Patriot Act Used to Enforce Copyright Law?

Article Text by byolinux · 2004-07-27 00:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Site seems very slow already, so here's the article text.

Donate

Buy T-Shirt

Federal charges were filed against Adam McGaughey, creator of the popular SG1Archive.com website - a fan website devoted to the MGM-owned television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that the website engaged in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. The charges were the culmination of a three-year FBI investigation, set in motion by a complaint from the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) regarding the content of the SG1Archive.com website.

SG1Archive.com is one of the most popular fan-run websites among the Stargate community. In addition to providing very active fan discussion forums, broadcast schedules, production news, and episode guides, the site heavily promotes the sale of the show on DVD. As of this writing, direct links from SG1Archive.com to Amazon.com have resulted in the sale of over $100,000 worth of DVDs. Many more DVDs have been sold to international fans of the show through sites like Blackstar.co.uk. Upon hearing this news, Stargate executive producer Brad Wright called the site "cool" - which Adam took as an endorsement of his work.

However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment. Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, and was shocked to discover that this document, prepared by the FBI, contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading information. For example, two social security numbers were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA to an email address that did not exist. His online friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was portrayed as an international conspiracy against the MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written documentation stating that it would be returned within 60 days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive until more than 8 months later, and only then after much prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was pried apart with a screwdriver. The FBI's computer crimes staff is either incompetent (at least when it comes to Macintosh computer equipment) or else they just don't give a damn.

Adam has has received positive feedback about his site from multiple members of the Stargate cast and crew at fan conventions. In addition, a representative of MGM's fan publication interviewed Adam about his website several months prior to the FBI raid. As a result, Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with the content of his website. Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality, without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss the show. Why the MPAA and FBI have chosen to ignore these sites and target SG1Archive.com is unclear.

Up until this point, Adam has been fortunate enough to receive pro bono legal counsel in his current hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. However, the charges were filed in Los Angeles county. The cost of travel, trial, bond, etc. is likely to be quite high.

--
Join the Free Software Foundation

Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with
> the content of his website

I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it. Adam's beliefs of their opinions are even less relevant.

> Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality,
> without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss
> the show.

What other sites are doing is irrelevant.
Re:Article Text by argStyopa · 2004-07-27 01:23 · Score: 1

(not replying to poster, but to article)

LOL FUD

No mention about if he actually WAS breaking the law in the article.

Erroneous & misleading information? If the SSN listed wasn't his, whose was it? The fact that they don't say leads me to believe it was probably relevant, just not him (fiancee, maybe?).

I don't believe "but I sold a lot of their DVDs" or "they really liked my site!" is a useful defense to anyone but those who are already convinced that this is another case of the PATRIOT ACT (read: Nazi John Ashcroft Bush Facist Dictatorship) overreaching.

--
-Styopa
Re:Article Text by enrico_suave · 2004-07-27 01:32 · Score: 5, Informative

I think what most people object to, is NOT the copyright holder trying to protect their IP, so to speak...

BUT that the "Patriot Act" is being utilized in such a manner AND that government/taxpayer money, time, and resources were spent to make the MPAA happy. That's ridiculous (hello INDUCE act glad to meet you...)

I feel safer knowing that these new "tools" for finding terrorists are being used domestically for other purposes. (that's sarcasm, fyi)

Hey, i'm all for increase our intelligence gathering capabilities and having US use the data it allready has more effectively... and acting on it properly... BUT the patriot act was not the right approach at all.

more sarcsam: Thank god they got that pesky judge and warrant business out of the way so they can go after the real criminals like stargate1 download/fan sites quicker! GJ!

e

--
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Re:Article Text by SilkBD · 2004-07-27 01:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment

Jesus, that's some tip off!

--
00101010
Re:Article Text by Altus · 2004-07-27 02:11 · Score: 1

what should realy piss you off is that the FBI is spending their time investigating copyright infringement... a civil matter, not a criminal one. At a time when the country is supposed to be on high alert and tom ringe is talking about a possible terror attack around the elections.

hell theyve been at this for over 3 years... just about since 9/11

dont you think they could be spending our money a little more efficently?

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:Article Text by will_die · 2004-07-27 02:26 · Score: 1

So you are upset that they used the provision of this law so that a local agent could decided to investigate a crime instead of waiting for approval from headquarters and the weeks that use to take before the passing of this law?
It also removed alot of stupid laws such as thoses that prevented an agent from using google to look information about a possible crime.
While thier are a bunch of problems with this law, at least educate yourselves on what parts are being used and what they changed.

If you want to read something really scary go read Executive Order 12949.
Re:Article Text by enrico_suave · 2004-07-27 02:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you re-read what I said, in my own rambling way... the people/agency who are charged with protecting the US/people SHOULD be more efficient.

There's no law stating that these agencies had to be slow, cumbersome, and reactive.

Just because these agency are (perceived to be) a buerocratic mess (even if I can't spell it), don't short circuit due process.

If there are other stupid laws (such as preventing an agent from using a publicly available resource like google to "investigate" as you point out) they should be ammended/removed, but lets not throw out the baby (due process/ civil liberties) with the bath water ( inefficiency , other hindering law enforcement laws).

*shrug* I think what most people feared about the PA is that it would be used in situations other than or too broadly (or not even) defined "terrorist"... and that's what we seem to have here. copy right infringement != terrorism unless they think he's funnelling all his amazon referral money to bin laden? c'mon now =)

e.

--
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Re:Article Text by teromajusa · 2004-07-27 03:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you are upset that they used the provision of this law so that a local agent could decided to investigate a crime instead of waiting for approval from headquarters and the weeks that use to take before the passing of this law?

Shit yeah since apparently without oversight they end up wasting their investigative resources on crap like this. For copyright violation to be criminal, it has to be done for financial gain - otherwise its a torte. Since he wasn't selling the episodes, its very doubtful that is even a criminal matter.
Re:Article Text by tabrnaker · 2004-07-27 05:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't worry. All that terrorist talk is your government terrorizing you so that you'll blindly let in more laws like the Patriot Act. They could tell you what ever you want and if you can't read/understand arabic you're out of luck. Good thing about those color codes for your alert levels, sure makes playing the stock market easier.
Re:Article Text by Dashing+Leech · 2004-07-27 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it.
Well, if they are at least partial copyright holders for the show, their opinions are relevant. However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights.
What other sites are doing is irrelevant.
Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant.
What seems to missing in the article is actually what was done that was illegal. It's obviously related to copyright infringement, but are they accusing this guy of selling T-shirts without licensing the images, or something like that? It can't be just displaying some images without permission. If it's criminal infringement it has to be something quite serious to meet the circumstances required by the statutes.
Re:Article Text by gcaseye6677 · 2004-07-27 06:20 · Score: 1

If the FBI can do this type of thing to some movie pirate, there's no reason at all why they are powerless to stop spammers and other online scams. This only needs to happen to a few spammers before most of the others decide to stop. I'd just love to see some spammer complaining to the press about how the FBI trashed his computers. I suspect the reason this isn't already happening is because there is no wealthy group of companies (ie campaign contributors) demanding that the government do something about it.
Re:Article Text by maximilln · 2004-07-27 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights

I've also found amusement that Uncle Sam is more than willing to spring to action to protect the rights of the corporations against a private citizen but, should any private citizen have a problem with the behavior of a major corporation, they'll have to come up with their own PIs, attorneys, and counsels who don't have the authority to just kick the door down, take everything in sight, and return most of it damaged and broken.

What amuses me more is that >50% of the posters on /. (and in the world) have been brainwashed to think that this is the right and true way for things to work.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Article Text by ifwm · 2004-07-27 06:28 · Score: 1

"otherwise its a torte"

MMM, tortes. Yummy. I think you meant "tort"
Re:Article Text by DeusExMalex · 2004-07-27 06:55 · Score: 1

who says we want everything for free? fuck - i've bought two open-source OS's in the span of 6 months from a store - so that the people doing their thing can keep doing it. while yes, we do like free (who doesn't?) it's not like we expect people to work for nothing.
and hit them w/ every law applicable, eh? after all - having one law for one crime is just too simple. we need 4 - maybe even 5 - laws over each crime. it's more intimidating that way - both to criminals and those uppity youngsters who try to get into law as a proffesion.
Re:Article Text by alka-seltzer · 2004-07-27 06:59 · Score: 1

And becuase many spammers set up shop overseas, which makes that whole "prosecution under US law" thing kind of tricky.
Re:Article Text by gcaseye6677 · 2004-07-27 07:34 · Score: 1

This is true. Which is why such actions will not instantly eliminate spam, but will make it much harder to do. Once many countries adopt such tough measures, the few remaining ones that permit these activities will soon have most of their outbound internet traffic consisting of spam or scamming activities. Then, system administrators will shut off connections from these places. When they want to rejoin the internet, they will have to show that they can be trusted to keep their users in line.
Re:Article Text by Sgt+York · 2004-07-27 08:54 · Score: 1

I think that was kinda the point....The order is unconstitutional. The idea that there was an Excutive Order authorizing something that is that blatantly unconstitutional is scary. To me, at least.
Not sure about the pressing charges part, though. But IANAL.

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:Article Text by marleyboy · 2004-07-27 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

begin rant
Since when did any law passed in recent memory actually protect the indivudal?

All it takes is to piss off some corporation and they've got the weight of all sorts of laws and acts that they paid off senators and congresspeople to pass so that they can come after the individual. Since when did any federal agency act on the concerns of the indivudal, and not with vested interest from those corporations and foundations that donate big bucks to election campaigns and federal agencies? Since when does America actually give a rats ass about the individual?

I'll tell you when. It was when the corporations became more powerful with deeper pockets than the goverment.

Taxes? You're giving more profit to your beer manufacturer, or your gas manufacturer than the government sees in taxes. What do you spend the other chunk of your income on that doesn't go towards taxes? Consumables that are being produced at ever cheaper rates in factories that aren't in the US. Guess where the employment goes towards? THOSE TAIWANESE KIDS WHO WORK UNTIL THEIR FINGERS BLEED!

end rant

--
Neutiquam erro
Re:Article Text by DigitalSpyder · 2004-07-27 14:06 · Score: 2, Informative

"Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant"

Ever heard of criminal profiling?
Re:Article Text by The+AtomicPunk · 2004-07-28 01:02 · Score: 1

Taxes? You're giving more profit to your beer manufacturer, or your gas manufacturer than the government sees in taxes.

Well,

A) No
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/
ht tp://www.msnbc.com/news/423165.asp?cp1=1
http://w ww.beerinstitute.org/washington_updates/st andarpoorstudy.pdf

B) They did manufacturer the product, why shouldn't they profit?
Re:Article Text by decepty · 2004-07-29 06:53 · Score: 1

Actually the official charges are copyright infringement, as he streamed the show from the archives. What actually got him into this whole mess, and investigated in the first place, is the mail fraud charges for selling folks reigion-free DVD players that he never delivered. (Google for his full name... some interesting stuff comes up from Google Groups)... I was initially sympathetic and almost donated until I found that out. Regardless though, this is a horribly offensive blatant abuse of the "patriot act" and a great example of just how much work it needs.

--
Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.

oh dear by pbjones · 2004-07-27 00:29 · Score: 1, Funny

would the last free minded person leaving the USA please turn the lights on...

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Uhh, the reason for all this is that the guy offered every episode for download, from his site, in ASF and DIVX format.

Just see the Internet Wayback machine for proof.

We are defending this guy why?
Re:oh dear by mirko · 2004-07-27 00:53 · Score: 1

And he got caught by an angry nerd who complained he didn't even offer DVD ISOs ?

He had it coming.

> Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?
I'd be surprised to see what the definition of terrorism has become, since... hmmmm... say the end of last millenium.

I imagine :
1999: Terrorist : a nasty fellow who kills innocent people as a retaliation against their government policy.

2004: Sombody who believes Acronyms should not be considered as gods, especially acronyms in ??AA.

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:oh dear by 91degrees · 2004-07-27 00:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uhh, the reason for all this is that the guy offered every episode for download, from his site, in ASF and DIVX format.

Well spotted that man.

We are defending this guy why?

Here we see the dangers of only getting one side of the story. That said, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They could have simply demanded the ISP remove access to the material. Anti-terrorism measures should not be used for a relatively minor crime.
Re:oh dear by jimicus · 2004-07-27 01:08 · Score: 1

He did. Some years ago. The DivX's haven't been available from there for ages.
Re:oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 01:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

We are defending this guy why?

Even the guilty have the right to due process.
Re:oh dear by sjames · 2004-07-27 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not a matter of defending him. It's a matter of objecting to the FBI invoking 'terrorism' to avoid due process in a case that clearly has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

Further, it's a matter of objecting to a criminal investigation of what should be a civil matter. In addition, it's a matter of objecting to the FBI wantonly destroying or outright stealing his property for no good reason (yes, stealing! If they take it for investigation, then don't return it within a reasonable amount of time, ethically, it's theft). Surely the FBI should know that stealing is wrong!

He SHOULD have recieved a cease and desist by registered mail. If (and only if) he chose to ignore that, he should have recieved a summons. The FBI should have had nothing to do with it, there should have been no search and siezure, no vague mumblings about international conspiracies, no destroyed hardware, etc.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not objecting to him facing negitive consequences for posting episodes on his website. I'm objecting to the FBI abusing it's power, neglecting it's responsabilities, and lying to the courts.
Re:oh dear by kfg · 2004-07-27 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

We are not defending him. We are defending you.

KFG
Re:oh dear by Snaller · 2004-07-27 02:21 · Score: 1

Well apart from the fact he was an arrogant ass, they feds don't have a right to trash his eqiupment.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:oh dear by PriceIke · 2004-07-27 02:36 · Score: 1

Sounds like he's got a legal case to me. This guy may have had his hardware trashed but he's been handed a golden opportunity to sue the FBI and turn this into a bigtime legal precedent-setting trial, challenging the FBI's use of USAPATRIOT to pursue non-criminal crimes. If he chooses to [pur]sue, I want ringside seats at that circus.

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Re:oh dear by StalinsNotDead · 2004-07-27 02:37 · Score: 1

"It's a matter of objecting to the FBI invoking 'terrorism' to avoid due process in a case that clearly has NOTHING to do with terrorism."

You know those episodes were used in training camps throughout the Sudan & Afghanistan to illustrate American Small Unit Tactics.

--
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Re:oh dear by Sgt+York · 2004-07-27 03:45 · Score: 1

It's not so much that he didn't break the law. He did break the law, no question. The MPAA was well within their rights to pursue him for copyright infringement. Based on the dates on the video archive and the date of the raid he talks about, his hosting of the videos most likely triggered the raid. Perfectly legit, as far as what the MPAA did.
But that's not what got my attention here. What got my attention was the use of the Patriot act to get eveidence on him. We were told over and over again that it wouldn't be used for anythying except investigations into terrorist acts, but here it is being used to acquire evidence for copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement.
It wouldn't matter to me if it was a murder investigation, it's still precisely what we were assured, over and over again, would never happen, under any circumstances. There is a reason that our legal and investigative arms of the government are set up the way they are. The law enforcement arm is limited in what it can do, for very good reason. This act allows law enforcement to do things they otherwise could not, and should not, be able to do.

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:oh dear by b-baggins · 2004-07-27 06:38 · Score: 1

Spouting off uninformed talking points just makes you sound like an ass.

The FBI did not invoke terrorism. They used the provisions of the Patriot Act that allow for search warrants to obtain ISP information. That IS due process.

What really annoys me is that you may actually be old enough to vote your stupidity.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:oh dear by hesiod · 2004-07-27 07:01 · Score: 1

> We are not defending him. We are defending you.

Wow, oh wow -- Beautifully said!

We need to defend the rights of due process even if the accused has publicly admitted to serial murder. If his rights are stepped over, anyone's rights can be stepped over. Now, if any person is truly guilty of a crime, they should be punished in a reasonable manner after they have been proven guilty in a court of law (or through some other legal process; settling, plea bargaining, whatever).
Re:oh dear by sjames · 2004-07-27 07:42 · Score: 1

The FBI did not invoke terrorism. They used the provisions of the Patriot Act that allow for search warrants to obtain ISP information. That IS due process.

So, they invoked provisions of an anti-terrorism bill meant to make the investigation of terrorism easier by characterising his posting of copyrighted material as part of an international conspiracy. That sounds like invoking terrorism to me.

What really annoys me is that you may actually be old enough to vote your stupidity.

Darn it! I should have used an ad hominem attack instead. Then I could sound like a super-genius like you :-)

Homer by bool+morpheus() · 2004-07-27 00:30 · Score: 2, Funny

In the words of Homer Simpson, this is bull plop! But seriously, it's a fan site. If someone made me a fansite, I wouldn't sue them. Hell, I'd be grateful! Anyone want to make me one?

--

----
Ground Control to Major Tom...

Re:Homer by Polkyb · 2004-07-27 01:12 · Score: 1

As the article said, the cast and crew of SG-1 seem pretty chuffed with the site, even praising it at SG-1 conventions.

It would seem, to me anyway, that it's the distributors (MGM) who are being overly stupid here and not the actual producers of the show. Like it says, it has been PROVED that links from the site have led to over $100,000 worth of DVD sales in the US alone. Shutting him down seems more and more like an act of lunacy

--
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
Re:Homer by aslate · 2004-07-27 01:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Obviously you've not heard of the Futurama site "The Leela Zone" which has survived at least 5 Cease and Decist letters from FOX to their ISP and are still going. No-one knows what content isn't allowed on the site still.

However the site doesn't want to work now!
Re:Homer by d7urban · 2004-07-27 02:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Because you fudged the URL. The Leela Zone is still there, at http://www.leelazone.com.ar/

--
Urban Nilsson, http://bonk.nu/blog
Re:Homer by PriceIke · 2004-07-27 02:38 · Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Slashdot survived several threatening letters from the Powers That Be?

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Re:Homer by aslate · 2004-07-27 02:50 · Score: 1

Maybe so, but have they been because it's a "fan site" that is actually good for a show, or because it's reported things that have pissed off those sending the letters?

Yes it is... by Jaysyn · 2004-07-27 00:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

... Thanks to our pandering polticians, Democrat & Republican alike. Vote Libertarian & stop this silliness.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

Re:Yes it is... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 00:57 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Libertarians are just republicans who don't like the word "republican". sheesh. libertarians are the same as all the other politicians.
Re:Yes it is... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, do you really think a libertarian candidate has any chance of winning any office?

Well you know, if people vote for a candidate and they get enough votes, yes they'll get office. You know, it's called democracy. That's how it votes. You pick the candidate whom you believe will do the best job and you vote for them.

This is true of any democracy, apart from the U.S, where people apparently feel that they must simply vote for either the guy most likely to win, or the other guy because they don't like one candidate. It's totally braindead. How often do you hear "I don't like candidate X but I'm going to vote for him because at least he isn't candidate Y!" How fucking stupid is that?

Then we get confused voters like you, who believe that voting for the guy you like the most is "wasting" your vote. It seems the two largest political parties in the U.S have done a bang up job of making you believe this. The problem in the U.S is that a lot of people think like you, so nobody votes for the candidate they really want, so that candidate looses and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Common sense long left the voting public, it seems. So I guess you'll always be stuck with Cookie Cutter Candidate A or Cookie Cutter Candidate B. Both of which nobody really likes and they both suck up the guys with the cash anyway, and couldn't give two flying blue fucks about stiffs like you but you'll keep on voting for them because you're a scared little puppy, and if you don't vote for A then B might win and we all know B kills puppy dogs! Can't let happen can we? Now just remember to vote Democan or Republicrate come November and it'll all be O.K
Re:Yes it is... by Jaysyn · 2004-07-27 01:20 · Score: 1

You know, with your handle, I thought you might have a little more sense than that.

Dave*420* my ass.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 01:26 · Score: 1

This is true of any democracy, apart from the U.S, where people apparently feel that they must simply vote for either the guy most likely to win, or the other guy because they don't like one candidate. It's totally braindead. How often do you hear "I don't like candidate X but I'm going to vote for him because at least he isn't candidate Y!" How fucking stupid is that?

Other than on /., I have never heard someone say that. If you are so dumb as to make that choice, that's your problem.

Europe is no panacea.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by Psion · 2004-07-27 01:34 · Score: 1

Two questions:
Why did you post this as an Anonymous Coward? It's pretty good stuff and you deserve credit for it.

Why don't I ever have moderation points when I need them?
Re:Yes it is... by Glock27 · 2004-07-27 01:41 · Score: 1

Libertarians are just republicans who don't like the word "republican". sheesh. libertarians are the same as all the other politicians.
I disagree. Libertarians have very fundamental philosophical differences with Republicans, and in particular with the current crop of Republicans.
George Bush vowed to pursue smaller government, and instead vastly bloated it. IMO, that would never happen with a Libertarian President, if he were at all willing to stick to his ideals. Most likely he/she would, since Libertarian candidates are rarely career politicians.
The one area that I have concerns about in the Libertarian platform is it's foreign policy - I'm not sure that the U.S. can afford to back away from having a strong military at this point. In every other way, Libertarian leadership would be a great thing for the U.S.
Check out the website for the Libertarian presidential candidate. The banner ad on the front page says it all. (Also the article about Bill O'Reilly refusing to debate the Patriot Act with him is pretty funny...;)

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Re:Yes it is... by LGagnon · 2004-07-27 01:41 · Score: 1

Don't Libertarians support big corporations and laxed laws and regulations? I think that would only allow the MPAA and RIAA to screw us over even worse. Sorry, but if I'm voting for any third party, it'll be one that actually tries to make sure big media doesn't subjegate us all, like the Green Party.
Re:Yes it is... by PReDiToR · 2004-07-27 01:44 · Score: 1

So if voting for X because you don't like Y is wrong, should you vote for Y?

How many names are there on the slip, 3? Here in UK there are usually 3 names. One is NOT going to win, so don't waste a vote. That leaves X and Y. You don't like either of them? What do you do with the vote that your forefathers died to give you?

More and more people are finding that there isn't a candidate worth voting for and they are all a bunch of lying puppets. When will the West learn that Democracy is fundamentally flawed?

The only people who desire the power of political office are those who shouldn't have it. Power corrupts, this is a given.

Corporate Law is here and now, bow down before our new law making business overlords.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:Yes it is... by mwood · 2004-07-27 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, when we got our portion of the cut, I turned to my wife and said, "hey, good news, we're plutocrats!" It's still a struggle to make the payments on a modest home and the grocery budget is a bit tight, but we must be among the richest 2% of Americans 'cos our taxes were cut. Maybe there are a few bags of $1000 bills that got lost behind the sofa.
Re:Yes it is... by Asprin · 2004-07-27 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Way already on the bus, man.

For US voters who don't know what The Libertarian Party is, here's a good 10 second summary.

Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.

FYI.

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Re:Yes it is... by bonkedproducer · 2004-07-27 02:04 · Score: 1

No, actually Libs tend to be strong proponents of Property rights - meaning you own the stuff you buy. Meaning you can do whatever you want with it. Libs tend to be very strong against corporations being able to infringe on your rights.

--
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
Re:Yes it is... by tsg · 2004-07-27 02:07 · Score: 1

More and more people are finding that there isn't a candidate worth voting for and they are all a bunch of lying puppets. When will the West learn that Democracy is fundamentally flawed?

What's fundamentally flawed is the people the system encourages to run. A candidate cannot get elected without taking money from people who want favors in return for their contributions. We get corrupt leaders because the system favors corrupt leaders. It's not a problem in democracy[1] itself, but the campaign process. Take the money out of the campaigns and there will be much less proclivity towards bought politicians.

[1] Pedantic nitpicks about this not being a true democracy aside.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Yes it is... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-07-27 02:22 · Score: 1

"What do you do with the vote that your forefathers died to give you?"

Which is only one reason voting is moronic.

As we anarchists say, "Don't vote - it only encourages them".

And "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal.

And "No matter who you vote for, the government gets elected."

A Libertarian candidate can not possibly win AND BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING unless the entire Senate and House were also Libertarian - which essentially would mean the entire country had turned Libertarian.

So the argument is pointless.

There is only one Party in the United States - the War Party.

Or the Greed Party or the Corrupt Party - take your pick of those parties.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 02:27 · Score: 1

go look up "Democracy" and then go look up "Republic" and see why you should have paid more attention in 2nd grade

Most dictionaries provide horrible definitions of democracy. Democracy nearly always means republic. There isn't a single dictionary, that I've come across, that provides a properly sanitized and unbiased definition of democracy. A proper definition of democracy is: "a system characterized by voting." That's it. That's all. There is no more. The properly cleaned defintion of democracy doesn't attempt to sway the reader's opinion about fraud, graft, rigging votes, or who really is to benefit from such a system. Consider, as a counterpoint, these definitions from Merriam-Webster:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Don't those sound nice, perfect, utopian, and pretty? No room for dishonesty. No room for rigging the vote. No room for propaganda and lies. No room for reality. It's all about the people.

Take the definition for Republic, as well:

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

Consider the line "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote". Who are they trying to kid???

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Yes it is... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 02:35 · Score: 1

Posting with a name like "glock" is kinda giving an NRA-lovin' feel to your party, which is somewhat scary. thanks, though ;)
Re:Yes it is... by deck · 2004-07-27 02:37 · Score: 1

Well it is the property of the Movie/Televison studios and the Recording Compnaies as far as they are concerned. It is only loaned to the individuals to be used specifically as the corporations see fit. So I would see the Libertarians siding with the big corporations like they always do.
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 02:37 · Score: 1

It's not a problem in democracy[1] itself, but the campaign process

You're right: it's a flaw in the campaign process. Democracy is simply a system characterized by voting. Voting requires opposing opinions. Even idle coffee-table debate is campaigning. The campaign process is inherent to democracy.

I agree that we could fix democracy if we can fix the campaign process. First you must fix the factor which sullies the campaign process: availability of funding and resources. I have no idea how we can correct for the disparity without creating an easily exploitable welfare system.

My solution is to minimize the exploitation by campaigning for the complete and utter castration of government. Other than opportunistic graft and greed, there's no real reason for such a large government. We could build roads, running water, power lines, and create the Internet with a government 1/1000th the size.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Yes it is... by Politburo · 2004-07-27 02:59 · Score: 1

This is true of any democracy, apart from the U.S, where people apparently feel that they must simply vote for either the guy most likely to win, or the other guy because they don't like one candidate.

First, let's make things clear. A presidential election is different from every other election held in the USA. The President is the only elected official that everyone votes for (chooses electors for, to be technical). In almost every state, electoral votes are awarded with a "winner take all" method. So, if you vote for a person who doesn't carry your state, your vote isn't considered on the national level. Combine this with the social desire to root for "the winning team" and it's easy to see why there is concern about 'wasted' votes.

Voting for third parties will not become viable in the USA until: Instant Runoff or Concordance voting is used, the Electoral College is changed (at least have all states proportion the EV votes to that state's popular vote), and third parties begin winning LOCAL offices. Not all of these need to happen, but the last one is very important, and it is beginning to occur in some areas of the country. Without elected officials in smaller offices, a voter is going to ask: Why am I going to vote for a Green or Libertarian for president? Most people know nothing about third parties. Sure, they can read the platforms, but go read the GOP and Democratic platforms and see if they match up to what the GOP and Democratic parties actually carry out. In this day and age, a platform is idealism and is directed towards the base, not undecided voters. The only people who care enough to read the platforms have usually made up their minds already. Experience in elected offices is much more important. Greens are easily painted as crazy liberals. Without elected officials to point to and say "Look at all the good they've done, and it wasn't crazy" the Greens will be held to that stereotype. The same goes for any other 3rd party. Why local offices? Local officials are much closer to the people, and generally do not run big media campaigns. Large ]cities are the exception to this, of course.

