen again.

      People must be protected from such persons, not by killing them but by keeping them for the rest of their lifes where they belong: safely locked away in a psychiatry.

      Sounds good to me. Of course, they'll just let the jackass out in x years under the guise of "human rights" so he can attack another family. If I shoot his ass instead, I've guaranteed he won't be harming me, you, or anyone else - ever again. Oh, and bonus: The state saves $x hundred thousand dollars because there's no use keeping him in a cell when he's dead.

      It's nice that you believe a dangerous criminal's life is worth something. I simply don't agree. Once he begins harming other people, his life loses any worth it once had, in my eyes.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
  37. Stupid mother fuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay you stupid mother fuckers, think about this. If you were someone who wanted to take down the internet, or build a nice DDOS network, how would you go about doing it? One way would be to try and exploit the latest bug. The other way would be to write up an app that everybody would intentionally install on their machines.

    Why would some dumb fuck from a war torn area go and spend his own time and money in order to provide free movies, porn, and what not to a bunch of Western slackers who think everything is "free" because their mommy is paying for their shit and thus they aren't able to understand that bandwidth, hosting, content production, code development, etc. all have an actual real cost.

    1. Re:Stupid mother fuckers by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      If you were someone who wanted to take down the internet, or build a nice DDOS network, how would you go about doing it? One way would be to try and exploit the latest bug. The other way would be to write up an app that everybody would intetionally install on their machines.

      Holy shit - that never even occurred to me, which is surprising, seeing as how I won't even eat free samples of food they give out in grocery stores... 'Hi, I'm a total stranger, put this in your mouth!'

      Conversely, with ES5 you get 'Hi, I'm a total stranger in a war-torn area where everyone hates Americans! Install me on your system!'.

      Fiendishly clever!

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    2. Re:Stupid mother fuckers by Geekwad · · Score: 1

      Well then someone ought to validate the source, shouldn't they.

      --

      - http://pakman.sytes.net/
  38. Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pure paranoia at this point, but how long before the US government magically "discovers" that ES5 channels money to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, and the MPAA, RIAA, and DOJ get to spin P2P file sharing as supporting terrorists, much like the "If you use drugs, you're supporting terrorism" ads?

    1. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy gas, you support terrorism too. After all, where do you think Osama got his money?

    2. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention Bin Laden's father's company was the one that built Prince Sultan Air Base - the base that the US forces are station at while waging the 'war on terrorism'.

      How do I know? My best friend was stationed there.

  39. probably hoax by guybarr · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I'm not a speaker, but AFAIK "Ras Kabir" is arabic for "large head"
    definately a pseudonym.

    What's more, with the fighting in the west-bank over the last two years,
    I doubt that people there had time to run any OS project, let alone one with "15 million active online users" cocurently. Especially entertainment-oriented.

    This "declaration of war" is probably a hoax, and I wouldn't be surprized if kooky conspiracy-theories actually turn-out true in this case ...

    (BTW, I'm not much of a speaker, but AFAIK "Ras Kabir" is arabic for "large head" definately a bad pseudonym )

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
    1. Re:probably hoax by infolib · · Score: 2, Informative
      What's more, with the fighting in the west-bank over the last two years, I doubt that people there had time to run any OS project

      According to my traceroutes, they may very well be in occupied Palestine, note especially step 13 - a forwarder in Israel (.il)

      /usr/sbin/traceroute www.es5.com
      traceroute to www.es5.com (213.152.100.163), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
      [...]
      9 goldenlines-4-il-pal6.seabone.net (195.22.197.18) 66.267 ms 65.256 ms 64.544 ms
      10 212.199.28.4 (212.199.28.4) 65.075 ms 65.954 ms 65.379 ms
      11 212.199.28.242 (212.199.28.242) 83.267 ms 83.360 ms 83.277 ms
      12 212.199.26.35 (212.199.26.35) 83.541 ms 82.899 ms 83.291 ms
      13 * 212.199.218.130.forward.012.net.il (212.199.218.130) 82.169 ms 81.092 ms
      14 213.152.100.254 (213.152.100.254) 83.539 ms 84.474 ms 83.524 ms
      15 www.es5.com (213.152.100.163) 83.324 ms 82.545 ms 85.788 ms

      The route to download.es5.com is different, I can't trace it beyond Amsterdam:

      /usr/sbin/traceroute download.es5.com
      traceroute to download.es5.com (213.152.119.5), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
      [...]
      10 ae0-53.mp1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (195.122.136.65) 23.155 ms 23.107 ms 22.959 ms
      11 so-3-0-0.mp1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (212.187.128.14) 18.825 ms 18.865 ms 18.684 ms
      12 gige7-0.ipcolo1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (213.244.165.7) 19.967 ms 19.835 ms 19.773 ms
      13 unknown.Level3.net (213.244.164.18) 21.935 ms 20.048 ms 20.404 ms
      14 213.152.119.253 (213.152.119.253) 22.642 ms 20.689 ms 20.641 ms
      15 download.es5.com (213.152.119.5) 19.875 ms 18.925 ms 19.824 ms
      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    2. Re:probably hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your translation is literal. Its definitly a pseudonym. "Ras Kabir" is a colloquial expression for "Big Cock".

      sorry for the AC post, im normally a /. lurker

      Steve

    3. Re:probably hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah "Ras Kabir" == big head

      If you think about it a little more, you wonder what does an arab muslim have to do with 10 live sex shows streaming and all the latest modern movies? This stuff will get you dragged out to the town's main square and shot in the head (I'm not kidding). If you add to it what is written above, that someone detected that this software hooks to your keyboard and logs stuff to some remote server....

      I think the software goal is dual: not only try and give another push to topple RIAA/MPAA, but also to sky on unsuspecting users' computers.

      I wouldn't touch this software with a 10ft. pole. (or a wireless mouse, for that matter...)
      In my view it goes far beyond the issues commonly discussed here (licensing, copyright, etc.) and into areas that involve national security

    4. Re:probably hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This stuff will get you dragged out to the town's main square and shot in the head (I'm not kidding).

      Despite what the media tells you, the "arab world" does not exist as a singular block of culture, laws, or even religion!

      Extremist Islam is found mainly in Saudi Arabia (the Wahabis). As you get closer to the Mediterranean, Arab countries become more western and more embracing of western values, such as Egypt, or (some would argue) Turkey.

    5. Re:probably hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the whois registrant:

      Earthstationv Ltd, A Vanuatu Corporation
      Jenin refugee camp #23
      Jenin
      PS
      NONE

      Vanuata is that little island in Oceania. #23 looks suspiciously like a reference to the Illuminatus Trilogy or the Church of Subgenius. And the IP address of the site is 213.152.100.163, which is in Amsterdam (Ripe Network). I'm pretty sure there's not a whole lot of fiber running through the Jenin refugee camp.

    6. Re:probably hoax by SoLoatWork · · Score: 1

      Yes the software is crawling with all kinds of nasties. Keyloggers, spyware, adware, "DRM" software.

  40. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael has once again shown what a tool he is..referring to "Palestine", currently a pipe-dream, because no such country exists.

    There will be no Palestine, until these terrorists stop killing innocent civilians.


    Palestinians don't want 'a country'. They want Israel. They have been offered land 3 times, all three of which would have given them quite a bit more acreage than Israel possesses. However, the Palestinian leadership has refused each time. They don't want to forge their own nation out of the desert, as the Israelis did. They want to take over an existing nation, Israel, which already has all the infrastructure in place, and then they want to kill all the Jews. I have no sympathy for their 'plight' and neither should anyone else, unless they're anti-Semite.
    I agree that a Palestine is a pipe dream, but for reasons which are deeper than the terrorists, and which are, in fact, what drive the terrorists. They hate the Jews, they were led to believe that they should have had that country instead of the Jews (nevermind the fact that when offered land they didn't take it) and they are continuing a centuries-old pogrom against the Jews. Were I in charge of Israel, I'd have been much more violent, much sooner. They took a postage stamp in the desert and made it productive. Notice that there was no "Palestinian" movement to get a country before Israel was formed, and no desire to form "Palestine" anywhere else *but* Israel.

  41. You know what's idiotic? by Cloudgatherer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The crap that the MPAA/RIAA put out in the last couple of years. I'm all for rewarding good film-making, but I want my money back for the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'd like my time back too, but since no one has found a way to re-imburse time...

    Seriously, I've been taken in by too many 'previews' of movies, thought 'this looks good', gone to see it, then wished I had not. Feels like I'm getting conned half the time. I'll buy DVDs, I'll pay to see good movies, but since I can't actually see a movie before I pay for it (unless I 'aquire it') what choice do I have?

    None, and that's exactly what the MPAA wants. Text message that.

    1. Re:You know what's idiotic? by jat850 · · Score: 1

      ...read reviews on movies before seeing? Ask your friends who have seen it? Check various internet movie critic sites?

      --
      the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
      the me that you know is now made up of wires
    2. Re:You know what's idiotic? by Hayzeus · · Score: 1
      but I want my money back for the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

      Forget about it. I'm still trying to recover damages for Blake Edward's "SOB". No luck so far. I may never recover that terribly misspent two hours of my life again!

    3. Re:You know what's idiotic? by rolocroz · · Score: 1

      But don't text your friends to ask them, because that would be illegal.

      --

      I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.

    4. Re:You know what's idiotic? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I've been taken in by too many 'previews' of movies, thought 'this looks good', gone to see it, then wished I had not.

      Ever heard of www.imdb.com? You're connected to the WWW, where every one who cares to speak on a movie can find a soapbox to speak on. Read a few of the reviews first.

  42. What the fuck is "Palestine"? (n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said no text.

  43. Is this a gag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole thing reads like a joke. The whois lists the Registrant as Earthstationv Ltd, A Vanuatu Corporation. And the corporation as Jenin refugee camp #23.

    1. Re:Is this a gag? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      Nope. I've used ES5 in the past. I wasn't impressed with the interface.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  44. Boycotting is bad! by koniosis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All the people who say "Don't buy CDs or go to the Cinema etc" are fooling themselves, the more they don't spend on the industry they are just proving the Record/Movie association right!

    I still buy CDs/DVDs and goto the Cinema, why they hell wouldn't I? watching a Film at home isn't the same as the Flicks, I don't care what TV you have. When LOTR Two Towers came out my and 15 of my mates went to see it at the Odeon London Leicester Square (Biggest Screen in the UK) Us and the other 2000 where in that screen, man, what an experience.

    The Industry will learn that they can still make good sales with P2P if they just lower their price, not shut down the networks. I've downloaded moveis that I would NEVER buy, I wouldn't have bought them even before P2P was around, so the RIAA or whatever can't claim that for every movie we download they are losing that much money, cause thats a stupid statement, are they saying that in my house (5 students) we would have spent like 10000 on movies?!?!?! yeah get real. Don't deprive yourself to prove a point that's counter-productive

    --
    I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did :(
    1. Re:Boycotting is bad! by troutsoup · · Score: 1

      i haven't bought a cd since 96 or 97.
      boycott?
      no. theres nothing worth my 16-18$.....
      i don't even listen to the radio anymore, its all the same corporate schwill.
      though XM has some good stuff, dunno if i'll go that route yet.

      --
      -- troutsoup.com
    2. Re:Boycotting is bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's not counter-productive unless after the RIAA starts tightening it's grip people start buying cd's again or people stop fighting it. if everyone realized whats at stake they would all boycott the RIAA and they would get the message.

    3. Re:Boycotting is bad! by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Boycotts are, and have been effective in the past.

      Luckily we don't have to sway all the wankers like you. Just the margin.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    4. Re:Boycotting is bad! by mopslik · · Score: 1

      All the people who say "Don't buy CDs or go to the Cinema etc" are fooling themselves, the more they don't spend on the industry they are just proving the Record/Movie association right!

      One exception to this is boycotting "copy-protected" CDs. I've had to turn down three titles -- Massive Attack's 100th Window, Delerium's Chimera, and even Sarah Brightman's Harem -- because they won't play on 3/4 of my CD players. Boycotting these discs can't really send the message that piracy is responsible for declines in their sales. After all, they're copy-protected, right?

      Of course, it's easy to see that this isn't the case, but it will certainly cause problems when the RIAA goes to explain their sales figures...

    5. Re:Boycotting is bad! by GameGod0 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I just don't buy CDs from any of the big name American recording companies any more.

      Read: NinjaTune

    6. Re:Boycotting is bad! by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      If an business is treating customers poorly, they should not reward it with continued patronage, but should withhold such patronage. The customer is always right. Boycotting is the oldest, and most reliable way to force bad businesses to reform, or perish. If you love Hollywood and the recording industry's products so much that you are willing to endure being presumed a thief, and overcharged outrageously, Expect them to continue presuming you a thief, and overcharging you forever. Trying to make them stop being so greedy through appeasement is the truly counter-productive thing to do.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    7. Re:Boycotting is bad! by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      To the grammar nazis: Sorry about that typo. I know it should be a business, not an. I was going to write "industry" then changed it to "business". I forgot to preview first.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  45. MPIAA vs. Militant Palistinians by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, I don't think the Palistinian idea of war is what the MPAA had in mind when it began prosecuting a war on copyright infringement. If I were a US company I would worry anytime a middle eastern group used my name and the word "war" in the same sentence. Sometimes they (Palestians, well most groups in the middle east, including Israel) are not the most rational people.

    MPAA/RIAA lawyers with subpoenas vs. Palestinians with RPGs (not the game format mind you).

    This could get interesting.

  46. e5: how long till a missle takes this out? by itsjpr · · Score: 1

    this will be reported, glowingly, as an Israeli action to curb terrorism by taking out a "suspected Hamas leader".

    1. Re:e5: how long till a missle takes this out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Israel should sit back and let militant muslims blow up busses filled with children and do nothing about it.

  47. Wow by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Funny

    100% of My job is online
    100% of My school is online
    100% of My friends are online
    100% of My hobbies are online

    and if i can't use a comptuer at all, they might as well put me in a federal prison taht allows me to read and purchase any book i want...


    Man... get a life. Maybe taking away your computer would be a good thing :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Wow by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Dude.. He has a life and he lives it where he pleases. If that be online than who cares. Whatever makes him happy. Right now the RIAA is interfering with his life. That is wrong and i think he deserves support and sympathy rather than criticism (even if it be in jest). Some of us just like seeing life through a screen better.

  48. they'd better be careful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Palestine, no one would think it was out of the ordinary if someone say, bulldozed their homes in the middle of the night.

  49. Has anyone tried this? by k3v0 · · Score: 1

    I was going to download this, but then I thought to look and see if anyone had anything to say about it. Any word?

  50. Insightful? More like Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't cheat and plead, just one movie! It's the Matrix! I have to see it.

    Like the slashbots are going to boycott The Matrix/Lord Of The Rings/Star Trek/Star Wars. More like:

    1) see the movie 3 times in the theatre
    2) buy the movie soundtrack on CD
    3) rent the movie on VHS
    3) buy the movie on DVD
    4) buy the director's cut edition on DVD
    5) buy the deluxe edition on DVD
    6) buy the super deluxe edition on DVD
    7) buy the video game for the PC
    8) buy the video game for the Play Station
    9) buy the video game for the Nintendo
    10) buy the video game for the XBox
    11) Profit (for the MPAA)! No need for ???

    It's too bad. I agree with you.

  51. Interesting by randyest · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the website, it seems they do have their privacy ducks in a fairly neat row:

    ES5 #1 goal is to protect its users from intrusions to their privacy by providing encrypted traffic, random ports and IP anonymity:

    ONE CLICK PROXY SERVER - Users can send connection requests through intermediary proxy servers located throughout the world so that the download destination of a file cannot be traced by any entity whatsoever. There is nothing for the user to set-up, just right click to enable the proxy server.

    SSL - SECURE SOCKETS - Prevents monitoring of a user's uploading or downloading activity. Users can automatically deploy SSL by right clicking.

    UDP -USER DATAGRAM PROTOCOL Using UDP makes it impossible to reliably scan a useras computer to determine if ES5 is running. Also, unlike TCP connections, UDP traffic can not be easily blocked by ISPs.

    ES5 SECURITY KEY - ES5 utilizes a standard HTTP server to transmit files, but deploys a special "security key" so than only ES5 users can access your shared files.

    IP ADDRESSES - ES5 does not display user IP Address information.

    DYNAMIC PORTS- Each ES5 node uses a randomly chosen port (unless the user chooses a specific port themselves). Therefore, ISPs will be unable to identify file-sharing traffic based upon port numbers and unable to throttle back the users bandwidth.

    USER DEFINED PORT SETTINGS- ES5 provides users with "one-click" port setting options for ES5 to use port 53 (the port used by DNS) or port 37 (the port used by time service) therefore rendering all blocking attempts hopeless.

    MULTIPLE POINTS OF ENTRY - ES5 uses multiple methods for connecting to the ES5 network including IP Multicast, Usenet Articles, Web Sites, Node List Files and a several other undisclosed methods.

    PENETRATING FIREWALLS - UDP allows seamless penetration of firewalls without inconvenient setting of firewall parameters. For users behind firewalls, ES5 uses UDP to request a PUSH, where the behind-the-firewall computer initiates the connection back to the requested user's computer. PGPDisk - As an additional security feature, to all P2P programs, is that ES5 integrates seamlessly with PGPDisk (which is a free program and will be provided by ES5 to its users) that lets you encrypt your disk drives to store your P2P content. No one except you will ever be able to see your files, not your kids, your spouse, your mother, your boss, the FBI, the KGB or anyone else!

    So, the plot thickens. Whatever will the *AA do? ;)

    --
    everything in moderation
    1. Re:Interesting by bo0ork · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Well, after reading through their site, I have a few concers. Tracing UDP might require some more statistical software than tcpdump, but it's certainly doable. Now, if they went as far as actually spoof the sending address on those UDP's, that might work.

      Still, an UDP based network requires known servers or points of contact. Even if those change, they're still targets that can be traced and attacked. ES5 is a step in the right direction towards anonymous file sharing, but it's not quite there yet.

      --
      Does everything include nothing?
    2. Re:Interesting by Vedanti · · Score: 1

      The Road Map has now been changed (postumously). It requires Abbas to crush ES5. In return Hamas etc will be allowed to continue. Afterall, IP is more important than innocent lives.

      --
      karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
    3. Re:Interesting by Knobby · · Score: 1

      Let's assume that the authors were spoofing the sending address. How would they establish a connection?

      If there was a list of trusted users then the source IP and port could be encrypted using the receivers public key, but then how do you construct a network of trusted users?

      Any ideas?

    4. Re:Interesting by Jonner · · Score: 1

      IP traffic cannot be completely anonymous. If someone has access to a router or host between two hosts that are communicating, she can tell the two hosts are communicating and estimate the flow rate. Using encryption can hide the content, but not existence of communication. I doubt ES5 goes as far to protect anonymity as Freenet, but Freenet doesn't work very well yet.

    5. Re:Interesting by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      I don't really see any truly safe methods here.

      A proxy server can easily be set up by the *AA's to harvest all sorts of info.
      SSL is nice, but they have demonstrated that they don't actually need to prove the packets contained copyrighted material. In a civil court, the burden of proof is much lower.
      UDP also adds some more security, but at the cost of reliability. And while it's harder to block, it's not impossible. Packet shapers can also be used on UDP also.
      The ES5 security key just means that the *AA's will have to run a copy of the program on their scanners. That's it.
      Hiding IP's in the UI is just a way to give ignorant users a false sense of security. Any agent of the *AA isn't going to be running a P2P app and writing down the IPs on a legal pad.
      Dynamic ports don't really do anything either. There are many ways to profile packet traffic besides what port they are coming from or going to.
      I don't get eh multiple points of entry. Are you saying that a network can form over an ASCII Usenet posting? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it shouldn't matter HOW it connects to the network since there is only ONE network ES5 connects to.
      ES5 will have, and dos have, the same troubles with firewalls that most other programs have. It's up to the user to open ports that their app uses if they want the best results.
      Encryption don't mean jack unless some evil empire snatches your HD out of your computer. Even then, they can find a way to break the encryption since all the data is stored locally. Besides, any data you send over the internet will be decrypted anyway.

    6. Re:Interesting by bo0ork · · Score: 1
      Assuming that this relates to file-sharing, you're not interested in -who- is sending you parts of a file, just what file and what part. Sure, that leaves it open to man-in-the-middle, but this is MP3's, not launch codes for ICBMs. I hope.

      So spoofing the sender just means that you have to tag the packages with content information. Who cares who sent it? Not the receiver.

      --
      Does everything include nothing?
    7. Re:Interesting by ralphus · · Score: 1

      UDP is connectionless. There's no concept of the three way handshake. The sending system sends with no regard for if the receiving system actually gets it.

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
  52. Terrorists! by WPIDalamar · · Score: 1

    Of course you know what the MPAA will say now.

    Palestine uses P2P, terrorists live in palestine, p2p is a terrorist tool, anyone in the US using p2p is a terrorist.

    1. Re:Terrorists! by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      But of course! It's an attack on our crucial IP infrastructure, clearly meant to destabilize the world economy! Time for Isreal to put the smack-down on these AlQaeda-commie-liberal-b#st#rds! ;-)

  53. From their own website by missing000 · · Score: 1

    Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim.

    Believe it or not, we all love and respect each other.

    We all work and play together. Our families on many occasions eat at the same dinner table. We trust each other and are very close friends with each other. As a group, the most important thing in our life is our children, our families and love ones and of course our friends.

  54. Politically Interesting... by MS_leases_my_soul · · Score: 1

    This is actually a very interesting move on the political front. Palestine is not recognized as a self-ruling nation, put is viewed as an occupied state. The RIAA/MPAA have no legal recourse, but then again no one would likely say boo if they unleash mercenary hackers to take BS5 out of commission.

    Of course, if the United States were to formally recognize Palestine as a free and independent state, they could sign a treaty that would let the RIAA/MPAA go get these guys.

    So are the RIAA/MPAA bought members of congress going to suddenly start calling for the recognition of Palestine? Hmmm....

    1. Re:Politically Interesting... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "they unleash mercenary hackers to take BS5 out of commission."

      I can see it now, Hamas VS the RIAA. Car bombs VS lawsuits? Like a real-life Celebrity Deathmatch!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:Politically Interesting... by forkboy · · Score: 1

      Even if they were recognized as a self-ruling state, that doesn't mean the RIAA can send in a squad of death ninjas to take these guys out. The Palestinian government would still have to support and allow extradition or local prosecution. (the latter requiring the RIAA to have a presence in Palestine)

      Why do you think Kazaa's still running? Whatever country they're based out of (can't remember right now...Denmark I think?) doesn't have extradition agreements with the US in regards to stupid IP law...just big stuff like terrorists and murderers.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    3. Re:Politically Interesting... by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      Palestine is not recognized as a self-ruling nation, put is viewed as an occupied state. The RIAA/MPAA have no legal recourse, but then again no one would likely say boo if they unleash mercenary hackers to take BS5 out of commission.

      I daresay that the Arab press would cite is as evidence that Hollywood is run by the Joooos.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  55. substantiated? by drwho · · Score: 1

    Has anyone been able to substantiate this supposed busts? SOunds like a way to get publicity/money.

    1) a subpoena is not a bust. It means show up in court. And it can be fought on jurisdictional grounds. This is a prime EFF case.

    2) Palestine doesn't have shit for infrastructure, I have difficulty believing anyone can have any sort of net connection there. First, Israel would destroy it. If not, the Islamist fundemanentalists would.

    3) I've heard too many stories on the streets about hard times, etc, yea war veteran with three kids but I am off drugs, yadda yadda. Why should the net be any different? No I won't send you money. I'll send money to places that know a con job from the real thing and act appropriately.

    If this is for real and you really have been shafted, my sincere hope that things get sorted out and you are cleared. But you need to think about how to do publicity in a way that doesn't make it seem like the nigerian scam.

    1. Re:substantiated? by op00to · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As you know, every Israeli hates every Palestinian. It's like cats and dogs. Five minues can't go by without one of them pulling the other's hair. There's NO way that an Israeli would cooperate with a Palestinian (or the other way around!) to get an Internet connection. Also, satellites don't fly over that area of the world, so there's no way they can get Internet access that way.

  56. The saviors have arrived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we can finally put capitalists to the test and watch them squirm as they fight the urge to demonstrate that capitalism is no better than communism. They don't want people to perceive America and our capitalist system as totalitarian. But, if they make any steps to do anything about this situation, that is exactly how we will appear to the rest of the world. I have to say, these people are quite ingenious.

  57. Anti-SCO by G33kDragon · · Score: 1

    Speaking of which, when is ThinkGeek going to come out with Anti-SCO t-shirts?

  58. Re:Has anyone tried this? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

    I did - I didn't like the interface.

    I've downloaded it again and will install it when I get home. I want to see if its gotten any better.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  59. Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Chas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not that I'd de-advocating this sort of stance. I'd really prefer that my money not go to these money-grubbing [NAUGHTYS].

    But think on this for a second. These idiots don't even have a NODDING acquaintence with common sense, or even REALITY. All they'll see, and yammer about, when sales plummet is "It's filesharing!" "It's texting!" "It's freedom of speech!"

    No matter what, they're utterly incapable of believing tha that their sales dropoffs are actually due to:

    1. Death of dinosaur markets, resulting in a narrowing of profit vectors.
    2. Death of niches no longer favored by the consumers, resulting in FURTHER narrowing of profit vectors
    3. A tighter, more fiscal-necessity-oriented economy
    4. The decreased efficacy of marketing and promotion in a society that has "peer" review instantaneously available on a global telecommunications network.
    5. An market already HIDEOUSLY bloated by a massive amount of content being released
    6. Alternative forms of entertainment competing for the consumer dollar in said economy
    7. The shoddy market research which results in the greenlighting of...
    8. A growing preponderance of "crap" product being shoveled out to the public which then DON'T get consumed. Tying up resources as product languishes on shelves. For the distributor, the point of sale, and the artist.

    Need I go on?

    In short, no matter what people do, or do not, buy, the likes of the MPAA and the RIAA will merely blame-shift so they don't have to accept responsibility for their own [NAUGHTY]-ups.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      9. The RIAA has not changed their product/business model in about 20 years. Yes, there have been new bands, but their product, the thing that we give our hard earned money for, has not changed since the release of CDs. The MPAA has done so with DVDs and especially the extras that come with them. To me a DVD video is a much better value than and audio CD.

      It floors me that the RIAA cannot seem to make enough money to keep themselves happy, when just about everyone from 12->25 wants their products! I certainly wish I had thier financial problems.

    2. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by enjo13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your wrong, kind of.

      The MPAA and the RIAA are quite aware of why they're not making money. They don't truly beleive that filesharing and text messages are killing their business. The people running these things are many things, but stupid is not one of them.

      What they are really interested in is providing the perception of being victims. They are hoping to use this perception that they are failing at the hands of college-age criminals in order to garner anti-competitive protections for their business. Even if they may be making less money than before (is that even true?), media remains a TREMENDOUSLY good business for established players. By establishing themselves as victims, they can prevent new distribution channels (like P2P) that they can't control from allowing new competitors to emerge.