An additional problem is the problem of change. Both the GOP and Democrats want to change things in the country, and so does every 3rd party. Where the disagreement lies is not only the direction of the change, but the magnitude. The mainstream parties are typically interested in smaller, more incremental changes than 3rd parties. Smaller changes are easier to enact, and smaller changes also help to enforce the status quo. 3rd parties typically call for large changes. For example, the Libertarian Party would seek to re-legalize some drugs. While I happen to agree with this position, it is not something that is going to be easy to carry out with the mainstream public or a legislature that contains no members of your party.

While I am a registered Democrat, I do support the efforts of 3rd parties. However, I believe they need to start from the bottom and realize that it is highly unlikely that there will be a 'revolution' and a 3rd party president is elected without substantial numbers of other elected officials from the party.
Re:Yes it is... by mo^ · 2004-07-27 03:03 · Score: 1

musta been 12 or 13 condidates on my last (UK) voting card.. and thats not even including the european parliament candidates.

--
bah!*@%!
Re:Yes it is... by Elminst · 2004-07-27 03:06 · Score: 1

Posting with a name like dave420 makes me think you're a hippy stoner, which is somewhat scary. thanks, though ;)

--
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Re:Yes it is... by Jaysyn · 2004-07-27 03:06 · Score: 1

i.e. "The I'd rather bitch & moan than do anything productive arguement." Nice cop-out.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Yes it is... by netglen · 2004-07-27 03:07 · Score: 1

>>Voting...by the people...democracy. Check!

Maybe it'll be easier for people to choose their candidate if there is a 'political scorcard' which lists all their lobby groups that they whored themselves out to? Then people really know the candidate's political roadplan if they're elected.
Re:Yes it is... by mo^ · 2004-07-27 03:08 · Score: 1

An anarchist called "MASTER of xxxxx"?

Surely if you are an anarchist you couldnt be a master as you would have no one to pay you fealty

--
bah!*@%!
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 03:10 · Score: 1

If that's how you vote, you're an idiot. Vote your conscience, period.

Part of decision making is compromise. We often take jobs we like for less money or take jobs we hate for more money. You need to decide what works for you.

European-style runoff elections and 2nd choice votes do not make sense in a country as large and diverse as the US. A nation that spans a continent where states differ in demographics, economy and other factors need blander national candidates.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by Gorm+the+DBA · 2004-07-27 03:19 · Score: 1

Third parties are actually very valuable contributors to the US Political system, even if they never win an election.
Most "Realignments" (massive shifts of power between the two major parties) are started by third parties acheiving a critical mass, then the party not in power tends to coopt the ideals responsbile for that third party's success, thereby vaulting into the Majority party status. The third party then falls away, as it has been absorbed.
And yes, I am an expert on this, I wrote a thesis in graduate school on it. Of course, you'll note I'm a DBA, not a political science professor now, so read into that what you will.
The important thing to realize is that the fact that the third party doesn't win isn't the critical part, the fact that it attracts enough support to shift the balance is, *especially* in the 50/50 nation we are becoming. Any even halfway viable issue-centric third party can tip the balance critically.
Re:Yes it is... by Doctor+Faustus · 2004-07-27 03:21 · Score: 1

When it was Bush vs. Clinton vs. Perot, sure (although I was too young). When it was Clinton vs. Dole, I did vote Libertarian. I may well vote libertarian in 2008.

Not when W is running.
Re:Yes it is... by tsg · 2004-07-27 03:36 · Score: 1

Even idle coffee-table debate is campaigning. The campaign process is inherent to democracy.

Just to pick a nit, I define "campaigning" as a candidate (or his helpers) trying to convince people to vote for him. Coffee-table debate is usually just the exchange of ideas which may or may not lead to a more informed voter.

I have no idea how we can correct for the disparity without creating an easily exploitable welfare system.

Me either, but part of the problem is that the cost of campaigning is so high because the candidates have so much to spend. Campaign ads get sold for what the market will bear. If they didn't have as much, the ads would be cheaper and they wouldn't need so much money to run. If the campaigns were government funded and every candidate receieved the same amount, it would go along way to make it more fair. But there would have to be some barrier to entry to prevent things like the last California gubinatorial election where everybody and his brother decided to run. How to make that fair, I have no idea.

My solution is to minimize the exploitation by campaigning for the complete and utter castration of government.

If the election process was fair and not corrupt, this would be a natural result provided the American People wanted it.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 03:45 · Score: 1

That's a people problem.

If my friend is elected to office, I have an advantage over the general public because I have more access to my friend than you do. If I am unethical, I can leverage that friendship while bidding for government contracts or influencing legislation.

Often times politicans can be completely clean; President Grant was about as honest as you could be, but the people surrounding him took advantage of their association with the president to run all sorts of scams.

Corruption exists in any government. Find me an honest dictatorship and monarchy and I'll sell you a bridge witha great view of Brooklyn.

We get corrupt leaders because people are corrupt.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by tsg · 2004-07-27 03:48 · Score: 1

European-style runoff elections and 2nd choice votes do not make sense in a country as large and diverse as the US.

I have to disagree with this. A process where you only get to indicate your first choice can elect a president that the majority of the people think is unqualified for the job. It also leads to "lesser of two evils" mindsets where people who really dislike one candidate are pretty much forced into voting for another they don't like only because he has the best chance of winning.

Being able to rate the candiates in order of preference would get rid of that "wasted vote" of voting for an independent candidate. Think of how the 2000 Presidential election would have turned out if everyone who voted for Nader could have selected Gore as their second choice. People would be more free to select who they thought was the best person for the job without having to worry about the worst person winning.

A single vote for "best qualified" only makes sense if there are only two candidates.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Yes it is... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 03:50 · Score: 1

stoners never insist on using a misinterpreted 200-year-old anachronistic document to insist on carrying a lethal weapon with them, 24/7. You can start using logic any time you want, now... :-P
Re:Yes it is... by Politburo · 2004-07-27 03:54 · Score: 1

While the idea of 3rd parties inducing realignments as you outline seems plausible, I'm unsure of the effect this is having on the mainstream parties. Unfortunately, I don't know my history well enough to be able to talk about the effects of 3rd parties on elections in the past, when 3rd parties were much more active and accepted.

In the present, however, it does not seem like 3rd parties are causing the changes you describe. While it can certainly be said that the 2000 election would be different without the Green Party, I don't think that the Democratic party has co-opted the Green message. They have shifted slightly left with the resurgence of the liberal wing of the party, but they do not hold most of the progressive views that embody the Green Party. Nader chose to run again because he felt that the Democrats were still ignoring people.

In your theory, there is the assupmtion that the 3rd party and minority party's ideals are compatible. What if it is the case that the majority party is centrist, and the minority and 3rd parties are then on opposite sides of the majority party? I doubt they would coalesce into one coalition. In fact, one could say that this is what happened in 2000. The Democrats were more centrist than they had been in the past, and they had the GOP running from the right, and the Greens running from the left. While there is evidence of the GOP helping the Green party, I do not consider that to be a true coalition of the parties, merely dirty politics.

Did Ross Perot's run in 1992 cause the Republicans to change their message and allow for the 1994 "revolution"? I should do a bit of reading, but I think not. While Perot may have caused the GOP to rethink their strategy, he was not appealing to the religious right, but to those who disagreed with the economic policies of G.H.W Bush. While the GOP has talked big about fiscal responsibility, it hasn't produced. I suppose then we get into the question of perceived vs. real stances on the issues. The GOP would like to be perceived as the party of fiscal responsibility, but the Democratic party does the same, so I'm unsure how Perot sways either side here. The defecit was and is an issue, and I don't think there's any platform that says the defecit should get bigger.

So I guess my point was that while I think your idea is plausible, it does not seem, imo, to be supported by the past two presidential elections with 3rd party candidates.
Re:Yes it is... by teromajusa · 2004-07-27 03:54 · Score: 1

You're right. paid for my everyone else should read yet to be paid for by everyone else. Everybody got a piece of the big debt they're racking up, but the rich got really big pieces. Eventually someones going to have to pay it back though. I have a feeling the distrubution of the debt will be more equitable than the distriution of the tax cuts.
Re:Yes it is... by lightknight · 2004-07-27 03:54 · Score: 1

Who modded this insightful>?

The best way to explain things is this:

Democrats want to spend your money. (SS, Welfare, Medi-, AA)

Republicans want to tell you how to spend your money. (thou shalt not buy alcohol, drugs, blasphemous material)

Libertarians want everybody to leave them alone. Keep your money, spend it how you want, do not come crying to us if you do something that qualifies for a darwin award (I did not know that peeing on an electric generator would fry my brain. Now I am needin' you to pay for me, for the rest of my life).

Now, this grossly understates the differences, but it is something you can take to the bank.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 03:56 · Score: 1

but part of the problem is that the cost of campaigning is so high because the candidates have so much to spend.

It helps quite a bit when the one major party knows full well that no one else can afford to spend as much. Metaphorically, to be a king you must be able to afford a crown. The crownmakers are regulated by the existing politicians and have been told not to sell a crown for less than $1 trillion dollars. It's pretty self-explanatory from there.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Yes it is... by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:59 · Score: 1

Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.

With the US's existing voting rules, a vote for Badnarik is one half of a vote for Bush.

--
May we never see th
Re:Yes it is... by tsg · 2004-07-27 04:00 · Score: 1

Corruption exists in any government.

That's why there are checks and balances: so no one person can gain too much power. But big coporations have bypassed the checks and balances by owning everyone involved.

If my friend is elected to office, I have an advantage over the general public because I have more access to my friend than you do. If I am unethical, I can leverage that friendship while bidding for government contracts or influencing legislation.

But you have very little control over whether your friend gets elected. If your friend refuses to do your bidding, there's little you can do to punish him for it. A candidate whose campaign is financed by a big corporation, on the other hand, can suddenly find his funds drying up if he fails to perform to their satisfaction. So while there is corruption is both cases, treating both as equally dangerous is very simplistic.

We get corrupt leaders because people are corrupt.

There are varying levels of corruption. The system we have now favors the most corrupt: those that are willing to sell the power the office gives them to the highest bidder.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Yes it is... by Sgt+York · 2004-07-27 04:01 · Score: 1

Sounds familiar. My wife & I technically live a bare scratch from the poverty line. If we had another kid, we'd qualify for welfare. When our daughter was born, we could have gotten WIC. But we paid less in taxes this year than last (same number of dependents each year), even though I got a cost of living "raise" last year. And yes, I mean actual net taxes paid after refund, not just the size of the refund we got, or witholdings, or anything else stupid like that.
Damn, if I'm among the wealthiest 2% of US families, how in the hell do the bottom 98% survive?

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 04:05 · Score: 1

The people who vote for sideshow candidates like Nader or Perot are a fringe vote.

Implementing a system that encourages fringe candidates is a bad practice over time, because it gives fringe candidates more clout. In a country as large and diverse as the US, this encourages exteme groups and will ultimately lead to unrest.

Just think of what a disaster a 2nd choice vote would have been in the South during the 50's and 60's. Segregationist party enrollment would have surged and would feel disenfranchised by Federal Civil Rights legislation. Moderating voices like LBJ would have fell silent uner that sort of pressure.

Third parties in America have always served to shake up the ranks of the Republican and Democratic parties. One of the major parties tends to absorb the key issues of third parties and run with them. The best example of this was the Progressive movment in the early 20th century, whose influence was felt well beyond that party's demise.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 04:11 · Score: 1

That's why there are checks and balances: so no one person can gain too much power. But big coporations have bypassed the checks and balances by owning everyone involved.

The problem is the legal status of the modern corporation; not democracy.

But you have very little control over whether your friend gets elected. If your friend refuses to do your bidding, there's little you can do to punish him for it. A candidate whose campaign is financed by a big corporation, on the other hand, can suddenly find his funds drying up if he fails to perform to their satisfaction. So while there is corruption is both cases, treating both as equally dangerous is very simplistic.

Sure I do. I can engage in an active campaign to get him elected. For local office, you put signs on lawns, talk to neighbors and pass out swag.

If my buddy pisses me off, however, I pull my support from him, rip my signs down and stop helping him.

There are varying levels of corruption. The system we have now favors the most corrupt: those that are willing to sell the power the office gives them to the highest bidder.

You have no idea how bad it can be. 18th and 19th Century American politics made today's scandals look tame by comparison.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by tsg · 2004-07-27 04:22 · Score: 1

The problem is the legal status of the modern corporation; not democracy.

That's exactly my point.

Sure I do. I can engage in an active campaign to get him elected. For local office, you put signs on lawns, talk to neighbors and pass out swag.

If my buddy pisses me off, however, I pull my support from him, rip my signs down and stop helping him.

If he's being financed, he can hire 10 more people to do those things for him. My point was not that you can't do anything, but that you can't do nearly as much as a business with much more money to spend than you. Your punishment isn't nearly as effective as theirs is.

You have no idea how bad it can be. 18th and 19th Century American politics made today's scandals look tame by comparison.

Have any examples?

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Yes it is... by normal_guy · 2004-07-27 04:36 · Score: 1

How about voting in Democrats with guts? The Libertarian candidate is articulate and well-informed, but people aren't going to take a computer programmer seriously.

--

Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
Re:Yes it is... by diamondsw · 2004-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

Perhaps you didn't notice that the "tax rebate" check (if this is the original one from August, 2001) you got was actually a loan against your upcoming tax return (the following year), and you'd actually still owe that money? Everyone got that check and paid it back.

--
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Re:Yes it is... by bar-agent · 2004-07-27 05:11 · Score: 1

How about voting in Democrats with guts?

So, Feingold, then? The only NO vote? Is he even running?

--
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Re:Yes it is... by Colazar · 2004-07-27 05:53 · Score: 1

Well, I think that the 2000 election *should* have been a wake-up call to the Democratic party that they were starting to lose their base and needed to shift a bit more to the left. But 9/11 so changed the political landscape that that message became irrelevant. (Or, IMO, *seemed* to become irrelevant.)
There is an amount that the D's could move to coopt the Greens policies, and so win them back those voters. However, that would also lose them some more mainstream voters. Where exactly the balance is, is the billion dollar question. After the election, we'll know if they moved the right distance, too far, or not far enough. (Or we won't know, but we'll just argue about it.)
As for Perot's candidacy injecting fiscal sanity back into the Republican party, I think you're making the obvious mistake. IMO, it was the *Democrats* who learned fiscal discipline. To my mind, the thing that Clinton deserves praise for is that he pretty much gave up most of his domestic agenda in the service of balancing the budget, lowering the deficit, and keeping interest rates low. (Yes, the Republican congress had a lot to do with that, too. But Clinton became a true believer to the cause.)
There's still this meme out there that Republicans are the party of fiscal sanity, but I don't see that as true anymore. Sometime around in Clinton's second term, when the long-time Republican Congressmen started retiring, the ones who replaced them weren't as interested in prudent fiscal management, they were more interested in just cutting taxes for their own sake. And they didn't have to earn the mantle of "fiscally responsible", because everyone just assumed that they were. Whereas the new Democrats who were being elected actually had to *practice* fiscal prudence in order to get any credit for it. Objectively, right now, you have to call the Democrats the more disciplined financial managers. (Which is always easier for the party out of power, of course.) It will be interesting to see how much longer they have to be better before they will actually get the reputation for it.

--
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Re:Yes it is... by tabrnaker · 2004-07-27 05:55 · Score: 1

Bush did!
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 06:12 · Score: 1

I think that we agree on things more than we disagree. I believe that the rise of the ubiquitous, trivial to create corporation is responsible for much of the opacity of the present system.

I also don't believe that anything will change that anytime soon. The best solution, IMHO, is full disclosure of all contributions, including contributions to shadow organizations like MoveOn.org

In the late 1700's, the Bank of New York, founded by Alexander Hamilton (who was the archictect of the Federal system) was the bank of the Federalists. In the days before "equal opportunity" laws in banking, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans had alot of difficulty getting access to capital, since British banks no longer did business in the colonies. Hamilton took full advantage of his influence to push for and establish institutions that built a single American nation. (ie the Treasury and free-market government debt)

In the 19th and 20th Centuries, we witnessed the rise of the polictical machine. That was the ultimate corruption on an industrial scale.

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail /-/1881 324028/qid=1090951860/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/104-8192737-3067954?v=glance&s=books&n=5078 46

It describes the Albany Democratic Machine and it's greatest Mayor, who served for over 50 years. Albany was one of the last great political machine cities.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by bnenning · 2004-07-27 06:34 · Score: 1

Perhaps you didn't notice that the "tax rebate" check (if this is the original one from August, 2001) you got was actually a loan against your upcoming tax return (the following year), and you'd actually still owe that money? Everyone got that check and paid it back.

Not true. The rebate check was an early payment reflecting the reduced tax rate. Then when you computed your taxes for the year, you used the original tax rate, because the rebate already accounted for the rate change. So yes, it was a real tax cut.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Yes it is... by dekker · 2004-07-27 06:39 · Score: 1

While I'm partial to some of the views of the Libertarian Party, I'm not so sure that we want Mr. Badnarik leading the country.

From the linked article:

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories."

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com. It features an introduction by Congressman Ron Paul and Badnarik's theory about taxes. His campaign website included a potpourri of right-wing constitutional positions, as well as some very unorthodox views on various issues. He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building's occupants a chance to evacuate. In one especially picturesque proposal, he wrote:

I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.

One assumes, although one cannot prove, that none of this is an exercise in irony. At any rate, these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the nomination, and they didn't come up when he visited state party conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP members.
Re:Yes it is... by Alsee · 2004-07-27 06:41 · Score: 1

Unfortunately the Libertarian party botched the job in selecting Badnarik. The two real libertarian candidates were so busy trying to slash each other's throats that non-contender Badnarik unexpectedly walked away with it at the last moment.

And NO ONE BOTHERED TO PROPERLY CHECK HIM OUT.

Whoops!

He's a total fruitloop. He had refused to file his federal income taxes for several years. He has gotten countless tickets because he refuses to get a driver's licence. And best of all, his website used to say that the first thing he's do as president would be to evacuate the UN building in New York City and BLOW IT UP!

Google has it all.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Yes it is... by b-baggins · 2004-07-27 06:42 · Score: 1

Economically, Libertarians are Republicans. Socially, they are Democrats. Foreign Policy wise, they are Wilsonian isolationists.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 07:00 · Score: 1

Economically, Libertarians are Republicans

Economically Republicans today are not Republicans of old. Republicans, initially, favored a minimalist government which spent more time considering reasons NOT to get involved with the affairs of the people.

Socially, they are Democrats

Democrats are happy to spend YOUR money to help THEIR favorite disadvantaged group. Libertarians are happy to let you YOUR money on YOUR favorite disadvantaged group. There's a difference. You can be as bleeding heart as you want to be, as long as you don't do it with my money.

Foreign Policy wise, they are Wilsonian isolationists

And this is bad why? No one is going to land on American shores. If the USA would cease meddling in the affairs of and economically manipulating small nations we wouldn't have their uneducated, underpriveleged youth bombing our embassies.

The world is a self-sufficient neighborhood. Everyone plays their part. Say the US grows the tomatoes for the neighborhood. Say Panama discovers a gold mine under its rose bushes. Currently, the US would quit trading tomatoes with Panama until Panama allows the US to mine the gold (assuming that Panama doesn't have the current resources to do it themselves). It's no surprise that the Panamanian youth get agitated that the US steals the gold. Say North Korea has a thousand oaks and the US wants to build a fence. Currently, the US would cut N.Korea off of the tomato trade until N.Korea agrees to allow the US free and unfettered access to the oak trees. It's little surprise that the N.Korean youth become agitated that the US leaves them with only twigs and stumps.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Yes it is... by tombeard · 2004-07-27 07:12 · Score: 1

Normally I would agree with you, I don't believe in voteing "against" someone. In this election however I will accept the lesser of two evils and vote for the only candidate with any chance of beating the shrub. If they put "none of the above" on the ballot I bet I know who would win.

--
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Re:Yes it is... by phuturephunk · 2004-07-27 07:16 · Score: 1

Right, libertarianism works...until you realize I have a larger caliber weapon than you..and better aim...and a truck to load all your shit in. ;)
Re:Yes it is... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-07-27 07:16 · Score: 1

You misunderstand the term "Master".

It is "master of" not "master over".

Try "sensei" if that helps.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Yes it is... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 07:18 · Score: 1

> It helps quite a bit when the one major party knows full well that no one else can afford to spend as much.

I think you mean "both major parties," not just one.
Re:Yes it is... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-07-27 07:18 · Score: 1

Nothing cop-out about it. Just realistic. You presume to have something productive - if so, let's hear it. Better yet, let's see it work. Otherwise, STFU. And voting ain't it.

There are more effective methods of dealing with the state. The technology just hasn't arrived yet. When it does, we Transhumans will crush the state like a used gum wrapper.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 07:27 · Score: 1

I think you mean "both major parties," not just one

At the end of the day there's no difference. Unless there's a difference between the dog and pony in a circus act.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Yes it is... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 07:29 · Score: 1

> Implementing a system that encourages fringe candidates is a bad practice over time, because it gives fringe candidates more clout

You haven't given a reason why this is a bad thing though. If the "fringe" candidate is such a whacko, he won't get voted in. If he really is on the fringe, only fringe voters (a small percent). However, it actually gives people a real choice to elect someone who is actually different.

EVEN, if by chance, a whacko really is elected, we have checks & balances to keep him from doing anything REALLY bad, and if all else fails, we still have impeachment (although that should be used as an absolute last resort).

> One of the major parties tends to absorb the key issues of third parties and run with them.

And if they don't? We get the current situation where they are ignored and forced out of public eye by spending money and passing laws to make it impossible to see anyone else.
Re:Yes it is... by PReDiToR · 2004-07-27 07:33 · Score: 1

Yes AC, of course AC, anything you say AC.

Oh, what, you said something? Log in, I might read it.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:Yes it is... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 07:34 · Score: 1

> the party not in power tends to coopt the ideals responsbile for that third party's success, thereby vaulting into the Majority party status. The third party then falls away, as it has been absorbed.

Did your thesis also look at what happened afterward? Say party Q incorporated Party X's ideas to gain votes & crush X. After X is gone, did Q retain those ideals or toss them after they weren't needed any more?
Re:Yes it is... by PReDiToR · 2004-07-27 07:35 · Score: 1

Anarchy? Not in our lifetime, not without a popular uprising to tell the Government AGAIN that we don't like the way they run things.

It may happen, but with the media pitting neighbour against neighbour, and tapping all lines of communication, how would one organise such an uprising today?

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:Yes it is... by PReDiToR · 2004-07-27 07:40 · Score: 1

If I were to follow my conscience I would run myself.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:Yes it is... by Vanders · 2004-07-27 07:51 · Score: 1

Posting as AC is just a normal thing for me these days, but if it offends you then I can forgo it this time. Voting and voters rights is one of those things that I believe in and I don't mind being passionate or even downright rude and offensive about it if I have to. People with their heads in the sand wind me up.

So while you're here please tell me, what is it with people who dismiss anything an AC says? Are the opinions any less valid? Are the facts less truthful? Do the words become blurry? Is it maybe just that it is easy to dismiss a valid opinion that you might not like by waving your hand and saying "Bah! 'tis but an Anonymous Coward. Off with his head!" I don't get it.

--
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Re:Yes it is... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 08:02 · Score: 1

> At the end of the day there's no difference.

Ah, you were being more subtle than I am accustomed to :)
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 08:24 · Score: 1

Hehehe.

In a Libertarian society the community wouldn't stop you from shooting me and taking my possessions. However, after you have committed such a heinous crime, a Libertarian community will slash your truck tires, burn all of your possessions (including those which were formerly mine), and probably run out of town with tar and feathers.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Yes it is... by ravenspear · 2004-07-27 08:28 · Score: 1

He had refused to file his federal income taxes for several years.

That's because apparently no law specifically requires him to. See USA v. Kuglin.
Re:Yes it is... by Sgt+York · 2004-07-27 09:14 · Score: 1

Economically Republicans today are not Republicans of old. Republicans, initially, favored a minimalist government which spent more time considering reasons NOT to get involved with the affairs of the people.
Hear, hear! Why is this not stressed more often? The philosophical foundation of the Republican party was more laizzes faire, in that they thought that government should be small and unobtrusive, and have minimal interaction in commerce. That has all disentigrated. I originally voted for Bush because he said he'd drop the size of government. That was one of the biggest reasons I was for him. But instead, the government grew more under him than it did under Clinton. Kerry's plans spell out "increased government size", and Bush's record says he'll do the same. Libertarian foreign policy seems like a repeat of the same mistakes we made 100 years ago.
I HATE voting for things I know are bad, but I guess I'll have to figure out who I think will do the least harm. God, this election sucks.

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:Yes it is... by binary+paladin · 2004-07-27 10:13 · Score: 1

And about a hundred other laws. My uncle is currently in Florida defending a guy who is in a similar boat and I gotta tell you, it's hilarious when the high and mighty IRS officials get on the stand.

"Well... I... I thought there was a law."

And seeing as I'm in the same boat on the Driver's license issue, what can I say?
Re:Yes it is... by PReDiToR · 2004-07-27 10:48 · Score: 1

If you believe something, put your name to it.

I'm not disregarding what the AC said, I did read it, but I can't carry on a conversation with someone if I don't know who I am talking to, can I?

I am wrong often, but I prefer to be shown that by one person, not 5 of them all posing as the same AC.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:Yes it is... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-07-27 13:33 · Score: 1

No, there won't be anarchy in our lifetime.

However, once Transhumans ascend, there will be a definite crushing of the state.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 14:43 · Score: 1

You haven't given a reason why this is a bad thing though. If the "fringe" candidate is such a whacko, he won't get voted in.

Fringe candidates do not need to win elections to "win". 3rd party candidates are usually a one horse show, with specific stances on specific issues. That's what puts them on the fringe -- they're primary supporters are zealots focused on one issue.

Giving fringe candiates more votes and more exposure gives their narrow agenda more weight. The result will be that unresolvable issues that people are passionate about like abortion and immigration will dominate the political scene and paralyze government.

The other problem is that the size and diversity of the US makes a "fringe" candiate a dangerous choice.

Two reasons for this:

1. These candiates are typically charismatic demagouges.
2. You need a "least common demominator" candidate to satisfy the whole country. Demagouges beat controversial issues to death.

Consider someone who could garner alot of votes from left-of-center states like California, New York and the DC area, yet alienate the rest of the country.

The flip scenario would be a charismatic pro-life candidate. Such a candidate, without being moderated by a larger political party, would energize rural, southern and religous voters and alienate another huge slice of the population.

Politics is about compromise. You cannot have compromise with zealots setting the agenda.... if you try, the result is usually unrest.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-07-27 14:45 · Score: 1

Do it. After spending alot of time being dissatisfied with alot of local issues, my brother ran for and won a seat on the town council.

His experience was pretty enlightening, and brought home the notion that there are 3 sides to every story and 12 sides to every law.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:Yes it is... by phuturephunk · 2004-07-28 01:02 · Score: 1

See, but you illustrate my point for me. The situation that I originally brought to light, and then you reinforced..shows that a pure libertarian society would be more ruled by FUD than the one we're living in now. Whomever had the biggest guns would rule, and the scary part is, who knows who exactly is going to have those guns. Its easy to say "Well, me", but you don't know that, because there's alot of people out there that are more twisted, and more connected to the means of production than you are.
As in all things, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Re:Yes it is... by maximilln · 2004-07-28 03:55 · Score: 1

a pure libertarian society would be more ruled by FUD than the one we're living in now

s/more/just as much/

At least, in a Libertarian society, you wouldn't have any illusions about government protected rights.

because there's alot of people out there that are more twisted, and more connected to the means of production than you are

Which is exactly what happens in today's society except that, in today's society, everyone has this false sense of goodness and honesty which emanates from the pretty speeches that they hear on television every day.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, its not. You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by AKnightCowboy · 2004-07-27 00:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.
The only thing that could rescind the Bill of Rights is a constitutional ammendment. The USA PATRIOT Act is not a constitutional ammendment, therefore every single one of these cases should be overthrown in the federal courts without question. The PATRIOT Act is illegal.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

every single one of these cases should be overthrown in the federal courts without question. The PATRIOT Act is illegal.