      In the end, that's what this is about. The Theater->Video->Tv chain is a tightly controlled one for the members of the MPAA (the RIAA has similiar in CD->Radio). When indepednent film makers can start to distribute quality work over alternative distribution channels it is in the best interests of these companies to shut them down.

      One thing to consider.. if the RIAA wasn't seen as the victim of 'stealing' on Napster, does the DMCA even get passed? I doubt it.. Much like the airline industry bail-outs. Without 9/11 the Airlines would have a much more difficult time getting money out of our government, but since they are seen as 'victims' of the increased fear after 9/11 it is much easier for them to get these kinds of concessions.

      These laws are not born out of hatred for the American consumer, but generally on really wanting to do the right thing. After all, if the MPAA is being stole from then we should do what we can to fix that. The problem is, our representatives are having trouble seeing the difference between justice and manipulation.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    3. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by salesgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me simplify: The record and movie industry is dealing with the effects of competition.

      --
      -- $G
    4. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Dr_LHA · · Score: 1

      Death of dinosaur markets, resulting in a narrowing of profit vectors.

      Is this CorpSpeak(TM) way of saying that the last couple of Jurassic Park movies don't make any money any more?

    5. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profit vectors?

      How 1999.

      Did you happen to miss the Dack.com Bullshit generator, fucked-company, and the collapse of the "new economy"?

      Try: Revenue generation streams. Even then, I'm probably not current.

    6. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The DMCA was passed before they had gotten their PR machine into high gear, so, yes, it got passed without them being seen as victims.

      And since it has been passed, I wouldn't see them as victims if they were staked out over an anthill. Of fire ants. With just a drop or two of honey to get them started.

      And that goes for the bloody politicians that passed it and supported it, too. And for anyone who enforces it or defends it's enforcement.

      P.S.: I do not, and have not, downloaded any MP3s. Or ripped off any software. In fact, I probably haven't violated the DMCA (it's absurdly long, so I can't be certain). And that doesn't matter one whit. They deserve a painful death. Or perhaps immuring.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The people running these things are many things, but stupid is not one of them.


      Got any proof?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    8. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mean some of these people appear to have some very strong gut reactions against P2P and general purpose computers. I remember watching some streamed debate with Jack Valenti (MPAA) and he had the emotional appearance of a man who, utterly convinced of his own correctness, was attempting to convince a group of middle agers that the world was round. I mean he really looks like he believes all this stuff is necessary to protect his industry from piracy. I'm not saying he's not a good actor, just that at a glance, he seems sincere. Perhaps that just means it's easy to look sincere when all you care about is money and all you are trying to do is ensure you will get money forever.

      On the other hand, all this whining by the record industry does look more like a scam. Take all these copy protected cds for example. They don't work. Everyone knows they don't work, but the Recording Industry still spits them out. It's the same thing with sites like buymusic.com where the labels have forced everything to be protected by extremely complex unlikable licenses with truly nasty DRM. I mean, if we were thieves, we wouldn't be trying to buy music from them. These activities just look and feel like deliberate self sabotage.

    9. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do con men and lawyers. They are both very good at lying through their @$$ when they think that it will benefit their own pocket book.

    10. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA and MPAA weren't seen as victims by the general public but they were seen as victims by Congress. Napster still was mostly in the realm of college students but mp3's could be found all over the web. Remember there were legitimate concerns over all the copyright infringement on the Internet but RIAA, MPAA, Disney and a lot of other copyright holders hijacked the process through scaremongering (remember that the MPAA still views Sony v MPAA as a huge loss despite the new movie market it created). That's what happens when ordinary citizens don't pay enough attention to the legislative process.

    11. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Chas · · Score: 1

      I have a medical background, rather than a business background. So I tend to think in somewhat more medical terms. And in the medical field, a "stream" is not something you want to deal with. ;-)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    12. Re:Nice sentiment (BIG) BUT (/BIG) by Chas · · Score: 1

      Profit: The amount received for a commodity or service in excess of the original cost

      Vector: A course or direction

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  60. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones who blow up buses, schools, hospitals in the hope of killing and maiming as many innocent civilians including children and babies as possible.

    Is that a clue yet?

  61. Subpoena by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm, it says he was subpoenaed. Far as I know, subpoena does not mean injunctive relief. It just means he has to show up and possibly talk.

    Given that it doesn't take effect until the paper arrives at his door, by certified mail or served in person, he's not bound by the ruling.

    Now, if the RIAA/MPAA had pushed for injunctive relief and the judge issued a ruling saying he couldn't be online until yadda-yadda, then he's got problems. But again, he still has to recieve notice to be bound by it. E-mail doesn't count.

    But as it stands, there is no mention of a document or paper dealing with a injunction, or even subpoena having arrived yet.

    Until they do, just chill.

  62. ES5 Motivation unclear ... by OMG · · Score: 1

    ... but this is what you get if you click on the "Company"-Link of ES5:

    Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim.

    Believe it or not, we all love and respect each other.

    We all work and play together. Our families on many occasions eat at the same dinner table. We trust each other and are very close friends with each other. As a group, the most important thing in our life is our children, our families and love ones and of course our friends.

  63. Practical uses for p2p-contributing bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am fairly new to open source and can contribute very little right now, but I want to do something. Would it be possible to off load some bandwith costs of some opensource projects/websites using a form of p2p and an ftp server. Everything could be md5'ed and capped at a gig or two. I like the security that comes with some ftp servers and linux (3 years and no recorded compromise with an anon setup).

    What about for commercial use-say something like file planet or file front. Note: file front did try something similar at one time but the p2p software was fairly insecure. I could allow a gig or two to be donated on behalf of an open source project.

  64. Maybe this es5 thing is a blessing p2p by Stigmata669 · · Score: 1

    Everyone on slashdot continues to support the idea of legal p2p because there are loads of applications that do not break the law. Instead of thinking of es5 as giving a bad name to p2p instead look at it as though es5 will become a known illegal vending point and that other organizations that say they only want legal trade could asipre to be avoided in the RIAA/MPAA attacks. 2c. ?

    --
    Yawn.
  65. I'm very impressed with ES5... by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Wonderful press release, kick the MPAA/RIAA where it hurts.

    2. Web site not slashdotted.

    3. 40kb/sec download of the software. Exactly what kind of net pipes do they have running into Jenin? Maybe download.es5.com is located somewhere else...

    4. None of this "we're just technology providers" bullshit. No, this is theftware at its best. Hey, the US has paid billions to help the Israeli state bomb the Palestinians into the stone age, it's not surprising there is not huge local support for US "intellectual property".

    The software was apparently developed in Russia, financed by Arab and Israeli businessmen. It appears to use UDP rather than TCP/IP, which is a neat idea when you are sending redundant chunks of information around, and SSL for security, which may or may not be really secure.

    The whole thing may be a hoax, I am downloading it to a test machine to try right now.

    At last, someone with the guts to sock it to those bums at the MPAA and RIAA. Yeah!!

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      >> 40kb/sec download of the software. Exactly what
      >> kind of net pipes do they have running into
      >> Jenin? Maybe download.es5.com is located
      >> somewhere else...

      WAS 40KB/sec, until slashdotters started to ganghump the server, not that that's a bad thing.

      I hope this thing doesn't rip the ass out of my machine....

    2. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by srvivn21 · · Score: 4, Informative
      [me polymorph]# dig download.es5.com

      download.es5.com. 10m36s IN A 213.152.119.5

      [me polymorph]# dig -x 213.152.119.5 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
      213.in-addr.arpa. 2H IN SOA ns.ripe.net. ops-213.ripe.net.

      In other words, download.es5.com's IP address is "owned" by ripe.net. http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/ states in part:
      The RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) is one of Four Regional Internet Registries (RIR) that exist in the world today, providing allocation and registration services that support the operation of the Internet globally.

      The RIPE NCC performs activities primarily for the benefit of the membership in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and African countries located north of the equator. These are mainly activities that its members need to organise as a group, even though they may compete in other areas.

      The services provided by the RIPE NCC ensure the fair distribution of global Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region required for the stable and reliable operation of the Internet. This includes the allocation of Internet (IP) address space, autonomous system numbers and the management of reverse domain name space.


      A traceroute from my desk shows (again, in part)...

      11 bpr1-so-0-0-0.sanjoseequinix.cw.net (208.173.54.65) 50.889 ms 51.496 ms 55.282 ms
      12 208.173.54.74 (208.173.54.74) 55.430 ms 51.065 ms 50.517 ms
      13 so-5-0-0.gar1.sanjose1.level3.net (209.244.3.137) 51.761 ms 52.379 ms 55.816 ms
      14 so-7-0-0.mp1.sanjose1.level3.net (64.159.1.73) 62.741 ms 58.862 ms 51.160 ms
      15 unknown.level3.net (64.159.3.254) 114.017 ms 113.364 ms 111.183 ms
      16 so-2-0-0.mp1.london2.level3.net (212.187.128.137) 188.881 ms 189.685 ms 188.827 ms
      17 so-2-0-0.mp1.amsterdam1.level3.net (212.187.128.26) 195.189 ms 193.874 ms 194.465 ms
      18 gige10-2.ipcolo1.amsterdam1.level3.net (213.244.165.99) 191.791 ms 192.253 ms 195.587 ms
      19 unknown.level3.net (213.244.164.18) 192.521 ms 193.254 ms 192.870 ms
      20 213.152.119.253 (213.152.119.253) 193.077 ms 192.419 ms 193.005 ms
      21 213.152.119.5 (213.152.119.5) 193.729 ms 192.124 ms 194.005 ms

      So download.es5.com looks to be housed in Amsterdam (gige10-2.ipcolo1.amsterdam1.level3.net).

      Just my take on the situation.
    3. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by fugspit · · Score: 1
      3. 40kb/sec download of the software. Exactly what kind of net pipes do they have running into Jenin? Maybe download.es5.com is located somewhere else...

      Well, according to visualroute It would appear that whilst www.es5.com is in "Israel" download.es5.com is in Amsterdam.

    4. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by mrsev · · Score: 1

      I dont know seems to be in Jenin.

      Check it out:

      inetnum: 213.152.119.0 - 213.152.120.255
      netname: EARTHSTATIONV
      descr: Employee's VOIP and workstations in the
      Jenin refugee camp #23
      country: PS
      admin-c: RAS9905-RIPE
      tech-c: NKA9905-RIPE
      remarks: Speednet's # 2002122740
      status: ASSIGNED PA
      mnt-by: SPEEDNET-MNT
      notify: admin@earthstationv.com
      mnt-routes: EARTHSV-MNT
      mnt-lower: EARTHSV-MNT
      changed: speednet@email.com 20021231
      source: RIPE

    5. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The whole thing may be a hoax, I am downloading it to a test machine to try right now.

      Great. Tell us what you find in your journal, we'll keep an eye on it :)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Wait till you see the GUI. Looks like a 5 year old's crayon drawing of a computer pad on Star Trek.

    7. Re:I'm very impressed with ES5... by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      For #3:
      traceroute download.es5.com
      traceroute to download.es5.com (213.152.119.5), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
      .
      .
      .
      5 152.158.76.51 (152.158.76.51) 23.493 ms 42.253 ms 43.220 ms
      6 gblond2101cr2--1-2-0-1.lo.uk.ip.att.net (165.87.212.117) 113.963 ms 122.484 ms 120.430 ms
      7 gblond2101er1-0-0.lo.uk.ip.att.net (165.87.216.82) 123.007 ms 130.772 ms 137.641 ms
      8 GigabitEthernet5-0.linx1.lon1.level3.net (195.66.224.77) 141.757 ms 147.321 ms 149.597 ms
      9 so-1-2-0.gar1.London1.level3.net (212.113.0.114) 150.951 ms 126.912 ms 116.748 ms
      10 so-7-0-0.mp1.London1.Level3.net (212.113.3.1) 120.096 ms 132.085 ms 122.844 ms
      11 so-2-0-0.mp1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (212.187.128.26) 131.153 ms 125.381 ms 117.740 ms
      12 gige10-2.ipcolo1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (213.244.165.99) 120.368 ms 135.722 ms 124.808 ms
      13 unknown.Level3.net (213.244.164.18) 119.065 ms 141.180 ms 114.956 ms
      14 213.152.119.253 (213.152.119.253) 117.879 ms 118.867 ms 121.646 ms
      15 213.152.119.5 (213.152.119.5) 123.119 ms 120.446 ms 117.858 ms

      traceroute www.es5.com

      traceroute to www.es5.com (213.152.100.163), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
      .
      .
      .
      5 haif1br1-1-0-0.hai.il.ip.att.net (152.158.76.50) 26.458 ms 22.403 ms 23.585 ms
      6 152.158.76.51 (152.158.76.51) 30.377 ms 27.755 ms 26.237 ms
      7 gblond2101cr2--1-2-0-1.lo.uk.ip.att.net (165.87.212.117) 115.158 ms 141.150 ms 117.909 ms
      8 gblond2101er1-0-0.lo.uk.ip.att.net (165.87.216.82) 117.579 ms 134.486 ms 190.747 ms
      9 linx.lon.seabone.net (195.66.224.153) 105.875 ms 106.502 ms 108.723 ms
      10 pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net (195.22.218.225) 134.928 ms 224.966 ms 240.859 ms
      11 goldenlines-3-il-pal6.seabone.net (195.22.205.26) 120.600 ms 108.191 ms 108.804 ms
      12 212.199.28.4 (212.199.28.4) 121.527 ms 105.599 ms 137.969 ms
      13 212.199.28.242 (212.199.28.242) 105.692 ms 105.591 ms 120.404 ms
      14 212.199.26.35 (212.199.26.35) 136.349 ms 132.239 ms 128.527 ms
      15 212.199.218.130.forward.012.net.il (212.199.218.130) 150.590 ms 150.544 ms 162.713 ms
      16 213.152.100.254 (213.152.100.254) 143.302 ms 134.650 ms *
      17 * 213.152.100.163 (213.152.100.163) 157.286 ms 157.126 ms

      #2 is in Israel, #1 isn't.

      --
      -
  66. It's a HOAX!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    E5? First of all there is P2P software that is made by Israelis like iMesh and SoulSeek.

    Second, E5 seems like a hoax, Ras Kabir? It means Big Head if i'm not mistaken, not quite your regular Palestinian name. So it is a nick/pseudonim, fine, but all these absurd press releases about P2P software and wars on RIAA make it seem a little funny. Has anyone tried the E5 software? Does it do what they say, or is it just another Kazaa Lite?

    I'm afraid to try it because I'm running Windows, and you know what might happen if you take software from strangers...

    1. Re:It's a HOAX!!! by Kneo24 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've helped beta test for them (they have public beta testing). It does what it says it does. You can go to their forums and ask people about it all. Is it a hoax? It certainly could end up being one, but so could all of the other p2p programs out there.

      I don't help in the beta testing anymore though. A few of the developers who are regulars on the board acted moronic any time I submitted a bug to them. I had to tell them what my problem was quite a few times before they finally understood what I was talking about. I'd show my bug report to friends who hadn't used the program before and they perfectly understood what problem I was having.

      I really don't like using the program either. For me, it's a memory hog (uses 16 MB), and I don't have the money to upgrade from 128 MB. Plus, it looks really bulky. Though, if I want a more secure p2p app, I know where to look.

    2. Re:It's a HOAX!!! by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      My html skills are so 31337 that I can't do a link correctly. Let me try again. ES5's Forums. I was even smart enough to do a preview this time around.

  67. Re:Palestine????!!! by O2dude · · Score: 1

    Well well well a pro-israeli post in public. You're either a money grabbing Jew or a right-wing christian loony.

    After all, anybody that doesn;t condem the evil israeli opressor and support the heroic palastinian freedom fighter can;t be a well adjusted member of western urban society.

    Or so the ever objective news media and the bleeding-heart left-wing humanist intelligentsia would have us believe.

    ----

    --
    - It took western civilisation 2000 years to ensure popular literacy, and now we work with icon driven GUI's. Go figure.
  68. ridiculous by vida · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is getting more and more ridiculous, now we get supoenad *before* anything happens. What the heck happened to 'innocent until proven otherwise'?

    Let me ask you something; how can we call the US the 'free capital of the world', or 'a place where personal freedom thrive' when one can be pretty much condemned because of the connontations and possible uses that the piece of software one wrote *might* have?

    Who are we as individuals when we support and raise our stand to *free the world of tyrans* overseas, when we let this type of things happen @ home? Yes, I know. Two totally different things. The consequences of having a tyran as a ruler are definitely not the same than having a corrupt and money driven institution that proposes and passes laws; but the underlying principle is the same. Freedom, of any kind.

  69. Not enough of these 'nades to go around! by niko9 · · Score: 0

    Taco:Yes, of course! The Holy Slashdot of OSDN! 'Tis one of the sacred relics Brother Cowboy Neal carries with him. Brother Neal! Bring up the Holy Slashdot!

    AC's chanting: Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.

    Brother Neal: Armaments, chapter two, verse nine to twenty one.

    Brother Neal: And Saint Stallman raised the Slashdot up high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy Holy Slashdot that, with it, Thou mayest slashdot Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy'. And the Lord did grin, and the AC's did feast upon first posts, trolls, GNAA posts, and...

    Taco: Skip it a bit, Brother.

    Brother Neal: And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou click on the holy link called Slashdot. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, clickest thou holy Slashdot of OSDN towards thy server, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

    Taco: Amen

  70. reason for the shutdown?? by kegger64 · · Score: 1

    From the article, I fail to understand why the xmule developer's net connection was shutdown. Sure, he's been subpoenaed, but where's the due process? It sounds to me like his ISP isn't aware of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"

    --
    653899 - Another prime Slashdot UID
    1. Re:reason for the shutdown?? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Innocent until proven guilty is for legal codes, not for TOS's. Usually all it takes is the threat of a lawsuit for an ISP to turn someone's connection off, unless, it seems, they are a spammer :(

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
  71. Useful URL. by Pray_4_Mojo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A really good buy/sell secondhand site is www.secondspin.com

    ( I know, shameless plug. )

  72. WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, Boycotting is very easy.

    You see, some of the worst movies ever made were from the past few years. (Think Gigli).

    Tell your friends about how the media industry bought off scumbag politicians and circumvented your constitutional rights with the DMCA. About how they are targetting college kids (who are eternally broke thanks to a f*cked up higher educational system in this country) - and grandmothers. The boycott approach will only show the illogic in the media industries plan.

    Also remind these fools that HIGH PRICES are the reason for slow down NOT PIRACY! Also the fucking recession might be a good reason, or a Republican in the White House (especially a brain dead former coke fiend father of slutty daughters) - ANY REASON can explain the lack of business growth in any sector.

    1. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn straight! That fucking Bush!

      He will always be damned for signing the DMCA into law!

    2. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by johnny0101 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      especially a brain dead former coke fiend

      Clinton is already out of office...

      --

      ----
      In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
    3. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Exedore · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry to break it to you, but your sarcasm detector seems to be malfunctioning.

      --

      I take drugs seriously.

    4. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You had me, right up until you started insulting people. Try again next time, but come back with a more formed argument and you shouldn't feel the need to insult the jackass in power.

    5. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why blame the President, It is Congress that makes the laws. The DMCA passed the Senate unanimously, and faced little opposition in the house. Even if the President had vetoed the bill, the Congress would have easily overridden the veto. Blame the Congressmen who are taking bribes from the corporate lobbyists.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    6. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      No shit, sherlock. Ever heard of the word "sarcasm"?

    7. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton was a pothead, not a coke fiend. Being a coke fiend is much worse.

    8. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially a brain dead former coke fiend

      I think we all remember the red nose

    9. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by zootread · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Idiot Son Of An Asshole" by NOFX

      He's not smart, a C student
      And that's after buying his way into school
      Beady eyes, and he's kinda dyslexic
      Can he read? No one's really quite sure
      He signs stuff and he executes people
      Maybe that's why, he doesn't have any friends
      Cocaine and a little drunk driving
      Doesn't matter, when you're the Commander in Chief.

      Idiot son of an asshole
      He's the idiot son of an asshole
      Idiot son of an asshole
      He's the idiot son of an asshole

      Put on some make-up, turn on the 8-Track,
      I'm putting a week back on the shelf,
      Suddenly I'm the President, of the United States,
      But then I woke up, and realized I'm still me.

      He's too dumb, to eat pretzels, apparently smart enough to fix an election.
      Moved boldly into the White House,
      but most people voted against him.
      He likes naps, He really likes naptime, A couple of naps and then a nap and then he's ready for bed,
      He may be from Bush decent, but he's always gonna be the unpresident.

      Idiot son of an asshole
      He's the idiot son of an asshole
      Idiot son of an asshole
      He's the idiot son of an asshole
      Idiot son of an asshole
      He's the idiot son of an asshole

      He's our president!

      --
      Zoot!
    10. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! (Score:1, Flamebait)

      And yet the parent is marked informative... "see the repression inherent in the system." (monty python) :|

    11. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by johnny0101 · · Score: 1

      Why blame the President

      The president signed the law (in this case, clinton and the dmca)

      Even if the President had vetoed the bill, the Congress would have easily overridden the veto

      So the President should be able to get off the hook because "everyone's doing it" and doesn't need to take a stand for something?

      --

      ----
      In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
    12. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by whatch+durrin · · Score: 0, Troll
      Grandparent gets "Informative" and this gets "Flaimbait?"

      You fucking hypocritical slashdot moderators.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    13. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, haven't you been listening to the tripe coming out of the right for the past 3 years?

    14. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you got troll :(

      The reds are ahead in the mod points
      we can not allow there to be a mod gap!!!
      (based on a movie.. figure it out, Rooskie moderators!!)

    15. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, haven't you been listening to the cacophony if idiocy coming out of the left for the past 100 years?

    16. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Politburo · · Score: 1

      the Congress would have easily overridden the veto

      This is very simplistic, and too simplistic, imo. If the president vetoes a bill, the members of his party are not going to jump for joy at the chance to override the veto. And in the real world, if the president was (publicly) against the bill, chances are his party would have opposed it in the legistlature to begin with.

      While I'm not saying that blame should go only to the president, one must not forget that the president and members of his party in Congress work together.

    17. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      So's yours, apparently.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    18. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ooooooo a sarcasm detector. Now *that*'s a useful invention!

      (Funniest... line... evah)

    19. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by nyseal · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. Getting a blowjob from an intern while on the phone with a congressman is a worthy presedential action. Staining a young girl's dress with your jizz is truly noble of an American leader. And let's not forget the whole cigar in the pussy deal....wow, I could've been president 10 years ago except for that whole minimum 35 year old citizen clause. Oh well, I guess I'll have to live with just ACTING like a president; naps included.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    20. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Damn right. Except naps aren't presidential. That was Reagan's gig. Clinton hardly slept at all. If you bought a night in the Lincoln bedroom, you'd have to deal with Clinton wandering around the hallways at 4 in the morning looking for someone to debate. If you woke up to go to the bathroom he'd ambush you on the way back and force you to listen to an hour of random economic data.

    21. Re:WRONG!! Boycotting WILL EVENTUALLY WORK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it didnt pass unanimously. my senator voted against it.

      unfortuantely they used the yay nay method for true unconstituinatly of the law.

      feingold is a true patriot in america one of the few that remain i believe. i wont back him 100% but when i do, it s cause he deserves it

  73. I'm a big fat TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, if we had proper DRM -- including the abilty to set "no restrictions" on a document, we wouldn't be in this mess. You could have P2P and not have to worry about copyright infringement.

    1. Re:I'm a big fat TROLL! by tuba_dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If our government wasn't run by corporate intrests, we wouldn't need DRM. It's not quite on topic, but why was the BSA allowed to raid and fine Ernie Ball without direct government intervention? If they had the feds come in and do it for them, I wouldn't be quite as concerned, but when a coporate agency can enforce the law, there is a problem.

      --
      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    2. Re:I'm a big fat TROLL! by iantri · · Score: 1

      They did. Read the article. It says federal marshalls showed up at the door.

    3. Re:I'm a big fat TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're a troll, you said so on the title bar, but you have provided the perfect thing to start a debate with! DRM is something we should never put up with. I buy a CD, and it becomes my property. The RIAA has no business telling me that I have to use the player of their choice, I'll use the one I choose. They can't tell me not to copy it to my MP3 player, or to lend it to a friend. They can tell me not to make copies of it, and sell them. That is all copyright law is stipulates! Since they want to treat my property like it is still theirs, I don't buy CDs.

    4. Re:I'm a big fat TROLL! by tuba_dude · · Score: 1

      Hell. You're right, missed that one. I'll be more careful next time.

      --
      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
  74. yeah and do you overeat too? by goombah99 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    boy those twinkies sure looked good but now I feel sick to my stomach. wish I could have my time back and my money back too.

    Next time I'll just steal them.

    Its not really stealing y'know, cause if I like them then next time i'll pay for them so really the twinky folks will make money this way. It costs them almost nothing to kake those things y'know so its really not stealling since I think they over charge. The fact that I'm willing to pay that much for them doesn't really mean they are worth that. common sense.

    Oh and the reason I had to eat the whole box I did buy was that since I had already paid my money I did not want to stop in the middle of it even though I already know I would not like it.

    what was my point. Oh yeah everything should be free, I dont need to use my judgement, I never learn from my mistakes or take steps to avoid them, and its all about me. music video and twinkies all free to me. yeah that's it.

    if people cant make stuff I like it should be free.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:yeah and do you overeat too? by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1

      Finally someone who makes sense. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to??? /unless you are being sarcastic lolomfgafaik

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
  75. Re:Has anyone tried this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a bunch of adware and crap, despite the press release. It has built in "dating service", which is really just a redirect to one of the many online dating scams.

    It also has a firewall warning, that told me I needed to open all UDP and TCP ports above 1023. Seriously.

    Seeing as the "no adware" part was a lie, seeing as how they have no respect or common sense in the press release, I dont buy any of the "anonymous" crap about it either.

    I'd avoid it. I wouldnt be surprised if I didnt just put a big old trojan onto this machine by installing it. Luckily its a test box, and I was going to bounce it today anyways.

  76. You forget that... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    ...the RIAA/MPAA does not need to have an actual case that will stand up in court, in order to shut you down or make you pay a fine in the form of a settlement: it is sufficient to threaten you with a multimillion dollar lawsuit that they can and will drag on for the rest of your natural life. When facing that sort of lawsuit, would you take it to court and fight them all the way, or would you give in and pay the settlement even though they had no case?

    The **AA's are actually quite clever to go after end-users and small-time outfits: these are the opponents that will quickly bend over and give in.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  77. You know... by niom · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's not really funny.

    --
    -- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is.

    2. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps someone made a surgical strike on your sense of humor?

      BTW, when are we going to stop calling them "refugee camps". Does it happen when the "refugees" finally realize the promises made by Arab counties to wipe out Israel and give it to them are not going to happen?

    3. Re:You know... by Jippy_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's not really funny.

      Why not? It made me laugh.

    4. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll stop calling them refugees when Israel let's them go home.

      I guess we could call them concentration camps, since that's basically what their purpose is.

    5. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. It should have been bulldozer.

    6. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel: the Fourth Reich has arisen, and it likes bagels, lox, and genocide.

    7. Re:You know... by kyletinsley · · Score: 1

      That's not really funny.

      You're right.... it's god damn hilarious!

    8. Re:You know... by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Stick in the category 'so distressingly true i have to laugh or i might kill myself'

      ~Cederic

  78. And who trusts an ap from a terrost nation??!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would LOVE to tear this program apart and find all the backdoors and zombification functions this will add to people with a broadband connection.
    Think about why palestinians would want to give you all of these functions for FREE. It is surely not because they have lots of free bandwith and programmers lying around not being used. What a deal, in exchange for free porn you can help bring down the "Zionist Enemy" and the "Great Satin" all from the comfort of your desktop.

  79. Bulldozer??? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Bulldozer? Are you kidding????

    Try, can you say "Apache Gunship"?

    I imagine some calls are being made to the Sharon goverment....Israel is moving tanks into the bank now....watch for "Earthstation 5" to be in the way when they roll. Is this really going to be a surprise to anyone?

    I think these people are fools. Do not taunt dragons...they have sharp teeth.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Bulldozer??? by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

      Try, can you say "Apache Gunship"?

      Yeah, I thought of that but decided to nix it because it seemed to extreme. Then I changed my mind in a subsequent comment.

    2. Re:Bulldozer??? by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
      When you hear about Israeli bulldozers crushing buildings in the West Bank, they're not talking about a cute yellow Caterpillar driven by a smiling man in an orange hard hat.

      Take a look at the IDF D9 Bulldozer.

      I know if one of those came for me, I'd be running just as hard as if it was an Apache gunship!

    3. Re:Bulldozer??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA is not a dragon. What it is is a litigious bully. Somewhat akin to Scientology actually. Those are it's only "teeth". In the real world outside of your financial and civil-legal system it has nothing.

      They can threaten to sue your ass off, but if you live in a refugee camp in the West Bank then you probably have nothing they could take.

      Nothing to lose, some minor publicity to gain. Why not?

  80. For the love of Doug, people by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't keep asking what xMule is, ask Google.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  81. Yup by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Used CDs:

    a) Are cheaper
    b) Don't send money to the RIAA

    I haven't bought a new CD in many years. I have bought used though.

    half.com rocks.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Yup by Jonner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of your money still gets back to the publishers and the RIAA. In particular, the seller will probably buy more new CDs. Obviously, buying used CDs is a good idea and I've bought a number of them. I've bought several because I already had copies of the songs on them. In that case, it would have been acceptible even if the CD was unreadable, since I was just buying a license to use the songs. They were all in good condition, however.

    2. Re:Yup by foo+fighter · · Score: 2, Informative

      b) Don't send money to the RIAA

      Not from your purchase of a used CD. But the RIAA already got their money from the original purchaser.

      You've kept your money from them, but it's not like they didn't get anything from your purchase.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    3. Re:Yup by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1
      Only buying a license to use? Before Bill Gates and EULAs, no one would have ever suggested that this is all you get. The idea would have been laughably absurd.

      You buy a CD, and it becomes your personal property. You can't burn copies and sell them, that would be copyright infringement, but you can listen to it, resell it, use it for a clay pigeon, whatever. The RIAA wants to use that licensing idea to take away the first sale principle. I say bullshit. Funny how they dump the license concept, and view it as a sale of property when you want to upgrade in media from cassette to CD. There is no upgrade discount. You have to pay full price.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    4. Re:Yup by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Of course I own the the piece of plastic I buy. But, if I already had the recordings that are on the CD, I wouldn't have to copy them again. I was observing that since it's so easy to make digital copies today, the piece of plastic has less inherent value.

      Buying a record or tape or CD has never meant buying songs. The original author (or publisher, or whoever) still holds the copyright. Buying an album has always meant buying a license to use the recording on it; it has nothing to do with Billy boy or software.

    5. Re:Yup by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      Can I be informative too by saying BOYCOTT MONEY!!! SOME OF IT ALWAYS MAKES IT INTO THE HANDS OF THE **AA!!! ?

      Come on, its impossible to keep your money from indirectly affecting just about everyone else. Used CDs are a good compromise.

    6. Re:Yup by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Sure it's a good compromise and I never knocked it. Just don't deceive yourself by thinking that buying used CDs is non-participation. To boycott the RIAA or music industry in general, one would have to spend no money at all on the products of the evil group.

    7. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No CDs:

      a) Are cheaper
      b) Don't send money to the RIAA

      I have money either for my net connection and blank CD's or for music on CD.
      For everything else... there's shoplifting

    8. Re:Yup by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      this is plain wrong.

      When you buy a CD you own the CD. You don't need a license to play it for your private use. You'd need a license to copy it (other than fair use, in the US at least) or to play it in public, but you don't have one.

    9. Re:Yup by st1nky187 · · Score: 1

      that's only true if you aren't buying a promo copy of a cd, which technically aren't supposed to be sold but at least in nyc make up a large part of the contents of used cd stores. those actually cost the label money.

    10. Re:Yup by nadaou · · Score: 1

      Problem I got with buying used CDs are they are often stolen & pawned.

      Do I support the corporate theives at the RIAA or create a market for the guy who breaks into my house and steals my CD collection? I know most of them won't be stolen, but I don't want any part in helping that guy. Moral dillemas..

      I like the $5 bin at the local indy CD shop.. as I'm not really into top 40, if you find the right place, you'll find all sorts of old bob marley, dylan, mahavishnu orchestra albums, etc .. I could download them if I really wanted to, but my time is worth more than $5/hr, and I get the liner notes and everything -- and at cd quality.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    11. Re:Yup by nadaou · · Score: 1

      [clicked 'Submit' before getting to the point..]

      My well trodden point was that people download inferior (but passable) quality music because new CDs just too overpriced. Supply & Demand. No big mystery. Cut the cost to $8-10 and non-offical downloads become much less attractive.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    12. Re:Yup by Jonner · · Score: 1

      You're still missing the point. Of course one buys and owns the piece of plastic that is the CD, but that's not worth much (probably a few cents). When one buys a music CD, one is mainly buying the right (or license) to play the music and (at least for now) make copies under fair use. Would you pay five or twelve dollars for a few grams of plastic?

      To rephrase: you need a license to play a CD for private use, but if you obtained the CD legally, you have the license.

    13. Re:Yup by Pofy · · Score: 1

      I have no idea from were you have got those silly ideas of needing a "licens" or other permision to play a CD. Sure, content providers and such might want you to believe so, but that does not make it true.

      Buying and selling things are usually quite well regulated and defined in sale laws (or consumer sale laws) or similar laws (probably differ some between countries). It is really quite simple though, you pay some money and get some item in return. For specifics such as exactly when the item is transfered and such, check the details of the laws. After the sale, th eitem is owned by whoever bought it (of course).

      Unless some additional contract or agreement was made TOGETHER with the sale (like for example when you rent something where a contract is typically made indicating you actually rent and not buy something), there is nothing additional to consider. It is now yours, be it a car, a hammer, a book or a CD with music. It is now yours. ONe can of course do whatever one want with what one owns (unless there is some specific law preventing it, like saying, it is not allowed to use your matches to set someone elses house o fire for example). There is no law that says you can't play a music CD without some permision though.

      SOmeone might thing that copyright laws might have something to say here and that copyright laws might prevent the use of a music CD without some sort of license. But that is not the case. Copyright laws only prevents a few specific actions by giving the copyright holder the (almost) exclusive right to perform them. Examples are making additional copies to distribute and public performance. Ordinary use, such as listening to a CD, breaking it in half, throwing it out the window, giving it away as a present to a friend, or even selling it, is NOT among the exlusive things only a copyright holder might do. It is important to not confuse holding the copyright to something and owning it. Someone can own a book or a CD, yet not hold the copyright. For some reason, people seem to confuse that and believe that one can't own something if one doesn't hold the copyright to it. Strange.

    14. Re:Yup by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I think you're saying exactly the same thing I did, but for some reason, you won't acknowledge that. It seems you're agreeing that the piece of plastic is not what's being bought and sold for $15 (or less, if it's used).

      If you want to be pedantic, copyright law doesn't say anything specific about playing a CD. As the name implies, it says who has the right to copy a work, wich can be a music recording. Whoever manufactures the CD has the right to copy the recording onto the CD. The person who buys it doesn't have the right to make any copies, except for the fair use provisions. That's fortunate, since you can't even play CD without making a copy of it (into the player's RAM, for instance).

      To make a copy of the music to your hard drive or another CD for your personal use is also under fair use. However, it would probably not be if you borrowed a CD from your friend, copied all the music, then gave the CD back. Every time you played those songs, you'd be making unauthorized copies (into the player's RAM). That's what I meant when I said you need a license to play the music, though perhaps "right," or "permission" is a better word.

      I have MP3s of songs from a certain album. I bought a used CD of the same album. The MP3s are probably still unauthorized copies, so I'd probably have to make my own copies from the CD I bought to make everything kosher. If the end result was the same, I wouldn't bother. I wanted higher quality Vorbis anyway, so I copied the songs and deleted the old MP3s.

    15. Re:Yup by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Hmm, yeah, perhaps we do agree and I just did not understand you properly.

      Regarding music and playing it. As far as I know a player won't compy the whole music into the memory, do it really? I can imagine a few bits (well a whole bunch) being processed in memory while it is being played, but to then leave it in memory seems unnessecary and need far more memory than most CD players probably have. Still, arguing that such a thing is copying would be like arguing your brain has a copy of a book you read and really silly (which of course has nothing to do with how the law would actually be interpreted by a court of course).

      Some countries copyright laws actually DO provide specific permision to make copies needed to actually use a work (which would include temporary copies in ram for example) and even allows for such thing as correcting errors. Don't have the actual swedish copyright law here but something along those lines are in there.

      >To make a copy of the music to your hard drive or
      >another CD for your personal use is also under
      >fair use. However, it would probably not be if
      >you borrowed a CD from your friend, copied all
      >the music, then gave the CD back.

      On top of that, swedish copyright law, for example, at least for the moment, allows making copies for "private" use, which has through court cases been established to include making copies not only for your self but also for relatives and close friends. Thus, at least here in Sweden the equivalency to fair use includes copying a music CD for a friend. This does not apply to commputer software though although the allowance for copies needed to use the program exists and I would guess it is to not have problems with such "you make a copy in RAM when you use it". So no issues of using it exists.

      >I have MP3s of songs from a certain album. I
      >bought a used CD of the same album. The MP3s are
      >probably still unauthorized copies, so I'd
      >probably have to make my own copies from the CD I
      >bought to make everything kosher.

      A sort of loophole (this is really geting abit off topic) currently exists in swedish copyright law, but it will for sure be removed soon. The way it currently stands, the provision for making copies for private use does not consider from where the copy is made. Hence, downloading, say, mp3 files is OK if it is for private use. You can still not go on and distribute them and so on, and the one originally sharing it so you could download it is still breaking the copyright law, but actually downloading is OK, and the copy (no matter were it comes from) is perfectly legal as long as it continues to be for private use.

      Not sure how it will be fixed though, possesion of wrongly made copies been made illegal seems a bit going to far, but who knows what they come up with.

    16. Re:Yup by Jonner · · Score: 1
      I know nothing about Swedish law, but I think I understand the basics of US copyright law.
      Regarding music and playing it. As far as I know a player won't compy the whole music into the memory, do it really? I can imagine a few bits (well a whole bunch) being processed in memory while it is being played, but to then leave it in memory seems unnessecary and need far more memory than most CD players probably have. Still, arguing that such a thing is copying would be like arguing your brain has a copy of a book you read and really silly (which of course has nothing to do with how the law would actually be interpreted by a court of course).

      Copying digital audio into the memory of a player is not the same thing as reading and understanding a book. The former is making an exact copy, while the latter is not. Digital audio in RAM can be copied further, while one's memories are personal. Maybe this will become an issue when telepathy becomes widespread.

      No, the entire song doesn't need to be copied at once to play it, but each part needs to be copied at some point. The law doesn't address specific implementation details like copying a whole song at once or just a few seconds at a time. However, whether a copy is fair use does partly depend on how much of the work is copied, which is why I assume it applies when playing a CD.

      The precise limits of fair use under US law are constantly debated and challenged. There are many applications that I'm unsure of. For instance, I know that it's been shown in court that recording TV broadcasts for later viewing is fair use. I'm unsure if it is still fair use when one gives a copy to someone through the Internet.
  82. p2p can be used for illegal actions.. by wille_faler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, if it should be illegal to just think about using or creating p2p software because it can be used for illegal actions, shouldnt that apply to other areas as well or not at all?

    I would presume that you can use a gun to do things that are much worse than what you ever could achieve with Kazaa (RIAA might disagree)..
    Then again, while we are at it: you could speed in a car, or drive drunk and kill somebody.

    Point being the obvious: I dont care if piratism is illegal, it should be, its just that today its easier to pirate music than to buy it, so, it is pirated. The fault for that lies with the industry, but its still not justifying piratism.

    But: Dont illegalize tools that may be used for both good and bad, they are only tool, and as I said, I can think of things much worse and harmful than a p2p application..

    1. Re:p2p can be used for illegal actions.. by gobbo · · Score: 1

      You're right; should urinating be illegal just because I can do it in H. Rosen's gas tank?

  83. MOD UP +5 satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exactly

  84. agreed. but.... by 514x0r · · Score: 1

    this hurts my friends as well. i have a friend who runs an indi record store. i spend all kinds of money there, but the majority is on used records--a point that's beaten to death on /.--and records from indi labels. a boycott is a kneejerk response which cause a tremendous amount of collateral damage.

    spread the knowledge.
    let people know the cost of cd production v. the selling price.
    spread the word on how much actually goes to the artist, especially those out of the mainstream
    promote music purchased through alternate distribution chanels.

    a boycott is usefull, but MASS education is better.

    --

    !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
  85. Flame ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, the "war" has been going on for some time, and so far the Israeli massacred much more civilian the the BAD / EVIL terrorists.

    and I don't see much Israeli people complaining...
    There ARE some who do, but they are considered as black sheep by their fellows.

    BTW, Isreal is a religious state, no ? and the old testament said that the people of Israel will get his country back on the day the Messiah will come back, isn't it ?

    So, no Messiah, no Country...I think a few million ppl should start packing about right now if they are consistent with their faith...

    The palestinian got fucked, hard, both ways, for fifty years. It's not an excuse for the terrorism, but it is the only weapon poor people have against Right-Winged, Fascist Governments elected with the help, and money, of every goddam Jewish Intergrist there is/.

    I do Boycott Israeli products, as far as I can.
    If you have 2 cents of intelligence, you'll do the same.

    Best Regards from Cynical AC

  86. Why trust this software? by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
    I don't see anything in the description which explains how the authors are making money with this. It's possible this is an entirely altrustic movement, however history isn't on our side with this kind of application.

    Have any of you installed this, and can you comment on whether you're being shown ads or if you otherwise see how it works?

  87. Does this feel ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... like some kind of trap to anyone else? First question: How can someone in Jenin refugee camp acquire enough reliable bandwidth to avoid a slashdotting? The site is still up and I am downloading the client with 15-25k/sec. Second question: If their servers are not in Palestine, which it seems they are not, what's to prevent someone from simply grabbing the servers? Third question: It uses "methods which are secret to communicate" (paraphrased). Anyone care to do traffic analysis on this and see where those packets are going?

    Say for instance, that a US coalition of companies (*aa) decided to produce what they thought would lure all p2p users, then compile statistics, and sue. Or since it's in Palestine, and as everyone knows, Palestinians are terrorists, why not just say you're supporting terror and prosecute as terrorism under whatever Ashcroft is calling PATRIOT II this week?

    Download music, face a firing squad.

    Just being paranoid.

  88. They aren't anti-MPAA and Anti-RIAA by Trigun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are anti-establishment. Their software is the epitome of ideals held by hackers everywhere.

    From the article:Earthstation 5 also has a FREE multi-user Voice and Video chat system,
    FREE Dating system, provides FREE video streaming of first run movies, FREE
    ten SEX channels, FREE live Sporting events, and will be releasing soon a
    Voice over IP application providing FREE local and international telephone
    calls to its users to communicate with each other.


    They are attacking the old bricks-and-mortar businesses, in an attempt to force them to change their ancient business practices. And good for them! Information wants to be free, but content doesn't have to be. These companies had better start releasing their music/movies/services to the unwashed masses in a proper and timely manner or people are going to do it for them.

  89. Re:Anti Semitism? Derr - Parent post is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't remember a non-jewish actors in Soviet movies than you better ask your doctor about Aricept. Modern medicine can do wonders and will hopefully delay your dementia by a year or two. Abdulov, Nikulin, Pugovkin, Lyubov Orlova, Gurchenko, Vizin, Morgunov, Mironov... These are the first couple of names that pop into my head when I think of russian movies and - guess what - all of them are superstars and none of them are Jewish. Better yet - you go research it yourself.

  90. Earth Station 5 are A**holes :( by jaylen · · Score: 1

    Earth Station 5 are a bunch of unhelpful idiots. What they do not choose to understand is the simple facts of the situation.

    While it is true that American laws have no power in Palestine, American laws do indeed have power in the good old US of A.

    So, the RIAA will simply take one look at Earth Station 5, see that they cannot touch them, and therefore go for the next available target... ...and that target will be the ISPs of America.

    How long before the RIAA makes a petition to a judge, then Congress to insure that American internet users will not even be able to reach the website of Earth Station 5? In my opinion, not very long at all.

    And in doing so (provided that they achieve the aim) they will then have started a huge avalanche of lawsuits against the ISPs, forcing ISPs to block access to certain 'undesireable' sites on the internet.

    -------
    Jaylen

    1. Re:Earth Station 5 are A**holes :( by Luthe_Faydwire · · Score: 1

      This is already happening is at least one state. In Pennsylvania ISPs are required to block sites that are given to them by the DOJ.

  91. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, so which one is it, Hammas or the Israeli army?

    What, you don't think firing five rockets into a car on a public street doesn't cause colatoral damage? We all saw a child being held in his fathers arms, who was shot and killed when the Israeli army opened fire. Oh yeah, Israel can do no wrong can they? Gotta' prop up that old sacred cow.

  92. advertising by spaced1 · · Score: 1

    the fact that es5 are on slashdot and lauding the idea of giving away everything for free, therein holding themselves in some way on a different level to kazaa et al is pretty phenomenal advertising. feel sharing is a godsend. i'm in deepest darkest africa and can't get movies / dvd's unless i go 1000miles away. i have a satellite connection for communications - 128kbps is $950 per month!! long live free downloaded entertainment

  93. Cyber Terror Opp? by KnarfO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is anyone else paranoid enough to envision ES5 as a front set up to download clandestine malicious programs to the boxes pulling down the files from their site?

    I'm no fan of the MPAA, or the Israli Government, and I don't want to add fuel to their arguments to shut down P2P, but, doesn't anyone worry about connecting to a renegade server in Palestine? Doesn't it seem too easy?

    /paranoid

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    1. Re:Cyber Terror Opp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been wracking my brain for a real motivation for ES5. We know that mainstream Islamist terrorists have a shrinking list of places that they can direct terror attacks from, areas occupied by palestinians are one of these places. Now they can spread this ability world wide mostly to people with broadband connections and fast computers. And the great blissfuly ignorant American moves on......

  94. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you must be one of those americans everyone else in the world hates..

  95. Re:Palestine????!!! by DemoLiter2 · · Score: 1

    There will be no Palestine, until these terrorists stop killing innocent civilians.
    They wouldn't have to kill innocent civilians, if they had a possibility to build and finance their own properly equipped army. This way Palestinians could reclaim their occupied grounds in a legitimate way. But who would be able to help them with that, as long as Israel has USA with all its financial, and if needed, military power.
    ES5, regardless if its really operated from Palestine, or is just a spoof, is a small , but first step to bring some balance in this conflict.

  96. P2P sharing is fine by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    P2P sharing itself is fine and, infact, underutilized. P2P sharing of copy righted material is not illegal.

    Yes. Let's put a bullet in that myth right now and stop spreading misinformation on behalf of the RIAA -- sharing of copyrighted material is not illegal if it is done in a way the copyright holder condones and even then there is a fair amount of flexibility depending on which country, but even in the U.S. and other countries subscribing to the Berne convention there is some flexibility.

    The real bite is that client-server file sharing, the kind you do with a file server, is getting neglected. If even half of the offices around the world actually used their Netware/Samba/AFS servers, there would be no need to do anything other than filter to /dev/null those $%^&* mail attachments aka MS-Outlook worms.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:P2P sharing is fine by Fulg · · Score: 1

      sharing of copyrighted material is not illegal if it is done in a way the copyright holder condones

      Well, sharing MP3's online is a far cry from the fair use clause allowed by most copyrights...

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    2. Re:P2P sharing is fine by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
      Yes. But clearly the RIAA wouldn't condone this. I don't know this for certain, but I would suspect that the Palestinian Authority would be subject to any treaties to which Israel is a signer. Israel has signed on to Berne (warning: pdf)

      If Israel has the desire (or has the desire forced upon them) to enforce compliance with their treaty obligations, these guys could have set up themselves the bomb (literally).

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
  97. terrorists! by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 1

    Earthstation 5's pressrelease makes it clear that they are trying to do their little bit in the jihad against America. It is obvious that they are terrorist, and I expect it won't be long before the Bush administration labels them a terrorist organization, and will dispatch some troops to take care of the matter.

  98. Only a matter of time before we see... by wayward_son · · Score: 1

    P2P file sharing is linked to terrorism. If you share music files, you are a terrorist

    Brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security.

    1. Re:Only a matter of time before we see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revolutionist yes. Terrorist NO!

  99. Patriotic and Victory Act Repressive: +1,Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    While you Slashdot luzers, discuss lame RIAA crap,
    the Cheney-Rumsfeld regime continues its theft of the United States of Amerika:

    Bet Against The Moron

    Thanks and have a John_Ashcroft_free day!
    W00t

  100. Do not boycott; buy, then return by Sebby · · Score: 1
    Boycotting only gives fuel to their arguments ("See, they're not buying, so they must be pirating it!").

    Buy, then return the DRM CDs you buy. That'll put more cost to the retailer, which will piss them off and cause them to demand changes.

    And I don't think the RIAA wants their main means of distribution to get pissed off at them.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  101. RIAA/MPAA by Ridgelift · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trying to stop file sharing is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Every time they think they've put a nail through the heart of file sharing, it just slips off the stake and morphs into something else.

    The only way government and pseudo-government (RIAA, MPAA, etc) officials will help reduce illegal file sharing is if people choose to not download files. It's all about freedom of choice, folks. So save your money from suing people and spend it on advertising, appealing to people's sense of right and wrong. Being a bully and suing some poor college student is just kicking the hornet's nest, and begs for someone like Earth Station 5 to rise up and make what they're trying to stop even worse.

  102. leave RIAA/MPAA alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the less people get exposed to the junk movies and music these guys produce, the better place this planet will be. seriously!

    use P2P to fileshare good stuff instead.

  103. Don't starve yourself! Seek other entertainment! by autechre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are many fine forms of entertainment that aren't controlled by the RIAA/MPAA, and don't agree with them. Live near Baltimore? See a John Waters film at The Charles. Music? Dischord, Touch and Go, Archenemy, Fueled By Ramen (geeks ought to like that label). I went to see Eleni Mandell last Wednesday; it was her first time in Baltimore. It's CRIMINAL that she doesn't get more attention, as she's a wonderful artist (and really nice in person). Far more criminal than some kids depriving Britney Spears of a hypothetical $1 per CD.

    This site:

    http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

    has a "bookmarklet" to help you identify non-RIAA bands when you're shopping online. Or, you could find the small clubs in your area (Baltimore: The Talking Head, The Ottobar, The Mojo). Check their schedule, look up the bands (who will probably have free, legal downloads). Go see the ones you might like; it's probably only $5 or so. Buy their CDs if you do like them; most of it goes to them, and the CDs are cheaper too.

    Reply to this post with your tastes if you want suggestions. I can't help with hip-hop so much, but I can with nearly everything else. And, shameless plug, WMBC will start broadcasting again in a few weeks :)

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  104. Re:Anti Semitism? Derr - Parent post is a troll. by DemoLiter2 · · Score: 1

    Sure there are people in soviet movie industry who aren't Jewish. Still most of them are. And for those you've mentioned - recount please.
    You see, having "Russian" written in your passport, telling everyone you are of course "russki", even visiting ortodox church doesn't change your true identity in most cases.

  105. The name of Palestine. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just for your personal reference: There is no such country as Palestine. Sorry. It's nowhere on the map. The country to which you are referring is called Israel.

    1. Re:The name of Palestine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a complete idiot would believe this .. you must be from the:

      "Land for a people for a people without a land" circus.

    2. Re:The name of Palestine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, then show me where it is on a map? Here's a national geographic map server, if anyone would know where it is, they would, right?

      http://www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/

    3. Re:The name of Palestine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true Jewish mass murderer (see: Israeli).

      After all, all that curly-girly hair stuff and hats and 'devotion to God' is all superficial.

    4. Re:The name of Palestine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll remember that next time I hear the Dalai Lama (or anyone else who doesn't like the Chinese govt thugs) saying "Tibet".

  106. this is quite ironic... by zr-rifle · · Score: 1



    Earthstation 5 also has a FREE multi-user Voice and Video chat system, FREE Dating system, provides FREE video streaming of first run movies, FREE ten SEX channels, (...)

    (...) and to make our point very clear that their governing laws and policys have absolutely no meaning to us here in Palestine


    Wait a sec... isn't pornography illegal in muslim countries?

    Scandalous behaviour by internet users has been exercising religious authorities in the Middle East for some time. According to a Saudi scholar, internet pornography was even foretold by the Prophet as one of the evils that would occur just before the day of judgement.
    Article

    Where the long arm of the RIAA cannot reach, a fatwa against p2p may kill thousands (literaly).

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  107. What's REALLY funny about that... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    is that, after all that blustering and defiant language, Earthstation 5 is now unreachable.

    Kudos, Slashdot, for doing what the MPAA could not.

  108. Revenues are falling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the economy, stupid.

    Duh.

  109. Oh, the children.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How about the Iraqi children killed by errant bombs -- or just happened to live too close to the actual target?
    Or if that isn't face-to-face enough, how about the ones killed at roadblocks by soliders? When can I see the arrests (or executions, yum) of the US personnel and administrators (Our "heros" and "patriots") responsible? I'll be waiting over here, thanks.

    The Point: War sucks. Doubly so when the two sides are completely unmatched. Ugly things tend to happen.

  110. Wow - first run movies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can watch Gigli without the embarrasment of
    being caught buying a ticket! Woohoo!