Not yet.

The patriot act is not illegal until it is declared so by the US Supreme Court, and (sorry) it probably won't be declared unconstitutional. Maybe some small parts, but most likely not all of it.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by dmomo · 2004-07-27 01:18 · Score: 2, Informative

This is true. But, I would consider it more than a "Spin". The Document Comprising the USA-PATRIOT states:
(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Glock27 · 2004-07-27 01:29 · Score: 5, Informative

You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.
Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Here's an excerpt from the Patriot Act Myths government site:
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)

If the Patriot Act were invoked in this case, it is a clear abuse that should be quickly corrected. The FBI personnel involved should be severely reprimanded or fired. That is, I suppose, unless viewing SG1 DIVX movies is potentially fatal... ;-)
However, this is an obvious example of the "slippery slope" problem the Patriot Act represents. Once new repressive legislation is enacted, people get used to it. Then the government starts to push the envelope. As long as this process is gradual, the public will be too caught up in "bread and circuses" (what is Jessica Simpson doing today, eh?;) to notice...at least that's the theory. Are you asleep?
Remember, Income Tax was originally supposed to be temporary. The government is not your friend. This is the case whether it's controlled by Republicans or Democrats.
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by WindBourne · 2004-07-27 01:33 · Score: 1

The thing that I find most interesting is about the pat act is that Ashcroft/GWB ran around swearing that it would only be used against terrorists.

Last year, I saw Ashcroft claiming that the act had been used 17 times to incarcerate felons for drugs. And he declared these pushers to be terrorists. What he is doing is simply extending the definition of terrorism.

Assuming that kerry is elected president, I wonder if he will revoke many of the government gag orders (such as the presidential decree that allows past presidents to hide information), or will he allow that to continue. It would be useful in his campaign to state such, but ....

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Glock27 · 2004-07-27 02:13 · Score: 1

That depends. Is copyright infringement a criminal offense in the USA?
It doesn't matter, due to clause (2):
and (2) is dangerous to human life.
Looks pretty simple to me...unless there is something quite sinister about this website that hasn't yet been brought to light. ;-)

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by gray+code · 2004-07-27 02:14 · Score: 1

You are ignoring the critical AND. For it to be labeled domestic terrorism it must be an act that violates fed/state criminal law AND (meaning it must do both, since you appear to be Boolean impaired) that the act be dangerous to human life. And I hope to god that the MPAA saying "this is costing us money, which is weakening our livelihood, which weakens our ability to live, thus endangers our lives" doesn't count.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by cduffy · 2004-07-27 02:15 · Score: 1

Whether copyright infringement is a criminal offense or not (and, IIRC, it has recently become one), it certainly isn't dangerous to human life, and consequently is beyond the circumstances in which proponents of the USAPATRIOT act claimed it would apply. Remember, the claim was that terrorist behaviour would be defined to only include behaviour which violates the law and is dangerous to human life, not violates the law or is dangerous to human life.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-07-27 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

Actually, when the Patriot act was passed, there was no discussion. That only came after it was passed.

ssurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

Yeah, they always do that. Then, when the furor dies down, they push it as far as it will go.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Short+Circuit · 2004-07-27 02:28 · Score: 1

You missed a spot:

(1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by godnix · 2004-07-27 02:39 · Score: 1

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
Trouble is, "assurances," no matter how nicely made, do not have the force of law; neither do discussions, no matter how civil. What matters is what was actually enacted. The Greeks made "assurances" to the Trojans that the giant horse was being given as a token of goodwill. This made no difference once the horse was inside.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by hunterx11 · 2004-07-27 02:43 · Score: 1

The problem only lies within some small parts, however.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by whitis · 2004-07-27 02:44 · Score: 1

It is when the copied files contain information on a Weapon of Mass Destruction . :-)
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by maxpublic · 2004-07-27 03:01 · Score: 1

except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

And what is terrorism, exactly? If I kill a boatload of people over political or religious reasons, rather than economic or psychological ones (e.g., I'm fucking insane), how does this qualify the mass murderers as 'something special'?

We had adequate laws before the Patriot Act to deal with criminal elements, including the psychotically criminal like religious fanatics. There's no reason to brand these thugs with a special name like 'terrorist', nor to attribute to them superpowers they don't possess (unless you think 'produce boxcutters' is a superpower), nor to think that the people that others kill are any less dead than those murderers by the wackos we call terrorists. They're just thugs, when all is said and done; the only difference between them and the guy who goes postal at work is body count.

In any event, how many of these terrorists have been apprehended because of the Patriot Act? Oh, that's right, NONE. Doesn't seem very effective, does it? Although it does appear useful to the MPAA and RIAA.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by arafel · 2004-07-27 03:03 · Score: 1

True. Somehow I parsed it differently earlier, although reading it again I'm not quite sure how. Oops... sorry all.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-07-27 03:12 · Score: 1

Assuming that kerry is elected president, I wonder if he will revoke many of the government gag orders (such as the presidential decree that allows past presidents to hide information).
Whyever would he do that? If he did that, people would be able to look at what HE did as President. And it is unlikely he wants that any more than any other President.
Also, it would set a bad precedent - you yank my protections once you're in office, so when I get into office, I'll yank your's. We REALLY don't need that sort of thing.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by aronc · 2004-07-27 03:51 · Score: 1

remeber he voted for it, he knew what he was voting for

Actually, he probably didn't. Nor did a vast majority of the other members of our government who also voted for it. It was pushed into vote so fast that few even got a good summary from their aids much less any depth. It was passed because everyone was scared shitless of looking soft on terrorism a week after 9/11.

--

jello.
aka aron.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2004-07-27 04:28 · Score: 1

Courts take into account legislative intent.

Thus a non terrorism realted use of the Patriot Act is very likely to be disallowed - resulting in exclusion of evidence collected using it and any further evidence that was obtained based on the illegally obtained evidence ("fruit of the poisoned tree").

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by WNight · 2004-07-27 05:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Terrorism, I think, is the intentional targetting of civilians by military units, or military-level weapons. But, if my land was taken away and the bad guy's troops were all safe in tanks, who else would I be able to attack?

So yeah, the definition is pretty convenient. In essence, if you're a nation, it's war, unless you're going against the USA, in which case you're a terrorist. If you're not a nation, you're a terrorist. Note that the definition of nation is conveniently vague.

But yeah, our laws always seemed effective before. Police were allowed to ignore many due-process and search-warrant restrictions when in hot pursuit, or when they could show that they believed they acted to prevent immediate danger. Search warrants were fairly easy to get, but prevented abuse by not allowing fishing trips - they had to state what they expected to find, or see direct evidence of capital crimes. (Dead bodies, etc.)

Seemed reasonable. You could get by most roadblocks to get terrorists and other threats, but you couldn't use any other evidence to get a conviction on some unrelated crime to cover up your failure to find evidence of terrorist conspiracies.

So yeah, the patriot act is a crock. Once you're labelled a terrorist you're as good as guilty.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Alsee · 2004-07-27 05:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

The patriot act is not illegal until it is declared so by the US Supreme Court

("Illegal" is a bit awkward in there, unconstituional or void would be more appropriate.)

Perhaps it's a subtle point of law, but if a law is unconstitutional it does not "become" invalid when it is declared so by a court. It was always unconstitutional, always null and void. It was never actually law in the first place. It was merey an invalid bill that conress did not actually have the power to pass. Any enforcement of it before prior to it being ruled unconstitutional was always invalid / erroneous. Any refusal to comply was always proper and legal. Any conviction was invalid and gets expunged, any fines/damages incurred were improper and you are entitled to restitution.

Of course anyone who gets hit by invalid enforcement of a non-law is certainly going to be suffer until the courts publicly delrare that it is and always was a non-law and clean up the mess. But at least in legal theory it was never actually a law and any action taken under it was always invalid.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by teromajusa · 2004-07-27 05:47 · Score: 1

slashdotters love links:
copyright infringement

it basically says its a crime if its done for profit. There are conditions on how much money is involved and how many copies are distributed. If it doesn't meet these criteria, its a torte.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by maximilln · 2004-07-27 05:54 · Score: 1

Perhaps it's a subtle point of law, but if a law is unconstitutional it does not "become" invalid when it is declared so by a court. It was always unconstitutional, always null and void. It was never actually law in the first place. It was merey an invalid bill that conress did not actually have the power to pass.

Technically I think that covers 99.9% of everything that Congress has passed in the last 200 years but none of us have the time or the opportunity to call their bluff.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by cduffy · 2004-07-27 07:18 · Score: 1

That used to be the case. Copyright infringement is now a crime even if it's done with the expectation of receiving not cash or equivalents but anything of value, explicitly including copies of other copyrighted works.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by WindBourne · 2004-07-27 07:59 · Score: 1

There are many people who wish to keep an open government. Some of them are politicians. The question is, is he one of them?

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-07-27 08:17 · Score: 1

Can you think of a single politician in a place of power (majority in the House or Senate, Pres, VP) who has ever advocated "open government". That seems to be something that is the exclusive province of the party that is out of power.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by pudge · 2004-07-27 08:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

That's not quite true. The Patriot Act made a lot of changes to how law enforcement works, only some of which had to do with terrorism. For those portions relating to terrorism, you're correct. But much of the Act was things like "the FBI can have roving wiretaps on cell phones in addition to landline phones," which is not specific to terrorism.

The problem is that the story says "a provision of the USA Patriot Act" but doesn't say which one, and we don't know if it was one relating to terrorism, or not. So there's really nothing intelligent we can say about what happened, since we don't have enough information.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by WindBourne · 2004-07-27 09:00 · Score: 1

Up till recent history, most politicians where in favor of open government. At least on the surface. But then history always seems to not remember the bad things.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-07-27 09:31 · Score: 1

Be more specific. Name names. I can't think of any in the majority who advocated it.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Mitch+Monmouth · 2004-07-30 17:15 · Score: 1

It is true that SOME provisions of the Patriot Act are limited to acts of domestic terrorism, and that the definition of domestic terrorism is limited to illegal acts that endanger human life.

Well, think about that for a second. How limiting is it?

If I go 46mph in a 45 zone on the way to an anti-war rally, might that qualify? Illegal, threatens human life, must be terrorism.

When picking apart a law, you must look at the possibility for abuse, assuming a less altruistic [cough] attorny general takes over.

Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

...everything is a terrorist act now. Haven't you read the text of the Patriot Act? Oh wait, not even the people who voted on it read it...

Re:Of course.. by malsdavis · 2004-07-27 00:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you think about it, anything can be called a "terrorist act".

Shoplifting, for example: steal a can of coke, the state (as in the government and the governing collective) loose x cents taxation. Hence, you have just committed an attack against the state and can be immediatly sent for an indefinate stay at a small jail in Cuba during which friends and relatives may or may not be told about your detention.

Hitler and Stalin would both of envied being able to do such legally. ...ofcourse they won't living in a time where we all ought to be scared for are very lives due to the intense, widespread terrorist activity presently occuring in the USA.
Re:Of course.. by JaffaKREE · 2004-07-27 01:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

To all those Slashdot posters who write "If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about!" and "Take off your tinfoil hats, the government would never use the patriot act in such a broad manner" -
Guess what ?
Re:Of course.. by CaptainAmerica1941 · 2004-07-27 01:22 · Score: 1

Envy? No, they would just have you shot. Big difference between that and a court case.

wouldn't be the first time by tiltowait · 2004-07-27 00:31 · Score: 4, Informative

It was invoked in an embezzlement case against a strip club -- hardly a matter of national security if you ask me, Tony.

Metafilter has some comments too. Apparently the site had downloads of episodes available, despite their claim that it was just Amazon links that got them in hot water.

Re:wouldn't be the first time by double-oh+three · 2004-07-27 01:13 · Score: 1

Were you talking about this post?:
"Was he hosting copies of the show ? "

Emphasis mine.

--
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Re:wouldn't be the first time by double-oh+three · 2004-07-27 01:19 · Score: 1

Gah, disregard that, should have scrolled down further before posting. Here is what he was talking about.

--
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Re:wouldn't be the first time by goatan · 2004-07-27 01:37 · Score: 1

Apparently the site had downloads of episodes available, despite their claim that it was just Amazon links that got them in hot water.
How long has it been since they didn't have episode for download? If they took them down a long time ago wouldn't that be an example of good faith? Or vicea versa

--
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

Abuse? by BinaryWolf · 2004-07-27 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sounds to me like just another case of abusing power. The Feds are just taking advantange of the Patriot Act to get all the information the want/need.

Big Brother, meet MPAA by ArmitageX · 2004-07-27 00:32 · Score: 1

The motion picture association of america, eh? Trafficking in Counterfeit services, eh? Exactly WHAT counterfeit services could they be talking about? I hope it's not one of those "I can get you a REAL wookie bowcaster"-type things, where the people filing the charges are simply unclear on the concept of 'fan site.' It seems they're already on the track to to that with suing him for copyright infringement. Of course, I know nothing about what he actually did or didn't do. Another chink in the walls of out rights online appears....

--
[[]] Don't get your bikini in a bundle, I'm just chlorinating the gene pool. [[]]

Re:Big Brother, meet MPAA by media_Assassin · 2004-07-27 01:07 · Score: 1

Originally posted by Armitage X
Exactly WHAT counterfeit services could they be talking about?

How about checking the archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20010418190842/http://w ww.sg1archive.com/. A copy of the site in 2001 shows they were providing an "archive of Stargate SG-1 episodes. These are Windows Streaming Media (.asf) files, which are 18-20 megs each."

Plus, we see he was going "high tech":
"The episode pages are being updated and enhanced. Most of the first and second season episodes are now available as DivX-encoded AVI files."

Sounds like a pretty compelling case to me.

Very Interesting, But Quite Old by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Did anyone notice this bit on the SG-1 Archives forum post about this:

Posted: Mar 30 2004, 11:46 PM

Surely this is interesting and all, but VERY outdated. I would think there is quite likely some more current information available. What has happened in the last four months?

Re:Very Interesting, But Quite Old by Xiver · 2004-07-27 00:49 · Score: 1

Duh... it is the court system, nothing has happened.

</its funny laugh>

--
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10

One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Robotech_Master · 2004-07-27 00:33 · Score: 4, Informative

*BREEEEEET!* Blatant FUD, twenty-yard penalty!

Firstly, as one of the comments on the MetaFilter page on the article points out,

The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security." (Amendements to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act are just one example.) Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

Secondly, other comments on that same page (as well as the US DOJ press release) point out what the somewhat self-serving press release does not: sg1archive was hosting copies of Stargate episodes for download. Directly; apparently Mr. McGaughey wasn't even smart enough to use an peer-to-peer intermediary so he could claim he was just linking, not hosting.They were apparently low-rez rips intended to allow fans to catch up on missed episodes but not something you'd want to keep, but I'm afraid that's not a positive defense to copyright infringement. Neither is "But we were helping sell the DVDs" (despite what peer-to-peer folks would have you believe) or "Gee, but the people who made the show liked my site, really!"

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation. If you don't even check online FAQs about what constitutes copyright infringement (anime fansub and fanfic FAQs were doing an adequate job of covering that more than ten years ago; I'm sure there are even more comprehensive ones out there by now that would have told him this was Not a Good Idea) before you go ahead and do it anyway, you deserve what you get. This is not another Steve Jackson affair, folks.

And I won't even go into what a Google Groups search on Mr. McGaughey turns up...though if you click on that link, the blurbs from the posts it displays are fairly instructive without even clicking on any of the articles to display the full text.

I only wish I hadn't kicked in $5 to the guy's legal defense fund before I found out about all this. Oh well, it'll teach me to do a little research first next time.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by kai5263499 · 2004-07-27 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation.

I can understand damaging a component if it were hindering their invistigation. But prying open an iBook with a screwdriver, damaging the screen?
That's just plain evil.

--
-Wes
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Xiver · 2004-07-27 00:45 · Score: 1

Thanks for the heads up. I was looking at buying one of those shirts when I read your post. Sigh... I should know better by now.

--
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Robotech_Master · 2004-07-27 00:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.
Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.Then you'd have to accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass, given how many riders that are completely unrelated to the main thrust of the act get slapped onto bills of all kinds these days.

Complete text of the PATRIOT Act available here, BTW.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by kwoff · 2004-07-27 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then you'd have to accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass
I hereby accuse Congress of lying about just about every law they pass. All in favor, say aye.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by schmaltz · 2004-07-27 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security."

It would be nice for you if that were the whole story, but it's not. It should be written "amended many laws that were already on the books so that the FBI wouldn't need to be distracted with pesky Constitutional requirements such as judicial oversight.

Whether this guy willingly broke copyright law, which it sounds like he did, is another matter. Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by maximilln · 2004-07-27 00:58 · Score: 1

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation

There's still no excuse for it. If OJ can get acquitted because the police didn't properly tape off the crime scene then this guy should be acquitted just because the government demonstrated wholeheartedly that it's a conglomerate of clumsy guidos just looking to push people around.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Alranor · 2004-07-27 00:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, in their defence, didn't one of them state in Fahrenheit 9/11 that they don't even bother to read the text of the laws they pass?

So they may not all be liars, some of them may merely be incompetent morons with the intelligence of the common garden slug.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by dr_dank · 2004-07-27 01:19 · Score: 1

Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.

Having the feds raid and plunder your house vs. being taken for every penny you've got in court doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by sjames · 2004-07-27 01:22 · Score: 1

So they may not all be liars, some of them may merely be incompetent morons with the intelligence of the common garden slug.

If they're willing to change the law of the land without bothering to find out what they're changing it to (surely finding a copy of the bill wouldn't be that hard!), they're much worse than that. Disloyal and unpatriotic don't even begin to cover it.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Fred_A · 2004-07-27 01:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Garden slugs do fill a useful ecological niche. Stop being nasty to them.

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by martijn-s · 2004-07-27 01:33 · Score: 2, Informative

And I won't even go into what a Google Groups search on Mr. McGaughey turns up...though if you click on that link, the blurbs from the posts it displays are fairly instructive without even clicking on any of the articles to display the full text.

You really should have clicked on the posts, because they have all been written by the same person! Talking about FUD! (but I agree with your point in general)
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by mog007 · 2004-07-27 02:02 · Score: 1

I don't like "aye" but how about "hell fucking yes"?

No?

Ok... aye then.

--
Learn something new.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-07-27 02:10 · Score: 1

they don't even bother to read the text of the laws they pass?

Yeah...Kerry has said that about various bills and reports. But then again, he doesn't even bother to vote in ~3/4 of them anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter if he reads it or not.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Short+Circuit · 2004-07-27 02:42 · Score: 1

That's simply not true, at least regarding the issues people pay attention to. Go to vote-smart.org's section on Kerry's voting history. I can't find a single entry where he abstained.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Fnkmaster · 2004-07-27 02:56 · Score: 1

As Teal'c would say, I concur.

At first, it looked like all the complaints were from one person. Then I saw at least three more complaints several pages down in the Google Groups listings from people who were defrauded via his sales in the Mac newsgroups.

Then I found this most interesting post:
From: Dermott (waste-disposal@munich.com) Subject: Re: Daniel Jackson's return View: Complete Thread (35 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: alt.tv.stargate-sg1 Date: 2002-02-05 05:00:23 PST boundlessvariant@aol.com (SG1Fan) wrote in message 6.. > Sci-Fi commercial infested sg1.. the horror. > > Does anyone know what happened to www.sg1archive.net? It seems to no > longer be online. > > Thanks, > DL. It was shut down afer a number of complaints were made to the FBI, the FCC and the US Postal service about the mail fraud that was being run by Adam McGaughey from that site. Regards, Dermott

Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but this opens up the rather interesting possibility that this all began as a mail fraud investigation and the copyright infringement thing was only pursued so strongly because of the ongoing criminal investigation. That doesn't legitimize the use of the Patriot Act (common mail fraud != terrorism), but I think the volume of complaints from at least 3 or 4 independent posters in the newsgroups here indicate that it is pretty likely Mr. McGaughey had been scamming people out of money for some time when the copyright infringement started.

Anyway, this would make me a bit weary about contributing to his defense fund. Of course, I've also sold shit online before and had bad experiences where people didn't get stuff fast enough or were terrible at communicating and then blamed me, accusing me of committing fraud. Who knows, there are crazy people everywhere.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Robotech_Master · 2004-07-27 03:13 · Score: 1

That doesn't legitimize the use of the Patriot Act (common mail fraud != terrorism)

From the full text of the PATRIOT Act:
SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE OFFENSES.

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),' and inserting `section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),'.
I don't know if this is the provision of the PATRIOT Act that was used in this particular case, but mail and wire fraud (and if it was related to an Internet site, then it's actually wire fraud, not mail fraud as that poster indicated) are mentioned in the Act, so it can be used in cases of such fraud.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by HeghmoH · 2004-07-27 03:35 · Score: 1

If you can't see the difference between a police raid that comes without warning and takes away all of your stuff, and a court action in which the accused is allowed to face his accuser and put up a defense, then you deserve whatever you get. Being taken to court is not a kiss of death.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-07-27 03:49 · Score: 1

Go to the actual Congressional record to see a true list of who voted for what. For instance, the 108th Congress last year. For the month of November (just picked at random), there were some 27 votes in the Senate. Kerry shows "Not Voting" status in 25 of them. Of course, a lot of these may non-issues, but only voting twice out of 27 is not exactly a stellar record.

Vote Smart shows the results of the things he actually voted on, not all of the votes before the Senate.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Short+Circuit · 2004-07-27 03:53 · Score: 1

Vote Smart shows the results of the things he actually voted on, not all of the votes before the Senate.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying that.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Decius6i5 · 2004-07-27 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is not another Steve Jackson affair, folks.

I certainly wish this person had posted a copy of their warrant, and pictures of the equipment. There is so much that they could do to shore up their story. However, if their story is correct this certainly is "another Steve Jackson affair."

The important point thing about the Steve Jackson case had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty. The case was an example of hundreds of cases that were occuring all over the country at the time that shared two common characteristics:

1. Law Enforcement had no idea what they were talking about. (They thought a role playing game was a handbook for computer crime.)

2. The investigation was intended to be punative. They show up, seize everything they can possibly get their hands on, destory as much of it as possible, hold onto it for as long as possible, and do everything in their power to make the court proceedings as expensive as possible. At the end of the day if the suspect is innocent it doesn't matter, everyone who is targetted by investigations like this is left completely broke and unemployed with tarnished reputations in their communities. Ruined.

Now let me be completely clear on this second point. There are those in law enforcement who beleive that they need to deal with suspects as harshly as possible to send a message that people should stay away from crime. They are dead wrong. Punative investigations are unconstituional. The judicial branch meters out punishments, not the executive. When the executive steps outside the bounds of its constituional authority and starts attempting to punish people who have yet to be convicted of a crime the whole balance of our system is undermined. Innocent people are caught up in the frey.

When you have punative investigations pursued by law enforcement agents who have no idea what they are talking about the result is a very dangerous government organization that is completely out of control. An angry drunk with a baseball bat.

Steve Jackson Games was simply a particularly good place to draw a line in the sand. Thats why you are familiar with it.

If this account is correct, then this case has all the hallmarks of such a situation.

Clueless law enforcement/investigators: On the MPAA side, a completely incompetent attempt to serve a cease and desist notice. One has to wonder if this wasn't intentional. How hard is it to get this right? Didn't they get a bounce message? On the FBI side, a totally bizzare analogy between a Scifi fan club and organized crime in the warrant application!

Punative Investigation: You have to really try to smash an LCD screen, or you have to be so negligent in your handling of the equipment that you might as well have tried. Note also that they seized things like "girlfriends laptop" which are technically covered by their warrant but really have nothing to do with their investigation. Note also that they chose a court venue on the other side of the country.

Three comments:

1. Law Enforcement agents who operate this way do so consistently. We can look forward to lots more stories like this.

2. The FBI is usually much more professional then this. Its a shame. They are sending a very bad message about themselves here. Intellectual Property on the internet is an extremely controversial and visible topic. These cases are going to get a lot of attention. They should be handling this more carefully.

3. The decision to move Copyright cases into the criminal justice system was bad law. This case is exactly why. This whole thing could have been dealt with via a properly delivered C&D. It would have cost far less taxpayer money. We do not need our federal security forces out smashing computers for the MPAA!!
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by diamondsw · 2004-07-27 05:11 · Score: 1

Pause for a moment and consider the lengths of the bills and how many are proposed. Now consider your reading speed, even with a staff to help synthesize all of the information. Is it any wonder so many unrelated items make their way in? There is no way anyone can process all of that information for every bill - eventually they have to go with their gut and however much they have been able to process. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 was the perfect time for people like John Ashcroft to pounce, and they did. Patriot Act II is going nowhere (IIRC - please correct me if not) because we feel we have enough time to devote to analyzing it. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is already busy striking down some of the egregiousness of the Bush Administration (enemy combatants, violation of Geneva Conventions).

Meanwhile, I echo what others have said - get out there and educate people (NOT on Slashdot). Distill the worst aspects of the act and contrast them DIRECTLY to the Bill of Rights. Just saying "it's evil" will not get Joe Schmoe to care, but once you can show them that what our forefathers fought and died for is being lost, then you might get somewhere and someday large chunks will be overturned.

Until then, Joe Schmoe (frighteningly enough) loves the Patriot Act, because it only affects those with "something to hide".

--
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by The+One+and+Only · 2004-07-27 06:24 · Score: 1

When you're running for President, it's usually a waste of time to go vote for bills that will either pass or fail whether you vote or not.

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by ballista · 2004-07-27 06:32 · Score: 1

But think of the children! We must protect the children with those laws!
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-07-27 06:39 · Score: 1

It's also a good idea to give your voters some indication of how you will act in the future.

"How does Candidate X stand on issue Y? Well...he says he's for it, but he never bothered to vote when the question came up, so we don't really know".
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by EraseEraseMe · 2004-07-27 07:11 · Score: 1

Considering they were in the middle of the Democratic race for nomination at that time, I think you can excuse a bit of unattendance (You'll note Leiberman was away at the same time).

Moving away from the time for the race for president, random sampling showed his attendance to be higher then average.

--
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by jgoemat · 2004-07-27 07:18 · Score: 1

The foundation of a civil society is knowing what the laws are so you can't break them. If the people that make the laws don't even read them because they are too large, what hope do we have?
Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Omnifarious · 2004-07-27 09:14 · Score: 1

The FBI should be the subject of a class action lawsuit about their destruction of seized computer equipment. Computer equipment is very expensive, and the way the FBI treats it basically subjects you to a several thousand dollar fine just for being raided, regardless of your guilt or innocence. And you can bet the cost of the equipment isn't deducted from the fine if you're found guilty and fined.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:34 · Score: 1, Funny

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

It would appear so.

EULA:

By reading my IP you hereby take the legal status of enemy combatant and give up all your rights under the Geneva convention.

You will move to a special facility in Cuba (Rura Penthe;) prehaps ) where you will stay for the rest of your natural life.

Sounds like a case for the ACLU. by thbigr · 2004-07-27 00:35 · Score: 1

I wonder if this is a good case. I sure would love to see another Supreme Court on the Patriot Act.

Oh yes, no of course this is not an act of Terror.