  111. it's the assumption by waspleg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    you know the RIAA pulls all their loss figures from what you *WOULD* have paid for the entire album if all you got was one song... Artists have long made their money from touring on concert and product endorsement and other venues outside of selling their music (and last time I checked no one on MTV Cribs was living in the gutter, unlike many of the people they claim empathy with/for) so I say: Fuck 'Em; Fuck 'Em Long and Hard with properly heated, wrought iron, not a single smoooth surface rods and watch them writhe around in agony slowly dying, fuck the RIAA, fuck the MPAA and fuck their puppet Senators (I'm looking at you Fritz)

    as an OT note, your sig about Randi is dead on, he avoids people with real proof of the otherworldly like a plague, he makes a healthy living being as big a fraud as the people he purports to "debunk" and someone needs to set his beard on fire as well (yes fire IS the answer)

    1. Re:it's the assumption by waspleg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      to the mods: your mom is flamebait you ass eating monkey trolls

    2. Re:it's the assumption by Calamere · · Score: 1

      "ass eating monkey trolls"?

      God, that's funny. I'm going to try and use that in a sentence today.

    3. Re:it's the assumption by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      your sig about Randi is dead on, he avoids people with real proof of the otherworldly like a plague

      True - because you have no choice but to avoid people who don't exist. It's kind of hard to make contact with them.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  112. You dont understand the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its all about the revolution. that means we take the fat cats money and sharew it with the people. its all about sharing. if enough people do it then its called a revolution. the people have spoken and it the people who say whats right and wrong. if the people say its right its not stealing man. you just dont get it. music is meant to be free or its not really music, music lives in the air and gets shared, it doesn't live in a pocket book. you're an asshole.

  113. Thank the Supreme Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is sad to see corporations and entities that exist only on paper having more rights than living breathing human beings. The worst thing the Supreme Court ever did was to give "rights" in the late 1800's to corporations.

  114. P2P sharing is fine by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    P2P sharing itself is fine and, infact, underutilized. P2P sharing of copy righted material is not illegal.

    Yes. Let's put a bullet in that myth right now and stop spreading misinformation on behalf of the RIAA/2FMPAA -- sharing of copyrighted material is not illegal if it is done in a way the copyright holder condones and even then there is a fair amount of flexibility depending on which country, but even in the U.S. and other countries subscribing to the Berne convention there is some flexibility.

    The real bite is that client-server file sharing, the kind you do with a file server, is getting neglected. If even half of the offices around the world actually used their Netware/Samba/AFS servers, there would be no need to do anything other than filter to /dev/null those $%^&* mail attachments aka MS-Outlook worms.

    If these folks don't get the message and soon, you may find yourself asking for permission to write anything on your machine that moves bits around.
    Isn't that what the upcoming software patent vote is about? Just think about the control you can have with patented file formats and algorithms, backed up by the EUCD/DMCA, the Economic Espionage Act, and the Business Software Alliance. Add restrictions management technology and the lock-in is complete, pretty much killing of the IT sector and most possibility for R & D.
    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  115. Re:Anti Semitism? Derr - Parent post is a troll. by DemoLiter2 · · Score: 1

    A little to add (offtopic) :
    About "troll" : just who's posting anonimously?
    About "you better ask your doctor about Aricept" : thanks for advice, but I doubt it will help. I spent a big chunk of my life in a city with some 0.1% volume methan,CO,H2S and other shit in the air. I had headaches almost every day since I can remember myself and I've kinda accomodated to it.

  116. Re:Earthstation 5 has one thing really going for i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen what Palestine looks like? Its lucky it isn't a stone-age web site.

  117. Don't buy in to it by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As loudly as they proclaim, "Get your Illegal Warez here, we will protect you, we got nothing but illegal sutff," I don't trust them to not be a trap for users. Think about it, RIAA/MPAA set this up, make it super duper abundantly clear that the only purpose here is to be illegal, they score a two fold victory: first their case is strengthened against P2P in general, and second, they eventually sue said company and in an "out of court agreement" come away with complete logs of who did what on the network. Now they get to really sue those people, and their case is all the stronger, "More people watched Terminator 3 on the net than went to see it in theatres!"

    1. Re:Don't buy in to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a conspiracy on the part of the Jewish media elite to kill two birds with one stone. Not only can they demonize filesharers, they can demonize Palestianians.

    2. Re:Don't buy in to it by Fjan11 · · Score: 1
      RIAA/MPAA set this up

      Not very likely. I would be far more worried about the altruistic intentions of people that feel they have been oppressed by the US (through Isreal).

      Think about it: Once the software is popular enough the automatic update feature might just do something far less friendly than update...

      --
      This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
    3. Re:Don't buy in to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentlemen, please replace your tinfoil hats with something more comfortable. Just because its breaking your American laws or allegedly hurting your industries doesn't mean thats true (or even a concern) for the rest of the world.

    4. Re:Don't buy in to it by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand how this would work. If it were set up by the RIAA/MPAA, wouldn't any copies distributed through this organization be legitimate? Put another way, how can you give a company permission to distribute your content without your permission?

    5. Re:Don't buy in to it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I had the same impression -- that it's a honeypot. It's not so much what they say as the structure of the site -- it all sounds too good to be true, yet they don't actually tell us anything solid. And there was that experience posted in someone's blog, mentioned above, that makes it abundantly clear that the client is spyware (assuming this 3rd-hand blog report is honest, and not FUD itself).

      That it traceroutes to somewhere in occupied Palestine (and apparently to Holland too) -- well, would you believe 'em if the destination was Hollywood, California? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  118. Our last, best hope for movies? by docbrown42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was the dawn of the third age of mankind, 4 years after Napster.

    The Earth Station 5 Project was a dream given form. Its goal: to provide free entertainment to the people of the internet. It's a port of call for hackers, cracker, leeches, and newbs.

    The internet can be a dangerous place, but it's our last, best hope for pr0n.

    This is the story of the last of the Earth Stations. The year is 2003. The name of the place is Earth Station 5.

    (With appologies to JMS)

    --
    Ed Wedig
    Graphic design services
    docbrown.net
    1. Re:Our last, best hope for movies? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Damnit, you beat me to it!

      Summary of the anti-RIAA/MPAA version, in plain-English for non-B5 fans:

      ---

      When faced with subpoenas and threats to shut down and fall in line ("we're a police state, we can do whatever the hell we want, so start bending over, oh, and we aren't giving you any KY") the response was "Oh yeah!?!?! We're not going to do what you tell us, because you SUCK, so do your stupid rules, no two-week notice, we are OUT!"

      When the feds came after them, the response was "We have bigger friends than you. Look, here they come now..." Their friends jump in from out of nowhere: "We have bigger guns -- errrrr, lawyers -- than you. The only one of you who has ever survived is behind us [Grokster waves and looks smug]. You're in front of our legal guns. Go away, you MPAA commie bastards!"

      The feds then run like hell because they know they're about to get lawyered and judged out of existence if they stick around. Much cheering ensues.

      The feds keep creating more rules and more excuses, and keep piling more and more guns -- er, lawyers -- onto the case, and keep sending veiled threats. So the station merely goes out and talks to all its friends and gets them to chase off any bad guys -- er, lawyers -- who might show up.

      This goes on for a while, until finally the bad guys learn their lesson and get their butts kicked, but not after trying, and failing, to steal technology from some even older bad guys (um, who would that be in this spoof? uhhhh...) who drive around in weird black crablike things. Hmmm. Must be SUV drivers... yeah, that's it!

      The guy responsible for passing all the bad laws finally loses and kills himself like any good villain, after one last rant about "new-kew-lar" stuff.. Last attempt to make a horrible mess is foiled. Much cheering ensues.

      The End.

      ---

      I'm two DVDs away from running out of season-3 episodes. I can't find the fourth season up for preorder on amazon yet. Arrrrrrgggh! I want my B5!!!

  119. Hmm [slightly OT] by autechre · · Score: 1

    We got in 100th Window at WMBC, and it didn't have any problems in any CD player where I tried it (including a CD-RW drive in Linux), and was also rippable (we have a rotating playlist fill in our gaps when there are no live DJs).

    As far as boycotts, I say that we should make sure to have big increases in sales of non-**AA movies and music, to point out where the revenue really went. Nothing would make me happier :)

    Support small artists, folks. They actually want you to listen to their music. Reply to my other post above if you want suggestions.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75555&ci d= 6755408

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    1. Re:Hmm [slightly OT] by mopslik · · Score: 1

      We got in 100th Window at WMBC, and it didn't have any problems in any CD player where I tried it...

      Lucky, indeed. I tried it on my AVC Soul (portable MP3/disc player), in my ancient 5-disc changer, and in my DVD player. 100th Window spun forever in all three of them. I did get it working in my PC (and likely my car stereo, had I tried), but it seemed like too much of a hassle, so I returned it. Better to send the message that these crippled discs aren't welcome.

      Of course, since then I have seen 100th Window floating about on the P2P networks anyway.

  120. That's because of media aggregation by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    This brings up an important point about the harm of media aggregation

    The false claims about dropping revenue need to be refuted. However, that is difficult because in most countries media is not only becoming increasingly privatized (the size of the wallet determine who speaks) but also decreasingly varied so that there are fewer voices and greater chances for abuse.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  121. Wanna see naked pics I took with my webcam sugar? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Oops, sorry, you'll need a P2P app to download them from my PC.

    HAND!

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  122. Honeypot! It's a trick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let us summarize:
    -streaming FIRST RUN movies over the internet for FREE
    -freely share their music and movies online
    -FREE video streaming of first run movies
    -FREE ten SEX channels
    -hides the identities of its users and their IP addresses

    It's an RIAA/MPAA honeypot! They're finally learning from us! Run...RUN! They'll be on you like stink on a hillbilly!

  123. It's a trap! by GayBliss · · Score: 1

    Could it be that the RIAA has set a trap for people? The website is very explicit about its intentions, so if you take part, you are knowingly and willingly breaking the law. They can round up a whole bunch of people at the same time!

    1. Re:It's a trap! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      And they'd prosecute... how exactly?
      > "You're honour, he was downloading files from our server"

      "Ok, and... well, you have evidence he hacked into it?"

      "No, we invited him to download the files, and he did."

      "So what you're saying is you offered him copyrighted files, that you own the copyrights to, and let him download them."

      "That's right..."

      "And it constitutes copyright infringement on his part him downloading these files... how, exactly?"

      "Because he thought they were illegal m'lud!"

      I don't think so.

      BTW, the movie industry is represented by the MPAA. The RIAA is an industry group for the recording industries.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  124. Skeptical by LIOPE · · Score: 1

    The xmule story is suspicious to me. The guy doesn't know why his site was shut down, he just assumes it is the RIAA. I don't see how this is newsworthy... at least not yet.

  125. Re:Don't buy in to it HONEYPOT! THANK YOU! by raresilk · · Score: 1
    Someone with points please mod parent up. This is a trap if I ever saw one.

    --
    No, no, no. This is not a sig.
  126. NO! Don't sneak in the food and drinks. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    THAT's what hurts the theatre, who also pays through the nose for the priveledge to play the Matrix just like you. They're in the same boat. The least you could do is have the decency to buy an overpriced bag of Skittles, as a token of your understanding.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:NO! Don't sneak in the food and drinks. by bytesmythe · · Score: 1

      My post was partly meant as a joke... I used to work at a theater, so I know they only make money at the concession stand.

      The motion picture companies really are amazingly annoying. They spend massive amounts of money on making and marketing terrible movies, then make up for it by charging theaters out the wazoo to show them. The theaters have to jack up ticket and concession prices to make up for this so they can stay in business. If movie companies actually spent some time coming up with a decent film, it would probably cost less since they wouldn't have to rely on as many special effects and overpriced (but lousy) actors and directors.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
  127. Admitting a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    logged in with visible E-mail and homepage.

    Thank you, Mr. IQ-below-penis-length.

  128. Historically ... by Vedanti · · Score: 1

    I don't think the laws of the occupying country apply (completely, atleast) in the occupied territories.

    For eg., Isreali army won't be able to kill anyone it likes in Isreal i.e. it can't indulge in extra judicial killings. But it can do so in Palestine. More importantly, people of the occupied territories don't have the same rights enjoyed by citizens of occupier. I've read news stories about the problem of judiciery in Iraq. They are not sure which old laws of Iraq apply ... there was no mention of US laws applying there.

    Before 1947, in India, the British enacted separate laws just for India, many of them continue even today.

    --
    karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
  129. Reasons for xMule developer being shut down by Madcat123 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Un-Thesis was not shut down for being a developer in the project, and he was far from being the author of the project. The project was originally named as LMule, and later forked to xMule. The original project died few weeks after the fork.

    The real reason Un-Thesis was shut down was most probably the 30'000 mp3z he was sharing on various networks, NOT because he was developing a p2p program. RIAA has been shutting down power-sharers on P2P networks for quite some time already, its no secret. I bet they simply saw a great opportunity to get two flies with one hit - shut down a powersharer AND a developer. The fact that he lived in USA made it even simpler.

    If RIAA really hopes to shut down the xMule project, then this won't happen. As we all know, open source software cannot be killed. And there is already an ongoing project for new client that will replace xMule in few months when its finished - currently under temporary name xMule2.

    Madcat.

  130. Re:RIAA/MPAA ---- rambling ranting ahead! ---- by slappyjack · · Score: 1

    >> So save your money from suing people and spend it
    >> on advertising, appealing to people's sense of
    >> right and wrong.

    Please tell me you're kidding. The last thing this planet needs are more fucking advertisements.

    The Movie studios also have the option of:
    - Not spending big gobs of money producing the same old crap over and over again because they've gotten the unwashed masses to beleive that because the early adopter unwashed masses spent the most money on seeing this hunk of flaming dogshit really does make it America's Number one Movie!

    --OR--

    If a $100 million dollar budget wasnt broken down by roughly:
    50% Marketing, Advertising, focus audiences
    20-25% Lead actors' salaries
    4-6% supporting actors' salaries
    (maybe 7% if aging/up-and-coming starlet shows boobs, 8% for a fuck scene)
    10% Excplosions & car chases
    5% Catering
    10% Crew
    0.00000001% Script Writing and Development

    And things were JUST SCALED DOWN A BIT, there wouldnt be so much money to lose

    --OR--

    Marketing would not be needed to suck a degree IF YOU DIDNT MAKE SUCH CRAP!!!

    Record Studios have the option of:
    - Not giving advances to every 15 year old with a workable set of pipes and a sweet rack (yet have never played an instrument or written a song in their lives) and producing their next 3 albums of bubblegum junk.

    and then having the gall to sell them for $20 a pop.

    ---AND---

    Trying to get sympathy with one hand while the other is squeezing the testicles of the artists for every drop of blood they can extract

    (We're ALL at fault for this. Letting these companies get this big and bloated is a direct result of us saying - adn KNOWING AS TRUTH - "God, why does most media fucking SUCKS ASS these days" and yet still we get together with our buddies, suck back a few beers and go see "Freddy -vs- Jason"

    I did it. I'm guilty, and I'm not alone)

    maybe I'm just angry. maybe THERES JUST TOO MUCH CRAP BEING FOISTED ON THE WORLD AND WERE SICK OF PAYING TO SORT THROUGH IT YOU FUCKING GREEDY FUCKERS!!!

    AAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHASLFDIU HAL:SDFUIH A:SDKFLN :AJISF "ASNDfa sdf.....
    "AS

    -whew-

    much better now. back to lurking.

  131. Email your representatives! by Un-Thesis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Below is a copy of my letter to my senator, McCain, of Arizona. Feel free, indeed encouraged, to email your own senator (or even others!) and representatives. You can find their addresses at http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov/

    With respect,
    Un-Thesis
    =====================
    Dear Senators,

    Some of you have . It affected me personally on 17-Aug 03. I am the main developer of one of the few person-to-person filetrading programs for UNIX (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) machines and MacOS X.

    Apparently I was struck without warning by some DMCA clause for downloading 'copyrighted material.' In other parts of the law, you need habeus corpus, search warrants, judicial review, warning, etc. With the DMCA they merely terminate you, with no warning, with no appeal, with no representation, with no pretense of jurisdiction, based upon evidence that was 100% obtained outside the framework of any noticeable governmental or 3rd-party oversight.

    In short, it is an apparently open fascist policy prone to rampant abuse, supporting the rights of the Establishment over the People.

    My life revolves around the marvelous information transport technologies collectively referred to as the Internet. I attend a part-time university online (www.accis.edu), near 95% of my contact with my friends and family is online, 100% of my employment is online (via rentacoder.com), and my personal hobbies (www.xmule.org) and political activities (www.fearlesszippy.com, wakeup-people.com, etc) are online.

    In short, terminating my internet without warning has seriously halted my life. It is time we make the right to chat online a fundamental human right. The government should be allowed to restrict a person's movements (prohibit uploads, downloads, etc) by placing restrictions on the amount of data a 'criminal' should be able to send online in a given day or so (500KB should be sufficient for email, chat, etc). Such bandwidth caps are already implemented by teh vast majority of broadband suppliers throughout the nation adn would be just about as easy to implement and enforce as the current DMCA suspension of accounts.

    I just wish there would be *some* judicial process involved in the DMCA. I should have my constitutional right to a fair trial. This is above and beyond the reasons why most people download movies. People overseas download movies and music because of artificial monopoly regulations that delay the international exportation of American media by weeks and even months.

    People in America download media because they are either too poor to purchase the overpriced media, and also primarily to see if a given media is of good enough intellecutal quality to warrant purchasing, due to the unequal consumer rights 'laws' which prohibit the returning of open media.

    Generally, people download not out of nefarious intent, but because they lack real alternatives to verify the intellectual quality of any given electronic Media before purchasing.

    Thus, more consumer rights laws, less 'illicit' copyright infringement.

    Sincerely,
    Theodore R. Smith

    --
    Promote freedom; fight fascism.
  132. Israeli Apologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could care less for your laundry list of history (true or not). Sorry but the Old Testament is not a guidebook for modern day foreign policy. The fact of the matter is that the Palestinian people are there, they aren't going anywhere and the Israelis and their cheerleaders have to face the facts. Either give them independence or integrate them with full citizenship, but since Israel is a pseuodemocracy (close to a theocracy) that is unlikely to happen. Neighboring nations shouldn't have to absorb the refugees because those aren't their homelands and it would basically reward Israel for taking their homes by force. They have put the Palestinian people in a ghetto and beaten them down in a way disturbingly similar to the way the Jews were in the Warsaw ghetto, but Israel is the perpetual victim even though they have nukes and a US sponsored military machine, right?

    Arab antagonism to Jews only started when the British handed over land that wasn't theirs (grabbed from the Ottoman Empire) over to a 3rd party. The Brits had the support of other nations who were more than happy to see their Jews leave under the guise of "homeland". Nonnative Jewish populations from places such as Russia and Europe flooded in and carried with them antipathy for the locals (especially "schwartzes"). Even black Ethiopian Jews have had to face prejudice. Before this, Arab treatment of Jewish populations had been either indifferent or positive. It was the Christians who drove the Jews out of Spain after taking over Moorish lands and it was the Christian Crusaders who slaughtered Muslim and Jew alike in the conquest of Jerusalem.

    I've found Israel's American supporters to be far more racist and fanatical than anyone I've met from Israel itself. It seems that the idea of the place matters more than the reality of it. People in the US and Israel allow the Palestinians to be treated in ways they themselves would never stand for. Israelis and American Jews have a double standard about how others are treated vs. constantly playing the Holocaust victim card to avoid judgment themselves. Constantly demonizing people only guarantees perpetual enmity.

  133. Thanks RIAA! by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is great. I had never heard of earthstation5 before today.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  134. I hadn't been able to come up with a word... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1


    Earthstation 5 is at war with the Motion Picture Association of America
    (MPAA) and the Record Association of America (RIAA), and to make our point
    very clear that their governing laws and policys have absolutely no meaning to
    us here in Palestine, we will continue to add even more movies for FREE.

    I hadn't be able to come up with a word to describe the /. obsession with filesharing until now: jihad!

    -a

  135. The problem is by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People don't download the crap. They don't even download the good stuff to avoid getting crap. They download to avoid paying.
    Now, I'm no fan of any of the money-hungry lawsuit-happy big corps out there, but you have to use your head a bit. The RIAA business model is based around singles and one-hit-wonders. To get one decent song you want, you have to shell out for a whole CD or Album which often otherwise contains crap.

    It's not about the expense of CD's themselves... I find that a CD with 90%+ good content is worth the bucks (if it weren't funding the RIAA)... it's about getting a shitty value for our dollar.

    Now with movies it is different. Unless you go to opening night (and that's your choice) there are loads of movie reviews out quickly. The MPAA even admits that text messaging is speeding this process. Now, are these idiotic lawsuits a good thing? No.

    However, to turn the buck around, is expecting to get away with downloading perfectly good movies just to avoid paying for them a good thing either? No! The MPAA does make good movies. Over the last year I've seen lots of em (American Wedding being the latest). They were worth my cash, and if the MPAA went after users who were providing bootleg/P2P movies I think that would be great. Going after the programmers is dumb... but everyone else is trying to freeload a quality product.

    Come on people, you don't believe that anime should be "pirated", so why should movies? Want them to cost less, protest the huge f***ing wages going to bullsh*t actors or producers. Don't watch the movie. But if you go out and download Revelations insteading of paying to see/buy it... then you're no better them them... you're just being a greedy bastard.

    In summary. Nope, we don't have to pay for the crap. But the stuff being downloaded isn't crap, or at least it's in demand, or it wouldn't be downloaded. I won't be buying any RIAA music anytime soon, but I will be seeing Revelations in the theatre, as it shoudl be. How about you?

    1. Re:The problem is by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People don't download the crap. They don't even download the good stuff to avoid getting crap. They download to avoid paying.

      It has nothing to do with not paying and everything to do with convenience. It is simply more convienient to spend a day downloading a movie than it is to go buy a DVD for $20 at a store. Rather than trying to sue everybody (which wont work) they should make their offerings better than what you can download for "free" (nothing is free unless your time is worthless). Make the downloads reasonably priced, with guaranteed quality and reliablilty, and you won't lose that much to p2p. Maybe Apple should open another iTMS: iTunes Movie Store.

    2. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      close.

      business 101:
      Nothing is crap. If people are stealing it in droves, then it is priced too high.
      One must seek to maximize profits by lowering the price of admission until most people stop stealing it.

      I'd never bother to download a $4.99 CD, a $4.99 DVD, or a peice of $4.99 software.

      In Economics 101 isn't that what the definition of value is? Don't let the RIAA price fix the value.

    3. Re:The problem is by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will work. Look at the effort against reading New York Times articles. The articles are free to read, they only want a registration account. Users don't pay money. Despite this, slashdotters find alternate routes to get the same.

    4. Re:The problem is by SnakeStu · · Score: 1

      How about you?

      As someone unwilling to put up with rude audiences and overpriced popcorn, no, I'll pass on the "theater experience" (with the rare exception of something that is truly visually better on the large screen -- certainly not the case for most movies).

      As for watching movies at no cost making me a "greedy bastard" then I guess we should re-label the VHS/DVD section at the local library the "greedy bastard" section.

      Despite what some might believe, your local library may have surprisingly up-to-date selections and major motion pictures available, and for someone like me who feels no need to be a sheep about watching what everyone else is watching, there's no problem with what little delay there is between the release of the movie and the movie being available from the local library.

    5. Re:The problem is by Dunark · · Score: 1

      ...They download to avoid paying. ...

      That is very likely true, but how many people really do this? Downloading a whole movie and burning a DVD has got to be a time-consuming pain in the ass. I've never even tried it myself; I'd rather just go to Blockbuster and rent the silly DVD. I don't even have a DVD burner because I don't think I'd get enough use out of it to justify the cost.

      Of course, there are some people who will do just about anything for the sake of "beating the system", but I doubt there are enough such people to really jeopardize Hollywood's income.

    6. Re:The problem is by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      It is simply more convienient to spend a day downloading a movie than it is to go buy a DVD for $20 at a store.

      There are places that rent movies, you know. I'm sure it would be more convienient for your workplace to have you work for free, but I'm sure you prefer some equitable compromise.

    7. Re:The problem is by phorm · · Score: 1

      Burning a DVD would be a pain in the butt, not to mention the cost of hardware (though that's down to only a few hundred now). DivX makes it easy though, so long as you don't need it to play in something other than a computer.

      I personally use VCD for my fansubbed anime, but they're good enough that I plan to buy 'em when they come out here (hopefully subbed and not another horrible US dub)

    8. Re:The problem is by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Nice to get a reminder of why you're on my foe list, ass.

      There are places that rent movies, you know.

      You just ignored his argument, you know.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  136. Chances of seeing this on CNN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nill null and void! Heaven forbid if the Fourth Reich of USA allowed their government controlled CNN to talk about ES5 on their 24 hour news channel. Can't educate the masses afterall lol.

  137. Oh Yes ..Pakistan, Afghanistan belong to Hindus .. by Vedanti · · Score: 1
    By this extremely stupid "logic" ...

    Indus valley and Vedic people lived in these areas from ... take this ... 3,500 B.C. Yes, a full 4000 years before Islam. And yes, the Vedas clearly state that these areas are the "mother land (mathru bhoomi)".

    And hey, why are people talking about Mugabe throwing out a few white farmers ? Haven't native people been there for atleast 50,000 years?

    You know what .... the muslims didn't drop out of the sky. The jews in Isreal, Hindus in India converted to Islam. So it is their land too, as much as it is jews/Hindus.

    --
    karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
  138. Suuuure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hohoho you forget the Israeli military, police politicians and in the end the people who vote on these politicians. You are blaming the Palestines and the neightboor countries for all the problems there? Yeah right.

    Oh and when you look at history, you notice that the country is actually owned by the Palestines.

    The US says they want peace. They are a joke. They are FAR, i repeat, they are FAAAAR from non-biased. Quite the opposite. And as a Palestine freedom fighter, i wouldn't want to talk with them.

  139. Remember WASTE by cc_pirate · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can share with your friends (instead of 60M people) so it's less guilt factor. Plus it is over an RSA encrypted link. The best of all P2P worlds.

    http://waste.sourceforge.net/

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    1. Re:Remember WASTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WASTE sucks. WASTE has been broken (bad cipher mode!). WASTE doesn't scale (broadcasts!). Try IIP for chat, Freenet for files (though Freenet is currently especially unreliable, you've been warned) - or of course, if you wish to share with your friends, set up bloody SFTP dumpsites and IRC over SSH like the pros.

    2. Re:Remember WASTE by Brians256 · · Score: 1

      Where is the attack against WASTE been documented? Is there a better method of secure data exchange?

  140. Allah Ackbar! by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Allah Ackbar! Earthstation 5 declares Jihad against the evil infidels of the MPAA and RIAA. May their souls roast in the pit of hell! We call on all file sharers to join the Intifada. Death to Hollywood! AHLAHLAHLAHLAHLAHLAH!!!"

    Is this the cyberterrorism the talking heads on the idiot box have gone on and on about?

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  141. Same as arcade video games by hummerH1 · · Score: 1

    I rember when arcades were thriving then home video games came out and as thay got better people stopped going to the arcade. Arcade owners cried. This is the same you could only see movies on the big screen (Theator), then vcr's came out rember the big ho ha about tape piroting? Now that DVD and big screen why go out. Get the DVD from a friend or from netflix. That is where the market has gone, who has time to go out to see something with $4 drinks and $8 popcorn. Mike

  142. obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So maybe we should just distro everything through Palestine?