--
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!

why send him through the courts by phantasma6 · 2004-07-27 00:35 · Score: 1

when we can just /. his server? :P

Now... by gregoryb · 2004-07-27 00:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sigh... well, at least there's some more evidence to cite _against_ the Patriot Act, so when its supporters challenge "Show me evidence of who it's actually hurting and rights its infringing.", we can point at specific things.

Re:Now... by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:39 · Score: 1

Sure, you can point at specific things. Just not this.

Did you know the first amendment infringes your rights to look at child pornography!?

The horror!

It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is copyright infringement a terrorist act?

No, but it is still illegal.

Am I the only one who thinks people shouldn't break the law?

Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean you should break it. CHANGE it.

Re:It's still illegal? by millahtime · 2004-07-27 00:42 · Score: 1

Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean you should break it.

I wonder how hard it would have been for him to get approved pictures. The site was helping them make money. They could have given him rights to the pictures n stuff. But, he could have asked.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:It's still illegal? by deimtee · 2004-07-27 00:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is my understanding that copyright infringement is actually a civil matter, roughly equivalent to breech of contract, and not a criminal matter at all. Therefore, no it is not illegal, but it is sue-able.

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

See this from above. Seems like he was doing worse than just posting pictures without permission.

Here goes Slashdot blowing things out of proportion again. I'm shocked.

Has anyone here actually read the USA Patriot Act? Or the 9/11 Commission report? Or written their Congressman?

Everyone just bitches on Slashdot. No wonder nothing ever changes.
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Incorrect.

Copyright infringement can be either a civil or a criminal matter, partially depending if someone was making money from the infringement.
Re:It's still illegal? by millahtime · 2004-07-27 00:57 · Score: 1

Everyone just bitches on Slashdot. No wonder nothing ever changes.

So, your saying that those on /. are like my winey bitchy ex gfs. Oh, that's just too funny.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:It's still illegal? by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-27 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

"Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean you should break it. CHANGE it."

Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.

Hugs'n'Kisses,
England.

PS. You can keep Utah and Oregan

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:It's still illegal? by steveshaw · 2004-07-27 01:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, you'd be wrong about that.
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:10 · Score: 1

Can't do that mate, sorry.

The statute of limitations has run out.

(BTW, we DID change the laws, sort of. We just created our own.)
Re:It's still illegal? by deimtee · 2004-07-27 01:12 · Score: 1

And both replies would be assuming I'm from the USA. Ha.

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Re:It's still illegal? by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-27 01:17 · Score: 1

"BTW, we DID change the laws, sort of. We just created our own."

Yeah, it's just that occasionally breaking the law is a decent enough organ to foster change, and American Independance was one of those treasonous actions undertaken in the name of 'right' that went against legality. The Scopes trial was another. In fact, everytime someone goes to court, there is an allegation of a law being broken, and I wouldn't like to even guess how many cases are being heard daily in the world.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:It's still illegal? by pappin · 2004-07-27 01:20 · Score: 1

Funny you should say that. I ask a French guy (while roaming around in France) why eveyone ignored a particular law... He said, "Do what the french do, if it's a stupid law, ignore it). However, it only works if enveryone does.
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:25 · Score: 1

Sorry for you if you aren't.

Since it's an American law we're talking about, and an American company getting investigated, an American fellow getting arrested, and a criminal investigation by the American Government...

It seems that it doesn't much matter if you're not from the States.
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:29 · Score: 1

Yes, but if I get caught, I get a fine.

If you steal tv shows and put them up on the internet, you may get caught, you may get fined, you may go to jail. It's a tradeoff.

If I went to prison for speeding, I wouldn't do it.
Re:It's still illegal? by hkmwbz · 2004-07-27 02:10 · Score: 1

"If you steal tv shows"
Are you saying that he took away SG from them so they could no longer sell or distribute it? Interesting. How does one go about doing this with digital media? I had the impression that making a copy of something didn't destroy the original. But hey, if he stole it, then it must have been removed from the copyright holder's possession somehow. Can't wait for you to explain to me how he did it.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:It's still illegal? by Brained+Child · 2004-07-27 02:13 · Score: 1

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but people have been trying, and it's not working. We still have the DMCA, the PATRIOT act, and a few other legislations coming our way that are not being blocked. As long as the RIAA, the MPAA and the democrats have all the money, nothing will change; unless we riot. I say we riot. L.A. good for you guys?
Re:It's still illegal? by Handpaper · 2004-07-27 02:15 · Score: 1

Something like this?
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 02:16 · Score: 1

Thank you for assisting in proving my point.

You are free to break the law if you want, if you are willing to pay the consequences.

If you aren't willing to pay the consequences if you get caught, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it?
Re:It's still illegal? by TheGreek · 2004-07-27 02:21 · Score: 1

Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.

Come and get it.
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 02:24 · Score: 1

OK, people have been trying. But not enough people.

That's the beauty of a republic, you vote for your representative.

Get more people to vote with you, so you can have more representatives who agree with you, and you can get the laws changed.

Somehow I doubt rioting is going to change anything, but good luck.
Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 02:34 · Score: 1

From dictionary.com for steal. First definition:

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

So, he took the (intellectual) property of another, without right or permission.

So, follow me here, he STOLE PROPERTY ILLEGALLY.

Smart ass.

Also, GMail supports Safari. Read here.
Re:It's still illegal? by Artifakt · 2004-07-27 02:47 · Score: 1

Sure, you can have your share of the eastern seaboard back, as soon as you pay the shipping and handleing fees. We'll just butt them all up against Ireland, O.K.? Glad we could work this out. If you see Spain you might suggest they dispute our claim to California. Trust me, with DC already gone, we'll fold.

The great heartland of the USA.

P.S. We already told the occifer that it was just oregan, that's how this mess started, remember?

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:It's still illegal? by Altus · 2004-07-27 02:56 · Score: 1

certainly sounds like this would be a civil matter... since he wasnt charging for the downloads... I didnt see any other stipulations under criminal copyright code that he seems to be violating.

maybe Im missing something... but this look like it should be civil matter.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:It's still illegal? by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:52 · Score: 1

Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.

You've got yourself a problem -- you want to get rid of Bush, but your own Blair has his lips firmly glued to Bush's cock. I'm not sure the two are separable.

--
May we never see th
Re:It's still illegal? by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 05:51 · Score: 1

PS. You can keep Utah and Oregan

What's wrong with Oregon?

--
May we never see th
Re:It's still illegal? by Alsee · 2004-07-27 06:19 · Score: 1

>PS. You can keep Utah and Oregan
What's wrong with Oregon?

Oooo! Oooo! I know!
The "A" is supposed to be an "O"!

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:It's still illegal? by nzkbuk · 2004-07-27 15:04 · Score: 1

Murder did, Well kinda.
There was something in the law books (they were trying to change a few years ago) that said if someone doesn't die within 100 days of the act being committed then it's not murder.

Modern medicine is great, except in cases like this where there are just machines keeping the body alive & it's illegal to turn them off.

The law was something like "If they die within 100 days it's murder, if it's 101 or longer then it's only G.B.H"
Re:It's still illegal? by pjt33 · 2004-07-27 20:14 · Score: 1

It was a year, but that's not what's meant by "statute of limitations", which is a statute saying that you can't be tried for a crime more than X period of time after it's committed.
Re:It's still illegal? by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-28 03:43 · Score: 1

"What's wrong with Oregon?"

A complete lack of policeman, and I could never spell it properly. I'm sure it's a lovely place, just like our very own Rugeley.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:It's still illegal? by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-28 03:49 · Score: 1

"you want to get rid of Bush"

Actually I think that's up to the American public. So far he's avoided bombing England, but we suspect that it's only a matter of time.

"but your own Blair has his lips firmly glued to Bush's cock"

Speculation here has him embedded to the clavicles in a location almost 180 degrees from where you suggested, but luckily he's managed to annoy enough people that he might not be a problem for much longer. Bush did dump him right in the doo-doo by refusing to back up his claims that he was only listening to American intelligence, and the Hutton enquiry didn't produce the effect he wanted.

However, if you hear the words 'Micheal Howard' used in conjunction with 'Prime Minister' in the next couple of years, I'll be found living somewhere nice and quiet. Like Sudan.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.

The obvious question. by Underholdning · 2004-07-27 00:36 · Score: 1

"[..] the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

This raises the obvious question. Is the Patriot act really about terrorism?

--
Underholdning.info

Re:The obvious question. by dave420 · 2004-07-27 01:05 · Score: 1

Of course it isn't! This had nothing to do with terrorism, not even remotely. It's not a case of people trying to sell pirate TV shows to fund bombings or anything. Just overzealous feds using every tool they have to take someone down. Sure, the guy was sharing full-length episodes of SG1, but to trash all his stuff was ridiculous. Fascists.
Re:The obvious question. by l4m3z0r · 2004-07-27 01:14 · Score: 1

You should read some of the previous replies but I'll mention here again anyway. The Patriot Act is NOT about terrorism. It was ushered in under the pretense that it will make us safer and protect us from terrorism but in fact law enforcement agencies can invoke most powers granted by the Patriot Act whenever they damn well please. The continued misconception about this act is very disheartening, since its obvious that most of you are still in the fantasy world of we are safer because the government made a nifty law that nabs terrorists. When in fact, they just used terrorism as an excuse to push this act through granting them(law enforcement) powers that they have been after for years. J Edgar Hoover would have loved this act, since it would legitimize all the previously criminal activity that he was involved in, namely the unwarranted spying on american citizens through illegal wiretaps and surrveilance.

Wow by The-Bus · 2004-07-27 00:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is certainly the next step down in the slippery slope. Can you imagine the FBI then subpoenaing PayPal and getting the names and addresses of everyone that contributed?

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

Re:Wow by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:41 · Score: 1

No, because the donating money to a defense fund is not illegal.

Duh.

Now if you anonymously sent him a kilo of coke to "assist" in his defense, what would you have them do?

I would have them track down whomever sent it.

What's the difference here?
Re:Wow by dave-tx · 2004-07-27 00:50 · Score: 1

Can you imagine the FBI then subpoenaing PayPal and getting the names and addresses of everyone that contributed?
That's one reason I won't contribute... In the current political climate, it wouldn't surprise me if anyone contributing to his defense fund was classified as "supporting a terrorist".
Yes, that's a stretch. But really, considering the Patriot Act was invoked in this case, which had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, I don't see it being worth the risk.

--
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
Re:Wow by Jason+Hood · 2004-07-27 01:45 · Score: 1

Like a previous poster mentioned, The Patriot Act did not cover just terrorism. It covered many areas and attempted to streamline different tasks and processes. Despite what the paranoid dillusionals say here, there is still judicial oversight. If an FBI agent were to figure out a way to abuse it (like just about anyone can do with any job) his career will be over. People are evil and they will always abuse power no matter where they work. Kinda like chronic gambling.

The guy broke the law, now he is paying for it, literally. If you havent read the patriot act and everything it entails, dont post about it, just makes you appear dumber.

I personally dont like several areas of the patriot act and I do hope it gets an overhaul this fall. Sorry but ignorance and deceit just piss me off.

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?

Criminal? by Remlik · 2004-07-27 00:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

I was under the impression copywright violation was a civil offense?

Will they be charging college students who plagiarize geology papers to get an A?

--
Apple free since 1990!

Re:Criminal? by steveshaw · 2004-07-27 01:08 · Score: 1

As I posted above, take a look here.
Re:Criminal? by Mordaximus · 2004-07-27 01:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Fraud is not however. As pointed out by a previous poster, the site owner has allegedly commited fraud Several Times

I suspect that he stands accused of Copyright infringement for hosting episodes on his server, but also for fraud.... However, he wouldn't get much sympathy or paypal donations for your fraud legal defence fund...

Change the damn law by Lord+Grey · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

... the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP.

The reality is that law enforcement in the United States is going to use every tool at their disposal to try to catch the bad guys, provided the tool doesn't cost too much. Laws can be invoked for (basically) free, so they get used, abused and stretched a lot.

This Patriot Act thing really needs to be refined. While parts of it may be good, it's worded so that it can be invoked in far too many cases. This escapade with The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is just the latest example.

Will the law be redefined? The Powers That Be won't do it on their own, as the Patriot Act is (according to their collective mentality) too good a tool to throw away or change. The public needs to call for the change, loudly.

--
// Beyond Here Lie Dragons

Re:Change the damn law by maximilln · 2004-07-27 01:03 · Score: 1

to try to catch the bad guys

Personally I advocate using any means possible to catch the bad guys.

The real issue is in how "bad guys" is defined. With every law that passes more and more of us can be judged as bad guys in some form or another at just about any given time of the day. Once the entire population is, by default, a bad guy then it's easy to see that law enforcement isn't really about creating a better society. Law enforcement is just a tool to maintain the lifestyles of those who ride on our backs.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

Makes you think.... by BWJones · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 1

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

Well, I guess it could be reasoned that since much of the US economy is based on IP, then this would be a terrorist act because it undermines the very fabric of the country..........yeah, right. Seriously though, while I am all for copyright protection and laws protecting intellectual property, one would think that the toolbox of laws used to prosecute such crimes as IP theft would be carefully used, particularly when they come from a set of tools designed to protect the nation from terrorism. However, there are those in law enforcement that will use whatever tools happen to be at their disposal whether they are appropriate or not for the case, never mind the right tool for the right job metaphor. This example is exactly why sweeping laws that fall under wide ranging legal jurisprudence should be VERY carefully applied and under constant review. If not, we are putting in danger our freedom.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Re:Makes you think.... by LilJC · 2004-07-27 01:53 · Score: 1

... particularly when they come from a set of tools designed to protect the nation from terrorism
The PATRIOT Act was not designed to protect the nation from terrorism. It was passed to allow various law enforcement to act without going through the court system or being tethered by the bill of rights. It allows them to walk into your home and take you to an undiclosed location and hold you indefinitely and deprive you of the ability to have a judge decide on the legitimacy until they're done with you.
This is a very powerful tool to fight terrorism, which is why they slapped the name PATRIOT on it and got people to vote on it, many before they knew what they had done as they didn't even have the time to read it before a vote was called. It was a McCarthy-like move.
So was it designed to fight terrorism? Only in the sense that it's easy to fight terrorists. However, it's also easy to strongarm anyone an agency doesn't particularly care for without consequence. The link between the PATRIOT Act and terrorism is more the environment in which it could be passed and less the actual usage.

--

The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
Re:Makes you think.... by keraneuology · 2004-07-27 02:11 · Score: 1

Makes you think indeed.... "The charges were the culmination of a three-year FBI investigation" - that's three years involving who knows how many monetary and manpower resources devoted to uncompensated service to the ilk of the MPAA. I would -much- rather these resources be spent on making sure that the -real- bad guys don't take out another skyscraper or mall.
Also shows just how heartless these MPAA people are: as the nation mourned the loss of thousands of people on 9/11 they're jumping up and down demanding (well, stuffing the war chests of their congressmen is more likely) that instead of looking for -terrorists- the FBI should be out preventing poor quality copies of TV shows from being viewed then deleted. Even worse is that all of those congressmen cheerfully accepted the ... ahem... campaign donations in exchange for ensuring that the FBI waste precious resources over such a trivial issue.

--
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Re:Makes you think.... by onion2k · 2004-07-27 02:12 · Score: 1

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/2 0020925_patriot_act.html

UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS
REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT ACT)

Its an acronym. Terrorism is what the T in Patriot stands for. It was drawn up for no reason other than to fight terrorism. Using it to fight other things is beyond its scope.

--
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Re:Makes you think.... by LilJC · 2004-07-27 02:54 · Score: 1

Buddy, not trying to troll here, but open your eyes.
The whole point of my post was that the PATRIOT act was designed to be PASSED in the political climate. I even said that's why they slapped that name on it (thanks for spelling out the acronym, though I'm not sure whose point it proves).
Using it to fight other things is not beyond its scope. It's beyond the spirit it was passed with.
Don't confuse tool with intention. If I had bears on my property, I'd go to the store and say I needed a rifle with a scope for hunting. Hell, if I were lucky maybe I'd even kill some bears with it. But when I wanted someone hurt and didn't want to be tied up with legitimate means or waiting for them to break a law, do you think I'd just leave my rifle in the closet?
Of course that's not a very good analogy. It would be more appropriate had I bought rifles to loan to everybody in my neighborhood and told them they were unaccountable for what they did with them so they could get those bears out (won't somebody please think of the children??), but then decided they should be able to just keep the rifles even after there were no more bears in case they come back some day.
Now, had there not been bears around, I wouldn't have been justified to arm my neighbors and take away accountability, but seeing as those bears needed to be killed regardless of the noise or possibility of stray bullets hitting cars/houses, won't someone PLEASE think of the children?
Of course, whenever one of my neighbors borrows a tool from another and doesn't return it, I've got a warzone in my neighborhood. Who's thinking of the children now?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

--

The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /

The Patriot Act... by WegianWarrior · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 1

...is it no evil that can't be done in it's name?

I wish I could say that last sentence was funny... but it's frankly plain scary. I mean, it's reasonable to assume that if the FBI had wanted, there are other laws they could have used to obtain the same information (maybe there is something in the laws on copyright, for starters?), right? It's like shooting bluetits with cannons...

It's things like this that makes me happy I decided against trying to emigrate to the US. Seeing how things _apper_to_be_ right now, I imagine there would be twentyfive FBI-officers tasked with keeping an eye on me in case I happened to mention that there are things in the US that could be changed for the better... as well as half a dozen RIAA / MPAA employes attempting to gain access to my harddrive to see if I got any mp3s stored on it.

And for the homour impared.. I'm trying to be funny about a serious issue here.

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.

Re:The Patriot Act... by amliebsch · 2004-07-27 00:54 · Score: 1

Seeing how things _apper_to_be_ right nowWell, keep in mind that there is a WIDE gap here between appearance (via the media somewhat, and ./ especially) and reality. I would still maintain that the US is among the freest countries in the world.

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:The Patriot Act... by WegianWarrior · 2004-07-27 01:00 · Score: 1

While I don't agree with your conclusion (in most respects, based on my intimate knowledge of life in the US thanks to my american wife and in-laws, I am more free here in Norway), I do realise that there is a huge difference between everyday life and what the media reports... but thats why I made a point of pointing it out in the first place ;)

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Re:The Patriot Act... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 01:18 · Score: 1

You're really mistaken. The US is only as free as they tell you it is. Freedom in the US is being removed bit by bit. American freedom, as something better than any other country, is an absolute myth, and has been for decades. America is a country of lip-service, not substance. Just proclaiming America the land of the free doesn't make it so. The horrific record of civil and human rights abuses shows that freedom clearly isn't anything the American government truly values. Ask the next black person you see how free America is. Then, reflect on that very act happening in the US 60 years ago.
Free is one thing the US is not.
Re:The Patriot Act... by bheerssen · 2004-07-27 02:29 · Score: 1

Properly, it's the USA PATRIOT Act. Note the caps. I'm not being pedantic, the distinction is important. The PATRIOT act has little to do with patriotism and should never be interpreted that way.

The name of the act is an acronym that stands for the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. It is all about granting the federal branch of our government sweeping new powers to skirt our inherent human rights, the most important of which are enumerated in the first ten ammendments to our federal constitution: our so-called Bill of Rights. Chiefly, it attacks the first ammendment, which guarantees our freedom of expression, and the fourth ammendment, which protects our right against unreasonable search and seizure of our persons and effects. The veracity of this statement is borne out in many, many instances, of which the subject of the above article is one.

There is a silver lining, however. Our constitution is an exceedling strong document that enjoys massive support among nearly all Americans. Cases such as this one serve to illustrate the problems with bad law, and allow such laws to be struck down on constitutional grounds. Discussions such as the one we are having now serve to promote these issues and cannot be squelched for fear of massive upheaval, thanks to our Constitution.

Whether this particular case will have any measurable affect is yet to be known, but there will eventually be one that does. Remember all power is used and, for good or ill, used it will be. One of these days, some federal agency will cross a line that lands that agency in some seriously hot water, and then the law will change. You can bet on it.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Re:The Patriot Act... by amliebsch · 2004-07-27 03:06 · Score: 1

It will heavily depend on your metrics, which is why I said "among the freest." Well in the interest of full disclosure, here are some of my metrics: - Do I have an absolute right to speak my mind, no matter how hateful or divisive, so long as it does not directly harm (beyond hurt feelings/sensibilities) others? Do I have a corollary right not to support the speech of other private individuals with which I do not agree? - What percentage of my life's labor is exclusively for the benefit of the state? - How federal is the government? What is the balance of legal control between local and national governments? These are just a few off the top of my head. Freedom House has some pretty good metrics in my opinon (and they rank both the US and Norway as a "1" for both political and civil freedom, incidentally.) That said, is it really true that Norway has a state church supported by tax dollars?

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:The Patriot Act... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 03:44 · Score: 1

You've missed the entire point of affirmative action. I'm not for it either, but not because it's "unfair to white people". I'm against it, as there is a huge inbalance between black candidates for universities and white. That is because of most black people being poor, with no way out. Affirmative action is a cheap stop-gap measure to fix the statistics, instead of actually fixing the problem at its cause. Black people in the US are more likely to be born in poverty than white people. When you're born into poverty, it's very hard to get out. The lacking public schools mean an education can't help you, as you won't get one. How are you supposed to get into college and get a good job if you can't even get a basic school education? You can't. Of course, the right would have you label these black people "lazy" and say they love living off welfare, being poor. Lies. People are people, and until people see that, it's not going to change.
Hate crimes are perpetrated (most often) by the majority onto the minority. As in most places in the US white people are the majority, you'd expect on purely statistical terms a much larger percentage of hate crimes committed by white people. It's not a legal scheme or plot, but maths.
Spouting the right-wing off-the-shelf arguments shows your point to be lacking :)
Re:The Patriot Act... by amliebsch · 2004-07-27 05:02 · Score: 1

Of course, the right would have you label these black people "lazy" and say they love living off welfare, being poor. Lies. People are people, and until people see that, it's not going to change.
While it is not accurate that all blacks who do not succeed are lazy, it is also not accurate that all blacks who fail are not lazy. There is a serious cultural problem regarding blacks and education. Being smart should not be a stigma; it should not be denigrated as "acting white." There is not much the government can do to help people until they voluntarily give up that attitude. That's the biggest problem with AA - it covers up the real causes of the imbalance and allows the very perpetrators of this attitude blame their situation on someone else.

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:The Patriot Act... by amliebsch · 2004-07-27 05:13 · Score: 1

Hate crimes are perpetrated (most often) by the majority onto the minority. As in most places in the US white people are the majority, you'd expect on purely statistical terms a much larger percentage of hate crimes committed by white people. It's not a legal scheme or plot, but maths.
I think his point was that hate crimes are not charged equally among interracial crimes, despite the fact that blacks commit proportionally many more interracial crimes than whites.

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:The Patriot Act... by WegianWarrior · 2004-07-27 08:35 · Score: 1

Absolute right to free speach? Jupp, got that, it's in the norwegian constitution (and has been there since it was written.. no need for an anmendment ;), ref 100). I'm not quite sure what you mean by the next, but if you mean you got the right to disagree... sure - as long as you don't attempt to take their right to speak free away. We do 'give more' to the state compared to the US in taxes and whatnot, but then we get much more back (free national healthcare, free pension for the retired, free schools and all that... stuff we think that the state should provide and a lot of americans I've talked to think the state should keep away from). It's hard to talk about "how federal" the goverment is, as well as "balance of controll" between national and local goverment, seeing as how we're not a federation in the way the US are.. we're a "free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm." (ref 1 in the 'wegian constitution, as found here).

Yes, we still have a state church, and it works for us. Thats not the same as to say membership is forced onto you thought... and if you decide to join another church or religion, that church / religious society gets the same part of your taxes as the statecurch would get if you been a member there. It's all audited y'know, which is why a handfull of muslim religious societyes found themself in big shit after 'massaging' the membershipnumbers... had to pay back a heap of ill gotten cash ;).

I'm not saying we're better than the US... there are a lot of things here I would like to change, but overall I feel I'm more free here. For instance, take the relativly uniqe consept of "allmannaretten" - "all mens right" - which allows me to travel whereever I would like, as long as I a) don't step on plowed land, b) closes gates and wickets, c)don't chop down living trees and d) camp at least 500' away from houses. If I want to pick berries, they are free for the taking. Collect dry wood of the ground to make a campfire? Go right ahead. Swim in the lake? Well, maybe not so smart if you're in the nude, but don a set of swimtrunks and go right ahead. Next, try the same in the US and see how long it takes before the landowner wants a word with you ;).

--
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.

Look at this by Almace · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Gee hosting episodes of a show on your website never causes any problems. How evil of them to enfoce thier copyright.

--
Remember,democracy never lasts long.It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. John Adams (1814)

Re:Look at this by optimus2861 · 2004-07-27 01:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

They could've enforced their copyright by gentler means; did they ever just ask him to take the files down? If he told them to piss off, then they could start legal proceedings; and why not a civil suit? It probably could've been settled for $10K or less along with an agreement not to do it again. Why sic the feds on him? Now the poor bastard has to fight off federal prosecutors and risk serving jail time along with a criminal record -- all for hosting files on a webserver. Yes, this is a real danger to society we're dealing with here!
Either there's still a chunk of story we're missing, or MPAA/FBI have blown this way out of proportion.
Re:Look at this by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-27 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

"How evil of them to enfoce thier copyright."

You might figure out at some point that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the government organ for handling internal federal problems, and currently is enagaged in everything from counter-terrorism thru to tracking down bank robbers. Enforcement of copyright is generally down to a civil action rather than getting a government body to kick your doors down. For one thing, every taxpayer is now engaged in protecting the copyright holders, so now you're not only buying their products, but paying for them to keep the prices where they want them.

Next time someone detonates a large-ish bomb in a city centre, think about whether the FBI's manpower is better spent working for the good of society or the good of a corporation.

As for the moral aspect of it, usually it's considered polite to send some contact first, and generally to a postal address. Getting a PI to serve papers has to be easier on the taxpayer than invoking an anti-terrorism law, just not as scary.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Look at this by poot_rootbeer · 2004-07-27 04:11 · Score: 1

every taxpayer is now engaged in protecting the copyright holders, so now you're not only buying their products, but paying for them to keep the prices where they want them.

Copyright protections are not a lopsided us-versus-them situation. There's no line in the sand between content producers (bad) and consumers (good). If you create something, whether you're a media corporation or an individual, copyright works in your favor.

Rembember, even the GNU Copyleft depends on the existence of copyright in order to work.
Re:Look at this by Alsee · 2004-07-27 05:51 · Score: 1

How evil of them to enfoce thier copyright.

If that's what were happening the story and headline would be "[insert copyright holder] files civil infringment suit against SG1Archive.com".

Instead the story is FBI uses anti-terrorism law against petty copyright infringer.

Even setting aside the stupid Partiot act issue, this is supposedly a THREE YEAR FBI investigation at the request of the MPAA? WTF? If someone wanted to enforce their compyright, shouldn't they have filed a civil suit THREE YEARS AGO?

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Look at this by maximilln · 2004-07-27 06:22 · Score: 1

Rembember, even the GNU Copyleft depends on the existence of copyright in order to work

I think you're violating the spirit of GNU Copyleft. GNU Copyleft is there to EMPHASIZE the issue that many corporate copyright holders are abusing the copyright system.

Imagine a circus (society) with a five-legged cow (entertainment media). Imagine the circus owners employing carnies to ensure that, after you've paid your money to see the five-legged cow, you don't go and tell anyone else about it. They want as many people as possible to pay as much as possible for the five-legged cow. They can't have you drawing pictures on the sidewalk for other people to see what the five-legged cow looks like. That's modern copyright. And it sucks.