    Picture this: ...somewhere in Gaza...

    KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK

    Suit: As a duly empowered representative of the government of the United States of America, I hereby serve you with the following court order...

    [silence]

    Suit: Why are you all smiling like that? ...

  143. What? No Bhuddists? by winkydink · · Score: 2, Funny

    See, I know they were bigots

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  144. This is not funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should cut on watching CNN, dude.
    Palestinians != Muslims != Islamists != Terrorists

  145. Stealing stolen movies from ES5? by JoeShmoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For the "sake of curiousity" I decided that I wanted to check this site out. Particularly the claim of providing first-run movies (I'm not interested in wasting my money on The Hulk...hey I got the text page telling me it sucks, remember?). I don't know if it's the bandwidth constraints of refugee camps or the serious slashdotting but the movie stop for two minutes of buffering just about every 20 seconds.

    Frustrated, I whipped out my trusty copy of ASFRecorder. Imagine my surprise when it failed to connect! First time that has ever happened to me. So I whipped out my trusty backup copy of ASFRecorder that was recompiled with a Windows Media Player User-Agent string. That didn't work either! This was bizarre. I'm watching the video play right now (albeit poorly) in WMP but ASFRecorder with the exact same user agent is getting connection closed. I try HiDownload, again, failed, even with the same agent string! What is going on here?

    The entire thing is SWF based so I download an evaluation copy of SWF Scanner and decide to see what URL I'm actually going to. Low and behold, what is this?


    on (unLoad) {Get URL("mms://stream.es5.com:1755/es5/movies/The%20Hu lk-384.wmv" , Target = "")


    What the hell is with that blank "target" paramenter? Can anyone explain that? I have a feeling that is the problem. ASFRecorder only takes a URL, there is no place to specify a target. Ditto for HiDownloader and Windows Media Player. I confirmed that if I type the stream location into Media Player, it fails to connect. But, if I make an ASX file that links to the stream and includes the blank "target" parameter, it works!

    Okay, now it's gone beyond trying to see if The Hulk is really as crappy as everyone says. This is a mystery, and I'm hoping someone here can figure it out.

    In short, streaming file plays in Windows Media Player but it seems impossible to capture this stream using any of the tools available. Is there a solution? And why would these boneheads at war with the RIAA/MPAA bother to sabatoge downloads to begin with?

    - JoeShmoe
    .

    --
    -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    1. Re:Stealing stolen movies from ES5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      use net transport.

      also on linux just type strings index.swf|grep mms

      and it will show you all of the movies...

  146. Big difference - should be two unrelated articles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, there's a fella who wrote a cool program. He's not rich, doesn't have any agendas other than paying his rent and making a living and isn't a major problem with the transfer of copyrighted material. He wrote a P2P application that has lotsa uses outside the realm of the RIAA's apparent tunnel vision.

    Then, you have some jihad crazed Palestinian claiming to wage and open war on RIAA/MPAA with admitted illegal acts. This is just the meat the RIAA/MPAA needs to get stronger legistlation passed that in turn makes life very much harder on the rest of us. And, being Palestinians with very clear "Death to America" feelings - do *you* want to log onto their network? What with the suicide bombings, terrorism and this guy obviously very proud of the "war" and illegal actions he's committing - just what happens when this network of 15,000,000+ P2P computers suddenly becomes a DoS army to bring down the rest of the worlds networks. What are you going to say then? Sorry, in this case, the saying "united by a common enemy" should not be adopted - this guy and his network is dangerous to us all, makes us look bad, will facilitate the further errosion of our rights and is just a plain obnoxious ass.

  147. Effect on local Palistininan Entertainment market? by Dav3K · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't help but to wonder what their policy would be on locally (as in Palistinian/Israli) produced content, and how ES5 is percieved by those in the entertainment industry over there. Do they support it, believing it will help spread their product to a greater audience, or are they also against it, believing it will stifle their efforts?

  148. Not too bright... by telstar · · Score: 1
    "I have downloaded very little copyrighted material over the last, o, 6 months."
    • Umm... An admission of guilt. That pretty much seals the case for the RIAA, doesn't it?

  149. Just to make note by phorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before I get flamed to death for the parent, I suppose I should point out that:

    -I think sueing the authors of P2P apps is retarded
    -I think sending out nastygrams to almost random IP's is retarded
    -I think that the MPAA should be able to expect profit (and less "piracy") on the good movies. The others end up in bargain-bin anyhow...
    -I think that sueing heavy P2P users, or litigating them, is a workable solution
    -I think that sueing college students or teenagers for unreasonable amounts is retarded
    -I think the RIAA and MPAA could both use a new business model... but that's not entirely the problem (people are cheap)
    -I think that if you made something and millions of people were copying it without authorization you'd be pissed, too

    1. Re:Just to make note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -I don't really think American Wedding was worth $10 :)

    2. Re:Just to make note by Saeger · · Score: 1
      -I think that if you made something and millions of people were copying it without authorization you'd be pissed, too

      I'd be flattered actually. It's only the greedy fucker who thinks to himself, "Damn! If only those passive leeches were FORCED to buy each copy for $10, I'd be $10 * 1,000,000 richer right now! Rich! RICH, I tell you! Those filthy pirates!".

      I've got a lot of artists in my family, but they don't make their living through artificial scarcity - they work by selling what's actually scarce, rather than trying for a license to print money.

      A million cheap fans are worth more than a million DRM-enforced "potential sales".

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  150. The right analogy... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

    It's hard to come up with the right analogy but how about clothing?

    You want a new outfit. You go to the store. You try it on. You test the fit. You try different colors. You try different materials. You select your purchases based on a full use experience.

    Movies (more especially) and music (to some degree) operate on a trust system. You read reviews of the product, you hear a song or two -- but you don't know what the full product is truly going to be like in use. No one wants to spend money based on trust. One wants a full use experience before committing the necessary money towards ownership or a personal copy license.

    The MPAA/RIAA don't trust you the way they insist you trust them. The answer is stop playing the trust game. Another model must present itself -- something beyond extending copyright ad infinitum.

    I will give the MPAA one break though, let's admit that for many people a movie is a one time experience -- you see the film, you're done with it forever. Full use is in some case the only use needed. One way to offset the difficulties presented is to drop the value risked (i.e. lower the price of a movie theater ticket) or allow refunds on demand. When I see a bad movie in the theater and paid full evening price (approaching $10 in SF) for the ticket, I do almost feel as if I had been mugged. That might be overstating it, but it's still not fair somehow.

    That said, the RIAA is out of luck -- if the music is good you will listen to it again and again and again. Full use in advance is perfectly fair. If the music sucks you should never have to pay for it. But if you like it, you should buy it.

  151. A thought.. by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Isn't it amazing how something so unimportant as a few studios that produce screen plays and music can drastically change the laws in a huge country full of freedom loving (wanting) people?

    The RIAA and MPAA members wealthy off our dollar. Please don't spend more money with these people unless you don't mind kissing more freedoms goodbye.

    1. Re:A thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      in a huge country full of freedom loving (wanting) people?

      Bullshit. Freedom is a cliche. You, me, everyone are just interested in more money to buy more crap. That's why taxes limit our freedom: we can buy less crap. That's why there are terrorists in Iraq: we need something to fuel the economy so we can buy more crap. If you want money, what gives you the right to say that others should want money less? The RIAA and MPAA act just like you and me, getting what money they can by the means they have. It's the american way.

      Of course, after 9/11 (yes, everything goes back to then, doesn't it), it's extremly politically incorrect to say that we're not the freedom loving center of the earth who will save everyone else with the peace and love that radiate from us at every heartbeat, so I'm posting this as AC.

      Come on, let's go shopping.

  152. Re:Mod Parent Up by botzi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What the fuck are you waiting people??? The original post is complete crap but it gets moderated as "Interesting" rising ridiculous "There's a bomb in the room that's gonna blow everything in ten second. Hmmm, what I'll have for dinner tomorrows night??" questions and when the answer comes up - nobody.

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
  153. Can somebody please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    post a traceroute to them servers? Thanks.

    1. Re:Can somebody please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind... found it.

  154. THIN SKINNED MODS NEED TO GET LIFE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus. If you don't like the man's argument, write a comment. But I see you like to piss in your pants a lot more than make reasonable discussion.

  155. No i meant LEFT WING WIERDOS by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    In this county, during its founding, it was acknowledged that citizens have a god given right to bear arms and protect themselves, among other rights.

    This is the law here, if you don't approve, you may move to a country that doesn't attempt to protect those RIGHTS.

    Pretty simple really.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:No i meant LEFT WING WIERDOS by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      Not so simple, actually. The law here may be changed, and if we don't approve, we can change it. That's the core set of beliefs. The bill of rights certainly shouldn't be thrown out the window, but the fact is, they can be. That's how our country works. And if you don't like it, you can do one of two things: change it or leave.

    2. Re:No i meant LEFT WING WIERDOS by Kosi · · Score: 1

      In this county, during its founding, it was acknowledged that citizens have a god given right to bear arms and protect themselves, among other rights

      If it was not known that much more people come do harm from these weapons than are effectively protected by them, your sentence would make sense.

      *God* given? Then, first of all, prove his existence, for you surely don't wanna claim a right given by some mystical figure!

      This is the law here, if you don't approve, you may move to a country that doesn't attempt to protect those RIGHTS.

      FYI: I live in a country with a very strict and sensible law about firearms: Germany. :-)

  156. Res Rights are more important. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Rather twisted view of things you have there, suing a manufacturer of firearms has NOTHING to do with 'stealing lives'.. It only has to do with people attempting backdoor means to remove the constitutional rights extended to the citizens of this country since day one.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Res Rights are more important. by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      strangely your view of the US Constitution isn't shared by the Supreme Court, which held in US v Miller that the Second Amendment provides for a collective and not an individual right of firearms ownership

      (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/307/174.html )

  157. Ill fight by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Even if it takes years.. ill fight them, then sue them for damages afterwards.

    If i represent myself, i wont cost as much, plus sice its still a civil manner ( for now ) there isnt any jail time, just a lot of court time..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  158. Well, we all know what's next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like we'll be ignoring North Korea's baby-murdering a little longer so we can go "terrorist-hunting" in Palestine!

    I bet W is all over this like bad suits on lawyers.

  159. No, just be more selective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Smears on flame-retardant gel*

    Saying that you have downloaded movies that you would never buy actually does give the **AAs an argument: since you took the time to download it, and more to the point, watch it, it must have some value; therefore you are ripping them off. "I wouldn't have bought it even if I could have" is a defence that would reduce any judge to tears of laughter.

    You must remember that the **AAs don't care about your opinion of their work, just whether or not you have paid for it. It doesn't matter that you may not be able to spend 10,000 ($,,,) on movies, you have still obtained their services through an illegal channel.

    Also consider, you may just be one individual, but how many others have downloaded those same files? That adds up. If they feel they are being ripped off (which they obviously do), they have no incentive to produce works of lasting quality (which they largely don't). Why release "Dark Side of the Moon" (14 years in the Billboard top 100) if its going to be all over the P2P networks in three months, when you can release something that will only sell for 3 months but costs far less to make? Their reasoning, not mine.

    I agree that you don't need to completely boycott CDs/DVDs, and it is indeed counter-productive, since those who don't buy, by definition, aren't a market. The point I'm making is that if you wouldn't pay for it, DON'T WATCH IT! Pay for the stuff you do like, and with any luck they'll make less crap. The only message they understand is your money.

    1. Re:No, just be more selective. by koniosis · · Score: 1

      Hey I didn't say I watched the films ;) We've downloaded so much stuff we don't have time to watch it. The point is I wouldn't pay money for the movies cause I'm only going to watch them either once or only the first 15mins then delete it cause its crap. We have a load of dl'd movies, that we've then gone out and got the DVDs cause we think they're worth the money. It's not that we don't want to buy films, its we don't want to buy shit films.

      I guess we use P2P as a sort of testing bed for films, watch it, if its good buy it, if not trash it. Equally though we do own some real crap DVDs, we goto the local Exchange place and if we see a DVD thats like $1.99 we buy it, even if its crap, just cause its cheap, because we believe that its ok to pay $1.99 for a crap film, but not $20!! I'm willing to pay $30 for LOTR Two Towers when it comes out, as it'll have a hell of a lot of extra stuff, like 40mins extra footage, now that is worth paying for, not a film with no menus and no extras thats a rubbish film anyway,

      selective purchasing or selective pricing? I know which sells more!

      --
      I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did :(
  160. Maybe I'm paranoid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Has anyone seen the source code of this? How do we know that it isn't a trojan, and thay the whole thing isn't an attempt to gain control of a portion of the world IT infrastructure?

    Thats right, their web site says they are a group of multinationals, and all good friends. Its a good thing you can trust everything you read on the net...

  161. Generalisations by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1
    the ongoing battle between the RIAA/MPAA and the rest of the internet
    Please don't include me in your generalisations. I'm anti-piracy so the RIAA/MPAA have no "battle" with me.
  162. Earth Station Boss using real name? by Arab · · Score: 1

    It strikes me that the earth station Boss or PR guy may not be using his real name as "Ras Kabir" which is the name in the press release is arabic for "Big head". this may just be a discrepancy in the was his arabic name has been phoneticly translated to roman characters though...

    But it's seeds doubt in my mind...

  163. Has anyone tried the ES5? by danila · · Score: 1

    An interesting article at Zeropaid.com. But has anyone here actually tried the software? It sounds too good to be true... Any personal experiences would be interesting.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    1. Re:Has anyone tried the ES5? by Arcturax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm downloading it now, going to run it under virtual PC (which I could care less if it trashes the fake test "PC" I use to try out stuff that might have worms or viruses) and see how it works. I'll see if their claims of the IP being untracable are valid as well. If they are using a central server, then it could be, but then that gives them a central place to shut down.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  164. He should have got a line with a second ISP by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    100% of My job is online
    100% of My school is online
    100% of My friends are online
    100% of My hobbies are online


    Now, I agree that his situation sucks. But when practically all your own life depends on an internet connection, how come you don't have some safeguards in place, like a second connection, even if it's a modem one?

    My work isn't online, but here I have 4 computers, an UPS, and another one that I'll buy because I'm running out of capacity. I can also dig out my old modem if I ever need. If you depend so much on something, you have to take some care and make sure that you won't lose money while you look for some place that still sells AT supplies, or something like that.
  165. Sounds too good to be true by spacerog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They have a sales contact listed on their website but what are they selling?

    How can they afford to give away FREE everything with no Ads or Spyware? What is the catch?

    Please don't tell me that not everything is about money because it is.

    - SR

  166. Re:Effect on local Palistininan Entertainment mark by Ian-K · · Score: 1

    I hate to break it to you, but Palestine has been at WAR with Israel for many many years (...you insensitive clod --couldn't resist :).

    When you are at war, you don't think about making/selling movies mate.

    On the other hand, they've been bitten by the Israel-supporting US many times, and they want to bite back.

    When they say that 'US laws don't apply here'... well, we may generally have many counterexamples (Christiansen, anyone?), but they know that the system is already not in their favour, so why bother?

    my 0.02

    T.

    --
    I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them :)
  167. Why P2P? by corgicorgi · · Score: 1

    Haven't we already established P2P itself breaks no law, it is only the actual people who shares copyrighted material? Why go after the developers?

    What does the court stand in this battle?

  168. Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair price! by Newer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See, in 1983, before CD's came out, LP albums cost about $6.98, and tapes about the same. Then CD's came out, costing TEN DOLLARS MORE! The industry's excuse was that CD's cost more to make, "better sound forever", and other rubbish. Now we know these all were lies. CD's now cost about 1/10th as much to press as records cost at their cheapest (and I'm speaking 2003 dollars here which are worth about half of 1983 ones). CD's STILL cost almost 20 bucks apiece. The record companies' excuse is that inflation has finally caught up, which is more bullshit. In essence, they TRIPLED the price of CD's over LP's, got rid of LP's (to remove choice), got rid of singles (to make sure that you HAD to pay $17.98 to get the ONE song you liked), raped the consumer for over 20 years, formed cartels (which would have been illegal in 1983!) and now when the consumer finally has the ability to fight back they respond by bribing our lawmakers to maintain the status quo by passing the DMCA, throwing the Constitution out the window in the process. Yep..sure sounds like an upstanding business model and a fair deal for the consumer, huh?

  169. I downloaded ES5... by dancingmad · · Score: 1

    and it's the ugliest damn program I've used in a long, long time.

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
  170. read Oh! Jerusalem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by the authors of Is Paris Burning?

    The Israelis are merely doing to the Muslims what Hitler did to them. Displaced anger and transference, and all that.

  171. This is what you get for outlawing P2P programs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am also impressed with ES5, they are trying to fight back against MPAA/RIAA with going on the offensive at once.
    MPAA/RIAA first destroyed Napster, a music only centralized system, that could have generated cash with a few tweeks to the system. But no the music industry did not want that so they killed it.

    That left a void which was soon filled by Kazaa, DC and everybody else, some go to other countries, some go broke, some hang on only to see there users attacked by MPAA/RIAA. The field is now filled by these application and all of them are trying to talk to MPAA/RIAA. If another P2P app appears it will have no void to fill and therefore few users.

    Therefore this ES5 has gone on the attack. They don't care about international laws, they protect their users identity, they use encryption. They are either trying to be the next big app and earn loads of cash or they will go down realy fast.

    If they get a lot of users fast and they cannot be defeated legaly then I wouldn't be suprised if the MPAA/RIAA begin to fight dirty.
    MPAA -> Bush -> Israeli president -> Army -> Missiles.
    MPAA -> Bush -> Palestinian peace prosess -> New laws.

  172. clarification: Semite vs Anti-semite by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly be anti-semitics...

    Somebody's not paying attention.
    Semite means of the Semetic peoples, ie those in and around the Arab world
    but 'anti-semite' has been tied to the jewish people for a long time.
    Even your own source agrees with me (emphasis in dictionary):

    Main Entry: anti-Semitism
    Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
    Function: noun
    Date: 1882
    : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

    Main Entry: Semitic
    Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
    Date: 1813
    1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
    2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
    3 : JEWISH

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  173. What the RIAA doesn't tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the rise in prices? How about the decline in the economy? How about the RIAA's drop in production? That alone could offset the decline in sales. If I produce 20% less product, how can I expect an increase in sales? How about the lack of quality? There aren't that many new acts that I am interested in. The reason I bought a lot of stuff in the 80's and 90's? I bought all the old stuff I wanted on CD. I certainly don't want to hear anything from Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera, or Brittany Spears. Ever. Not even if it was free. You'd have to pay me to listen to most of this crap, and I'd still be angry about it. Sorry kids. I like old rock and roll, and I own everything I want. Look at the following research article. http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:xnlNAoYzCdgJ: www.bricklin.com/recordsales.htm+RIAA+2001+revenue +drop&hl=en&start=9&ie=UTF-8

  174. Sharon started the current war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...with his visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque. And he's fighting it with my tax dollars, killing Palestinians and Americans like Rachel Corrie.

    Someday there'll be a US administration that doesn't blindly follow Israeli fundamentalists and their ethnic cleansing agenda ("Israel as a Jewish state"). When that happens, right-wing Israelis will regret their past irresponsibility. I, for one, can't wait.

  175. Linking by H8X55 · · Score: 0

    It's great that the links in the article don't even work. How's that for irony?

  176. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all saw a child being held in his fathers arms

    Cool your conspiracy-theory cover for Jew bashing, buddy. As quick as everyone was to embrace this lie, it became clear from investigation that the shots came from arabs, not Israelis that killed that boy.

    Further investigation also revealed that it really was an arab waving his bloody hands after lynching an Jew. Remember that image, smarty?

    Those that oppose Israel hate Jews. Most white liberals just secretly miss the days of European pogroms when their ancestors went on rampages bashing in the heads of Jewish children and sewing live cats into the stomachs of pregnant Jewish women. Think you have something to contribute to the discussion on Israel you descendants of Cossaks, Nazis and inquisitors?

  177. earth station 5 - almost free everything by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    It seens that the only non-free thing on the
    earth station software is just itself.
    Not free as in speech at least.

    So ... I liked it...who is working on
    a GPLD Gaia Station 5 to connect on their network
    and when are the beta test versions due?

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
    1. Re:earth station 5 - almost free everything by ChozCunningham · · Score: 1

      well, mebbe replies will import value to the parent, and somebody will mod it up.

  178. Could the RIAA SUCK any more ? by classic66coupe · · Score: 0

    Could the RIAA suck any more than it does today ? Is that possible. Can a group of people be more from hell ?

    1. Re:Could the RIAA SUCK any more ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO

  179. -1, Subjective by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
    I think you meant to say

    "I don't find that very funny."

    (Score:-1, Whatever)

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  180. are you a cop? by waspleg · · Score: 1

    maybe you could do one of those "asseatingmonkeytrolls" ten times while you're giving a ticket ..

    1. Re:are you a cop? by Calamere · · Score: 1

      I'm not a cop but that's a great movie reference.

      And I did manage to use it in a sentence that day. Then a burst out laughing.

  181. I wonder... by KiDas · · Score: 1

    how long it's going to be before a car bomb is parked outside the door of this company?

    --

    A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity
  182. I WONDER 3 THINGS .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) What the hell are these peoples living in Palestine in a refugee camp and have BroadBand Connections.

    2) Why the hell, are those people coding a P2P application that make you untraceable despite they don't need to be untracable as they live in a country that don't care about copyright.

    3) How the hell people living in a refugee camp can afford buying ALL the www.earthstationv.*** at namescout.com a really crappy site to buy domain names for an "amazing coder team" such as them.

    When I'll figure out those three thing .... I'll buy myself a PC to try their .exe cause I'm under OSX ... and then I'll try to figure out why people that care so much about hiding their users identities don't run linux and don't have even coded a linux version of their software :P

    and finally I wonder why they don't read slashdot and haven't said anything here :D

    1. Re:I WONDER 3 THINGS .... by admbws · · Score: 2, Informative
      What the hell are these peoples living in Palestine in a refugee camp and have BroadBand Connections.

      Several companies have laid fibre there. The West Bank and Gaza has around 8 ISP's.
  183. Hamas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The next revolution in P2P file sharing is upon you. Resistance is futile and we are now in control".

    Geeze, even the software developers talk like there in Hamas

  184. Internal Memo at Viacom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    MESSAGE FROM MEL
    Date: Today 1:14:51 pm
    From: Corporate Relations
    To: undisclosed-recipients:;

    TO: ALL VIACOM EMPLOYEES
    FROM: MEL KARMAZIN
    DATE: JULY 29, 2003
    RE: MPAA DIGITAL PIRACY INITIATIVE

    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its member studios,
    including Paramount Pictures, has launched a multifaceted public
    education campaign to combat digital piracy. We are proud to support
    this campaign and salute our colleagues at Paramount Pictures. Viacom is
    committed to protecting intellectual property, which is a cornerstone of
    the creative process and vital to our business interests around the
    world.

    The campaign began with a series of Public Service Announcements (PSAs)
    that stress the importance of copyright protection. As part of this
    unprecedented industry effort, over 25 broadcast and cable networks,
    including CBS, UPN, MTV Networks and BET, agreed to run 30-second spots
    on Thursday, July 24 at approximately 8:00 p.m. local time. In addition,
    over 5,000 major motion picture exhibitors, including National
    Amusements, will showcase similar PSAs on a daily basis in theaters
    across the United States.

    The initiative also includes a new consumer Web site,
    www.respectcopyrights.org, which will serve as an informational resource
    about the importance of copyrights as well as the effects of piracy on
    the people, like all of us, who work in creative industries. The site
    also provides links to online, high-quality entertainment alternatives
    that are legal.

    In addition, beginning in September 2003, the entertainment industry
    will join forces with Junior Achievement to introduce a new curriculum
    that educates students in grades 5-9 about the ethical, legal and
    economic importance of protecting copyrights.

    We hope you will take the time to learn more about this initiative and
    how it will help the public understand why protecting creativity and
    innovation is important and how piracy hurts everyone who loves and
    values entertainment and information.


  185. It's a trap! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they are running spyware, and keeping IP logs. Maybe this is an RIAA/MPAA sting. That would be entrapment. This thread is calling out for the Fark.com Admiral Ackbar cliche'. Does anyone have ASCII art of it? It's a trap!

    --
    How ya like dat?
  186. Easy peezy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..Just live where 95.3% of the population live..
    i.e., NOT the USA.
    Now, what was the problem?
    -Andy

  187. Re:Mod Parent Up by dowobeha · · Score: 1
    ...okaaay, somebody didn't take his prozac today.

    I am the original poster, and if you'd looked at my reply that's right next to yours you'd have seen me say that, indeed, there are much bigger problems in both Palestine and Iraq. I've visited Israel and Palestine, and talked to people in both places. There's a lot of truly aweful stuff going on.

    But, that does not make my original post "crap", nor worth the expletives you shoved on the people who modded it up.

    This was a story about filesharing and copyright infringement, and I asked a relevant question! So unless you have something interesting and worthwhile to add to the discussion, sit down and be quiet.

    --
    I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
  188. from the article by McAddress · · Score: 1

    "us here in Palestine"
    wtf, last time I checked Palestine has not been around since 1948, way before P2P applications were invented.

  189. I only would like to know why.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does the Earthstation 5 need a reboot after installation. Enough for me to abort...

  190. Product endorsements aren't bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Product endorsements are good things! They're only a sellout if they endorse something they previously were aligned against. Like a PETA favoring star suddenly endorsing furs.

    Endorsements let the artists earn money through another route besides album sales. They should aim to make money through endorsements and through concerts. Albums should pay for themselves and generate just a little revenue. That would make for fair pricing.

  191. Video Production Costs... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Something else everyone seems to forget. Video production costs, promostional costs, and a lot of other BS has gone through the roof since 1983. CD's aren't just music anymore - even though that's basically all you still get (well, that and smaller album covers).

    Go ahead and look at the video quality from 1983 (except for perhaps Duran Duran - they started the million dollar video), and you'll see what I mean.

    Most of these videos that are made today will never even see the light of MTV anyway but you'll pay for them by simplyh buying the $17 dollar CD. Well when I do buy said CD.. WHERE'S MY FUCKING VIDEO??! I've paid for it, and I feel like I'm being ripped off - you should too.

    If the music industry wants to compete they need to do just that - COMPETE.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  192. How does this compare to the Boston Tea Party? by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

    I know the situation isn't the same. However, it is an interesting thought. Will we ever get so sick of IP law, that we will stage a modern day Boston Tea Party? Even if we don't, it makes for an interesting look at my country's revolution.

    Another interesting point is that the British felt the taxes imposed were legitimate given the cost of the French and Indian War.

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  193. Hoax or not, been watching Requiem For a Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hoax or not, Ive been watching Requiem For a Dream for the past 20 minutes. Before that I tried 8 Mile, just because its the first movie in the 'A' folder, im assuming its movies that have a number or A in the name....

    So it it is a Hoax, they managed to get a shitload of movies online to stream to your PC....

    Now If i can just find a spot to test the porn....

  194. Where do you get these figures? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    Actually you can look up the correct facts here:
    http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate 10.html

    2000, United States
    Drowning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
    All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 16
    ICD-10 Codes: W65-W74,X71,X92,Y21

    Number of
    Deaths Population Crude Rate
    1,113 66,462,150 1.67

    000, United States
    Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
    All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 16
    ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,Y35.0

    Number of
    Deaths Population Crude Rate
    1,046 66,462,150 1.57

    As you see the total drowning just a small bit more than gun releated.
    Now, there's no option for "pool releated", but I would say most drownings happen in dangerous places
    , like where there is a big current.

  195. MOD PARENT UP by apankrat · · Score: 1


    ES5 being a spyware was my initial gut feeling -

    The description of their client software reads as a crafted marketing message ('free this, free that') and sounds a bit too good to be true. Also they are not immediately perceived as people doing it for the fun of it, they don't disclose sources and 'f*ck corporations' attitude is not convincing enough to justify what seems to be very big development effort. In other words -

    what's in it for them ?

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  196. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CD's don't always cost about $20. Sure, I can go to the record store in the mall and pay that or and I can go to places like Target, Borders, Best Buy, etc and pay $3-$7 less for the same CD, maybe even less online. I don't see that as the industry sticking it to the customer. There are other factors involved there. Consumers need to be smarter. Not all stores sell at list price. Don't pay $20 for a CD that you can get for $14 down the street.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  197. Clever strategy by the Arab world by Animats · · Score: 1
    Earthstation V could be a clever strategy by the Arab world to strike back at the Hollywood funding sources that tilt US policy towards Israel. It's clearly not intended to make money; it's politically motivated. It's not a low-budget operation; there's money behind this.

    This is going to be interesting.

    Try a traceroute on "www.earthstation5.com" and report back. Something unusual is going on.

    1. Re:Clever strategy by the Arab world by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      .
      .
      Meine ISP
      .
      .
      5 haif1br1-1-0-0.hai.il.ip.att.net (152.158.76.50) 55.525 ms 60.377 ms 48.906 ms
      6 152.158.76.51 (152.158.76.51) 55.562 ms 55.079 ms 56.811 ms
      7 gblond2101cr2--1-2-0-1.lo.uk.ip.att.net (165.87.212.117) 133.682 ms 153.168 ms 145.561 ms
      8 gblond2101er1-0-0.lo.uk.ip.att.net (165.87.216.82) 131.242 ms 142.402 ms 127.796 ms
      9 linx.lon.seabone.net (195.66.224.153) 144.938 ms 123.508 ms 124.356 ms
      10 pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net (195.22.218.225) 126.011 ms 106.684 ms 105.806 ms
      11 goldenlines-3-il-pal6.seabone.net (195.22.205.26) 111.244 ms 114.594 ms 105.824 ms
      12 212.199.28.4 (212.199.28.4) 116.399 ms 113.340 ms 111.291 ms
      13 212.199.28.242 (212.199.28.242) 145.503 ms 226.056 ms 114.003 ms
      14 212.199.26.35 (212.199.26.35) 121.996 ms 116.210 ms 114.957 ms
      15 212.199.218.130.forward.012.net.il (212.199.218.130) 107.576 ms 109.418 ms 110.020 ms
      16 213.152.100.254 (213.152.100.254) 116.361 ms 126.803 ms 133.752 ms
      17 213.152.100.163 (213.152.100.163) 127.310 ms 115.863 ms 108.819 ms

      Now, this is a FreeBSD traceroute. a Windows traceroute has the words "reports: Destination net unreachable" appended to the last line. heh.

      --
      -
  198. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by jghiloni · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reason you can purchase them much cheaper at places like Best Buy and Target is because they're actually losing money on CD sales. Their philosophy is simple, and in my opnion, genius: if we offer a hot commodity (cheap tunes), they will purchase other crap from us, too.

    I have a friend that is purchasing manager for the local branch of a chain record store. He told me that dreck like Eminem and 50 Cent cost the STORES approximately $15 per disc.

    So you can see how big chains lose money on CD sales, and why they are willing to do so. Well, from everything I've heard, *were* willing to do. I've heard rumors (granted, nothing more, but from trusted sources) that Best Buy (and one can extrapolate other chains from this argument) are worried that they're losing SO much money, that they're going to stop selling CDs. Again, that is just rumor mills.

    It doesn't affect me, personally, because I refuse to purchase music from any band on an RIAA label because a) I disagree with their litigation process, and b) they put out shit in CD form. Pure, unfiltered, still-steaming-fresh-from-the-cow's-asshole-to-you r-plate fecal matter.

  199. "Entitled to Eat"? by rdmiller3 · · Score: 0, Troll
    Googling for comments about EarthStation 5 turned up some interesting words from the founders. They talked about how they're just trying to feed their families and so-on. One quote, tacked onto the end of the typical, "Nya-nya, come 'n get us!" went like this:
    "We're entitled to eat, too."

    Um... That's an odd bit of entitlement, isn't it?

    Am I "entitled to eat"? Exactly who provides the substance of that entitlement?

    Sounds to me like someone has been accustomed to hand-outs for far too long.

  200. Cute by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Troll

    As far as I'm concerned the constitution should not be modified at all, beyond the original 10 amendments.

    you don't fold spindle or mutilate the foundation of a country due to the wind blowing a different direction this week.

    Nor do i even accept 11+ as valid.

    And dont worry, if its changed id leave... Or be first in line when the revolt occurs to put things back in order.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Cute by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on most of that. However, I can't help but recognize the amendments that gave women and minorities the right to vote. As far as I'm concerned, those are necessities.

  201. no laws I think by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    I think occupied territories don't have any laws. I'm not a lawyer but that's my impression. Instead, the closest thing to a legal system is the occupying power's wishes. Palestine does not have a government (it only has an "administration", which isn't even elected in most cases). So the laws that apply are whatever Isreal wishes, or the local authoraties (you can be one too) want.

    Similarly, I expect Iraq to have no TRUE legal system. Instead, American laws (or at least wishes) will be imposed on the Iraqis. This is the reality of the situation. After all, do you really think that USA will let Saddam's laws be used? Yes, Saddam, like all dictators, basically wrote the laws...

    Occupied territories are similar to colonies, under colonialism. Colonies were basically slave states to the colonial power. They had a legal system but it was nothing more than the occupying force's rules passed off as law. SAdly, the population followed the rules :( ...

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  202. TROJAN? by jfreon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    google group has some interesting things to say on 'earthstation5' An example. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=earthstation5&hl =en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fnhggvoeut4ubuk5g2q d0rdqu4piuev8ob%404ax.com&rnum=7

  203. I'm calling BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sorry, I think you must have forgotten about the six day war in 1967 (OK so it was a "preemptive strike". Name a war where the first person to attack hasn't claimed that).

    Ask France what happens when you do nothing as massive amounts of troops and weapons move toward your borders. As for wars where the first people to attack didn't claim self-defense, you give two examples below: Israel's war for independence and the Yom Kippur war where the only aims were to destroy Israel.

    You also seem to have overlooked the 1978 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon -- the last one being condemned even by the US. So by my counting Israel was invaded twice in the last 55 years: the 1947 independence war and the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Perhaps you were confusing Israel with Lebanon, which has never started a war but has been invaded three times in the last 30 years (by Syria in 1976, Israel in 1978 and 1982).

    Considering all the attacks on Israel from bases in Lebanon (which was and is still controlled by Syria but nobody complains about that bloody occupation) I'm going to believe Israel's self-defense arguments in that instance too. We took out the Taliban for pretty much the same reason.

    Because the Palestinians don't have the option of sending in helicopter gunships to assassinate Israeli politicians. I'm not condoning suicide bombings, but your comparison is laughable. In a conflict, each side will naturally make use of the means at its disposal. Moreover israel's "targeted assassinations" invariably kill many more people than just those being targeted -- but obviously a 6-year-old girl who happens to live next door to a Hamas leader doesn't matter as much as a 6-year-old killed in a suicide bombing.

    You are condoning suicide bombings. Hell, you're condoning suicide bombings against civilians too by morally equivicating the actions of a democratic nation defending itself to thugs who target civilians in order to invite the harshest reprisals possible in order to win over public opinion. And it appears to be working (an AP story today was titled Hamas abandons truce after Israel strike. Heck, I thought they abandoned the truce when they bombed an Israeli bus and killed 20 people-6 children). Yeah more people that those just target by Israel die but they're not invariably or even often innocent civilians. And even if they were the rules of war permit proportionality in the use of force against legitimate targets (think Deathstar contractors). That is, you could bomb a convoy with Saddam even if his civilian family is with him. One of the first polls ever conducted of the Palestinians showed that a majority didn't support suicide bombings because of the harsh reprisals and their prevention of any peaceful settlement. Plenty of rebels succeeded without resorting to systematically targeting civilians. But again, Israel wouldn't be doing any of that shit if they weren't getting attacked all the time.

    And guess why the Palestinians don't have the 'means' to destroy Israel. Other Arab countries aren't really interested in the Palestinian's cause other than use as a distraction from their own problems. Despite the fact that Palestinian GDP is better than most Arab peoples (excluding oil) because of their economic ties to Israel they could still be much better off if they cooperated rather than try to push Israel into the sea. The Palestinians who live in Israel have more right and are generally better of than Arabs pretty much anywhere else.

    1. Re:I'm calling BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, you're condoning suicide bombings against civilians too by morally equivicating the actions of a democratic nation defending itself

      There's a democratic nation somewhere around there? Really? It would be cool, if it were true.

      P.S.: You should look up the spelling of "equivocating". Also the meaning.

    2. Re:I'm calling BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does every half-wit assume that all democratic nations are higher up in the fairness & morality ladder than a non-democratic nation.

      Hitler did come into power through democratic means!

      The US is supposed to be democratic too. It's not exactly a shining beacon of fairness & morality.

      But it's funny you mention that, because it seems every pro-Israeli campaigner says the same damn thing.

  204. Anyone use Earthstartion? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    Sorry to go off topic on this Isreali /Palastinean discussion, but has anyone used this EarthStation p2p? Any good? How would you rate it?

    1. Re:Anyone use Earthstartion? by jfreon · · Score: 1

      I'm uninstalling it now, and the excalibur trojan, and reloading service pack 3 to get good copies of my .dlls back (mfc42.dll, wmasf.dll, wmvcore.dll, etc.)

  205. Where's the GNU version??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello---mldonkey team...Can you hear me now?

    1. Re:Where's the GNU version??? by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
      Hmmmm....


      Kinda hard to hide spyware in open-source software, isnt' it?


      And, yes, I know some of the protocols used by mldonkey are not open-source. There are reasons for this, too.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  206. Re:Palestine????!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Hamas Charter states there can be no peace as long as Israel exists. For example:

    "Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
    [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith...There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game."

    Further, they define Palestine as including Israel itself.

  207. Kiddiestation Five by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't use ES5 anymore until they changed the childish GUI and the possibility to resume downloads.

  208. Whaaaaa!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A third world country is hurting us at 0.0000000003% GDP per annu. They're not blowing them selves up or other peoples children. They are doing some harm to our economy yet are also spreading our culture and propaganda.

    Get a freaking life!!!!

  209. Credibility... by poptones · · Score: 1, Funny
    OMG you know I was reading along just fine and then I came to this sentence that looked for all the world like you were saying "American Wedding" is an example of a good movie!

    I bet you have the complete "Porky's" collection too, huh?

    Sheesh, talk about falling off the clue train. For the record I don't pay to see movies or buy CDs - but I also download any damn thing I please. Ironically, that very rarely includes music published under an RIAA label. And it most certainly never includes movies, since I live in an area that will have broadband about the time Michael Eisner becomes POTUS.

    Frankly, I'm all for greedy bastards - just not greedy bastards in suits. I wish everyone in the US would download more shit and stop sending their money to Hollywood, because Hollywood has way too fucking much power and if you cut off the money you put lobbyists on the street, which means you destroy the power.

    That very same "greed" is what put a bunch of snooty frenchmen on the gallows. The american people might be too stupid to elect representatives that actually represent them, but greed is the one universal human trait that can be relied upon to enact change when nothing else will.

  210. Re:Don't starve yourself! Seek other entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will usually check boycott-riaa.com prior to making a purchase. I want to ensure NO member of the RIAA ever sees any profit from me. It really hurt me when I found Rockstar Games on the list.

    I really like Bloodshot Records. They're non-RIAA. Epitaph and most other punk labels are also non-RIAA.

  211. Israeli Joke by sometwo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cannibals capture three hunters an American, a Briton, and an Israeli," begins a classic Israeli joke. The first two hunters make last requests typical to their nationalities, then it is the Israeli's turn. He asks that he be punched in the face.

    The surprised cannibal grants the wish, at which point the Israeli pulls out a gun, shoots the chief, and frees himself and his friends. The American and Briton, furious, demand to know why he prolonged their terrifying experience when he had the power to free them all. The Israeli replies: "What? Are you mad? The UN would have condemned me as the aggressor.

    1. Re:Israeli Joke by Aussie · · Score: 1
      OK.

      There is bloke living in Northern Ireland. He leaves the pub one night and walks home. During his
      walk home he is grabbed from behind and feels a gun in the back of his head and hears the question:
      "Are you Protestant or Catholic ?"
      Thinking quickly he says "As a matter of fact, I'm Jewish"
      "Sure and begorrah" says the voice behind him,
      "I must be the luckiest Palistinian in Ireland !"

  212. Re:The MPAA need not worry by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2, Funny

    and to make our point very clear that their governing laws and policys have absolutely no meaning to us here in Palestine, we will continue to add even more movies for FREE.

    So is the MPAA going to go after these guys, or just wait for Israel to bulldoze the right house ? There's a joke in here about Jews controlling the media, but I have a feeling people would take it too seriously.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  213. Newsflash by Izago909 · · Score: 1

    Copied from Associated Press


    RIAA strikes back.

    Several weeks ago, the writers of an obscure program known as Earth Station 5 (ES5) declared "war" on the RIAA. Most computer users saw it as a media attention grabbing announcement because their "press release" was mostly a glorified sales pitch. In the release, they claimed to have over 20 million users online, when in fact, the figure is closer to 20 thousand.

    ES5's network uses two technologies that have been around for a while. The first is known as Secure Socket Layer 3.0 (SSL) which is the standard for online financial transactions. The other is known as a proxy server. A proxy is commonly used by internet and network providers to cache data for faster access and/or allow people to access parts of a network that a firewall would otherwise block. Since the RIAA as been using people's IP addresses to subpoena ISP's, a proxy is used in this case to hide the user's IP.

    The RIAA's sting operation began a few days after the announcement by ES5 developers. They purchased a set of IP addresses outside of their public known ranges in order to fool people, who ordinarily block them, into a false sense of security. Then they set up two "secure and anonymous" proxy servers for use by ES5 and began to quietly announce them in to popular P2P websites.

    They let the servers run for at least a month. During this time they collected information about everything that people were transmitting and receiving. Besides what was being transferred, they also collected bandwidth usage statistics as well as IP addresses. Of the 20 thousand actual users, 5 thousand users in the U.S. have used one of the two proxies, and has been issued subpoenas.

  214. Re:Effect on local Palistininan Entertainment mark by MikShapi · · Score: 1

    Okay, I'm picking this one up. This is just waaaaaay too amusing.

    1. CINEMA - Israeli law doesn't give a yellow doggypoo about DVD-related offences. Our DVD libraries hold movies from just about every region there is out there, Airline Region7/8 not excluded. Out in the open. Our locally-produced DVD's say "Region 2" but are actually unencrypted.
    2. CINEMA - Most of our DVD appliances are sold in an already-patched-to-RPC1 state.
    3. Our courts of law will let a home-end-user off the hook 100% of the time if he pleads being naive to the law or to what his actions mean (Oh, this is illegal? Sorry!). This has already happened a few times.
    4. RIAA, local version - Our "RIAA-thingie" commonly known as ACUM is this pathetic granny-organization. Every once in a while they realize local artists who haven't recorded a single track in 18 years are not making enough money, so they make a commercial with said artists looking at the ground and shutting up for about 30 seconds. Some people complained of a strange gut feeling after watching this, not unlike what you get when you see 15kg starving human beings in Somalia. It is claimed that this is induced by their morbidly grim (and silent) stares rather than their weight. The failure of the campaign lay in the fact that it caused people to rush to the toilet and throw up rather than rush to their favorite CD store and buy a CD.
    5. RIAA, local version - Probbably the worst lawsuit that got headlines in the last two years was a 2-seat hair-saloon that got sued when an ACUM undercover agent (urp?!) who realized they were playing a CD (and did not receive explicit permission from the artist to play it in a public place). This made headlines. The saloon got sued for ~2K$. 2K$ is not a whole damn lot in Israel. But definitely worth its entertainment weight in gold. Yes, Israelis steal local content, but at least our RIAA-wannabe-thingamabob doesn't think it can just shut the internet down. Then again, I don't think they understand what an internet is or how you turn it on. Same for the record labels, most of whose sites are made up of four FrontPage95-Generated HTMLs. (but with anchors!).

    6. Software - Businesses that heavily use illegal software are sometimes prosecuted. That's because the local M$/ADOBE-sponsored BSA (anti-sw-piracy) organization is sponsored relatively well. Then again I believe they're employing mostly lawyers, and aren't aware that P2P is around, or, for the matter, what P2P is in the first place. I don't think I ever read anything said by the BSA regarding P2P in the press. EVER.

    And, the sweetest of the lot:
    7. Palestine? Copyright Laws? _LAWS_? MUA. MUAHA. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry. Spontaneous Burst.
    Palestine is an anarchy, a no-mans-land, theoretically controlled by the Israeli military (who periodically run around and have very itchy trigger fingers, and for a good, or at least healthy reason), and several ""palestinian"" criminal gangs like the Hammas, the Islamic Jihad, etc. I say "criminal gangs" because these people couldn't care less if the entire _palestinian_ people, their own mothers included, had an eye torn out with a fishhook and no anaesthetic tomorrow. Said criminals are into power, politics, and proving to the world that they have the longest ***O by blowing up all the civvies they can. And to hell with their own mother.
    Copyright laws to them... sorta like a PhD in quantum physics is to a fish (which hasn't figured out what to do with the bycicle yet).

    The one realistic observation one has to make on the matter of this whole thing being a farce is that 90% of the palestinian people are well below the poverty line. This means they don't have enough to feed their children.
    So either this guy has a wealthy dad (in which case he'd probbably be living in Europe/USA/Down-Under) and absolutely zlip to do with his money, or he plain isn't where he says he is. Keep in mind that Internet in Israel/PALand costs more than it does in the US. You pay more than 2$/Gig a month here. More like 50$/1.5M. Do the math.

    --
    -
  215. Music Sharing Legal in Canada by Jos+Louis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently because of some loophole in the Canadian Copyright Act of 1998, it just might be legal for us Canadians to share music. http://techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp ?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-081803C I submitted this article yesterday but, not surprisingly, the mods even less objective than meta-mods. :)

  216. They're in Israel not Palestine by SaxMaster · · Score: 1

    You insensitive clod!

    --
    "Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
  217. Actually the US are Palestinians biggest aid donor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, the US has paid billions to help the Israeli state bomb the Palestinians into the stone age, it's not surprising there is not huge local support for US "intellectual property".

    The Palestinians were already in the stone age like most Arabs. The ironic thing is that the Palestinians would actually be as worse off as most Arabs but for Israel's economic influence and the massive amount of aid from the US. (The US is actually the largest aid donor to the Palestinians and in some years contribute more than all Arab states combined.) More Muslims and Arabs are killed by their own governments than Israel any given day but Israel gets nearly all the attention. I wonder why.

  218. ES5 *IS* actually TROJAN SPYWARE proof!!! DANGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ES5 *IS* actually TROJAN SPYWARE proof!!! DANGER

    "DN" wrote in message
    news:4H%Ka.6750$v71.3255@nwrddc01.gnilink .net...
    : The Earthstation 5 (ES5) P2P app, which boasts anonymous sharing
    : and security, is actually software designed by contractors hired
    : by the RIAA! The "Dating" feature was designed to trick users
    : into entering their personal info, which makes it easier for the
    : RIAA to compile statistics and track down users. All traffic
    : statistics are routed through proxies operated by agencies
    : working for the RIAA, most notably BayTSP and MediaForce. The
    : cheesy outerspace theme was designed to appeal to newbies while
    : appearing to have a feeling of security to it without scaring
    : away the non-techies. Company info for ES5 is very vague, ...
    : can you guess why?
    :
    : ES5 is just one of the many projects in effect by the RIAA. The
    : MPAA is staying somewhat neutral at the moment, but has similiar
    : plans in store.
    :
    : BOTTOM LINE: DO NOT USE ES5!
    :

    does anyone here want to refute this!!! this has been known for over a month.

  219. geeks at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not +Funny, this is +Insightful

  220. how in the heck did this not get a funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We must hold the pool-industrial complex responsible for their reckless murder of thousands of innocents!"

    How does this qualify as informative? lol

  221. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by Sancho · · Score: 1

    I really can't buy this.

    In Texas (and in other places, I just don't know if there's one where you live) we have a store called Hastings. Hastings tends to sell CDs at anywhere from $11 to $15 with occasional spikes or dips depending up on the CD. The other thing the store does is video rentals, books, and a very small computer game section. Their music selection is larger than Best Buy and generally considered one of their main sources of income. At the prices you're quoting, there is no way they could be making money. Books are big, videos certainly are, but the using music as a draw for people to buy other items simply wouldn't work in a store where the average "other item" probably costs around $5 (combined books and video rentals).

  222. Jurisdiction by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

    Jurisdiction. Specifically, the case that held the legality if P2P was decided in a different district than this case, so there is no appliciable precedent here. That's how the system works: precedent only works in the jurisdiction of the court making precedent, and only for lower courts at that.

    Further, precedent doesn't prevent a lawsuit from being filed; it merely provides a tool for the defense team. As a practical matter, when there is a strong precedent favoring the defense, the plaintiff (or prosecution, in criminal cases) will decline to file, as he knows he has a weak case; however, without a strong precedent, or with a precedent he feels will be overturned (setting a precedent in the opposite direction, which they already have in some jurisdictions), the plaintiff may decide to press anyway. The plaintiff may also believe the precedent may not apply (and I sincerely doubt anybody here is sufficiently familiar with the circumstances of the KaZaA case and case to make such a determination; indeed, it's up to the presiding judge to make that call, in every case). Further, the plaintiff can file anything he wants; it's up to the defense to even mention the precedent. That is, each side has the make its own case, and if it fails to do so, it loses. The judge cannot rule on evidence not presented.

    (Note that this applies in all cases, to all parties: for example, in criminal law, you can be guilty as hell, but if the prosecutor fails to prove just one of the elements of the offense, even by omission, you can ask for an immediate dismissal on the grounds that he didn't prove all elements, and you'll get it.)

    I, of course, am not a lawyer, but I sit next to one at the dinner table.

    --
    Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  223. atleast they have flexible license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    License.txt:

    Copyright (C) 2001-2002 Whatever

  224. MUAAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suits them corporate bastardos well... hahahahahahahahaha. and no doubt there are posts here doubting whether its spyware in itself. all you cows would believe in is when a white man writes crappy software and sells it to you for $200
    muaahahahahahahah

  225. But I laughed!!! by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

    I'm from Colombia and I laugh because the Medellin Cartel jokes. And I've had colateral consecuences because the armed conflict.

    Humor is a good way of get free of so much stress and stuff, if youre really affected by conflicts. You don't imagine what armed groups do to people here because the press is somewhat censored about that. If you live in the USA and feel ashamed by your governments actions and believe that feeling sorry about all that can change something, well, that's not true.

    And I laughed!!!

    --
    We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  226. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by jghiloni · · Score: 1

    Well, it could be that as purchaser for his branch, he is buying the CDs from a main corporate distributor for the store, and it has already added its standard markup. That's just a guess though. It could also be that, like you say, there are spikes and dips - mostly a function of the artist and how much the label believes they can suck you for. Most big chains don't have that spike or dip phenomenon, and may simply even out their prices. Again, these are just guesses.

  227. Uh Yeah they can by mig0 · · Score: 1

    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

    Anti-Semitism is hatred or antipathy directed against Jews. It typically takes the form of

    hostility toward Jews in a degree that greatly exceeds any legitimate grievances or resulting from no legitimate cause whatsoever; or
    disdain for supposed physical or moral features of Jews.
    The opposite of anti-Semitism is philo-Semitism: love and respect of Judaism and the Jewish people. The adjectival form is anti-Semitic.

    Etymology and Usage
    Wilhelm Marr coined the German word Antisemitismus in Germany in 1873, at a time when racial science was fashionable but religious hatred wasn't. The term signified the transformation anti-Jewish sentiments and Jew-hatred ("JudenhaB") underwent in the 19th century, when the only Semitic people found in significant numbers in Germany were Jews. Anti-semitism was a new way to express and understand the old Jew-hatred, more adapted to 19th century beliefs in scientific progress and Nationalism. The related word semitism was coined around 12 years later, in 1885.

    Here's a little more for you:
    The argument is sometimes put forward that the Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic because they themselves are Semites. Such a statement is self-evidently absurd, and the argument that supports it is doubly flawed. First, the term "Semite" has no meaning as applied to groups as heterogeneous as the Arabs or the Jews, and indeed it could be argued that the use of such terms is in itself a sign of racism and certainly of either ignorance or bad faith. Second, anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews, and is therefore available to Arabs as to other people as an option should they choose it.
    A great deal of modern writing about Jews, in the Arab lands as in other parts of the Islamic world, might suggest that many have indeed chosen this option.

    Bernard Lewis Semites and Anti-Semites p. 117

    (hat tips to SecHumanist and Zulubaby from the LFG :D )

  228. well by ShadowRage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    P2P has only created a %7 loss in the industry, that's right.. 7%. not a huge number either, and the artists who are bitching, right after they complain how they're going poor, they buy a new load of sports cars. it's crap, it's greed at its finest, people got tired of the greed and found a way to extend their middle fingers, so now these greedy companies want the government to supress the people into being a controlled permanent money flow. this is where mainstream music is about to die. what;s funny is that there was also a chart showing how much cd sales have tripled from p2p. The real problem are the real pirates, who copy cd's and then redistribute them for a lower price, etc. that's what has been hurting the industry for many years.. but, the industry didnt bitch back then.. so, I think it's just whoever's the easier target, and all that is going to happen in light of this is that the mainstream music industry is going to go broke eventually, people will get wise and listen to IUMA and indie labels. you'll still have the brainwashed people who will back the industry to the grave, becuase they're used to being controlled by someone much "bigger" than them.. and really, you think about it, the industry is below us becuase their existance relies on us. same with actors and actresses, and all of the media. same with the government and all the major companies. we made them, and they forget, we can destroy them, they're trying to make so we cant now, but, you really cant whip the human will down into doing that, well, at least, not right away.