GNU Copyleft seems to admonish that if you produce something as stupid as a five-legged cow then you should be prepared to accept all of the profit from it WITHOUT muscling the patrons.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Look at this by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2004-07-27 06:22 · Score: 1

Copyright protections are not a lopsided us-versus-them situation. There's no line in the sand between content producers (bad) and consumers (good). If you create something, whether you're a media corporation or an individual, copyright works in your favor.

Rembember, even the GNU Copyleft depends on the existence of copyright in order to work.

And when was the last time the FBI kicked someone's door in and stole all their computer equipment for violating the GPL?

Last I checked they won't help anyone who hasn't suffered a financial loss of at least $5000. And that's just to get them to give you the time of day.

When the FBI starts defending the copy rights of someone other than media conglomerates I'll buy the argument that they're working in our interests.
Re:Look at this by DragonMagic · 2004-07-27 06:30 · Score: 1

This is stupid.

When someone clearly infringes on copyright, there's always someone who suggests that the copyright holder should politely ask them to remove the items.

Do you believe that the police should politely remind you not to speed only? Or that if you shoplift and get caught, you should only be told it's bad and not do it again?

Whether or not you know you're committing a crime, obviously taking someone else's creative efforts and reposting it without permission should set off flags in your head. If you still do it, why should anyone be nice to you when you've taken their rights away from them in how their efforts are distributed?

Screw that, enforce the law.

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:Look at this by maximilln · 2004-07-27 06:45 · Score: 1

Whether or not you know you're committing a crime, obviously taking someone else's creative efforts and reposting it without permission should set off flags in your head

Who has authority to grant permission?

Is it the original creator of the show? They don't hold the copyright. Is it the copyright holder? It's not their creative effort. To them it's nothing more than a business venture. There's an obvious conflict of interest when designating who has the authority to grant permission for use.

Remember the article where Lindows was using artwork without permission? I don't remember the FBI kicking their doors down. I don't remember a single court order placed against Lindows. I don't even remember if the original artist even cared.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Look at this by DragonMagic · 2004-07-27 06:52 · Score: 1

Obviously, the person who made the fansite did not have the authority to repost the videos, nor the many sites throughout the world he linked to.

And because 100% of the people don't get investigated, doesn't mean no one should. If someone's misusing your copyright, enforce it how you see fit. If you have no copyrights, you have little to worry about in this department.

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:Look at this by Goobermunch · 2004-07-27 10:08 · Score: 1

You're right, of course, copyright infringement isn't something generally within the FBI's purview. Mail and wire fraud, however, are right up its alley.

Say, that's what this guy was doing! Maybe there's a reason the Feeble Eyes were involved.

--AC
Re:Look at this by MSZ · 2004-07-27 11:10 · Score: 1

You know, there's that little thing called "DMCA takedown notice". Not a nice thing, but it sure beats FBI raid. Been used many times (not necessarily rightly) by copyright holders.

One page with legal office letterhead and his host/upstream would pull the plug and ask questions later.

So either this case stinks like hell of abuse OR the guy had more serious problems with the law. Given the comments about scams and fraud, it very well might be the latter.

--
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Re:Look at this by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-29 01:54 · Score: 1

"If you create something, whether you're a media corporation or an individual, copyright works in your favor."

*blink*...so what you're saying is that the FBI will run exploratory raids if I make a claim that someone is infringing my copyright? And there is no difference between J Bloggs and Sony Entertainment Corp?

I can't help feeling that you completely missed my point in an effort to throw a sidelong jibe at the linux supporters around here. I wasn't complaining about copyright, just the instruments used to force compliance by the copyright holders and the relatively lop-sided fashion in which credibility is assigned to claims of infringment.

On another note, why do you hate content producers enough to call them 'bad'?*

* Rhetorical question, but if you make assumptions about my posts and position, I'll do exactly the same back.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Look at this by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-29 03:16 · Score: 1

"Say, that's what this guy was doing!"

How was this mail and wire fraud? And how does this tally with the Patriot Act?

"Maybe there's a reason the Feeble Eyes were involved."

I have no doubt that there is. There's also a reason why the Falun Gong are rounded up in China. It's up to you to decide if the reasons are valid or not.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Look at this by Goobermunch · 2004-08-03 01:44 · Score: 1

Did you miss the part where the guy has been selling stuff online, taking people's money, and then not delivering the product? That's the classic definition of wire fraud.

The Patriot Act wasn't just about terrorism. It was also about expanding Federal Law Enforcement's ability to respond to high tech crimes. This is a fact that people tend to overlook because they've never read the act.

--AC

Is the MPAA that dumb by millahtime · 2004-07-27 00:39 · Score: 1

Is the MPAA really the dumb. Let me get something straight...

She site helps sales of their products (DVDs) and build hype around the show so more people can get into the show. And, they are complaining. wtf is wrong with them. Did the MPAA smoke one to many crack pipes. A site that costs you nothing and helps you earn money.

The MPAA needs to learn a little something about advertising. Especially when it's free to them.

--
Evolution or ID?

Re:Is the MPAA that dumb by October_30th · 2004-07-27 00:46 · Score: 1

site helps sales of their products (DVDs)
By providing a complete collection of SG-1 episodes for download?

--
The owls are not what they seem

This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 00:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

the rest of the country dont think would happen, or hopes never happen. These isolated incidents are just the harbingers of numerous other instances where FBI and other law enforcement agencies under the clout of Ashcroft will use their newfound power, power that was bestowed on them by our representatives, in the name of making this nation more secure against faceless terrorists, to serve their corporate masters.

What we as a collective need to do, and need to do now, is to take a look at the ambiguities in this act, and the scope of it and put down strict guidelines as to when and where it could be enforced and put some damn oversight while you are at it.

The Govt has cleverly chosen depictions of late night arrests and mysterious black cars/helicopters as the evidence of a communist/totalitarian regime. They hope you would never equate that with Feds in uniforms. They hope to turn your attention to daily terrorist warnings, to turn your attention away from the extent to which these antiquated laws can be abused.

You all have a clear choice this November. Even if that choice is starkly different from the other half of the nation, act now to ensure you still have civil liberties when all this is over.

--
Rapid Nirvana

Re:This is what... by Erwos · 2004-07-27 00:54 · Score: 4, Informative

"You all have a clear choice this November."

Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act. Go to JK's website, do a search for "patriot act". There's no talk of repealing it, only "enhancing" it. And we all know what "enhance" means to a politician: take out the obviously scary stuff, and put in less-obvious scary stuff. I mean, the talk of "intelligence sharing" and "terrorist lists" should be raising big red alarms in your heads, but since Kerry's not Bush, it doesn't... or something like that.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2 00 4_0417a.html

If you think Kerry is just going to hand you everything you wanted on a silver platter because he's "not Bush", you're foolish and naive. You'll have civil liberties and rights with whomever wins. I find it repugnant how members of both parties have resorted to scare tactics at this point.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ok..

The Patriot Act and its proponents has done a fantastic job in making America feel safer under its umbrella, hence I would not go deep in to why Patriot Act and other regulations wont keep americans any safer (it will probably save the land, but not its citizens who choose to travel beyond its boundaries). What I believe would keep its people safe is when its Govt decides not to trample over the collective will of the rest of the world over starkly contrasting priorities and beliefs.

You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!

Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it.

Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.

--
Rapid Nirvana
Re:This is what... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 01:21 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter who you vote for, no-one will touch the patriot act. Anyone who goes for it will be branded unAmerican and removed from office, immediately. Remember - you're either with us or against us. That ideology won't be leaving Washington for a very long time.
Maybe it's time for the next revolution?
Re:This is what... by Erwos · 2004-07-27 01:57 · Score: 1

"You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind."

Actually, what I was trying to point out was that Kerry was going to take some scary stuff out and then put more scary stuff in.

Look, vote for who you want to. Personally, I'm writing in McCain and Lieberman.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:This is what... by TapeCutter · 2004-07-27 02:10 · Score: 1

I live in Australia and sometimes it feels like the US since Bush and Howard(Australian Prime-Minister) became best mates. Recently we had the dubious distinction of being the only major country besides Isreal and the US not to support the IJC's recommendations on "The wall". Three other Pacific island nations also voted with the US, 150 countries including the entire EU voted in support of the IJC's recommendation. Bush makes me nervous, Hitler and Stalin both brought the state security apparatus under thier control by amalgamation before taking full power. If Kerry wants to signal a new foriegn policy that will give the world a colective sigh of relief then he should support the IJC's recommendations and build the wall on Isreal's land not on occupied land. I doubt this will happen because as far as I know Kerry & Bush have the same policy on Isreal.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:This is what... by base3 · 2004-07-27 02:12 · Score: 1

Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.
If they wanted to earn my trust, they could have stuck to their rhetoric about the whole country being a free speech zone, rather than pulling this shit at the DNC.

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:This is what... by Qzukk · 2004-07-27 02:27 · Score: 1

BTW, the free speech zone at the DNC was selected and set up by the mayor, a republican. Probably for exactly this reason.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:This is what... by alita69 · 2004-07-27 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, Kerry just wants different scary stuff. He's all in favor of things that even Ashcroft was against. Which is kinda scary, if you think about it. Check out: http://www.reason.com/hod/jb072604.shtml for some starter info. You can find a lot more if you bother looking at his voting record. Sorry, but under Kerry it'll be Reno all over again. And there isn't a whole lot to choose from between Reno and Ashcroft. Me? I'll vote Libertarian.
Re:This is what... by grassy_knoll · 2004-07-27 03:18 · Score: 1

You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!

That didnt seem to be his point. He seemed to be saying that Kerry would be just as bad as Bush, but in a different way... taking out the "scary stuff" to replace it with equally bad things that havent scared us yet. As it were.

The parent poster also makes a good point. This election seems less and less about voting for a candidate and more about voting against a candidate. This is dangerous.

I knew many in the Anyone-but-Clinton/Gore camp, since it was this dream team which gave us NAFTA, the Clipper Chip, the "Assault Weapons Ban" (HAH !), et. al. The not-Clinton/Gore (Bush 2) perhaps hasn't worked as well as they'd hope.

Someone voting only against an incumbant might want to be sure the contender has qualifications other than "not incumbant".

--
A Human Right
Re:This is what... by Politburo · 2004-07-27 03:27 · Score: 1

Dunno if the free speech zone was setup by the mayor, but Mayor Menino is a democrat. The governor of Mass., Mitt Romney, is a republican.
Re:This is what... by DeekGeek · 2004-07-27 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative

...was selected and set up by the mayor, a republican.

You are misinformed. The mayor of Boston is a Democrat. The governor is a Republican, and went on record saying that his job was to make sure the convention was safe, and that the participants had a good time. He then joked that he also wanted them to ultimately be unsuccessful.

--
How can the eyes be the Windows of the soul when they never blue screen?
Re:This is what... by dave420 · 2004-07-27 03:37 · Score: 1

The PATRIOT act has done NOTHING for the security of America, Americans or anyone. It's given the feds powers they don't need to fight terrorism. It's helping to fight terrorism as much as arming the mafia would.
There's mountains of evidence to support this, and absolutely none to support it making the US any safer. You want a safe country? Get your troops out of Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries. Treat other nations as what they are: SOVEREIGN. All that nonsense about making the US safer was irrelevent. It was an emotive ploy designed to sucker in as many Americans as possible. Didn't you stop to think about its stupid name? If the act was so damned good, they could have just given it a number. Since its enactment, it has been used against normal, every-day American citizens (and others), to enforce an agenda far-removed from national security. Thanks to Osama Bin Laden, the US now has a "I respect your first ammendment rights, but not now" card, which they can play and immediately get everyone to shut up or be labelled Unamerican. Is that free? Is that democracy? Hardly. Every single American is being taken on a ride, and the all-encompassing American patriotism is blinding them. Wake up, people - America is just another country, and it risks becoming a dangerous country for its inhabitants, and hated around the world. If it's such a great place, why is that happening?
Vote kerry, bush, that libertarian whacko, anyone. It doesn't matter. They're all professional politicians (no matter what they say). The PATRIOT act is going to take a lot more than a change of government figurehead to be removed.
Re:This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 03:38 · Score: 1

Yes, it is possible that Kerry do a double take and turn out to be someone equally bad in his decisions as the current president. But here is my reasoning that he wont: Kerry, comes off as a thinker, a man who is more idealistic, more willing to listen to others dissenting opinions than Bush. Not because Bush is a bad person, but because his cohorts, his close aides are shielding him from listening to any dissent at all. Unfortunately, the president could have chosen to look beyond these partisan-yes-men and sought out americans and decent men abroad who could convince the president that there is an alternative, but he didnt. The President did not want the trouble of seeking out other perspectives on issues that were confronting him, he just wanted to choose the easiest solutions.

I admit its dangerous when some americans are trying to replace their president not because they love the incumbent, but hate their president. Its a bad judgement and elections have become such a farce. But, how do you voice dissent against your President and the views of his administration in any other manner in today's america? Is there a third choice? Sure, you can decide not to vote, but then you would be hiding from your responsibility. The political system in a whole has to change, for the better.

Finally, I believe the Assault Weapons Ban is a good thing. And I hope it stands, despite what NRA wants me to believe.

--
Rapid Nirvana
Re:This is what... by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:47 · Score: 1

Sorry, but under Kerry it'll be Reno all over again. And there isn't a whole lot to choose from between Reno and Ashcroft.

You've got to be joking. The Reno DoJ was *infinitely* more transparent and willing to release information about its activities than the Ashcroft DoJ.

I'll vote Libertarian.

I'm sorry to hear that. You're voting in a voting system that is designed to make your vote worthless if you make such a move.

After voting reform (with, say, preferential voting) it makes sense. Trying to get Nader to beat Bush under the existing system? It's a pipe dream, and simply counts as half a vote for Bush.

--
May we never see th
Re:This is what... by Experiment+626 · 2004-07-27 04:20 · Score: 1

You all have a clear choice this November.

Between the guy who helped pass the Patriot Act, and the one who signed it into law. How are they "starkly different" on this issue again?
Re:This is what... by Inebrius · 2004-07-27 04:32 · Score: 1

Nader is not the Libertarian candidate. You're just repeating the Democratic propaganda that a vote for anybody other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, and a vote for Michael Badnarick www.lp.org is a vote for Michael Badnarik, and their respective parties.

Neither Kerry nor Bush is entitled to my vote. If either wants it, they need to recognize the important issues of third party candidates and decide if they are going to cater to any of our ideals (if our vote is of any value to them).

I just don't understand the liberals that keep whining about how scary the government is and yet they want to disarm the people.

xxxxxx

"I'll vote Libertarian.

I'm sorry to hear that. You're voting in a voting system that is designed to make your vote worthless if you make such a move.

After voting reform (with, say, preferential voting) it makes sense. Trying to get Nader to beat Bush under the existing system? It's a pipe dream, and simply counts as half a vote for Bush."
Re:This is what... by JofCoRe · 2004-07-27 04:45 · Score: 1

"You all have a clear choice this November."

Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act.

Just because someone says "we have a choice" doesn't mean that they're voting for Kerry.

Wake up people!!!! There are more than two political parties!!!!! If you really want a change, you are never going to get it with a republican or democrat.

Vote for a third party... any third party, I don't care, just don't vote for a republican or democrat, because if you do, then you have no right to complain when things don't change, because you are too scared (or whatever reason people don't vote 3rd party) to change it.

Personally, I prefer the Libertarian Party. Their candidate this year is Michael Badnarik. Go read his site, and listen to the debates, you might be suprised to find that not all political parties (or candidates) are the same.

--

Place sig here.
Re:This is what... by L0neW0lf · 2004-07-27 05:02 · Score: 1

Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it. Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust. Man, you've taken this one pretty far. I've seen quite a few statesemen and "masterful" politicians do far more damage than the Mr. Smiths of the world that go to Washington. Not that Bush is Mr. Smith, he's everybit the statesman and politician that Kerry is; I believe neither to be a good choice.

As for Kerry choosing his words wisely, I haven't seen him choose any words making for a hard stance on ANY side. I have far more respect for a person with a strong opinion I don't believe in than one with few concrete opinions at all.

P.S. Do your research on the "religious right "thing before you talk about it. It would make it look more like you had an understanding of religion, and of the "right".

--

Never look down your nose at others. Someday, someone is bound to see your boogers.
Re:This is what... by maximilln · 2004-07-27 05:42 · Score: 1

Vote for a third party... any third party, I don't care, just don't vote for a republican or democrat, because if you do, then you have no right to complain when things don't change, because you are too scared (or whatever reason people don't vote 3rd party) to change it

I'm terribly sorry to inform you of reality, but even if every Libertarian candidate running for office this year were elected they still wouldn't be able to change anything. If every one of them were elected the media would have them socially castrated by pointing out, at every turn, the ineffectiveness of their term in office.

You cannot change the Federal Government by voting any more than you can drain the ocean with a teacup.

We need a more effective vector for change than voting.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:This is what... by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 05:55 · Score: 1

They won't win, but at least that's a vote that sends a clear message.

That either

a) You refuse to accept how the voting system in the US currently works.

or

b) You want to retain Bush in office.

Which one?

--
May we never see th
Re:This is what... by grassy_knoll · 2004-07-27 05:58 · Score: 1

how do you voice dissent against your President and the views of his administration in any other manner in today's america?

Become involved in either major party ( Dem / Rep ) or a thrid party ( I'd suggest libertarian ). Find a candidate who's policies you support and volunteer your time.

As for the assault weapons ban, this is a bad law in action. It doesn't do what it's designers intended it to do. If you want to really ban private ownership of firearms, give it a shot considering how well drug control laws work.

I'd rather try to eliminate the root causes of crime ( poverty, drug / alchohol abuse, etc. ) rather than just banning tools which can be used for crime.

--
A Human Right
Re:This is what... by JofCoRe · 2004-07-27 06:05 · Score: 1

I'm terribly sorry to inform you of reality, but even if every Libertarian candidate running for office this year were elected they still wouldn't be able to change anything. If every one of them were elected the media would have them socially castrated by pointing out, at every turn, the ineffectiveness of their term in office.

You're probably right. However, we won't really know until we try. So if you have nothing to lose in voting for a third party, then why not? Especially considering the alternative of voting dem or repub, neither of which will ever result in any sort of useful change..

--

Place sig here.
Re:This is what... by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nader is not the Libertarian candidate. You're just repeating the Democratic propaganda that a vote for anybody other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

It's not simply propaganda. It's a very real issue -- nobody but a Republican or a Democrat will win this election.

I will happily agree with Michael Moore that the country needs voting reform and a change in the voting system to help promote smaller parties. However, refusing to accept the reality of the current voting system just plain doesn't help anyone. The time for that was the past four years, when you could campaign for and push your Senate and House representatives for voting reform. Now it's too late -- the vote is upon us, and it's going to use the traditional system.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, and a vote for Michael Badnarick www.lp.org is a vote for Michael Badnarik, and their respective parties.

Yes, but the practical effect is one half of a vote to help retain Bush in office.

I just don't understand the liberals that keep whining about how scary the government is and yet they want to disarm the people.

Again, I think that it would be just spiffy if we could be a direct democracy on issues like retaining gun rights. But we *aren't* -- we will have a single powerful administration that will decide one way on the other on *all* of our issues. Pretending that that isn't the case doesn't help anyone.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the merits of a Bush administration against a Kerry administration, because one of those two people will be sitting in the White House for the next four years. Anyone that votes Green or Libertarian simply does not provide their input into choosing the next administration of the United States, and into foreign and domestic policy for the next four years. That may suck, but until vote reform goes through, that's the way things are going to be.

--
May we never see th
Re:This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 06:12 · Score: 1

I dont want to ban the right to bear arms.. I just want to prevent making ordinary people in to extraordinary killers by giving them a better instrument to kill.

Assault Weapons just dont fit in to the hands of the general public, no matter how paranoid one might be. If you were an avid gun enthusiast, you still have more than enough to splurge on.

I agree that the drug laws seldom work, in the end inconveniencing some of its legal users. But shooting drugs in to my arm doesnt equate to firing few rounds in to my neighbour. I just dont see how they can be compared.

--
Rapid Nirvana
Re:This is what... by grassy_knoll · 2004-07-27 07:11 · Score: 1

I dont want to ban the right to bear arms.. I just want to prevent making ordinary people in to extraordinary killers by giving them a better instrument to kill.

Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.

If you ban a particular class of firearms because they're Evil [lightning flashes, horses whinny], criminals will just use something else. The Boston Strangler used various articles of clothing. Good luck banning that.

Check out this. You might not agree with their conclusions, but perhaps you might understand their point of view.

If you take firearms away from criminals, criminals will find another way to perform crime. The root problem isn't the tool, it's the criminal. Our society should focus on making less criminals, rather than changing thier methods.

banning firearms to reduce crime is like banning napster becuase people trade ripped .mp3's. Perhaps you can see how well that worked, or, perhaps, you're not comming at this issue rationally but emotionally.

--
A Human Right
Re:This is what... by mcwop · 2004-07-27 07:32 · Score: 1

You make some good points. Here is a good article on Kerry, the Patriot Act, and civil liberties. Not meant to bash Kerry, but just put things into perspective.

--
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Re:This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 07:55 · Score: 1

Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.

I dont agree. Coding is a skill that requires some effort. Pulling a trigger at a crowd doesnt take skill, just misdirected anger.

I agree with your point on making sure that the society produces less criminals, instead of distributing less guns. Once again, I am not against your right to own a gun for protection.

To be honest, I hadnt researched much about the Ban on Assault weapons, mainly drawing my information from media sources. However, as I was typing up the above response, I proceeded to google for it and found two sites (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/asltweps.html) and (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) which talks about the ban (admittedly from the Gun Owners perspective). Reading further, I realized my idea of an Assault weapon was more "Fully automatic" and not "Semi". Ofcourse, the idea of a maniac emptying a full magazine in to a bus full of kids frightens me, but I realize thats not it.

I also saw the statistics on how often assault weapons were used in gun crimes and found they were negligible. Now, I am yet to read in detail about the proponents of this ban, so it would not be proper for me to talk for or against this topic anymore. My information on it, was quite limited. Thanks for educating me though.

Now, I must say, when Second amendment proponents talks about "take firearms away from criminals, they will find another way, hence focus on making less criminals", it really doesnt care about the criminals or making sure theres less of them. Gun owners mistrusts law enforcement to protect them and their property and want to defend themselves. Thats it. Anything more they say is fluff. They dont care if another white/black kid grows up to an educated citizen or whether he chooses a life of crime. They just want to be prepared and armed when he breaks through that door. Tell me if I am wrong..

--
Rapid Nirvana
Re:This is what... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 08:47 · Score: 1

> Tell me if I am wrong..

You are wrong. HAHA, got you! Well, you said to... I think you've got a good grasp of the topics covered (better than I, probably), but this concerns me:

> Gun owners mistrusts law enforcement to protect them and their property and want to defend themselves. Thats it. Anything more they say is fluff.

There are police officers who own guns (personal, not issued) and don't necessarily mistrust their own agencies (although, being "in," they probably should). Same goes for ex-military types and just plain collectors. I am guessing that you live in a city. One word: hunters. They don't necessarily mistrust any law enforcement, and don't even own guns for protection -- only for "sport." Regardless of your opinion on the "sportsmanship" in hunting, mistrust of LEOs doesn't enter into it, for a normal hunter.

I, OTOH, would own a gun solely for protection. I don't feel the need to hunt (but am totally for another's right to hunt safely). Of course, I don't feel unsafe in any way that a gun would help, so I don't own one. I also happen to live in an area where you don't need to lock your doors (although I do, having recently moved here from a slightly less rural/rustic area).

Using your wording in that paragraph, I could say that you are Paranoid/Delusional simply because you lump all gun owners together as agents against the state (I know you didn't, but it could be construed that way out of context). Not all gun owners are equal.

If they own a gun inside city limits & do not hunt. Well, then your description is more accurate, but still not correct.
Re:This is what... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 08:54 · Score: 1

> b) You want to retain Bush in office.

That's such a bullshit argument, I can't believe I keep seeing it. You are saying that only Democrat-leaning people would vote for a Libertarian, and that's absolute bullshit. If it weren't for Libertarianism, I'd still be a Republican and probably voting for Bush (not because he's any good, but because I'd still be much less informed probably & would rather vote for the devil I know over the one I don't). So in this case, a vote for LP is a vote AGAINST GOP.
Re:This is what... by grassy_knoll · 2004-07-27 08:56 · Score: 1

I dont agree. Coding is a skill that requires some effort. Pulling a trigger at a crowd doesnt take skill, just misdirected anger.

Perhaps you've never been shooting? When I had to qualify with a sidearm, there was one individual who pumped the trigger as fast as he could. Missed the target completely. Shooting takes skill.

I also saw the statistics on how often assault weapons were used in gun crimes and found they were negligible. Now, I am yet to read in detail about the proponents of this ban, so it would not be proper for me to talk for or against this topic anymore.

An intelligent, reseasoned response. You do know you're on Slashdot, right? ;) Keep in mind those crime statistics when you read the anti-gun literature. Most, IMHO, are emotional appeals with statisically questionable studies. YMMV, and I encourage you to look for yourself. You might also be interested in this.

it really doesnt care about the criminals or making sure theres less of them.

Rehabilitation of convicted criminals seems to be a dead issue in US society as a whole. Our society was described as "ensuring everyone can go as high as they want to" as opposed to Europe, which was described as "ensuring no one falls to far". That seems accuracte, although that's just my impression.

--
A Human Right
Re:This is what... by hesiod · 2004-07-27 08:59 · Score: 1

> We need a more effective vector for change than voting.

Unfortunately, just about the only successful way is revolution. Good luck with that. (Not that I would mind, but don't expect me to be in the first wave)

need more info... by natron+2.0 · 2004-07-27 00:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not sure we are getting the full story here. I think he obviously did something to trip up the MPAA and cause the to play the "patriot act card". I am not saying the MPAA or the FBI is right for what they are doing but he must have done something to get thier attention.

--
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/

Re:need more info... by jcostantino · 2004-07-27 01:00 · Score: 1

he obviously did something to trip up the MPAA and cause the to play the "patriot act card".
That would be offering the episodes of the show for download directly off of his server. Other sites (the-realworld.de) get around this by using eDonkey or BitTorrent links instead of actually hosting the data themselves.
The FBI involvement is questionable to say the least... I would suspect that they were called in because this was something that crossed state lines via the internet. That's painting with a pretty broad brush though.

--
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Re:need more info... by Alsee · 2004-07-27 06:04 · Score: 1

he must have done something to get thier attention.

Yes.
He's suspected of secretly exchanging information with an Iraqi intelligence agent, and he's hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Actually.. by Digitus1337 · 2004-07-27 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no real definition for a 'terrorist', which gives the US government any amount of power that those in charge see fit to use. I could be labeled a terrorist just for typing this!

Re:As I saw someone say recently ... by Fredrik+Leijon · 2004-07-27 00:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Land of the free
home of the slave

http://home.student.uva.nl/marlies.meijer/biohazar d/bioflag.gif

The other side of history! by eske · 2004-07-27 00:42 · Score: 4, Informative

from boingboing:
Matthew sez, "There's a press release on the US DOJ site from April 2004 describing the charges. From this, you can learn the guy's name: "Adam Clark McGaughey". (link: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2004/050.html)

The funny thing is that after searching google groups for "Adam McGaughey", you find a bunch of people that seemed to have been ripped off by him around 2002 on some SG-1 sites (as well as ebay) (make sure you sort by date to get more recent stuff). (link: http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8& scoring=d&q=%22Adam++McGaughey%22&btnG=Search)

I won't comment on any of the stuff here, but it's some interesting extra information that adds to the story.

So lets clap the horses...