  229. True with music, but movies... by phorm · · Score: 1

    Have you ever tried downloading movies on kazaa. If you don't get a misnamed file, clipped file, or just have to wait several days to get the darn thing you are quite lucky, and I don't find that convenient.

    Moreover, when I want to watch a movie, I want to watch it *now*. Not "in 3-5 days when the download is complete"

    How is that any less convenient than going to the local rental store (and rental for about $3-5 is not completely unreasonable).

    And you still have to look at the quality of the product as part of the package, after all, a product is not just about how slightly inconvenient it is for you to not obtain it illegally, it's about how much the actual product is worth to you to obtain.

    As for online movies-by-demand... it's a coming thing, just like iTunes is starting to do for music. Bandwidth/etc considerations are that it may be an expensive venture initially though...

    1. Re:True with music, but movies... by Saeger · · Score: 1
      How is that any less convenient than going to the local rental store (and rental for about $3-5 is not completely unreasonable).

      It's a different kind of convenience. It's akin to a Tivo where it's always just caching stuff you might to watch; or it's like a netflix queue without the post office hassle.

      And by the way, "I heard from a friend" that it only takes 6 to 24 hours -- not 3-5 days-- to download a 4GB+ bit-for-bit DVD-R rip from certain BitTorrent sites.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  230. For the record, it wasn't the UN that was attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in iraq, it was the world bank. Big freaking difference. Interesting how the media doesn't makes it's assumptions...

  231. $13-$17 still isn't good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're missing the point. The labels should be selling CD's for ~$2 to distributors, and they should cost ~$5-$7 dollars at most for the consumer. That would be reasonable. $15 dollars isn't.

    1. Re:$13-$17 still isn't good enough by armyofone · · Score: 1

      Then why are people willing to pay $1 per song on iTunes?

      Not that I disagree with you. I believe CD's are way over-priced from a cost to produce standpoint. What I think you may be forgetting is the supply & demand factor. Obviously, there are still too many people willing to buy from the ??AA cartels - hence the current price.

      Personally, I do all my CD shopping at cdbaby. Prices are fair, I can listen to samples before I buy, and all the money I pay, (except for $4), goes directly to the (independent) artist. If more people did this, it would go a long way toward resolving this issue.

      Just my 40% of a nickel...

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    2. Re:$13-$17 still isn't good enough by rbullo · · Score: 1

      I checked out CDBaby.com, but I was rather dissapointed with the file format they use. Because I'm currently boycotting RealAudio(they went over the line with their advertisment policies), the feature I would find most useful is inaccessable.

      --
      OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
  232. Source - Re:Precedent aGainst this sort of suit by SpikeSpiff · · Score: 1
    Fair enough, I was breezy with the sources. Here was my source.

    The (narrow) comparison was accidental deaths from guns to accidental deaths from drowning.

    The broader point was that we don't ban everything just because it is unsafe.

    --
    "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Source - Re:Precedent aGainst this sort of suit by 2short · · Score: 1

      That link goes to a clearly pro-gun site, and in any case, he comes up with roughly equal numbers for deaths of children by drowning and firearm accidents. Not 5 times. So you were "breezy" with more than just sources.

      Not that I really expect accuracy in slashdot posts, but I was feeling argumentative, and "Informative" mods on falsehoods drive me up the wall. I actually thought the "pool-industrial complex" was kind of funny.

      "The broader point was that we don't ban everything just because it is unsafe."

      Absolutely, and we should not. But we should weigh the relative pros and cons.

      Note that I am not disputing (at least in this thread) your right to own a gun. I do think owning a gun for purposes of self-defense is in most cases stupid. The only way it's going to be worth anything for that purpose is if you keep it loaded and accessible. In that situation, for most people, the chances of needing to use it to defend yourself, and doing so successfully, just aren't anywhere near the chances of it being used to kill someone (maybe you) in some other situation. (accidental or intentional)

      If you're working the night shift at a liquor store in a high crime area, maybe the pros outweigh the cons. The gun will probably scare off someone without one after all. But guns are really easy to come by, so most assailants will probably have one, and then your chances are probably 50-50 at best since he'll have the drop on you. So if I were working retail night shift in a high crime area, I'd probably consider getting a gun, but I'd probably decide against it. (On second thought, I'd quit).

      But for most of us, in everyday life? Our society is civil enough that having a gun around ready to use is a bad decision. So I think it would be a good thing if there were a lot less cheap handguns floating about. They're useless for "maintaining the security of a free state" in any case, they're only good for killing people, and they mostly kill the wrong people.

  233. Re:Actually the US are Palestinians biggest aid do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's because Israel is the nation that's occupying Palestinian land by force and has displaced countless native inhabitants from hundreds of cities. And are you implying that the evil, depsotic actions of the Israeli government are less morally repugnant when compared to the evil despotic actions of other governments?

  234. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the payola situation. Sure, it's technically illegal, but it is not actively enforced, so it might as well be legal and it has been routine for years. Just try to get an independent single played on a commercial radio station.

    Also, it was PUBLICIZED around the 1983 timeframe that CDs were cheaper to manufacture, as I remember thinking "great, music will be more affordable now." Instead, they figured the "golden ears" would pay more for the supposedly higher quality media. Then, many of us bought CD copies of the LP's we used to have because we didn't want to have to maintain both types of playback equipment. Did we get a discount or trade-in value for our previous purchase? Of course not.

    Now, I don't buy music at stores at all anymore, when I used to spend at least $100 a week on it for years. I don't P2P trade it either. There are plenty of good new artists out there that are ignored by the industry because they prefer to hype huge acts which is the music industry version of what other industries call ECONOMY OF SCALE, and consequently, most of what new stuff is out there hasn't been worth listening to. My 30 year x $100 week collection gives me plenty of old stuff to choose from, so it's not like I'm not able to listen to any music. But in the "biz" it's been about profits not music for so long that it's just a commodity market to control.

    And they wonder why people are pissed at them. Gray Davis is wondering that too, but a fat lot of good it's gonna do any of them now-- the jig's up...

  235. MPAA/RIAA solution by Funksaw · · Score: 1

    Here's something I don't get. There's probably alot of OSS designers on Slashdot, pretty much 80% of them (a guess) are pissed off at the RIAA/MPAA I don't get it. I like indie films. I'd like to watch more of them - preferably on my computer. But I haven't had a chance to hear about most of them. Why hasn't someone invented a P2P client for movies, like Furthernet, that only allows you to download authorized indie movies? I'm sure indie film makers will love the idea, and it provides a true alternative to the MPAA's whining while still being 99% liability proof. I'm lucky I live in a city which actually has a big collection of indie movies playing, Austin, but why can't someone with some coding skills just write a P2P client like Furthernet for movies? Hell, I bet you could even just take the Furthernet code and switch the authorized downloads around! -- Funksaw

  236. And down went the gauntlet by Darth+RadaR · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA is not going to sit by on this sort of thing. I'm sure they'll reach a point where if countries do not have laws and enforcement in place to stop p2p, piracy, etc. to their liking, then they'll hit 'em right in the commerce by refusing to release movies in the countries that don't play by their rules.

    Not that it's really going to do much, but I'm sure that the RIAA/MPAA are going to eventually go with the "I'll take my ball and go home" approach.

    --
    /*drunk.. fix later*/
  237. I say Jihad, you say Jehova... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's worth noting that the US only supported Isreal in its current form after they had to stand on their own with nothing between them and annihilation.

    The arabs picked a fight, the palestinians have never been loved, and considering their attitudes, they're like angry tanned serbians, it's not hard to see why, if people want to start assigning blame, start with the UK end with the arabs, the US didn't mess any of that shit up, it was like that when we found it.

    A reflection back through history teaches us a little conquest can be helpful, a homoginizing force that can actually bring people together.

    Would modern china be what it was without the waring states period, and of course the mongol invasion? Hell no, there wouldn't be a chinese identity without it. They'd be all spread out in crazy little tribes that hate each other too. But thanks to their vicimization, and lets not leave out the colonial powers, they've got a billion people who might not love their system of government, but they can more or less be moved to action as one people.

    Modern sensibilities aside, there's certainly a case to be made for writing off a couple of ethanicities that can't move out of some imagined feudal utopia, and into the world we live in. Serbians, angry camel jockies, crazy jungle living bitches from the southern philipines, our very own millitia groups at home, seemingly most of africa, I'm looking at you. Your clock is ticking, learn to play nice, or else :).

    Sometimes people want to fight bad enough, that there is nothing you can do, but kill one, or just let them slug it out until one of them just doesn't have any fight left.

    It certainly seems like that is the case with isreal, and her foes. And quite frankly the same goes for uncle Sam and his. In which case, Gengis Khan has much to teach us. You can try to kill everyone who hates you, or just doesn't agree with you, but that's hard. It's much easier to go where they live and obliterate everything they know and love. Soon, no one will want to risk fighting you, but cause they'll have to risk and probably loose everything for a victory that won't even be symbolic because no one will remember it. It's no coincidence that the mongols ruled over both russia and china providing them with a national identity, and forging them into the superpowers they are today.

    Likewise, holding back for both the US and isreal only purpetuates the fighting, and just insures another generation will grow up, poor, a drift, hurting and hating.

    Overall "Can't we all just get along?" soundsly like a reasonable question, and perhaps we could all agree it's a great sentiment, but the world just doesn't run on hugs. (Mostly greed and ignorance from what I can gather.) We're all bound by the limitations we face, not the ones we wished we faced.

    1. Re:I say Jihad, you say Jehova... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern sensibilities aside, there's certainly a case to be made for writing off a couple of ethanicities that can't move out of some imagined feudal utopia, and into the world we live in.

      Hear Hear, lets write off Israel, why is the US supporting them, let the Israelis all re-locate to Canada and they can open up a casino along side the Native Americans... Canada has plenty of room, heck Montana is a pretty desolate place, they could probably use the cash, just no fences please for their new home.

      I'm not anti-jew, everyone has freedom of religion, I'm anti the political power that Israel and the jewish machine wields, is that hatred? I don't think so, so please I wish all jew the freedom to practice their religion, but not the freedom to play dog in the manger.

    2. Re:I say Jihad, you say Jehova... by Goat+of+Death · · Score: 1

      I in many great parts wholely disagree with you but maybe I'm just being hopeful. Whoever has mod points out there bank this one up for such a well thought out and articulated opinion.

    3. Re:I say Jihad, you say Jehova... by Darby · · Score: 1

      I in many great parts wholely disagree with you but maybe I'm just being hopeful. Whoever has mod points out there bank this one up for such a well thought out and articulated opinion.

      I second this.

      Can we get this up to 3?

    4. Re:I say Jihad, you say Jehova... by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Ancient examples of conquest helping society don't apply today. We have mass communcations and mass travel. Its not like we need Mongols to open up a silk road. We have overnight air shipping and the internet. The world is too small these days to have people motivated by worl conquest. Its time we moved the conquest thing to other planets.

  238. Mirror of latest stable+unstable source and .debs by Tzaquiel · · Score: 1
  239. Re:It's a HOAX!!! - No it might be a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honey Pot

    Beware!

  240. the solution is by alizard · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Buy your music and your video whenever possible from independent artists NOT connected with RIAA/MPAA.

    Once the industry tracking organizations demonstrate that the money spent on entertainment has simply shifted to organizations not involved with the *AA organizations, it's all over.

    No more piracy as an excuse, and a bunch of companies we don't like will be forced to find new business models or die under new management or in the case of the record companies, new owners.

  241. Mod parent up! by mselmeci · · Score: 1

    [nt]

  242. They're already involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who Rules America?
    The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken

    By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Books
    P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro West Virginia 24946 USA

    There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.

    Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

    The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know -- or think we know -- about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

    It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

    For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations -- all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

    On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

    Molding American Minds

    For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist -- that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

    The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

    And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we rea

  243. So have many others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Among them: Gypsies, Farsis, Ba'hai, Cossacks, Burakumin, etc., etc. So why is it that we only ever get to hear about the trials and tribulations of the Jews? I for one would like to watch one, count 'em, one news broadcast that wasn't all-Israel, all-the-time. You'd think they could talk about the Chechens or poor Kashmiris just once in a while out of sheer boredom with the subject of Israel and Jews/Palestinians.

    So why is it that we are always bombarded with Israel? Is it because they're a major oil-producing nation? uh, no. Is it because they possess some natural resource that is of vital importance to the strategic security of the United States? uh, no. Is it because they are a major trading partner? uh, no. Is it because they are strategically important to the U.S. military, as in major American bases are there? uh, no. Is it because Israel is an incredibly populous country? uh, no. fewer people than the greater Cleveland metro area, actually. Is it because they're an extremely powerful country? uh, no. never have been, never will be. Is it because they're an embattled democracy? Well, gee, so is Columbia. So is India. BFD. We don't get to watch anything about them in the news though, do we? In short, there is no good reason why the entire populace of the world's only superpower should be plagued with incessant whining about a country that most people couldn't care less about.

    I recognize that all 1.5 million Jews in this country might care very intensely about Israel. Fine, go obsess on your own time. The other 250 million plus of us just wish you'd shut the hell up.

  244. recording streaming movies from ES5 by h4rryc4ry · · Score: 1

    I've used the Hi-Net streaming recorder several times and have had not problems recording the streaming video. It recorded in real time and played back fine using Windows media player.

    BTW the servers hosting the streaming movies are located on an island in the South Pacific. (per the ES5 forum)

  245. That's a BS argument by Cloudgatherer · · Score: 1

    Software programs have demos. Cars have test drives. Even video games (consoles) have store displays. All these allow a consumer to 'try before you buy'. Music can be heard on the radio or in the store (but has other issues, such as a lack of selecting particul tracks from an album).

    Point is, movies don't have 'free trials.' Some might argue previews, but that is such a condensed version and has very little meaning.

  246. Define copyrighted material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SO lets say im not into downloading music/movies/media at all, but I use lynx and read the odd website (just text). The text has a copyright notice at the bottom of the website... - I just downloaded copyrighted material - would this be grounds for the 'canning' of my internet connection due to downloading 'copyrighted material?'

  247. I can form my own opinions, thanks. by Cloudgatherer · · Score: 1

    I do read reviews, but on at least a few occaisions I disagree with the review(s). While I take these into consideration, I prefer to form my own opinions based on first hand experience. Just because "everyone" says "it's bad" doesn't mean you won't like it.

    Goes with the old saying "if your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

    1. Re:I can form my own opinions, thanks. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      While I take these into consideration, I prefer to form my own opinions based on first hand experience.

      Then ante up your money. There's no such thing as a preview for a movie--a movie, like a book, usually has to be taken as a whole to be judged, and for most of them, that one experience is enough. Are you interested enough in a movie that's got bad reviews to pay for it? That's your choice.

      Goes with the old saying "if your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

      It's closer to "if your friends jumped off a bridge and said it really sucked, would you jump off the bridge anyway?"

  248. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Schnake · · Score: 1

    [source: http://www.sustaincampaign.org/Ethniccleansingchro nology.pdf ]

    1947:
    European Powers divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states giving over half the land, and control of
    major resources to the minority Jewish population (roughly 1/3) which owned only 7% of the land.
    Fighting breaks out as Palestinian population rejects this division.

    1948:
    Arab States join war in support of Palestinian population. Israel occupies nearly 80% of Palestine,
    over 750,000 Palestinians are driven from homes and not allowed to return.

    1967:
    Israel conquers remaining 22% of Palestine, and places West Bank and Gaza under military
    occupation. UN declares that Israel should withdraw to pre-67 borders, allow repatriation of
    Palestinian refugees, and that all appropriation of lands conquered in war are illegal.

    1967 - 1993:
    Arbitrary imprisonment, beating, torture, house demolition, appropriation of Palestinian land in
    occupied territories for settlers, economic subordination, and arbitrary searches become commonplace
    elements of life in occupied Palestine. 116,300 "settlers" move into the West Bank and Gaza in
    violation of international law. (The 4th Geneva convention Article 49 states that the "Occupying Power
    shall not transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.")

  249. Don't boycott, pirate by Homburg · · Score: 1
    That's not a boycott. That is just you making a choice. It is the same as me, a non-smoker, saying I have boycotted the tobacco industry. If you're not in the market and you don't buy then it is not really a boycott is it.
    He's right, you know. People who don't care about music not buying music doesn't hurt the RIAA. The people who have the leverage to change the RIAA's minds are the people who buy a lot of music - so, next time you're thinking of buying a CD, see if you can download it first, and tell all your friends to avoid giving money to the RIAA too. Hell, if you've got the balls and want to do a bit of real civil disobedience, e-mail the RIAA and tell them that you were going to buy the CD, but, because of their absolutist stance on file sharing, you decided to download it instead. Only if the RIAA realise that this is not about freeloaders, but about people with a serious objection to their business practices, will they even consider changing their attitude.

    (The other advantage of this tactic is that even if it doesn't change the RIAA's minds, you've got the music you wanted for free).
  250. Reason for dip in RIAA sales. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1
    Here's the reason for the dip in RIAA sales. It's quite simple and obvious and has nothing to do with downloading. It has to do with the two lists shown below:

    Styles of new music the RIAA put out and actively promoted during the 80's:
    • Top-40 pop
    • Rap
    • Metal
    • Punk
    • Progressive


    Styles of new music the RIAA is putting out and actively promoting today:
    • Top-40 pop


    That is the reason people aren't buying as much from the RIAA as they used to. The variety is gone.
    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  251. You make two incorrect assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, you assume that its the Palestinian's land. It isn't. The region that was supposed to become Israel was divided up - part to the Arabs and part to the Jews. The part that went to the arabs is now called Jordan. Second, you assume the paletinians are reasonable. They aren't. They are totally dedicated to the destruction of Israel and genocide against Jews. They celebrated 911 with parades in the streets. Whatever Israel does is too good for them as far as I am concerned.

    1. Re:You make two incorrect assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're talking about is the British split-up. They, unfairly population-wise, gave Israel 25% of the British Mandate of Palestine, and 75% to Trans-Jordan under Hashemite rule.

      After the Brits failed to appease the Palestinian majority, they proposed a further split-up of the current 25%, and thereby creating the Occupied Territories -- West Bank and Gaza -- currently under Israeli occupation or attack!

  252. I agree. It's Idiotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF you are talking about? Their manifest is an obvious troll.

  253. Not necessarily by alizard · · Score: 1

    First, the *AA organizations aren't trying to protect themselves, they're protecting the people who decide whether or not to pay them membership dues. The CEOs at the *AA companies are shoveling the same crap upstairs to the CEOs at the multinationals that own them. The *AA company CEOs are expected to generate more revenue every year despite the shape the economy is in and the business problems you correctly cite. At the moment, they can blame PIRATES!!! for their problems. In short, no matter what people do, or do not, buy, the likes of the MPAA and the RIAA will merely blame-shift so they don't have to accept responsibility for their own [NAUGHTY]-ups.

    If people buy enough new music from independent artists and *AA label content from used record stores, industry sales tracking will pick up on this, and industry and mainstream press will tell everybody what really happened to CD and DVD sales.

    You want to ratfuck the *AA companies? Simply spend just as much as you usually do on entertainment, but spend it on independent musicians and new video artists who are selling direct-to-DVD and if you must buy *AA, buy it from used record stores which will not show up in *AA sales numbers.

    If indie sales go up and *AA sales go into the toilet, it will be noticed. By both politicians and the *AA label/record company owners.

    The result will be at minimum, new management and in most cases, new owners for content cartel companies who believe they know how to make money in a real non-monopoly world and know how to use the Net for marketing, not cringe in fear of it.

    1. Re:Not necessarily by Chas · · Score: 1
      First, the *AA organizations aren't trying to protect themselves, they're protecting the people who decide whether or not to pay them membership dues.

      They're trying to keep people from saying "we ain't paying no membership fees".

      So, in short, the're protecting themselves and trying to prolong the lifespan of their archaic business model.

      The *AA company CEOs are expected to generate more revenue every year despite the shape the economy is in and the business problems you correctly cite.

      Unfortunately, reality is going to have to slap them in the face eventually.

      ...

      Hmm...

      You want to ratfuck the *AA companies?

      I never said this. I merely said that my money is going towards alternative purchases which simply will not benefit either of the **AA orgs.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  254. There never was (and never will be) a Palestine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel has always been Israel. There is no Palestine! It never existed. Israel has historical proof that it's people have right to the land (including West Bank and Gaza).

  255. Needed Elsewhere by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Allowing women to vote is a given, I just dont agree with where it was placed..

    If it was needed to be put into law, thats ok ( though it should have been transparent enough from day one to not even be an issue ), but as a constitutional amendment? Nah..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  256. They didnt write the amendments by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The people that wrote the amendment intended the bill of rights to be FOR people, and to RESTRICT government.

    Thats why it was called the bill of rights. Not the bill of rules.. Its all about the rights of the people.

    Anyone that disagrees with that, is wrong. Plain and simple, and should be totally disregarded.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:They didnt write the amendments by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      so what? the idea that individual gun ownership is a fundamental right is very strange.

  257. Stop buying new CDS, buy used CDs instead. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Thats my solution, I'll never buy a new CD again, I'll only buy used CDs.

    You can boycott and still get music from the idiots who refuse to boycott, this means less sales from the RIAA, so do it, the guys who resell their CDs already made a copy on CD-R and once you make your copy you can resell the CD too.

    Lets treat CDs like we treat expensive books.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  258. Inarticulate article by russotto · · Score: 1

    This guy has got to figure out the difference between an "injunction", a "subpoena", and a "summons". A "subpoena" is a demand for information or records. A "summons" is a demand to appear. And an "injunction" is a court order not to do something.

    He only talks about having received a "subpoena". But he seems to indicate that he's been required to appear in Federal court (about some unknown matter). And he also seems to think he's been forbidden to use the Internet (which seems highly unlikely; even the RIAA doesn't own enough courts to get an injunction against someone's use of the Internet, _ex parte_)

    Hopefully we'll see more information on this. In any case, if this guy has received any of those things, he needs a lawyer.

    1. Re:Inarticulate article by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to be mean to the guy in his time of crisis, but I also wish he'd stop with the 'teh's.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
  259. Maybe that's why I liked it... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Ok it's a very shallow story, but Jim Carrey in that role fit him perfect. I'm normally not a big fan of him, usually I go "oh come *on*" when he gets too wacky. But in this role he kept me laughing all through the movie. Sure, it wasn't the great Experience like LotR but it was an entertaining couple of hours.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  260. Download Music for Free by SuSEboy · · Score: 1

    I feel morally obligated to use P2P instead of BUYING music. You see, when you buy music, the money goes to musicians. The musicians buy drugs with the money. That drug money goes to the drug cartels who fund terrorisim. I say FIGHT TERRORISM! Download music for free! http://www.cafeshops.com/fightterrorism

  261. Re:Precedent against this sort of suit -- the rest by DaveJay · · Score: 1

    (continued from previous -- I'm long-winded today)

    The above burrito examples are, respectively, "nobody has guns", "some have guns, but they're concealed", "some have guns, and they're visible", and "everybody has guns, highly-motivated vs. opportunistic". Thanks for suggesting the burrito comparison; it was enjoyable to write. :)

  262. Yes, but what about the cast? by Kjella · · Score: 1

    The positions as the Shadows is still being fought over by both MPAA and RIAA. And who's taking the role as the mysterious Vorlons?

    But, as long as you can gurantee me that they will both diappear beyond the rim in the end, I'm happy. (Btw, I hate using the word 'rim' in a reply to a post containing the word 'p0rn', I'm sure someone with a pervy mind would make something of it...)

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  263. Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jenin is a large town (50k or so); Gaza is a refugee camp that the middle ages would recognize.

    Neither has anything more impressive than dial-up to the internet. Look for alternative motives, agendas, backers, and likely spyware.

    Folks, you are being socially engineered.

  264. How the fuck does this get voted insightfull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a fuckload of honest to god Zionists who want to annex all the occupied territories, minus the palestinians (Jewish, and a load of bible thumping xian zionists too ... mostly in the states, premier home of bible thumping cooks).

    These are the ones actually occupying the land, normal people dont move their homes to shacks in warzones to make a point.

  265. Their land was in Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even after the division ... they fled in fear of the Jews, and no way can anyone reasonably expect them to be able to return to the lands they fled after all this shit went down. But they have claims to land, and that land will just have to be the occupied territories. From an outsiders point of view that is the only fair compromise, apart from the matter of the "right" of return ... but they should be able to buy that off with part of Jerusalem.

    The fact that both find this unacceptable only shows it is a good compromise. The only alternative would be destroying Israel or a genocide of the palestinians.

    Even after all the shit the Palestinians did fact remains that they were displaced from land they rightfully owned. Maybe they dont deserve it back, but they deserve something better than annihilation.

    1. Re:Their land was in Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! It's unfair to criticize one side and not the other. The deeper I look into this issue, I find both sides heavily at fault.

      This isn't just a case of "he hit me, so I hit him back". It's more like, "he hit me, so I hit him harder, and then he hit me harder, and then I hit him even harder, etc".

      But in all fairness, Israel has to be the bigger man in this situation. They're the ones with the many nukes, the many advances in economy and technology, and the more educated populace. A lot of the Arab nations are willing to call it truce, and in time the Palestinians extremists will do the same.

      It just needs time, and an end to retaliation from the bigger man (Israel), followed slowly by the smaller man (Palestine).

    2. Re:Their land was in Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they fled in fear of the Jews

      No, the the surrounding arab nations told them to get out of the way of their declared invasion of Isreal and that they they would return as victors after all the Jews were "pushed into the sea".

      So they either fled out of fear of remaining in the path of a declared invasion and/or out of support for an invasion of Isreal. So some were innocent refugees, but others can be fairly classified as treasonous. So on one hand it really sucks that Isreal is not allowing the innocent ones to return, but on the other hand Isreal is quite reasonably reluctant to allow the return of those who acted in support of an attack.

  266. How did he see the keyboard hook? by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

    Hi guys,

    How did he see the hook into his keyboard for keylogging? Should winblows stop that/inform you before it happens?

    Thanks,

    HH

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  267. no need to stop buying cds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey, there's no need to stop buying cds all together. there are legit artists out there, and there are labels out there that aren't part of the RIAA.

    so here's a search engin that lets you check who's part of the RIAA or not.

    http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp

  268. They are right about this fact...LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Resistance is futile and we are now in control"

  269. thats renting by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    renting != buying

    1. Re:thats renting by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      renting != buying

      And? If you want a copy of a movie to keep, is convienence really the reason you'd rather spend a day downloading a several hundred megabyte rip that's nowhere near DVD quality and quite possible has subtitles for some random language permenantly on then driving to the store?

      In any case, not that it's entirely legal or ethical, you can easily produce a DVD rip from a rented DVD to your specifications, with more choice of movies, higher quality, and your choice of DVD extras. The only way it's convienence driving you to download the movie is if your ass really is the size and shape of your computer chair.

    2. Re:thats renting by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      If you want a copy of a movie to keep, is convienence really the reason you'd rather spend a day downloading

      Yes. If I buy the movie at a store and it sucks I'm out $20. If I download a movie and it sucks I've added a little to the net congestion and wasted a few hours of my time.

      a several hundred megabyte rip that's nowhere near DVD quality

      A good divx rip is nearly indistinquishible from a DVD, and thats if you're sitting a foot away from your monitor. Sit back on your couch and you *can't* tell the difference.

      and quite possible has subtitles for some random language permenantly on then driving to the store?

      You seem to be missing the point here, that its a matter of convinience. Movies, just like cds, cost so much that they simply make it worth peoples time to get it through means other than paying $$$ for it at a store. I say again: lower prices, gauranteed reliability and quality, and they'd have p2p licked. Sure kazaa would still be around, but if someone is so dedicated to not pay for a retail copy, its unlikely he would have bought it in the first place.

      The only way it's convienence driving you to download the movie is if your ass really is the size and shape of your computer chair.

      More like the other poster was right, and you are just an asshole.

    3. Re:thats renting by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      If I buy the movie at a store and it sucks I'm out $20.

      So you're too cheap to buy the movie. That's entirely different from convinience

    4. Re:thats renting by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      So you're too cheap to buy the movie. That's entirely different from convinience.

      Of course its still convenience; thats 2 hours out of my life wasted on working to pay for something that sucks. Just because you are entirely too stupid to get it....

  270. Hmm, that could work. by Gldm · · Score: 1

    Maybe then they should start all their press releases with "Incoming message from The Big Giant Head!"

    It really works especially if he's gonna keep saying cool stuff like "The next revolution in P2P file sharing is upon you. Resistance is futile and we are now in control".

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

  271. More Features! by SoLoatWork · · Score: 1

    KEYLOGGER - This allows us to transcribe everything you type on your keyboard. Any instant messages, emails, or search terms you type, we can see. This helps to make it easier to extort and blackmail you. If you install on a corporate machine even better, we can gain very valuable information.

    "BONUS" DLLS - We install random dll's that run even when the software is not running. This does a variety of great things! Your computer can even turn into a mail server, without you even noticing!

    UNINSTALL BLOCKER - Don't we all hate uninstallers than can REMOVE and DELETE any programs you want to remove. Our special software cannot be uninstalled! This protects you from the MPAA.

    D.R.M. software - We don't even know what this does!

  272. Lebanese sites do not work. by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 1
    Looks like the Movie gangster took out the Lebanese.

    When I clicked on ES5 and EarthStation 5, I was told that I could not connect because the servers do not exist.

    1. Re:Lebanese sites do not work. by Retarded_Ninja · · Score: 1

      It worked just fine for me.... http://www.es5.com

    2. Re:Lebanese sites do not work. by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 1

      Okay, they are working now. I don't know why they didn't before. Maybe MSBlaster problems. tssfulk

  273. thanks for the history lesson, but by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    What he said is validated by history. "Palestine" had always referred to Israel. Classic usage of the term "Palestinian" was synonomous with "Jew." Go read some old newspapers or books. At first, Arabs were extremely offended when called Palestinians, because that was a name for Jews.

    What they're called is irrelevant. The fact remains that Isreal was created without any reguard for the people who were already living there, and a whole group of people were made second class citizens and forced into refugee camps. Now before you bring up the fact that other countries like Jordan were also carved from the Ottoman Empire, at least the people in Jordan have their own country.

    1. Re:thanks for the history lesson, but by superyooser · · Score: 1
      The fact remains that Isreal was created without any reguard for the people who were already living there

      The evidence clearly indicates that no Arabs were living there. It is not even debatable that the Arabs living there now, or at least their parents, came from other countries. Most of them came to Israel because there are more jobs there than in their home countries.

    2. Re:thanks for the history lesson, but by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      The evidence clearly indicates that no Arabs were living there.

      What the hell is this? The flip-side, Zionist version of "the holocast didn't really happen?" Of course there were Arabs living there! Why do you think the Palistinian Authority has refused to drop the Right of Return for refugees?

      Most of them came to Israel because there are more jobs there than in their home countries.

      Riiight. If I were an Arab, I would so want to live under an aparthied where Isralies could sieze my property or bulldoze it down, keeping the best land and water resources for themselves. Oh, and if they're really going there for the jobs: what jobs? You try have any kind of economy with imposed curfews, roadblocks on all heavy trafic areas and a big concrete wall being laid throughout your town.

    3. Re:thanks for the history lesson, but by superyooser · · Score: 1
      Of course there were Arabs living there!

      Yes, they were living there in 1967, but not in 1948 when the modern state of Israel was created. They moved into Israel after a huge influx Jews had come in and made the desert bloom. The growing Jewish civilization brought unprecedented prosperity to the Middle East, and the Arabs wanted a piece of it. After the Six-Day War, the mythical history of an ancient Arab nation called Palestine was concocted in a pan-Arab political maneuver to wrest the land away from their new, unwanted neighbors.

      Notice how Muslims had not recognized any holy sites in the land of Israel until Israel was formed. Over 1300 years had passed since Mohammad, but all of a sudden the "third holiest site" of Islam appears ex post facto coinciding in both time and place with the re-established Jewish state. Then, they smack a mosque dome on top of the Jewish Temple Mount, the first holiest site of Judaism, which is a structure that predates Islam by over a millennium.

      The agenda of the Arabs is clear: Destroy Israel and murder the Jews. The issue of ownership of the land is just a means to an end. The Arabs couldn't care less about the land itself. They already have 22 countries on 11,796,381 sq km. What's 20k more? It's a tiny strip of desert barren of natural resources, and they hadn't touched it in thousands of years.

      Riiight. If I were an Arab, I would so want to live under an aparthied where Isralies could sieze my property or bulldoze it down, keeping the best land and water resources for themselves.

      Okay, you are clearly ignorant of the day-to-day goings-on in Israel. Many, many "Palestinians" work in Israel. They work in restaurants, clothing shops, and other places. Hordes of Arabs living in Azah and Judea cross over the borders every day to commute to their jobs. The IDF lets them file through.

      Did you know that most of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth are now occupied by Muslims? The IDF isn't tearing down their houses. In fact, they just handed over the city of Nazareth to them. Most Arabs in (U.N.-recognized) Israel are legal citizens of Israel (over 1,000,000; 20% of the population), they vote in elections, and they have protected rights.

      Did you know that there are "Palestinians" in the Israeli Knesset? (The Knesset is like a parliament or congress.) How can you say there is apartheid? There is no basis for that claim. Moreover, I reiterate, nor is there basis for the existence of an Arab Palestinian state in the Promised Land.

    4. Re:thanks for the history lesson, but by leandrod · · Score: 1
      > they were living there in 1967, but not in 1948

      Actually you are half a century late... there were lots of Arabs in Eretz Israel already in 1948. Besides the already settled population before Zionism -- admitedly small --, the huge influx of immigrants to work for Jewish settlers came during British mandate, from 1917 to 1948, and a little while before during the initial Zionist settlements in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, from the 1890s.

      > they smack a mosque dome on top of the Jewish Temple Mount

      Actually this was done for political reasons, but not against Zionism. In the VIII century, lots of Arab Muslim conquerors were converting to the Eastern Church due to the splendour and meaningfulness of the rites and the church buildings where these rites were carried, not only in the Temple Mount church but also in the Calvary Church and others. Then the Muslims commandeered the Temple Mount church for a mosque -- the Al Aqsa -- and built the Dome to outmatch the remaining churches, thus giving the Muslims something more visible to cling to, in almost direct contradiction to the Koran's injunctions.

      Admitedly, this was a local phenomenon only until Zionism. Even so, half of the Arab population in the Mediterranean was culturally Christian until the Jerusalem mufti ordered the assassination of their leaders and pan-Arabism started using first secularism, then Islamism as tools against the West, Zionism and freedom. Today only 20% of the Arab population in Palestine is Christian; the rest has migrated to France, the US, Brazil and other assorted countries.

      Just to complicate matters further, part of the Muslim populational predominance is also due to higher birth rates, their ignorance keeping them poor; and lately Muslims have began migrating to the West too, due to the general insecurity: the Arab infighting and despotism is so bad even some of them prefer to live elsewhere.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  274. Oh Yes, Jews can do no wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what really, really burns me about this entire issue. Palestinians murder Jews. Jews murder Palestinians. Everybody calls the Palestinians murderers, which they are, but the very instant you look at the other side of the coin and say, hey, Jews are murderers too, Jews start running around with a club to beat you with--that club is the label "Anti-Semite." It is the universal "thou shalt not criticize Jews" card that they play the very instant anyone points out that maybe, just maybe, Palestinians have just as much right to life, liberty, and a country as the Jews do.

    And what is the force behind this club? What makes it an effective discursive trump card? The holocaust. A massive crime and tragedy for us all. But Jews arrogate the entire significance of it to themselves. They, and they alone, have the universal and ultimate claim to victimhood, despite the fact that the class of people the Nazis were aiming to eradicate were the "untermenschen," a term which encompassed Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals, Communists, Evangelical Christians, Freemasons, the Handicapped, etc., etc., and millions of whom also perished in the Holocaust.

    It was this very fact that Jews and Jewish groups initially used to advocate the formal establishment of Israel. There was a famous filmed speech of Jewish American actors arguing passionately that the world should care about what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust because it wasn't just the Jews who perished, but many others, and therefore was not just a Jewish tragedy but one for all mankind. That conclusion is, I think the correct one. But nowadays Jews conveniently forget to mention all the other groups targeted and claim that they were the sole victims and therefore are the sole group on the face of the earth above reproach. Seems to me therefore that the aggrandizing of the significance of the holocaust solely unto the Jews, so that they can abuse and persecute others, namely the Palestinians, with impugnity is morally repugnant, and I utterly reject it.

    I also, in the strongest terms possible, reject your categorization of anyone who opposes Israel as someone who hates Jews. Does opposing the United States mean you hate Christians? Does opposing the Vatican mean you hate Catholics? Of course not. And while we're on the subject of Israel and its peoples, let's point out that you're conveniently omitting the fact that a great many Israelis are Christians, and increasingly, Muslims. It's a fact that pro-Israel supporters often like to trot out when they're trying to make a point about what an enlightened, liberal, and multi-cultural country Israel actually is. Yet here too, like with the subject of the Holocaust, Jews like to conveniently let that drop because they're in love with the idea that even merely criticizing Israel means you hate Jews. So I'm confused, if Israel is a multi-cultural society with Christian and Muslim as well as Jewish citizens, doesn't opposing Israel also not make a a person anti-Christian and anti-Muslim as well?

    And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, let's talk about Jews excoriating Yasser Arafat as a terrorist. Yes, he is a terrorist. But who did the holier-than-thou Jews elect to be their Prime Minister? Arial "The Butcher of Kibya" Sharon. He was a member of the Hagannah, the Jewish PLO, back when Palestine was a British protectorate. They slaughtered British soldiers and Palestinians in what any reasonable person would call terrorist attacks. Later, when the state of Israel had been established, Sharon was in charge of an operation to find PLO terrorists who had reportedly taken refuge in the village of Kibya. Sharon ordered the summary execution of 1500 of the men, women, and children of the village. But yes, I forgot, Hagannah was comprised of Jews, and Sharon is a Jew, so there's no way we can call them murderers for those killings.

    In short, I think a people that has been kicked around by history, that has been a victim of abuse and atrocities, is now the abuser and the com

    1. Re:Oh Yes, Jews can do no wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sig Heil! Sig Heil! Sig Heil!

      Your academic argument is no different than the Nazi's using Nitzche to further their attempt at destroying the Jews. At least be open and honest with your hatred. America is not a Christina nation. Israel is the Jewish nation. If you hate Israel it's just because that provides you with an acceptable liberal outlet for your Jew hatred. Just like Napolean. He said he hated the Jews as people but he liked them as citizens (e.g. if only they'd stop identifying as a people and just assimilate). Fess up that this is the crux of your argument you bigotted prick.

      Fscking liberal anti-semite.

      Ask yourself why the Arabs are the cause celebre' of the leftists when

      1. they supported Hitler during WWII
      2. they have the worst human rights record of any ethnic group on the planet
      3. they are so oppressive to their women that they allow genital mutilation and the killing of women for alleged infidelity (as if murder for actual fidelity wouldn't be bad enough).
      The left would loath the Arabs did they not provide an outlet for their passive hostility towards Jews.
  275. Slashdotting shut down xmule by Un-Thesis · · Score: 1

    first off, i do not like being referred to in the same paragraph as a "holy war" p2p group which i know nothing about. it totally gets off topic of the current issue, namely civil liberties that no longer exist in the United States (no one has replied to any of my urgings in this page, for instance!)

    secondly, i had plenty of contact info and should have been contacted before this was published.

    thirdly, as very much stated by teh page the author of this story published, xmule.org was at 90% bandwidth consumption BEFORE Being slashdotted!!! NOW MY SITE IS DEAD! Apparently the glorious admins panicked and rm -r'd the thing. it is gone.

    fourthly, because of the slashdotting, i overexceeded the monthly bandwidth allotment by 5 GB (in 12 hours!), which costs me money personally. Thirdly i have very few options left in hosting xmule, thanks to some asshole who linked me w/ a terrorist organization and slashdotted my site while the link that he posted said i was at 90% bandwidth consumption already.

    Thanks guys. Very little civil liberty discussion has come off this (nothing constructive save my 0-replies posts!!) you just add to my financial burdens, remove the right to access from our userbase, etc.

    Haven't you guys ever heard of editors aka guys who verify stories are fit print?! With my phone number plastered over the page you linked to directly, do you not think it is wise to call first and ask for permission??

    You did more harm to xmule than the gov'ment!
    Un-Thesis

    --
    Promote freedom; fight fascism.
    1. Re:Slashdotting shut down xmule by Un-Thesis · · Score: 1

      wow, props to you for posting that :-) at least it seems freedom of speech is alive. one can only hoep for the day when one won't be slashdotted w/o contact being attempted and that the Net's topology will be flipped upside down so that the more visitors the faster it gets.

      You earned back some respect by posting my emotional critique verbatim.
      Un-Thesis

      --
      Promote freedom; fight fascism.
    2. Re:Slashdotting shut down xmule by GargoyleMT · · Score: 1

      I seriously hope that:

      a) Your post gets modded up enough to stick in the archives when this story is made read-only (so /. editors can learn)
      b) This doesn't set a precedent for American programmers of P2P systems

      I speak as a bit-contributor to DC++... And I know that Jon Hess, the origial (American) inventor of the Direct Connect network also posts here... ;)

    3. Re:Slashdotting shut down xmule by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Yesterday I sent an email to the Slashdot poster Michael providing the link http://slashdot.org/~Un-Thesis in the hope that he'll consider the ramifications of his actions.

  276. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...raped the consumer for over 20 years...

    And they get away with it! But let Kobe Bryant charge one girl too much for a CD just once and it's a big deal.
  277. Depends on the content of the MP3s by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    Well, sharing MP3's online is a far cry from the fair use clause allowed by most copyrights...

    That depends on the content of the MP3s, not the MP3s themselves. The MP3 format is not illegal, nor is spreading copyrighted music. Only if the copyright owner, who is not necessarily the creator, of that particular work prohibits the dissemination, is it a problem. Even then, it's a behavioral problem.

    Just sour grapes from MPAA/RIAA for realizing that not only did they miss the boat, but that they've outlived their both their profitability and usefulness.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  278. Heh! by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1

    The subject line says "I'm a big fat TROLL!" and you still bite? Amazing! It's people like you who make trolling Slashdot worthwhile!

  279. In other news by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    The offices of the developers of Earthstation 5 were destroyed today by the Israeli army. Ariel Sharon, PM of Israel applauded the destruction saying they were harbouring terrorists. The intellegence was provided by Hilary Rosen an analyst in the US government.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  280. Then you must ban rocks and sticks by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    More people are killed via rocks and sticks each year then guns held by private citizens in the US. ( or car accidents, or drowning in public pools, or MANY MANY other causes.). gun violence initiated by legally licensed citizens is not even on the map...

    You also don't account for the crime PREVENTED by that same group of people. Of course in doing that you would just have made your viewpoint totally meaningless.

    Germany, ya right, that's a REAL good example of what happens when you have a restrictive government. The people cant defend themselves and you get Hitler..

    Please.. give me a f-ing break.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Then you must ban rocks and sticks by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! In opposite to guns do rocks and sticks exist in nature and can be used for many, many other things. The only purpose of guns is to wound and kill people.

      I'd have no problems with people shooting for sports, but then the weapons should stay in the big strongroom of the shooting club.

      The people cant defend themselves and you get Hitler..

      Classic case of Godwin here, eh?

      This shit is more than 50 years old, and I believe could never happen this way again. And on the other hand, at the time a majority of the people had reasoned that H. was not the kind of saviour they had believed he was, it was already too late, even if everyone had had two guns.

      btw, there are several parallels between how Hitler and how GWB seized power in their country. Where's the revolution against GWB?

  281. How is it strange? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Private gun ownership was part of how this country was able to fend off the British oppressors.. It was how we fed oursleves and protected our land and family...

    Its been part of my country since day one. It was a common right mandated to be protected in our constitution since the day we officially were independent..

    Unless you mean the rest of the world, where they cant protect themselves and keep asking us for help...

    Perhaps in that context its strange, but not here. where we have something called freedom..

    And come around my neck of the woods sometime, its not strange here, its rather common. Its just a part of life: Americans exercising their rights and freedoms. ( and fighting to protect them when needed ) Nothing strange about that.

    Gun ownership is just one of many rights we exersize here that are under attack. Please dont think im only defending ONE part of our way of life.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  282. Hammas Influenced by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

    The other thing to realize is that this guy is based out of Palestine - as such, his rhetoric is probably a LOT more reserved than the stuff he is hearing from Hammas and other militant groups on a daily basis. It is also probably reasonable to assume that the anti-Israel propaganda that he hears and reads constantly influenced his writing style. He was probably also going for maximum PR exposure (it seems to have worked) - I just think that he has bitten off more than he can chew.

  283. Can happen today too by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Ever hear of Saddam? Don't give me the excuse that it cant happen today. It can happen to any populace that cant defend itself, or is not diligent.

    As far as 'only for killing people': Ever hear of hunting animals? *Everything* has dual uses. Its HOW you use them that is the issue, not the object. A gun is no more harmful then a Lexus, in the hands of a responsible person.

    If you speak of defense, i agree the goal IS to kill, nothing less.. And there is nothing wrong with that, either legally or morally.

    This is also true for speech, which in my country we consider it a right to have. It can be used for good or bad. That des not mean it should be banned because it COULD be used improperly.. However, that very thing is occurring today, and I'm one of those who are standing up and fighting against it.

    I cant help it that you are a member of the sheep, and want their government to take care o them, that is your choice. However in MY country, we have chosen to exercise the *right* of being independent, which includes the right of being able to protect oneself.

    I never said you had to own a gun, only tat you have ZERO right to tell me I cant have mine.

    As far as relating Bush to this discussion, lets not go there as it would be fruitless an did believe was only to incite an argument.. While I don't agree with all his polices, I do agree with his actions in general... so your statement wont et much traction with me.

    ( and we are WAY OT here.. no one is listening but us at this point.. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Can happen today too by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of Saddam? Don't give me the excuse that it cant happen today. It can happen to any populace that cant defend itself, or is not diligent.

      I think that a populace who would defend themselves with guns against someone like Saddam would never let him get into power at first hand.

      Ever hear of hunting animals?

      With the typical six-shooter? No. :) OK, but this is one point you got, for hunting purposes there should be exceptions like here in Germany (transport of the gun only while disassembled, safe storage in house req'd, and so on).

      If you speak of defense, i agree the goal IS to kill, nothing less.. And there is nothing wrong with that, either legally or morally.

      Only if there is no other defense possible, e. g. stunning the aggressor with a taser. Killing should be the absolute last means of defense.

      This is also true for speech, which in my country we consider it a right to have.

      What about the kids sent home from school because of "no war" shirts?

      But I agree, I consider this a right I have, and I think German law strips this right a little bit too much down in some cases.

      and we are WAY OT here.. no one is listening but us at this point

      Yes, let's end this here ... :)

  284. How many time to you see a movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I imagine that after you hear a song on the radio you buy the CD and play it many times. or at least listen to all the songs other then the the one on the radio.

    now how many times did you go to see harry met sally? right. now do you get it? previews are what you get, you're not gonna get a free-bie viewing or even a reduced quality version for free.

    indeed one of the reasons hollywood is producing more action flicks is because it actually stimulates DVD sales. those are the flicks people will pay a limited amount to see more than once.

  285. Re:There never was (and never will be) a Palestine by Skye16 · · Score: 1

    America has never been America, either. And England was never english - it's celtic.

    Quit using ancient history to try to justify current actions. It's really pathetic.

  286. Re:Ah..but in 1983 you would have paid a fair pric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have we all forgotten when the record companies lowered the price of CDs to $10,
    and then raised them back to $15?

  287. Inflation has set in since 1983. by yerricde · · Score: 1

    CD's now cost about 1/10th as much to press as records cost at their cheapest

    Cost "to press" refers only to replication. Have the costs of writing the songs, recording the songs, distributing the records to major chain stores, oromotion on MTV including production of music videos, and so-called "independent" promotion on Clear Channel radio declined in parallel?

    CD's STILL cost almost 20 bucks apiece.

    1. Most of the price of the CD doesn't lie in replication. 2. Many CD albums are much longer than vinyl albums were. 3. The general cost of labor has increased.

    After inflation, CDs are actually just as cheap as vinyl ever was.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  288. Terror Terror Revolution? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Most of the first-generation RAF-terrorist hid in the former German Democratic Republic ("DDR").

    If the terrorists are hiding next to DDR machines, I guess I better stay out of the arcade.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  289. D$L? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Tough luck. Dump the cable and get a DSL line instead.

    Most people can't afford DSL's $200,000 installation fee, which includes the cost of moving the family to an area within 3.5km of the telco's switch.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  290. More NOFX for ya by zootread · · Score: 2, Informative

    "I see no world peace 'cause of zealous armed forces
    I eat no breath-mints 'cause their from de-hoofed horses
    Now I can't believe; what an absolute failure
    The president's laughing 'cause we voted for Nader"

    -NOFX, "Franco Un-American"

    --
    Zoot!
  291. Re:There never was (and never will be) a Palestine by Skeeve · · Score: 1

    This comment is really amazing. By that theory, the USA better pack it in. After all, this land was claimed by the various native tribes long before some english settlers landed here. The Jewish tribes took Israel from the previous owners. Where again is the historical proof of right to the land?

  292. it's a viewpoint thing by alizard · · Score: 1
    You want to ratfuck the *AA companies?

    I never said this. I merely said that my money is going towards alternative purchases which simply will not benefit either of the **AA orgs.

    This was addressed to the part of the slashdot community that does want to ratfuck the *AA member organizations.

    I'm one of those people. I regard the *AA member organizations as a bunch of parasitic "rent-seekers", I think that they are bad for the music community and high-tech industry and users, and they are going to become bad for independent film makers. I also believe that they are bad for the consumer, and that the drop off in sales is largely due to the consumer population realizing this, even if not at a conscious level.

    I think the world as a whole will be better off for their self-destruction, and that our civic duty is to give them a push towards the cliff whenever possible.

  293. Freedom Fries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And remember, folks, we call them Freedom Fries instead of French Fries, because "French" is synonymous with "Freedom."

  294. SIT DOWN! SHUT UP! Bring out the midget! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to know why the US supports Israel?

    They won the 6 day war. A war they should have lost. (Although Sun Tzu would disagree with that assesment, I think you could certainly classify that battlefield as "deadly ground")

    When the iraelis kill innocent civilians, it's because the terrorist hide among them, sometimes with the people's blessing. When the palestinians kill civilians, it's because that's who they were aiming for. This deeply offends american sensibilities. To the point that spiritual atheists/intellectual agnostics with a nationalistic bent, libertarian ideals, who consider movie theaters to be their holy places like myself side with people who lay claim to place on religious grounds. Israelies kill children on accident, palestinians kill them on purpose. It's pretty clear where the lesser of two evils is.

    But more evil than the palestinians are the arabs. They want the palestinians to fight the israelies, because they got their asses killed in the six day war. The land that they believe is theirs by divine edict, they got their asses kicked all up and down it. Brutally. By a foe they greatly out numbered. (Either Allah isn't an interventionist type of God, it ain't their land, or I'm right.) So being the unappologetic cowards they are, the arabs are content to pay the palestinians to hoplessly throw themselves to the lions teeth. Which is fine with the arabs, they don't like the palestinians anymore than the radical jewish settlers do.

    Then the palestinians and their "right of return" they didn't sell manhatten for a song, or beads, they got cash. Next time, if you think you might want it later, don't sell it.

    If the palestinians or even the arabs want to take Israel's political power away, here's what they should do.

    All the camel raping child molesting Hamas bitches, get uniforms, and have to wear them.
    They don't flee into civilians areas.
    They only attack military targets.
    No more buses, no more pizza parlors, or dance clubs.
    They can keep doing so serrupticiously, but they've got to wear the uniforms at all times.
    Oh and when a kid dies, don't kick'em street like a soccer ball.
    The dead deserve a little dignity you savage fucks.

  295. Anti-RIAA/MPAA t-shirts by iocc · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to buy a "I HATE RIAA/MPAA" T-shirt somewhere?

  296. careful not to shoot the pianist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys,

    Boycotting the record industry imho is a good thing, but it will only work if you give musicians a chance to adopt new business models by digging out the money to see their live performances. They may in time put their music on the web for free to promote their concerts - wouldn't that be nice?

    Greets,

    Samsara

  297. [OT] Re:Precedent against this sort of suit by sbszine · · Score: 1

    Now imagine that there are 60,000 people doing the exact same thing that you are. The situation changes slightly.

    True enough, but 60,000 folks small arms are still not enough to beat the US armed forces (see: Iraq). For such a revolt to be successful it would need huge popular support, millions of people rather than thousands. And at that point probably you'd have portions of the army going over to your side etc.

    Further to that, if your popular support doesn't extend to a majority of citizens, then there's a strong case that your revolt lacks a popular mandate. Overthrowing the government with majority support is liberation, doing so without is little more than a coup.

    Unless you have majority support, I can't see a situation in which the public having small arms promotes freedom. And if you do have true majority support, you probably won't need the small arms as you'll have regular forces.

    I think the right to bear arms is well-intentioned, but just hasn't scaled properly to the present day, and is doing more harm than good at the moment.

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  298. Re:ES5 *IS* actually TROJAN SPYWARE proof!!! DANGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why do all of their IP's traceroute to Holland?

  299. Re:ES5 *IS* actually TROJAN SPYWARE proof!!! DANGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another hoax that was spread 5 months ago during the same time esv started.

  300. Re:You forgot something... Caliphate of Death. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You say "enemy" the problem lies in the fact that your clerics and your hordes of cultists define anyone who isnt goosestepping with them an enemy. You whitewash the filthiest thing on earth, Islam. You are part of a satanic brainwashing collective, and if we dont stop you, you will kill us all!