--
What rimes on recursion What rimes on recursion What rimes on recursion What rimes on recursion

MPAA == Unscupulous Liars by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2004-07-27 00:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's very clear from the article that the MPAA committed outright fraud and lied to the FBI.
They also abused laws and I would not be surprised if they were the ones that damaged the equipment.

Perhaps the FBI are in leauge with them. How else could such gross incompetance be explained.

The MPAA should face charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the FBI should be put under review.

Oh wait. This was a little guy and the MPAA has a lot of money. Ergo, the law does not apply. They probobly threatened the guy with legal action when he asked for his stuff back.

Expect such underhanded dealings when the MPAA drags 12 year olds/protestors/Apple/Independant Movie makers into court.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:MPAA == Unscupulous Liars by dr_dank · 2004-07-27 01:35 · Score: 1

It's very clear from the article that the MPAA committed outright fraud and lied to the FBI.

The "article" is nothing more than a statement on his website, not a journalistic piece. Portions of the site on Archive.org show he was serving episodes of the show. Funny how he neglected to mention that detail while spanging his cup for his legal fund.

They also abused laws and I would not be surprised if they were the ones that damaged the equipment.

I'm sure they did. Why nick this guy just for copyright infringement when they can scour the computers inside and out for evidence of other crimes? If they find kiddie porn on the HD or a sack of substance du jour tucked away in the expansion bay for safekeeping, they own his ass 'til the day he dies.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:MPAA == Unscupulous Liars by Alsee · 2004-07-27 06:07 · Score: 1

How else could such gross incompetance be explained.

Gross incompetence never needs any explanation.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Funding a terrorist organization by dykofone · 2004-07-27 00:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you would like to contribute to the SG1Archive.com Legal Defense Fund, please make a paypal donation by clicking the button below.

The FBI claimed that SG1Archive was part of an international conspiracy, raided his home, and used the Patriot Act to obtain his financial records. Man, I'd hate to see what they do to the people that fund this kind of site...

Kidding aside, I'm kind of curious as to what happened. This is definitely a biased article, but what were the official charges brought against him, where do the chargest stand now, and why did the MPAA get the feds instead of just sue?

Re:Funding a terrorist organization by Digz · 2004-07-27 01:22 · Score: 3, Informative

If the Google Groups archive is correct, he appears to have been defrauding international customers by selling them region-free DVD players and not delivering. Sounds like an international conspiracy to me (which would be a conspiracy to defraud that reached across national borders).

--
SYS 64738
Re:Funding a terrorist organization by celest · 2004-07-27 07:16 · Score: 1

Here's an email I wrote to a friend on this very subject when he sent me this link. It gives a bit more detail that I got from the SG1 chat room, and extensive reading of their forums on this topic.

------------------

I did a follow up on this and read through the forums, and chatted online with a bunch of the people involved.

Basically, all the Stargate SG-1 Episodes were available for download from this website for about two years. The FBI raid and charges are related to that obvious violation of the Copyright act.

As for the details about the FBI destroying equipment, etc, that is a separate matter entirely. It has not been confirmed nor disproved.

The usage of the Patriot Act seems to have been for some portions of speeding up the process of going through his computer equipment when it was seized and/or obtaining financial records. It was very minimal to the overall case. It seems it was done out of haste when a real warrant could have easily been obtained if they had been patient enough. It was a pretty stupid usage of it, and that particular usage of it could probably be challenged in court, and the charges dropped on that ground, but he was in fact committing a crime under the Copyright Act, and was not charged in any way under the Patriot Act.

Some of the common misconceptions are:

- That this was initiated by MGM. It was not. It is all the MPAA. For all anyone knows, MGM has nothing to do with it.

- That the whole thing is based on the Patriot Act. It isn't. It's only a small part of how they obtained the right to go through his stuff to investigate the Copyright violation charges. They had a regular warrant to raid his house, etc. Confiscation of the computer equipment and other such things had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. That's not to say it isn't still disturbing, only not as much as it seems.

The charges have been reduced from Felony to Misdemeanor, which would likely result only in a fine, or community service, not jail time. Furthermore, the guy is pleading Not Guilty, and is receiving pro bono legal support as well as funding from donations from the website. It's my hope that he doesn't try to fight the copyright violation charges, because those are blatant, but rather focuses on the way they used the Patriot Act inappropriately to obtain information. He'll have a better defense that way, and will be able to avoid having precedents set in a bad way.

There are some more details on the forum, but I've been told by one person who seemed to know a lot about it that right now they've been given legal advice to keep things quiet until it is decided, and then a public announcement will be made afterwards, so few other details are available. Most of the posts are just people whining and saying "WTF???????", over and over, without any understanding about what they're talking about.

Hope that clears some of this up.

Cheers,

Mekki

Here comes a rant by grunt107 · 2004-07-27 00:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

How many times will the misuse of this 'Patriot' act occur before we get enough politicians to support its repeal (I would say rework but IMO the partisanship in America will prevent that)?

Proof that this act was dangerous came in the 1st weeks when the Vegas strip-club owner got arrested. This act has also been used against kiddie-porn and drug traffickers. Although I like the fact that these bastards get caught, the ends do not justify the means.

This case proves that government and business have gotten to intermingled and inbred, and every politician aligned with these afronts needs voted out. Normally, I would say the erroneous affadavit would lead to his acquittal but I cannot predict our justice system anymore.

As soon as this guy can afford it, a massive counter-suit against the MPAA, MGM, and the government needs to be filed.

Re:Here comes a rant by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:06 · Score: 1

This act has also been used against kiddie-porn and drug traffickers. Although I like the fact that these bastards get caught, the ends do not justify the means.

Yes, they do. We want to catch the bad people. However we can. Legally. Thanks to Patriot Act, these people can be caught.
Re:Here comes a rant by maximilln · 2004-07-27 01:09 · Score: 1

How many times will the misuse of this 'Patriot' act occur before we get enough politicians to support its repeal (I would say rework but IMO the partisanship in America will prevent that)?

That's the beauty of the system. They _never_ (okay, maybe once with Prohibition) repeal anything. As long as it stays on the books it gives them unlimited authority at all times.

I asked once how we ever became involved in Iraq a year ago without a Congressional declaration of war. One of my friends replied,"They never ended the war from '92."

How long before the US formally puts the entire world on notice? "If you do anything at any time we reserve the right to invade your country, enslave your citizens, or subversively ruin your economy."

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Here comes a rant by base3 · 2004-07-27 01:14 · Score: 1

One of my friends replied,"They never ended the war from '92."
Except that there was no declaration of war in '92, either. The U.S. is a sham democracy--to see some more proof of this, have a look at the "free speech zones" being used by both parties.

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:Here comes a rant by grunt107 · 2004-07-27 01:25 · Score: 1

See, but the 'bad people' do not end w/what most Americans consider the 'bad people'. Every kid that illegally copies music and movies, every tech weenie that installs his buddy's copy of Word can be, by this action, invaded by the FBI. This act is just a cheap way of saying 'we want an open order to snoop on ANYONE at ANYTIME until we find something illegal'. That is unlawful search. It may catch lawbreakers, but it is un-constitutional and every bit as illegal. And since there is no real investigation going on the possibility of wrongful arrest increases. Although I do not allow others on my PCs, say I shared a house w/serveral people. We shared a connection to the web (my PC). Bob, the drunk, gets tanked one night and finds a kiddie-porn site. Being monitored (the Patriot Act allows this according to your argument), the FBI obtains a search warrant, arrests all of us and confiscates my PC and destroys it. 5 months later I and the others ('cept Bob, the drunk) are exonerated, but are forced to move due to the pubilicity. Now, was that fair?
Re:Here comes a rant by Exatron · 2004-07-27 02:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

And it only cost every citizen their rights to due process and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The Patriot act didn't even help catch these people, it just let some legal officials tack on a few extra charges.

--
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Re:Here comes a rant by bumski · 2004-07-27 04:28 · Score: 1

Cool. Let's just jail everyone then, guaranteeing that we catch all the bad people. Let's start with you. It's worth it.
Re:Here comes a rant by gamgee5273 · 2004-07-27 07:29 · Score: 1

The United States has not declared war since World War II. Korea and Vietnam were "UN Police Actions," Kosovo was a NATO operation, and "The Gulf War" was a UN operation. That's why we have a nebulous "War on Terrorism" (Congress can't go and declare war on a noun, can it?) that the administration used as the cover to go in and topple Saddam.
In the end, the invasion of Iraq was directed by the President of the United States with no formal declaration of war. The "Coalition of the Willing" was more like the "Coalition of the Brown-nosers," and holds absolutely no status in the world as an authority. There was no backing by NATO or the UN. Thus, Michael Moore made a good point when he called it an illegimate war.
Iraq was a turning point. It now comes down to a simple case of "If we don't like you, we will get you" instead of working to avoid things like this...

Wayback machine by mattso · 2004-07-27 00:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Looks like up until Jan 2002 he was actually linking copies of all the shows as ASF and AVI files. It's hard to tell if he hosted any of them, but the site does claim some of them came from the site itself.

In Jan 2002 the site "changed" into a fan site/info site.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011012011922/www.sg1a rchive.net/

Re:Wayback machine by kai5263499 · 2004-07-27 00:55 · Score: 1

It also looks like the ASF download links are still active.

-Wes

--
-Wes
Re:Wayback machine by taosk8r · 2004-08-03 21:31 · Score: 1

This is in hopes the author of that reply monitors replies to his own threads since maddeningly, there doesn't appear to be a flat out PM feature on here.. I sure can't seem to find any links that actually allow me to download stuff from there.. Did you (kai) actually manage to start an .asf downloading? I guess its somewhat irrelevant at this point but it would be fascinating if they'd managed to stay active for all this time..

--
-taosk8r
Re:Wayback machine by kai5263499 · 2004-08-04 09:08 · Score: 1

I was mistaken.

I was able to start and asf download, but it was only a "demo" clip which no one would have issues with anyhow.

My guess is that they kept these active to be able to use it in court later when the prosecuter tries to pull out a wayback machine site capture and use it against them.

--
-Wes

Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by argent · 2004-07-27 00:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're seriously missing the point.

The point is not that he was or was not breaking the law. The point is that this is yet another case of a law being applied outside its original scope.

Every time some new law comes up, people say "what if the law's abused, how about putting in some clauses describing how it's supposed to be applied, so it can't be abused". The lawmakers and other defenders of the purity of our bodly fluids say "CLEARLY the FOO act would never be used for BAR, and your clause would allow some tiny fraction of FOOmeisters to go free!"

So what happens? You get the DMCA being used to enforce toner cartridge and service and support monopolies, RICO being used against churches, and so on...

So here we have the INDUCE act. People have pointed out that it could make VCRs and iPods illegal. Apologists argue that they'd NEVER ban a USEFUL technology, they'd only go up against BAD people who are pushing CRACKING SOFTWARE and PIRACY NETWORKS and scary stuff like that.

Wrong. If a law can be applied in any way... however inappropriately... it will be. Whether it's the Alien and Sedition Act, the PATRIOT act, RICO, the DMCA, or INDUCE... laws like these are an attorney's field of dreams.

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:59 · Score: 1

The Patriot Act, at it's core was designed to prevent people from breaking the law. It was aimed primarily at terrorists, but if it can help us catch other people breaking the law, great.

If it can catch my daughter's murderer (hypothetical), then I'm all for it.

There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says it should only be used for terrorism. Just like the Bill of Rights doesn't give the specific right for women to have abortions, but people "read into it" and now people do have that right.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jimicus · 2004-07-27 01:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Patriot Act, at it's core was designed to prevent people from breaking the law.

So, what you're saying is, people can be prevented from breaking existing laws by passing a law against it?

That explains quite a bit....
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by arkanes · 2004-07-27 01:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

First off, you really need to read something about the Constitution. I can't blame you that much, cause it's a failing lots of people have. I'll start with the most obvious one: LACK OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST. The Constitution spells out the powers of state and federal government, not limit! The Bill of Rights is actually redudant (and was considered by some of the founding fathers to be harmful), because it's NOT NECCESARY. It's there as a signpost - "These are rights that we consider especially important". Sadly, people through the years have come to take the existence of the Bill of Rights as some sort of definition of your rights.
The Patriot act, at it's core, was designed to remove many of the limitations on law enforcement. If all you really care about is catching criminals, rather than about personal rights or privacy or any of that other stuff that gets in the way, then where you really want to live is in a police state. We've had those and most people didn't like them very much. The protections were there for a reason. The Patriot act was a bald manipulation of public emotion over 9/11 to pass a bill that had been shot down dozens of times over the last few years and decades. It's certainly true that there's nothing restricting those powers to use against terrorism (which was pointed out at the time the bill passed, and ignored). It's passing was dishonest at best.
Now, as for catching criminals - nothing in the patriot act was needed to "catch" this guy. In fact, a simple C&D from a lawyer directly to him probably would have been sufficent. One to his ISP certainly would have been. Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line. If there is more than we know, then we should know it - it should have been on the search warrant and it should be in the court case.
The people are not supposed to be accountable to the government! It is supposed to be the other way around. The police/FBI/CIA/etc are there for YOUR benefit, and they are not supposed to be able to act in secrecy and without public justification.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by argent · 2004-07-27 01:25 · Score: 1

And that's the very tautology that's used by every attorney, well-intentioned or not, when they pull a rabbit like this out of their hat. "Yes he's not a racketeer and it's not a corrupt organization, but RICO at its core was designed to prevent people from breaking the law...". Of course it was, and so was every other law I named, just as every other law from the code of Hammurabi on down has been.

There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says it should only be used for terrorism.

Friend, when you say that, you're arguing my case for me. There's nothing in RICO that says it should only be used on the mob, there's nothing in the DMCA that says it should only be used to protect intellectual property, there's nothing in the INDUCE act that says it should only be used against BAD people who are pushing CRACKING SOFTWARE and PIRACY NETWORKS and scary stuff like that.

My point is that if you're going to argue that a law is intended to serve a specific purpose, and so people who aren't doing the bad thing you're targeting don't need to worry, then you need to write the law that way. On the other hand, if you don't write a restriction into the law then don't argue that the law won't be used the way its opponents fear.

Because (as you say) any law, at its core, is nothing more than what it says. The intentions of the legislature don't matter, if they don't write those intentions down in the law.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-27 01:27 · Score: 1

"There is nothing in the Patriot Act that says it should only be used for terrorism."

True enough, but questions have to be asked about the speed in which it was redacted into law without review and the applications thereof, _specifically_ where it buts against the constitutional rights of individuals. I find it ludicrous that nobody even skimmed the document first, and that creates a pretty dangerous precedence if you assume that Congress is charged as one of the three wings of government to avoid an overall majority.

"If it can catch my daughter's murderer"

Hypothetically, I can do better than that. Your daughter can be monitored with cameras 24 hours a day in a controlled environment; we will control her stimuli and offer work that matches her skills and competence. Upon request, we can supply possible sexual partners that have been carefully vetted and tissue typed to ensure genetic purity, and she need never come into contact with anything that could possibly harm her, destabilise her mental condition or cause her cause for concern.

At what point does the above scenario become unbelievable, and at which point would it go too far?

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by SpamHeart · 2004-07-27 01:33 · Score: 1

LACK OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST.
Actually, the 9th amendment is explicit about that. It gets very little airtime, though.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment09/
-DC
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:37 · Score: 1

They aren't acting in secrecy, this made it to Slashdot.

If he was stealing TV shows and putting them up on his website, that's justification enough for me.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by kyle_b_gorman · 2004-07-27 01:40 · Score: 1

I call bs. PATRIOT is an acyronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. USA PATRIOT Act Do you NOT see the whole part about obstructing terrorism?

The bill's function, as indicated by the damn name, is to intercept and obstruct terrorism. If congress passed a bill called "The Act for Killing Minorities" and in addition to giving the government the power to kill minorities, it contained tools for putting to death violent criminals who happened to be minorities, would you still support it because the evil daughter-killer you fear could be a minority. A flame-baitish example, I must admit. But all the same, I think the point is the same. All minorities aren't killers, and all dumbass webmasters who post copywrited material online aren't terrorists.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by juhaz · 2004-07-27 01:48 · Score: 1

Is walking against red lights also enough justification for you to FBI to come and take away your stuff and make you disappear forever as a terrorist?

Since that seems to be the point you're trying to make, no matter how small the crime, government should use every law that fits at all, no matter how loose the fit and how badly against the spirit if not the letter of law, and all it's power to deal with that "criminal".
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:59 · Score: 1

They should use the tools the have to catch the criminals.

All the people on this site seem to like to talk about how great Europe is compared to the USA. There are lots of restrictions on what you can say and wear relating to Nazi paraphenalia in Germany, and there are cameras EVERYWHERE in London (I just returned from a vacation there).

Jaywalking is not enough for the FBI to come and "take away your stuff" (with a subpoena of course), or make me "disappear forever" (habeas corpus, and before you get into Guantanamo, the difference is I am a US Citizen, nor am I committing treason or trying to destroy the government).

The government is responsible for keeping myself and the country safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by Exatron · 2004-07-27 02:12 · Score: 1

No, they should use their tools properly. Even if a few criminals get away, it's better than having law enforcement without any checks or balances on its power. The powers granted by the Patriot Act are being abused by anyone who can create even a tenuous link between a citizen and the terrorist bogeyman, and it needs to be eliminated now to mitigate the damage.

--
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 02:13 · Score: 1

And you would be calling bs incorrectly. As I pointed out here:

From the first section: An act "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by hkmwbz · 2004-07-27 02:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

"If he was stealing TV shows"
Are you saying that he took away SG from the copyright holders so they could no longer sell or distribute it? Interesting. How does one go about doing this with digital media? I had the impression that making a copy of something didn't destroy the original. But hey, if he stole it, then it must have been removed from the copyright holder's possession somehow. Can't wait for you to explain to me how he did it.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 02:20 · Score: 1

There are checks and balances on their power. It's called the Judicial branch. The FBI is part of the Executive Branch (if I remember my Government class correctly).

When they bring the evidence to trial, the presiding Judge will make judgements (aptly named) about whether the Patriot Act was legitimately used.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by smooth+wombat · 2004-07-27 02:33 · Score: 2, Informative

LACK OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST.
For those that aren't aware, the poster is referring to the 9th Amendment which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by FearUncertaintyDoubt · 2004-07-27 02:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
He was referring to what he saw was the lack of need for a bill of rights -- since Congress only had the power outlined in the Constitution.
And Georgia was one of the leading opponents of the bill of rights. They argued that if we list them out, some idiot in the future will think that our rights are limited to just those. The counter-argument to that was, look, we've made this constitution so pure and perfect that it is a machine incapable of producing tyranny, so there's no need. The reality is that we don't even have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, never mind the other natural rights that were never explicitly listed because no one thought we'd ever have a government so corrupt as to trample them.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by Tackhead · 2004-07-27 02:46 · Score: 1

> If all you really care about is catching criminals, rather than about personal rights or privacy or any of that other stuff that gets in the way, then where you really want to live is in a police state. We've had those and most people didn't like them very much.
After a while, most of the people who don't like them... tend to cease objecting. Or doing anything else (like breathing :), for that matter.
> The people are not supposed to be accountable to the government! It is supposed to be the other way around. The police/FBI/CIA/etc are there for YOUR benefit, and they are not supposed to be able to act in secrecy and without public justification.
That was then. This is now. Times change. *shrug*
In a changing ecosystem, all organisms either adapt, or die. You're still free to choose: you may either adapt yourself to the new ways of thinking and join the rest of society, or you may spend the rest of your short, miserable life waiting in fear for the knock on the door.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by sindarin2001 · 2004-07-27 02:54 · Score: 1

Except for the fact that the Judicial branch is pretty much sidestepped when it comes to gathering the information from his ISP under the Patriot Act. I hope the judge finds that asserting the Patriot Act in this case was wrong. My concern is not that he is guilty, but that this investigation went way too far. A lawyer certified cease-and-desist would have been more appropriate rather than calling on the FBI, who abused their power, to do the MPAA's dirty work.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 03:02 · Score: 1

Except for the fact that the Judicial branch is pretty much sidestepped when it comes to gathering the information from his ISP under the Patriot Act.

Judicial branch did not sidestep with regard to info from ISP. They determined that it was not unconstitutional. Very different from what you are asserting.

I hope the judge finds that asserting the Patriot Act in this case was wrong.

I can tell you right now that he will not, because that would be like a judge ruling that a search warrant legitimately signed by a judge was unconstitutional. It isn't going to happen.

As we discussed elsewhere, the FBI investigates criminal copyright infringement which is well within their power. Rather than doing the MPAA's "dirty work", the FBI was doing what they are supposed to.
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:55 · Score: 1

Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line.

In your mind, child porn is on the same level as trafficking in nuclear weapons? City-killers?

--
May we never see th
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by Sgt+York · 2004-07-27 09:03 · Score: 1

Thank you for pointing out the part about the rights. Although I disagree that the BOR may be harmful (not your assertion, I know) it is certainly not the limit of the rights given. They are highlighted rights. One thing to pick at, though:
The Patriot act was a bald manipulation of public emotion over 9/11 to pass a bill that had been shot down dozens of times over the last few years and decades.
I agree USA-PATRIOT was a manipulation, or at least a knee-jerk (over)reaction. But do you have any references to other serious attempts at such acts being passed?

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

Give a little wistle by oliverthered · 2004-07-27 00:50 · Score: 1

Don't wistle a song in the park, your breaking copyright.

He should have used 5 second clips.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.

not quite as innocent as it seems by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

He also put up episodes of the show for download on his site. As previous posters have said, driving DVD sales and being liked by the show's creators does not negate copyright infringement. The FBI doesn't hate people who runs fansites, the FBI busts people who break the law (not to say they've not abused their powers in the past, but I certainly don't see this as a case of abuse of power); which is exactly what this guy did.

I've no sympathy at all.

Re:Isn't this actually legitimate? by OlaL · 2004-07-27 00:55 · Score: 1

At least that would explain all the commotion the MPAA & co. have started... I think they would not go to such lengths just to harass a legitimate fan site, right?

what a bunch of f%king idiots by FlutterVertigo(gmail · 2004-07-27 00:56 · Score: 1

web sites and online resources are part of the lifeblood of many series, particularly those on the "off stations" - those not on the standard affiliate networks. I could see it if there were things which slammed it because they think they got screwed or something, but this type of thing has been around for a long, long time. Go back through usenet and dig very, very deep to see how many tv shows were being discussed back then. I've been on more than fifteen years, making me a newbie to many people - but shows were discussed then (only there wasn't a web - we had to use usenet, email, and FTP, archie, veronical, etc.)

If some of the people involved with the show realized just how much time & effort is injected to all of these resources, they could probably extend a lot of shows simply becuase there would be a better reckoning of taking a viewer count.

Re:The FBI hates all of you. by media_Assassin · 2004-07-27 00:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Originally posted by The I Shing
That's what Adam McGaughey did wrong... rather than just watch a TV show and enjoy it silently in the comfort of his home, he put a website telling about how much he enjoys the TV show, and included information about it, and helped to organize fandom of the show, which the FBI considers a no-no.

Ummm - no - what he did was host .zip archives of the copyrighted cable show which the FBI considers a no-no.

Do Further Research! by prezkennedy.org · 2004-07-27 00:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

This article just goes to show that sometimes a little more research into the topic at hand might bring up some juicier tidbits. After reading *just* McGaughey's website I thought "wow that's horrible", but after reading some of the stuff mentioned on Google Groups and elsewhere has lead me to believe this guy is just a scammer getting busted (or raising the stakes even higher). Slashdot has just sent an avalanche of unsuspecting users to his website, and no doubt there will be a few suckers donating to his "cause".

--
It started back in Team Fortress Classic

Re:Do Further Research! by dave420 · 2004-07-27 01:33 · Score: 1

His story does sound rather Sal Wise-Esque... If he's genuinely in the right about everything, then I support him whole-heartedly. If not, well, best of luck.

Definitely infringement by elykyllek · 2004-07-27 00:59 · Score: 1

He had to know they just wouldn't let this go. He was directly linking to asf or divx versions of stargate episodes.

Here's an example of the copyright infringement

More dates to check out

Re:The FBI hates all of you. by Rogerborg · 2004-07-27 00:59 · Score: 1

Well, that and he directly hosted full length captures of the shows. But let's not bring sordid facts into this, you've got a good angry rant going there.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Unintended consequences by Casualposter · 2004-07-27 01:00 · Score: 1

PATRIOT ACT is to protect us from terrorists, but as we all know, or should by now, that law enforcement doesn't care about the intent of the law, they only care about putting perps in jail. This makes it a lot easier to get around those nasty restrictions on kicking your door in. Let do this a lot and then we'll get rid of the Patriot ACT.

This is a very good reason to do everything we can to eradicate Orin Hatch's INDUCE act.

--
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons

Re:Unintended consequences by wizkid · 2004-07-27 01:11 · Score: 1

When I saw the name sg1archive, I figured out why he was busted. However, using the patriot act to bypass getting a warrant is bull. I hope he gets off, specifically on this clause. Not that I want to screw the MPAA. They're being slightly more reasonable then the RIAA. But the patriot act, and if passed, the induce act are in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. Apparently, our representitives in congress and in the white house are more concerned with keeping thier campain coffiers full then protecting the Constitution and our principals of freedom and democracy.

--
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
Re:Unintended consequences by syberanarchy · 2004-07-27 05:25 · Score: 1

Apparently, our representitives in congress and in the white house are more concerned with keeping thier campain coffiers full then protecting the Constitution and our principals of freedom and democracy.
When the system has been corrupted to the point where the system can no longer be changed from within the system, isn't that where the 2nd amendment comes into play?
Re:Unintended consequences by maximilln · 2004-07-27 06:02 · Score: 1

When the system has been corrupted to the point where the system can no longer be changed from within the system, isn't that where the 2nd amendment comes into play?

Theoretically, yes. In either the Declaration or the Constitution we, as citizens, are charged with the DUTY to stage a rebellion in the event that the government oversteps its natural bounds.

It's the implementation that's impossible. As soon as you reach a head count of more than 5 and have a plan any better than "change the system!" you'll be called a terrorist cell and even your mother won't get a phone call.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

Only one side of the story by {tele}machus_*1 · 2004-07-27 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd like to point out two things to all of you throwing up your arms in dismay about the alleged abuse of the Patriot Act in this case: the linked article is hosted at sg1archive.com, and it clearly is anything but fair and unbiased. The article makes it seem as if this gentleman never did anything except run fan forums and provide information about the show. However, one of the other posters here on Slashdot used the Wayback Machine to find out that this guy was hosting copies of episodes, which is unquestionably copyright infringement.

I also observe that the "article" asks for donations to this guy's legal defense fund. Before anyone clicks to donate, I suggest that you consider that the "article" is a clearly biased view of the facts. He admits to no wrongdoing, but even a Slashdot poster has been able to show that this guy has some culpability. Shame on Slashdot for accepting this submission and allowing it to be passed off as truth.

Re:Only one side of the story by ViolentGreen · 2004-07-27 01:40 · Score: 1

Seriously. Slashot is one of the largest spreaders of FUD out there.

--
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Re:Only one side of the story by pyroskliq · 2004-07-27 03:01 · Score: 1

I googled around a bit to try to find more information about the story, and there's nothing out there related to this story besides this guys' account. There are quite a few complaints about him defrauding people, but thats quite unrelated to the whole Patriot Act issue.

How do we know that the Patriot Act was invoked to get access to his records? If this guy was being investigated for fraud, law enforcement would have no problem getting permission to access his financial records, with or without the Patriot Act.

I think the whole idea that the MPAA/RIAA is skirting around the civil courts is reprehensible, but again, thats a completely different issue. If I'm profiting from distributing copywrited material, the Patriot Act is probably the least of my worries.

OY MODS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 01:00 · Score: 5, Informative

It seems you don't have to dig too far to find out this is a scammer, and shouldn't really be an argument about the PATRIOT act. And worst of all, now he's been hit by the FBI, he's making a scam out of it and asking us to donate to his "defense fund". How many slash dot reader have already donated without reading the comments below? Couldn't the main text could do with an edit?

Re:OY MODS! by Jim+Starx · 2004-07-27 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whether he's guilty or not doesn't matter. The point is that when the patriot act was passed the gov't said don't worry, this is just so we can prosecute terrorists, we have no reason to use this in everyday investigations. And now they are using it in everyday investigations.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:OY MODS! by dashiell · 2004-07-27 09:27 · Score: 1

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2004/050.html/ Here's the DOJ's press release for the charges. It's starting to make sence why the Patriot Act was used. This guy was told to take down the episode download and he moved the site overseas. Websites like this can make a TON of money off of Amazon affliate programs and the like. While I doubt he's a terrorist or criminal master mind, this guy had to know what he was doing was wrong and he risked getting raided by the FBI. A lot of fan sites are threatend with that if they don't comply with the C&D orders sent to them. This guy deserves what he gets, what a moron.

Naaaawww... by Dutchmaan · 2004-07-27 01:01 · Score: 1

"Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

It couldn't be... that would mean that our government is run by corporations...

Wow, suprised it took so long! by GoMMiX · 2004-07-27 01:02 · Score: 1

Suprised it took this long before a publicly documented case of the PA being abused would occurr.

How absurd.

Of course, we don't _really_ know the details, so coming to a conclusion now seems a tad premature.

If it really was a fan site, I feel sorry for the guy. What a crock of crap to get arrested for creating a shrine in honor of a show you love.

I hope Richard Dean Anderson comes out and speaks against this attack on our civil liberties.

FUD all right. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 01:03 · Score: 1, Informative

sg1archive was hosting copies of Stargate episodes for download.

Although you'll likely say it has no relevence, I would like to point that the "complete episodes" he hosted were generally about 15 to 20MB in size for around 43 minutes of video.

I've seen one of these damn things. You can barely tell which of the grainy figures is which (or if it even is a person) and you can't make it any bigger than like 160x120 and still be able to watch it. They're basically only good for the audio.

Since these are vastly inferior copies and he did not charge for their download, I call bullshit on the MPAA.

Re:FUD all right. by DavidTC · 2004-07-27 01:50 · Score: 1

The episodes are basically substitutes for transcripts. When I got hooked on Buffy in season 3, I went back and read seasons 1 and 2, via the transcripts.
Nowadays, if someone gets hooked on Stargate, they go and download the episodes from there. They're also useful for quick reference: 'What exactly did Jack say in episode so-and-so?'.
Anyone who thinks those things cut in the production company's profits is on crack. Only a serious fan would bother seeking out crappy-ass 30 meg episodes to watch.
Now, something that does cut into their DVD profit, and that I personally use, and in fact are using right now, is Usenet, to download large nicely encoded episodes. I do this because I do not get the Sci-Fi channel, and cannot get the Sci-Fi channel in any way, so I feel no guilt about it. Of course, I download current episodes, and don't keep them around, but you can get high quality rips and even VCD encoded episodes from there.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:FUD all right. by juhaz · 2004-07-27 04:40 · Score: 1

Now, something that does cut into their DVD profit, and that I personally use, and in fact are using right now, is Usenet, to download large nicely encoded episodes.

I doubt that. All the combining and (de)coding hassles especially with many ISP's missing plenty of posts makes usenet a playground for only few determined people, that's not a threat to anyones profits, compared to usually pretty troublefree p2p networks.

Trying to get a sg1 episode from usenet with oe or thunderbird is basically impossible and even with dedicated binary leecher it's much harder than clicking search result in kazaa or emule.
Re:FUD all right. by DavidTC · 2004-07-27 05:03 · Score: 1

That's nothing. You should try downloading off Kazaa's network with OE or Thunderbird. It's practically impossible!
Seriously, yes, if you use the wrong tools, you're screwed. OE and Thunderbird are not only incorrect tools for binary newsreaders, they suck as text newsreaders, too.
You can get nice newsreaders that will merge servers, and assign weighs to them, so, for example, you download from your ISPs free newserver if they have an article, otherwise you use a 10 dollar a month pay one.
Getting binaries from newsgroups has gotten a bad rap because there are a lot of incorrect choices you can make WRT servers and readers, and because people tried it before new technology was out there, specifically par2, which allows you to repair incomplete images.
If you choose correctly (Binary News Reaper and easynews are good choices), it works quite well. I've never been unable to finish a file.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Do a little research by weez75 · 2004-07-27 01:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Before blindly jumping on this guy's bandwagon run over to BoingBoing to read about how this guy started ripping people off on eBay and newsgroups starting in 2002. You may think twice before buying a shirt or contributing to his legal defense.

While I don't think this is an appropriate use of the law, this guy is surely no angel. Terrorist? No way, but he doesn't sound like a real nice fellow.

--
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet

Re:Do a little research by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 02:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

do a little research on those google groups posts and you'll see they are all from the same guy. one guy has a grudge against this guy for what could be a misunderstanding and smears his name all over the groups as a bad businessman, and you made it sound like it was legions of people.

hell, if i wanted to, i could get on the newsgroups and have google archive messages of me spreading whatever kind of stuff i wanted to. doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't lend much credibility when its just one person.
Re:Do a little research by Ashton7 · 2004-07-27 04:19 · Score: 2, Informative

This man, Adam, aka Arcady, actually ripped me off *personally* for over $300.00. A few years back he was selling DVD players on his website and I ordered one. It arrived broken. He told me to return it for a replacement. I did so. A replacement never arrived. Another friend of mine who ordered from him simply never received their DVD player *at all*. I filed a complaint against him with the States Attorney of Arizona (which was where he was living at the time). I see he is now living in a different state. I doubt I'll ever see my money again but frankly I hope they throw the book at him and I surely hope no one trusts him with one thin dime of *their* money. BTW, after a Cease & Desist was filed against him demanding he stop hosting downloadable copies of the Stargate episodes, he not only moved his server overseas, he started up a mailing list to tell people where they could find the downloads and he simply kept moving the downloads over and over again, complaining about being "harassed" by the MPAA all the time. How dumb was *that*?

He had links to DIVX's of the shows while DVD by sjs132 · 2004-07-27 01:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pulled from the forum on the site:

Now lets be a little objective here. Newcomers don't know but those that have lurked around for quite a while (myself) and have appreciated the site for a number of years know. The REAL reason for this lawsuit was that divx bootlegs of nearly (all?) every episode, up until a couple years ago, were available here for download. THAT'S why he got raided. So don't let the one sided story that's on here fool you. If it were truly for linking to legitimate dvd sales, I would be standing in line to donate to the legal fund. As it stands, it's a legitimate lawsuit.

Oh... and of course... don't believe ME... Check it out for yourself. The internet wayback machine has the pages archived.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010418190842/...sg1ar chive.com/

Just click on the links for the seasons and you can see that they were available for download via ASF and DIVX.

Now, the FBI probably was involved because of the overseas links to the DIVX contents when he was originally sent a "Cease & Desist." But, INAL...

Point is, there was copyright infringment, I'm sure the DCMA would have been the better act to follow, I don't know why they pulled the patriot act, other than it's another "TOOL" at their disposal....

BTW, the fact that this was from 2002, and it is just now being brought up, makes you wonder if it wasn't a planted story because of a certain election that is going to be playing out soon...

You know, FUD by the DNC? - Interesting thought, thats all I submit, no flames please, not trying to make any political points...

--
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...

Re:He had links to DIVX's of the shows while DVD by KD5YPT · 2004-07-27 01:18 · Score: 1

Hm... you should be modded insightful, rare are people who talk with common sense.

Although DMCA won't apply well here, because the basic idea behind DMCA is to prevent copyright protection circumvention, not copyright violation (although it helps prosecutor's job MUCH easier).

An odd twist of irony,
"We're going to tax you, and use those dollar to prosecute you, then give all your big greens to the media industry." the government.

In related news, the famous quote engraved in the congress hall "this is the congress of the people, by the people, for the people." has been renamed to fit the need to use a more powerful entity then the people in the war against terrorist. The new quote reads as follow.
"This is the Congress of the Corporation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation."

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.

Re:The FBI hates all of you. by bryanp · 2004-07-27 01:06 · Score: 1

Don't do anything that anyone can see or hear, ever, or the FBI will investigate you, break down your doors, and take everything you own as evidence.

And in related news the massive tin-foil shortage continues. Lighten up Francis.

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper

Um, wow by daveschroeder · 2004-07-27 01:08 · Score: 4, Informative

What the summary and the biased sob story from Adam, otherwise known as "Arcady" leaves out is that he was hosting full length versions of every SG-1 episode for download . This isn't some nebulous copyright infrigement case of him using logos or names improperly. He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content, i.e. the shows themselves, for download. Somehow he neglects to mention that in his little bullshit "summary", and that when he was ordered to stop, he moved the episodes to a server overseas (and of course slashdot swallows the PATRIOT garbage hook, line, and sinker). The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.

Re:Um, wow by t_allardyce · 2004-07-27 01:10 · Score: 1

Just typical, i could have downloaded all that and now its gonna be taken down and ill have to wait ages on bit torrent :\

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Re:Um, wow by base3 · 2004-07-27 01:11 · Score: 1

Which still isn't terrorism. This proves that the PATRIOT Act, while sold as an anti-terrorism tool, is already being misused.

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:Um, wow by maximilln · 2004-07-27 01:17 · Score: 1

The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.

Okay, all legal technicalities aside, what about the punishment crime balance?

The RIAA/MPAA apologists and attorneys will say that there's a $50k loss for every instance of every second of 8 kbps streamed media. We all know that's just legal over-the-top garbage that's just as ridiculous as the "biased sob story from Adam". What's this "trafficking of counterfeit goods"? I'm no legal dictionary but I believe that any reasonable human equates "trafficking" with profit. Was Adam charging for these 8 kbps streaming counterfeit goods.

Don't these guys have bigger fish to fry. Maybe Adam cut off an FBI agent who was having a bad hair day at a red light?

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Um, wow by Jason+Hood · 2004-07-27 02:12 · Score: 1

Which still isn't terrorism

No one said it was. The Act was created in reaction to terrorism and also addressed inconsistencies and gray areas the FBI has been dealing with for years. Seriously, read Patriot Act, all of it.

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Re:Um, wow by Jason+Hood · 2004-07-27 02:21 · Score: 1

While you have a point about not charging for the goods...

What he basically did is remove the option for the copyright holder to sell these episodes online in the future. Since supposedly we are going to move to more video and music on demand services online, companies are getting more and more involved in protecting their property. I think it would be great one day when I can get home, crack a beer and play 2-3 episodes of my favorite tv show in order when I want.

It is frustrating to not be able to get certain shows or movies in a digital format (or dvd like seinfeld or Indiana Jones (until recently)), that doesnt mean people can take matters in their own hands and start distributing/copying other peoples property. I know they were reduced quality but there are lots of people like me who only have a 15" TV that I sit 10 feet away from. I dont care if the show is HD, B&W or of terrible quality. My antenna doesnt get any channel 100% anyway. Stealing is stealing. If you dont like it, create your own free shows or rent/buy them from the owner.

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Re:Um, wow by Erasmus+Darwin · 2004-07-27 02:54 · Score: 1

"I'm no legal dictionary but I believe that any reasonable human equates "trafficking" with profit. Was Adam charging for these 8 kbps streaming counterfeit goods."
Charging for the streams isn't the only way to profit from them. Television channels, for example, use those same TV shows as a way to entice you into watching commercials.
In this guys case, it could be argued that the episodes are being used to entice people into visiting his main site, which has a number of commercial interests on it. He's got fastclick banner ads, cafepress-produced SG-1 Archive merchandise, and affiliate links to Amazon.com.
Re:Um, wow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 02:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

how you got modded up I dont know.

try the fact that he HASN't hosted anything for over 2 years and complied with taking the content down. OVER 2 YEARS AGO.

or did you want us to overlook that little fact.

do more research you idiot instead of blindly reposting someone elses information.
Re:Um, wow by maxpublic · 2004-07-27 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content

And as a taxpayer, one of the folks who supposedly gets to decide the mission of his government bodies (including the FBI), I really don't give a fuck what TV show the guy was illegally hosting on his site. I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.

Copyright infringement is a case for civil, not criminal courts. Anything else is a waste of my tax dollars.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Um, wow by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:36 · Score: 1

Stealing is stealing.

And copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not stealing.

I think you could at least use the proper term for the crime, given that we're talking about legal implications.

Doing otherwise is like calling someone that accidentally hits someone with their car, killing them, a "murderer".

--
May we never see th
Re:Um, wow by maximilln · 2004-07-27 03:51 · Score: 1

Charging for the streams isn't the only way to profit from them. Television channels, for example, use those same TV shows as a way to entice you into watching commercials

I agree with you but, if this were to make it to the point of a legal definition, then we have much larger things to worry about than some guy offering really bad quality rips of SG-1 episodes online.

Following intangible or disconnected profit streams would go a long way in tying the US Government to any number of terrorist organizations around the globe, for example. That would be a much more legitimate usage of the PATRIOT Act than beating up on a modern day American con-man.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Um, wow by irving47 · 2004-07-27 04:39 · Score: 1

All this legal stuff started long ago. What do you think? That the legal process against him started last week? Ducks in a row. I's dotted, t's crossed, etc...

--
I had a sucky sig.
Re:Um, wow by DragonMagic · 2004-07-27 06:39 · Score: 1

And as another taxpayer, I believe sometimes the FBI must stand in, as some people think that without any reason to stop, they'll just keep on infringing on others' copyrights.

Whether you agree or not it's a crime, it is. And if people have no real incentive to stop, or the civil lawsuits will never bring about the cost to sue as most infringers are individuals, what do you propose would be a suitable method to stop infringement?

And there are specific departments of the FBI for all types of crime. Investigating infringement, for example, will not diminish the investigation of suspicious people learning to fly planes or non-profit organizations funnelling money overseas.

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:Um, wow by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-07-27 06:39 · Score: 2, Funny

"leaves out is that he was hosting full length versions of every SG-1 episode for download "
Yeah, so lots of people have pointed this out and um....I hope its not to tasteless to ask.......but um....could someone link to the files already?

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:Um, wow by maximilln · 2004-07-27 07:13 · Score: 1

what do you propose would be a suitable method to stop infringement?

Why should I pity the large corporations who have a habit of thumbing their nose at both the law and the consumers?

Infringe all you want, I say. I already publish all my material in the GPL public domain. I'm not starving or homeless. Can we drop the whining about corporate profits? 90% of those guys are fat and could use a diet anyways.

Until they can demonstrate that they're actually passing the extra profit on to the janitors, lower-paid actors, and taxi drivers... Screw 'em.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Um, wow by DragonMagic · 2004-07-27 07:54 · Score: 1

Fine, then how do you suggest the problem be solved by individuals or partnerships or other small entities?

If, after all, corporations should only earn a certain profit margin, and after that piracy is open game on them, and because you give away your rights, therefore everyone else apparently should . . .

Seriously, though, back to reality, what do you propose would work?

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:Um, wow by maximilln · 2004-07-27 08:38 · Score: 1

Fine, then how do you suggest the problem be solved by individuals or partnerships or other small entities?

There is no problem. It's a straw man used by corporations.

and because you give away your rights

I didn't give away my rights. I had no choice in the matter. If you come up with a great idea and, a year later, a large corporation markets a million-dollar product based on the same idea, what recourse do you have? Unless you're independently wealthy, or you have a corporation of your own, you have no recourse. Your "rights" are mitigated by your available funding and resources. Corporate policy-makers know this and exploit it ruthlessly.

Seriously, though, back to reality, what do you propose would work?

I'm simply advocating the levelling of the playing field by ending the taxpayer subsidies for legal enforcement of corporate policy. In a world not sullied by laws purchased by corporate lobbying, Adam would have asked the creators of the show,"Mind if I show these?" The creators would look at the cost:profit ratio of his advertising:DVD sales and said "sure". In today's world Adam is hedged out of the game entirely by the prerequisite of dealing with corporate marketing departments and paranoid VPs who default to "no" unless they see an immediate benefit to themselves. The only time they will consider a general benefit to the company is when the idea is internal and they can use it to bolster their own performance review.

When the janitors, taxi drivers, and lower-rank actors start making significantly better salaries as a result of the MPAA/RIAA legal stomping then I will believe that these measures are in the interest of the people whose representatives enacted the laws. Until then I see them as nothing more than corporate political graft.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Um, wow by xigxag · 2004-07-27 12:04 · Score: 1

Maybe you are unaware of this, but going after counterfeiters is one of the main missions of the FBI. They do this sort of thing all the time. (See this pdf.) I'm not sure who you think the "real criminals" are that they ought to be chasing after , but as far as the US government is concerned, anyone who tries to short-circuit the capitalist machine is a "real criminal," much more so than a mere murderer or rapist. So feel free to write your congressman and tell him that, "as a taxpayer" you think the government should stop protecting corporate interests. But, frankly, that sort of demand is laughable when you're talking about a country that has on multiple occasions invaded foreign countries on behalf of just one corporation.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:Um, wow by HumorousFounder · 2004-07-28 03:53 · Score: 1

Ok, I realize that I'm a day late on this conversation but the only source that seems to be citing that provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act were used, is Public Scammer #1 Adam McGaughey. Thanks to "eske (211780)" for actually going out and finding out if this guy was arrested in the first place. Can anyone definitively prove to me that this was the case when Adam was arrested. But that aside, has this act done anything good yet? Now before y'all go psyco, I wish to state that I believe that just because something does some good doesn't make it right but I am curious, has the act produced results? If not WTF is it still around for?

Last news from Norad at Colorado by LynXmaN · 2004-07-27 01:09 · Score: 1

Daniel Jackson: Our tok-ra informers at SG1archive have informed us of a new system overlord that have appeared suddenly
General Hammond: What is the name of this new enemy?
Daniel Jackson: Dubya sir, he have defeated the Iraqian overlord Hussein and is coming directly to Earth

--
May the source be with you!

FUD ALERT by Brightest+Light · 2004-07-27 01:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality
If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Have a look here, at the episodes of the show that Mister McGaughey kindly put up on his site for download. I certainly do not see this as a case of busting fansites; it seems to me that the MPAA has a legitimate complaint here.

How he has interpreted the feelings of the show's creators/actors does not matter; their feelings and opinions count for nothing if they don't hold the copyrights to the show (which they clearly do not).

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act (which you can find here) one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to). If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

Re:FUD ALERT by drooling-dog · 2004-07-27 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.
The airing of grievances in a public forum (like Slashdot) is an essential part of achieving change. Nothing happens until a critical mass of people become aware.
Re:FUD ALERT by NoMercy · 2004-07-27 01:37 · Score: 1

FBI didn't just step over the line they wasted vast ammounts of public money investigating something which really isn't even a criminal offence, the MPAA should have simply taken his webhost's account invintory, and gone to court and had the website shut down and him fined for X ammount of money.

Instead the FBI throws goverment money which could have been spent on education or healtcare into a pointless investigation of a sci-fi fan.
Re:FUD ALERT by 7-Vodka · 2004-07-27 01:45 · Score: 1

I know you're acting like a fool to drum up support against the patriot act, but it's worth mentioning the blindingly obvious.
The Patriot Act 'supposedly' came into existance to fight terrorism. This guy is not a terrorist by any stretch.

--
Liberty.
Re:FUD ALERT by teromajusa · 2004-07-27 01:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

How about joining the ACLU and bitching on Slashdot? The article may not give both sides of the story, but regardless of whether the guy is a 'bad guy', its not ok for the FBI to take legislation specifically drafted to fight terrorism and use it whenever they see fit. And I don't see any problem with bitching about things that are wrong.
Re:FUD ALERT by some+guy+I+know · 2004-07-27 01:57 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not the "Patriot Act"; it's the "USAPATRIOT Act".
It has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Re:FUD ALERT by Brightest+Light · 2004-07-27 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except the problem is that whining on /. is not going to do anything to increase awareness. Bitching about nearly anything here is preaching to the choir. Writing one's congressman is increasing awareness. Passing out fliers/etc is increasing awareness. Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people. I agree that airing of grievances in a public forum is essential to democracy; but airing grievances to people who know full well that the Patriot Act/etc is a bad thing does nothing to help matters any. If you want to increase awareness, go tell 5 of your friends (those who do not read Slashdot) why you think $issue_of_the_day is important. Explain to them why it matters, and make them aware of how it affects everybody's lives.
Re:FUD ALERT by skarmor · 2004-07-27 02:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Slashdot is read by people from all walks of life, not all of who have a good undertsanding of the PATRIOT act and its implications. Additionally, Slashdot is indexed by Google (and numerous other search engines). Anyone looking for information on the Patriot act may encounter a discussion on Slashdot, read it, and learn something.
Re:FUD ALERT by wo1verin3 · 2004-07-27 02:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Slashdot comments are NOT indexed by google!

From http://slashdot.org/robots.txt

Disallow: article.pl
Disallow: comments.pl
Disallow: journal.pl
Disallow: messages.pl
Re:FUD ALERT by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-07-27 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act ...one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to).

When people first started warning that USA-PATRIOT granted the government absurdly broad powers, its supporters replied, "Oh, don't worry about it, it's just to go after terrorists -- they won't use it in other kinds of cases." Now that it's being used as a blunt instrument against people who are not terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word, we're being told, "Well, what can you do, it's the law." Great.

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

Talking about these things, getting the word out, does have an effect -- in the long run, more of an effect than any single letter or donation. FWIW, I was an ACLU member before /. existed, but I had never even heard of the EFF before I started reading /., and I joined them largely because I was impressed by other posters' positive reports about their activities. Electronic forums like /. and K5 are, to some degree, the modern equivalent of the Green Dragon.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:FUD ALERT by rpg25 · 2004-07-27 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, I don't agree with this claim; whining on /. about this case may be very important. Here's why:

If we're going to write to our Representatives and Senators about problems with the Patriot Act, we need to have a good understanding of the issues.

I haven't been able to discern the details yet, but if it is true that the Patriot Act was used to bust this guy, then it's an important thing for us to know about. Why? Because it gives us a concrete example to cite when we write our Senators and Representatives to say that the Patriot Act is being abused for non-counterterrorism purposes.

Note that there are a load of "if's" in the above! All we have so far is one person's assertion that the Patriot Act was abused to bust him. We need to get some kind of corroboration before using this example in letters. Letters citing this case could blow up in our faces if it turns out there was no Patriot Act abuse.
Re:FUD ALERT by skarmor · 2004-07-27 02:58 · Score: 1

umm..whoops?
Re:FUD ALERT by LuYu · 2004-07-27 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to agree with this and to add that if the Patriot Act was used, I do not care what sort of criminal this guy might have been. He is innocent to me.

I agree that the government should track and jail scumbags. This guy sounds like a real scumbag. However, there is a reason we have the rights we were given in the Constitution, and the FBI is wrong to make use of inappropriate laws in order to make it more convenient to catch someone. I really do not care if the guy has a rap sheet that streches from Texas to Canada. Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act (even if Jack Valenti may think so).

--
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Re:FUD ALERT by Anonymous+Writer · 2004-07-27 03:33 · Score: 1

Electronic forums like /. and K5 are, to some degree, the modern equivalent of the Green Dragon.

And so is the Caffeine section of ThinkGeek.
Re:FUD ALERT by demachina · 2004-07-27 03:38 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't think it really matters what the target of this investigation did or didn't do, except the key fact that it had nothing to do with terrorism. They key point here is it shows how much the Patriot act broadened the DOJ's powers in areas that have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism.

On a tangent here is an interesting article on Homeland Security trying to enforce security through obscurity in the physical world and the virtual world too. Someone walked around the DNC and took photos of all the weaknesses in the security in Boston and posted it on a list on Yahoo. Homeland security shut down the list and is collecting the names of everyone on the list and everything said. Should give you pause before joining any list in these dangerous times. These actions are designed to silence everyone who is critical of the government.

Welcome to the slippery slope. Watch that first step.

--
@de_machina
Re:FUD ALERT by PhilHibbs · 2004-07-27 03:46 · Score: 1

Except the problem is that whining on /. is not going to do anything to increase awareness. Bitching about nearly anything here is preaching to the choir.
Then STOP WHINING ON /. about people WHINING ON /.! If we all just flew off the handle half-cocked, without discussing the issue with our peers, then that would give geeks an even worse name than we already have. Take this article for instance - the debate is running right now over whether this guy is a professional fraudster or not, and whether the Patriot act is still inappropriate given that fact. Personally, I think that is a valid subject for discussion.
Re:FUD ALERT by Jim+Starx · 2004-07-27 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

The patriot act was a collection of general powers, not a collection of only-in-terrorism-cases powers.
And there in you see the problem. The entire point of everyone bitching about the patriot act was because they didn't think the gov't should have these powers for use in every day investigations. But the gov't just said hey don't worry, well never use this against normal criminals, we just need this for terrorists. Low and behold.... they lied.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:FUD ALERT by Laser+Lou · 2004-07-27 04:10 · Score: 1

Slashdot comments are NOT indexed by google!
They are, however, indexed by Altavista. I found many of my comments there.

--
No data, no cry
Re:FUD ALERT by lusid1 · 2004-07-27 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wait a sec. Lets be clear about one thing. The patriot act was not drafted to fight terrorism. Terrorism was just the sugar coating used to sell it. It's simply an accumulation of powers the government has wanted for a long time, and they took advantage of the national state of terror to aquire them.
Re:FUD ALERT by KarMann · 2004-07-27 05:39 · Score: 1

Thank you! I've been trying to make this same point myself in places, though I've been using "PATRIOT Act" instead of "USAPATRIOT Act". But the point remains that it has absolutely nothing to do with the common noun "patriot". Wish I had mod points for you.

--
ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
Re:FUD ALERT by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 06:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

You know, political activism sounds good and all -- really, it does. And, I would like to believe that if enough people were made aware, we could do something about the Patriot Act. But I happen to not have that much faith in our political system.

Consider the subject of marijuana reform. NORML has been lobbying and working toward this goal since 1970. Although, due to their efforts, some progress has been made at the state level, the federal branch of government has largely been inflexible. Polls indicate that one third of Americans support legalization. Do a search on Google and you'll find many states where polls have indicated 75% of polled residents support legalization for medical uses. Many scientists, doctors, actors, and others from all walks of life have come forward to decry the war on marijuana. Nevertheless, after all of this, the federal government isn't having any of it.

How much damage could be done if it were to take 30 years to repeal the Patriot Act?
Re:FUD ALERT by Jardine · 2004-07-27 06:15 · Score: 1

It has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.

That sounds mighty unpatriotic of you. Perhaps you need to be sent to a reeducation center to improve your view of patriotism.
Re:FUD ALERT by b-baggins · 2004-07-27 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your personal disagreement with a law does not make it an inappropriate law, unless you were recently appointed king.

Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology.

Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:FUD ALERT by canajin56 · 2004-07-27 06:43 · Score: 1

This is true. However, he has sold, through Amazon referals, $100,000 in SG1 DVD sets. Personally, if somebody who made a show said it was OK to put up some sample episodes, and link to where you can buy the rest, I would assume it was, in fact, OK...

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:FUD ALERT by hesiod · 2004-07-27 06:43 · Score: 1

> If we all just flew off the handle half-cocked

You must be ne... Err... "PhilHibbs (4537)" Never mind. Anyway
Re:FUD ALERT by maximilln · 2004-07-27 06:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Your personal disagreement with a law does not make it an inappropriate law

Unless said personal disagreement is based on the FACT that Congress does _NOT_ have the Constitutional power do pass 99.9% of the laws they debate.

Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology

Let's streamline it then. You have no rights. Period. Don't expect any. You can be surveilled at any time. Deal with it. If persons of authority want to search your home you must let them. Period. If, in the course of investigation, they damage your possessions you have no recourse. Period.

If you're a masochist you may enjoy living in a world so tolerant of abuse. I, on the other hand, have worked very hard for what I have and have no interest in donating it to User#610215's Corporate Commonwealth of America.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:FUD ALERT by loraksus · 2004-07-27 08:10 · Score: 1

Come now, most of your politicans didn't even read the bill before they rubber stamped it.

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
Re:FUD ALERT by bugnuts · 2004-07-27 08:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, the cops should be restricted to using laws designed for 1700's, not the 1960's. It's called "checks and balances" and is a fundamental concept to prevent the corruption of any particular branch of government.

Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology.

The patriot act streamlines, only in as much as it removes essential checks and balances by different branches on the executive branch and allows them to bypass the judicial branch. If you think modern technology requires a corrupt and abusive executive power, then you win. But everyone loses when faced with the image of "jack-booted thugs."
Re:FUD ALERT by shawn(at)fsu · 2004-07-27 08:49 · Score: 1

I'm sorry but what does restricting law enforcemnt to using laws designed for rhe 1700's have to do with check and balances?

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:FUD ALERT by rpg25 · 2004-07-27 09:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't think this claim is accurate. For example, the provisions in connection with the FISA warrants radically change the search warrant rules, they don't just streamline them.

The other issue here is a question about whether the law is being properly applied. The Patriot Act did not proclaim itself as a law for streamlining search warrant, wiretap, and property seizure laws in general. It proclaimed itself as an anti-terrorism law. If it's being used to just catch Joe Scumbag, whether or not you thinking catching J.S. is a good thing, it's not a proper use of the law.

If the American people want a law that's a general streamlining of evidentiary rules, then they should get such a law. But they shouldn't get such a law under false pretenses, masquerading as an anti-terrorism law.
Re:FUD ALERT by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 11:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Which part of "modern technology" no longer requires judicial oversight?
Re:FUD ALERT by Audacious · 2004-07-27 11:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.

I do not think this is quite true. The Patriot Act does not say to throw out all of your 1960's equipment and to buy new equipment created in the 21st century. Nor does it say to stop using the laws which were written in the 1960s. It simply broadens those laws as well as loosens the restrictions on when and how the laws can be applied.

Such as wire taps. It used to be that all wire taps (because of Watergate) had to be requested - now they do not. The reason being that in Watergate (1970s if I remember correctly) wiretaps were used by the republicans against the democrats illegally and I believe it was the FBI who did it under direction of the White House staff and/or president.

Now, not thirty years later, wiretaps can again be done without restraint so long as it can be construed to be in defense of the nation. (Which is strange because the republicans are again in office and it means we can have another Watergate and say it is justified because of a terrorist threat.) Also, suspected terrorists can be taken in and held without recourse for an indeterminate amount of time. (As has already happened.)

So basically, we want the cops to be restricted so that they play by the same rules we would have to play by if we were playing at being cops. That being - that there should be equitable checks and balances between the need to investigate possible problems as well as to retain our liberties. "And how," you ask, "do we do that?" Simple - we need a check and balance system which allows someone (say a judge) to decide if a certain action should or should not be taken. Which is (more or less) what we had before the Patriot Act came along.

To be fair though, we could use some changes. The FBI, CIA, NSI, CG, DPS, PDs, FDs, armed forces, and all other emergency agencies should all operate under one system. The reason they didn't was to make it harder to create a Police State. The reason they should is so known offenders can not disappear as easily as they can. So some changes - yes. Police State - no. Yanking people into who-knows-where who say things outside of what someone else considers to be the norm - no. Arresting people who steal - yes. Not using standard practices to do so - no. (ie: Sending Certified, Return Receipt letters to people when dealing with cease and desist matters [instead of E-MAIL!] or a courier if the person refuses to sign for the letter.) And the most controversial part - involving the FBI - yes - IF, as in this case, the person or persons were trafficing across state boundaries. When that happens - it becomes a federal offense and a matter for the FBI. With or without the Patriot Act.

--
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
Re:FUD ALERT by Chrontius · 2004-07-27 12:10 · Score: 1

It's not the "Patriot Act"; it's the "USAPATRIOT Act".
It has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.

Does the Patriot Missile have anything to do with patriotism?
Re:FUD ALERT by X-rated+Ouroboros · 2004-07-27 16:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

That must be some good crack you're smoking.

They didn't create laws around wiretapping because it was technologically difficult at one time to do it. It has never been terribly difficult to spy on someone, from a technological point of view. The laws were put in place to make it difficult to spy on someone, from a legal point of view.

That was the point, to make spying on people difficult. That technology has made it even easier to illegally spy on people in 2004 compared to the ease with which you could illegally spy on people in 1960... isn't a very convincing argument to make the spying legal, or remove oversight.

It would not be difficult to ammend existing wirerap laws to include new technology, or develope caselaw to extend the application of existing law.

--
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Re:FUD ALERT by CristalShandaLear · 2004-07-27 16:49 · Score: 1

WTF? Posts bashing slashdot on slashdot are modded 5, while Posts defending on slashdot on slashdot are ignored? Dude, how fucking lame is that?
Re:FUD ALERT by whorfin · 2004-07-27 16:53 · Score: 1

Complaining about the Patriot Act on /. is about as useful in raising awareness as praising the benefits of Open Source. It's preaching to the choir. What is needed is a grass-roots evangelical revival.

--
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
Re:FUD ALERT by The+AtomicPunk · 2004-07-28 01:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman [aclu.org]. Join the American Civil Liberties Union [aclu.org] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

I think you left out an essential one: Join the Libertarian Party.

Yeah, yeah, the [insert your favorite of the big two parties here] party was only kidding when they voted overwhelmingly to pass the patriot act, they're real nice guys, and they promise they won't do it again.

Let's face it, if we keep voting for democrats and republicans, this crap will never end.

Police State Wish List Act by Michael_Burton · 2004-07-27 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act. The USA PATRIOT Act wasn't designed to fight terrorism. It was just sold as a law to fight terrorism. (If I were the wild-eyed type, I'd say the PATRIOT Act is a terrorist act.)

Virtually every provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was on John Ashcroft's Police State Wish List well before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ever happened. After the attacks, it didn't take long to wrap every rotten proposal up with a great big red-white-and-blue ribbon and ram it through Congress. Ashcroft demanded it be passed within three days with no amendments. In the heat of that moment, only a handful of legislators from either side of the aisle dared to suggest that we should be more careful with our liberty.

Easy come, easy go, I guess.

--
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.

Re:Police State Wish List Act by Rayonic · 2004-07-27 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

> (If I were the wild-eyed type, I'd say the PATRIOT Act is a terrorist act.)

I guess you are the wild-eyed type, because you pretty much just said it.

Or would you be okay if GWB said, "If I were the conspiracy type, I'd say that John Kerry eats babies."

Would you be quiet if the president said that?

--
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Re:Police State Wish List Act by t_allardyce · 2004-07-27 04:40 · Score: 1

what president? ;)

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Re:Police State Wish List Act by wozster · 2004-07-27 08:15 · Score: 1

Oh really?
Don't you think Janet Reno would've attempted the same trick if she thought she could get away with it?

The 4th amendment is hated equally by all Attorney Generals and law enforcement officials!

What is the Patriot Act for anyway? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 01:20 · Score: 1, Informative

From the first section: An act To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

I guess this isn't outside the scope of the law, is it?

More drama on Slashdot when you mention Patriot Act or Bush than in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Re:What is the Patriot Act for anyway? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · 2004-07-27 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, no, I suppose not, considering the "and for other purposes" pretty much translates to "and a bunch of stuff we don't care to enumerate in the preamble where people might notice what we're really up to..."

--
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend

Smells bad.... by TapeCutter · 2004-07-27 01:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Third click after typing his name into google I find a forum on sg1archive.net. Quote: "The creatior of that web site,Adam McGaughey (aka Arcady) has frauded me and at least 1 other person i know of out of $265 each for a dvd player he was selling. I am posting this so that if anyone else has been frauded by him you can countact us at urs234b@yahoo.com If you could take 20 minets of your time to help me get back at him pls email me. Thanks ChrisR "

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Smells bad.... by TheGreek · 2004-07-27 02:14 · Score: 1

Not just fraud. He's been busted at least once for OUI after causing a bodily-injury accident.
Re:Smells bad.... by TapeCutter · 2004-07-27 02:47 · Score: 1

It's a quote, if you are concerned about his grammar then send him an email to let him know.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Smells bad.... by SarekOfVulcan · 2004-07-27 04:51 · Score: 1

If "fraud" were a verb, I'd take this note more seriously.

Re:As I saw someone say recently ... by Maestro4k · 2004-07-27 01:22 · Score: 1

Welcome to America, where it's Government of the people, by the Corporations, and for the Corporations

That should either be Government of the Corporations or Government of the People with no more rights to be 100% accurate...

Re:The other side of history! by shogun · 2004-07-27 01:31 · Score: 1

Nice digging there, that needs to be +5 informative.

The down side of the long slow bell curve by zooblethorpe · 2004-07-27 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was going to moderate this comment, but I found there's no "sad" category. This is spot-on (heck, I've already left), and the sentiment needs to be better known. Sure, the US has lots going for it -- but so many of the positives seem more like historical legacies slowly being choked to death by the corporate greed and public complacency that has enveloped the country.

And now I embark on some very general theorizing, so bear with me.

Historical comparison:
The Islamic world was a major intellectual force from around 700 to what, 1300 or so? They brought us algebra, among other things. But this drive for knowledge got choked off -- the Powers That Be decided that the spirit of inquisitive examination of the world had learned "enough", and the screws were tightened. And now it seems we are seeing signs of the same choking in the West, driven largely by the US, with greed as the engine.

Suffice it to say I am dismayed. I dearly hope someone (a very many someones) will prove me wrong, but it will take years of very different behavior in the US to bring me around.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-07-27 01:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Organized crime associations derive a large part of their incomes from a number of shady economic activities-- sports betting, sales of pornography, cigarette smuggling, the numbers game, and the production of counterfeit goods. Under the RICO laws, the penalties for such minor crimes could be vastly increased, if the prosecutor could show that this activity was somehow tied to a certain predicate acts and a pattern of illegal activity.

Terrorist organizations are believed to sometimes engage in similar activities. It's easier to prosecute such cases and easier to secure funding if the case is treated as a "potential terrorism" case.

Remember those anti-drug tv advertisements that ran a few months back. The odds are that ones local drug supplier are not connected to a terrorist organization. But the remote possibility raised by that series of ads might have convinced some that they might "just say no..."

Re:Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by dave420 · 2004-07-27 02:29 · Score: 1

The anti-drugs adverts are the most ridiculous things I think I've ever seen on TV. Two kids, smoking the reefer in dad's office, find a gun and *pow*. dead kid. The message? Don't smoke pot. Never mind the fact the kid's dad had a GUN. It was the gun that killed the kid, not the reefer.
Anyway, the US government complaining about money going to terrorist organisations should take a look in the mirror first. Not to mention the $1bn a year to Israel (technically a terrorist state, due to their complete disrespect for international law), but all the money coming from Boston for the IRA, etc. They just pick'n'choose who are the bad guys when it suits their agenda, not when it suits the public. Fuckers.
Re:Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by dave420 · 2004-07-27 03:46 · Score: 1

Well, if there wasn't a gun there, the kid would be still alive. You don't exactly need a gun in your office. It's not the 1800s any more. sheesh.
Re:Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by madcow_ucsb · 2004-07-27 04:48 · Score: 1

Leave the gun in the office. Who cares. Of course if there are kids around you'd best put a lock on it and if they're older, ideally by then daddy's taught them how to handle one without shooting themselves or others.

I mean my dad had guns when I was growing up, but when I was young they were locked up and by the time I was old enough to have access to evil marijuana I sure as hell knew better than to point a firearm at anything I didn't want to put a hole in.

Conclusion: Poor parenting kills.
Re:Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by dave420 · 2004-07-27 04:57 · Score: 1

That bad parenting didn't kill them, a gun with a bullet killed them. If they were just sitting there going "bang! bang!" that advert wouldn't have run. It's not brain surgery. sheesh. no-one needs a freakin' gun anyway. No "injuns" are gonna ride in and start scalping people, and I'm pretty sure King George isn't hiding off the east coast waiting for everyone to look the other way...
Re:Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by madcow_ucsb · 2004-07-27 06:11 · Score: 1

Sure it was bad parenting. The parents raised the kid to be so irresponsible as to think it's a good idea to play with a loaded firearm. It's the same as if the kid snuck into the garage and sawed off his hand because he was messing around and using a chainsaw in one hand and holding the board with the other. Most reasonable people would realize this is a bad idea and wouldn't blame the saw.

Bullets don't kill you if someone doesn't pull the trigger.

My grandpa's had a box of .45 ACP ammo sitting in his kitchen as long as I've been alive and I don't think any of them has ever jumped out of the box and shot anyone. *checks self* nope, no bullet holes in me.

I'm no gun nut, don't own one, don't need one (but I'm in no position to say that nobody needs one - just don't point it at me, please), but I'll never blame the gun unless it magically jumps off the table, points itself and fires. And that would be a neat trick indeed.
Re:Patriot Act is like RICO, squared by dave420 · 2004-07-28 04:15 · Score: 1

No-one has ever died from weed. Ever. It's not physically possible. The same can't be said for guns. The advert is saying "oh - this lethal thing is fine, but the harmless thing they have is not fine, and is naughty". It doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. It's pathetic.

Midlife Crisis by zooblethorpe · 2004-07-27 01:39 · Score: 1

Looking at the parent's sig, I think it wouldn't be too far off the mark to say the US is over the hill. Over the hill, and on the way down the other side.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Response doesn't fit the crime by no_such_user · 2004-07-27 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation.

What? It's okay to have your property seized and trashed -- OVER A TELEVISION SHOW?! If what you say is true, then sure, he's an idiot. But shouldn't there be a difference in response between being under suspicion of terrorism, kiddie porn, or murder, versus under suspicion of trading low-quality (or even high-quality!) dubs?

If you're not going to donate to this guy's legal fund, you can at least throw a letter the way of MGM's consumer affairs department.

YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 01:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Check out the DATE on that archive snapshot!

The guy was asked KINDLY by the MPAA to take down the episodes (which were of very crappy quality to begin with) and he DID so. That was in 2002, if I remember correctly. I've followed the site's development over the years and they haven't done anything illegal since then. Apart from posting a few spoilers here and there for overseas fans.

So it's you who's spreading FUD here.

Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by Armchair+Dissident · 2004-07-27 02:09 · Score: 1

The guy was asked KINDLY by the MPAA to take down the episodes (which were of very crappy quality to begin with) and he DID so. That was in 2002
From the article:

Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment

So yup, 2002 sounds about right - probably sometime around 2002, perhaps around the time he'd been raided by the FBI; which is certainly one way to ask politely.

If I were to speculate, I'd suggest that the site pulled the files very quickly as a result of an FBI raid, then posted a notice to state that "as a result of a request by the MPAA" in the hope he wouldn't have to publicly admit to breaking the law. But that is - of course - idle speculation

--

The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by twiggy · 2004-07-27 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm really upset that this article made /. and here's why:

First: Re "YOU are FUDding here!" -- no, he's not. Read the guy's post about the raids etc for a minute and forget about whether you liked his site or liked Stargate. It's totally misleading crap that doesn't even remotely mention that the raid was related to him (even at one point in the past) having hosted entire episodes. No, he makes it out to be an issue of linking to amazon that got him raided by the FBI.

Second: Giving this /. volume traffic, a bunch of dumb monkeys are going to paypal this clown $5 or $10 or whatever, and he's going to pocket it and/or use it for his legal defense. He doesn't deserve $5 or $10, even if he was somehow magically innocent, or even if you argue that "hey, he took the clips down and they still raided him!". He wrote a misleading post trying to get money from the public while not admitting one iota of the truth about the situation.

Also, as people mentioned there's discussion over at metafilter, and someone there stated that he knew he was going to be raided and had been moving around quite a bit before it happened, etc...

The ONLY valid point of discussion here is whether or not the PATRIOT act should be used, and if measures / activism need to be taken to get it repealed. Linking to this scammer's donation/"help my sorry ass" site without even realizing what a scammer he is, however, is upsetting to me.

--
http://www.babysmasher.com
http://www.openingbands.com
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by PriceIke · 2004-07-27 02:29 · Score: 1

"Mod me up?" Why, so you can be a more prestigious Anonymous Coward?

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by Erasmus+Darwin · 2004-07-27 02:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The guy was asked KINDLY by the MPAA to take down the episodes (which were of very crappy quality to begin with) and he DID so."
From what I've heard, he just made the episodes a little less public. Apparently, the archive of episodes was still being hosted and still being updated with newly aired episodes. The only catch is that the files weren't linked off of his site. Instead, the files used a predictable naming scheme, and details on how to find the files was given out via word-of-mouth.
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by maximilln · 2004-07-27 02:45 · Score: 1

The only catch is that the files weren't linked off of his site. Instead, the files used a predictable naming scheme, and details on how to find the files was given out via word-of-mouth.

No wonder he was charged under the PATRIOT Act. These are the methods used by government spooks in spy vs. spy novels.

When you put it like that I'm given pictures of premonitions of the INDUCE Act,"Well, you told them how to copy the CD illegally, so you're guilty."

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by Erasmus+Darwin · 2004-07-27 03:27 · Score: 1

"No wonder he was charged under the PATRIOT Act."
I don't think he was actually charged under the PATRIOT Act. From the article, it looks like the PATRIOT Act was just used to acquire financial records from his ISP. Even without the PATRIOT Act, I suspect they could have gotten the records with a more traditional subpoena and charged him anyway, though I'm obviously speculating a bit here.
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by syberanarchy · 2004-07-27 03:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

So the ends justify the means? What the fuck about due process? Do you really value copyright over the due process of law?
That's what this is about. The government, bought and paid for by the folks in the cartel, bowing to their masters. If I have to explain to you why this is fucked, I am wasting my time - THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING COPYRIGHT CASES WITH A LAW MEANT TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!!
Of course, that's probably a moot point to types like you, who will gleefully state that hey, the US govt can do anything they want with their laws, it's their intellectual property, and if you don't like it, you don't have the right to make them do anything...
Oh wait...
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by Jim+Starx · 2004-07-27 03:57 · Score: 1

Why go through the courts if you already know their answer right?

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by DeusExMalex · 2004-07-27 06:41 · Score: 1

oh no... he's asking people to give him money...?! that bastard! how dare he?!
so he's asking people to help him out. does that make him any different from a beggar on the street? only in the fact that he doesn't appear to be homeless. no one's calling a beggar a scammer - people know what they're doing when they donate money: donating money. and is anyone really surprised when they're mislead anymore? i know i'm not - i live in america. it's a favorite pasttime of our government - lie to the public's faces and at the first chance do exactly the opposite. oh - go figure, another liar. *shrug* nothing new here.

It's not the "Patriot Act" by some+guy+I+know · 2004-07-27 01:47 · Score: 1

It's not the "Patriot Act", nor is it the "US Patriot Act"; it's the "USAPATRIOT" Act.
Please use the full name.
The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" or "US Patriot Act" is misleading.
Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana

"Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?" by mwood · 2004-07-27 01:48 · Score: 1

Nope; this just proves what many have said: that the USA PATRIOT Act has applications far beyond the boundaries of national security and that people will use any tool for any job to which it is suited.

Congress not full of morons -- Film at 11 by zooblethorpe · 2004-07-27 01:55 · Score: 1

I agree with you in part, but let's be a little more serious here. Congress isn't populated with idiots; one needn't be a genious to get into office, but it does take a certain amount of guile and people-smarts. So no, I don't think we can call them "incompetent morons with the intelligence of the common garden slug."

However, I do wholeheartedly feel they can be called negligent spongers. These people are not doing their jobs. They are not representing their constituents, and they aren't reading the laws they supposedly write. If some whinger claims "well, the laws are too convoluted to read" (a fair enough claim -- anyone actually tried to read the PATRIOT ACT? It's a laundry list of amendments to other laws, apparently crafted specifically to *be* unintelligible), well that's quite frankly the whinger's fault -- they write the laws, don't they? So write them more lucidly.

So no, I don't think the folks in Congress are incompetent morons. They (some of them, at any rate) are sly, mooching, slacking freeloaders instead.

And if any congresspeople happen to read these words, buck up and do your job! Please! Represent!

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

No, I think the patriot act is terrorism! by Hurricane78 · 2004-07-27 01:55 · Score: 1

> the MPAA and the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?

I can't believe that the americans don't see that those actions of the MPAA and FBI are highly criminal, and that thos organizations have similar terroristic skills than bin laden or bush.

I hope that we never get this kind of mass-idiocy and mass-blindness here in europe...

P.S.: Sorry for my bad english... i think the content statement is more important than the number of errors. ;)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.

Re:No, I think the patriot act is terrorism! by syberanarchy · 2004-07-27 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't believe that the americans don't see that those actions of the MPAA and FBI are highly criminal, and that thos organizations have similar terroristic skills than bin laden or bush.
For the same reasons that the Romans were blinded to the corruption in their own society. Because they were too doped up on bread, wine, and circuses.
Our modern equals of this would be:
Reality TV
Fast food
Disposable pop music
Hollywood blockbuster fx films
Sport Utility Vehicles
Decoy issues (Gay marriage, War on Terror)
The white fucking picket fence.

that's why God gave us advertisers by karb · 2004-07-27 01:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you all learned nothing?

TV shows need advertisers. Companies that pay for the program so they can take a short moment to promote themselves.

So if you tell them that, because of their support of a particular program, you will, in fact not patronize them, it will get their attention pretty quick.

I know this article tries to sympathize with the people who work directly on the show, and a boycott would hurt them too. But the copyright holders only understand discourse in the form of money. There needs to be a monetary penalty for the mistreatment of fans. Start boycotting the advertisers and tell them know why.

--

Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

No... by dfj225 · 2004-07-27 02:00 · Score: 1

"Two interesting things about the charges are that they were apparently set in motion by a complaint by our friends at the MPAA and the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

No, copyright infringment is not a terrorist act, but the Patriot Act gives the FBI freedom to do pretty much as they please not matter what the circumstances are and that is why the Patriot Act is a Bad Thing.

--
SIGFAULT

Ofcourse it is terrorism by gte275e · 2004-07-27 02:11 · Score: 1

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

It is if you are evil media corporation and you believe that all of these radical extremists are trying to bring down an institution that is very overbearing, but has been around forever.

History Repeats by paul.dunne · 2004-07-27 02:11 · Score: 1

You've given your government their very own Enabling Act. Now you are beginning to deal with the consequences --
and in future they are going to be rather more weighty than a bit
of fuss about copyright. Good luck -- you'll need it!

FBI defense: Stargate program is real by FerretFrottage · 2004-07-27 02:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe the FBI thought the SG program was for real and that the gate posed a serious risk to national security. If so, the problem should have been turned over to the TSA.

--
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."

Re: complaining to the FBI by Alien54 · 2004-07-27 02:17 · Score: 1

would make you a terrorist, and put YOU on their watch list.

thereby falling in line with the terrorist plans to eventually wipe out the elite of america by making them knock themselves out ....

or something like that

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Blackbox voting was threatened with by alfredo · 2004-07-27 02:21 · Score: 1

the patriot act too.

--
photosMy Photostream

Re:Laws are mis-used all the time. by bryanp · 2004-07-27 02:24 · Score: 1

Ah, it's nice to know that my faith in Slashdot is justified.

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper

Material support? by Tackhead · 2004-07-27 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

>
>Donate
> Buy T-Shirt

1. Donate to legal defense fund / Buy T-shirt.
2. Get charged with providing material support for terrorists.
3. ???

I think I'll pass.

I preferred it when #3 was "Profit!", even though I still haven't solved for the old #2.

Re:Material support? by sik0fewl · 2004-07-27 05:18 · Score: 1

3. Guantanamo Bay!

--
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-07-27 02:32 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-07-27 02:43 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

True by MacFury · 2004-07-27 03:00 · Score: 1

If you think Kerry is just going to hand you everything you wanted on a silver platter because he's "not Bush", you're foolish and naive

True...but here's the problem. Politicians lie cheat and steal. You have to vote for the politicians that lie, cheat and steal for you.

Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by hkmwbz · 2004-07-27 03:05 · Score: 1

Like many, my first reaction was "screw the MPAA and FBI", and "silly PATRIOT act apologists".

I still strongly disagree with the PATRIOT apologists, and I hate the MPAA, and see the terrible behavior FBI shows every now and then, but as I read the comments, interesting details were hidden here and there, such as Adam McGaughey being investigated for fraud a few years ago. Here's one post about an investigation for Federal mail order fraud:

"I am in the midst of legal procedures to weedout & prosecute this individual ..***Adam McGaughey//Mac Sales (mac_sales@powermac.org)*** for violations to include Federal mail-order fraud..& punnished to the fullest extent of State & Federal laws."

Something tells me that we are not getting the full story here. Could it be that the real story behind this is mail fraud, and that the FBI has just added more to their own case?

Yeah, I know about the full episode downloads that were available, but come on - they haven't even been available for ages. But could it be that Adam is trying to raise funds for his court case.

As several people in this discussion have pointed out, I don't think we know the whole truth here. If he has really been defrauding people, what would prevent him from pulling such tricks again to raise funds from his site by misinforming his fans, to get more money to deal with the fraud charges?

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by ac7xc · 2004-07-27 04:13 · Score: 1

Oh Great, Now we are spending valuable time with PATRIOT Act FBI agents chasing down someone with dispute a about a friggin CD player. Maybe he will get 22 years and the taxpayer will pay another $60,000 because some one didn't get their CD-ROM?
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by taustin · 2004-07-27 04:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, I know about the full episode downloads that were available, but come on - they haven't even been available for ages.

The first six seasons for Stargate are readily available on DVD in most of the civilized world. Season seven will be out this year. There is no excuse for making pirated copies of that show available.
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by maximilln · 2004-07-27 05:25 · Score: 1

There is no excuse for making pirated copies of that show available.

Other than "might makes right", what is the legitimate notion of "licensing" as opposed to "sale", anyways?

In the real world if you accept money for something you've SOLD it.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by taustin · 2004-07-27 06:52 · Score: 1

You're an idiot. You're too stupid to even comprehend the difference between a sale of goods and copyright licensing.

If you buy a book, do you believe you can make infinite copies of that book and sell them? If so, you should be in prison.
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by maximilln · 2004-07-27 07:25 · Score: 1

You're an idiot

Namecalling will get you no where.

You're too stupid to even comprehend the difference between a sale of goods and copyright licensing

I don't see the difference between licensing and renting aside from some legal jargon which allows the breaking of the terms of a rental agreement to become a felony. That's clearly way out of line and just reeks of ulterior motives, lobbyists, and corporate government graft.

If you buy a book, do you believe you can make infinite copies of that book and sell them? If so, you should be in prison

That's your opinion. What if I buy an educational book, rewrite the contents, and give it away, nonprofit, to all of my friends so that they can share the knowledge? Does Cliff's Notes pay a royalty to the people who publish Shakespeare's work? If so, which publisher does Cliff's Notes legitimately have to pay fees to?

It is _YOU_ who does not understand the implications of your own policies. What you really want is,"Everybody do what I say when I say it and I'm the only one allowed to change my mind at any time."

I have no problems with intellectual property. What I do have a problem with is kicking the door down and damaging the personal possessions of a private citizen who is no more a member of an international conspiracy than our own multi-national coporations are.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by hkmwbz · 2004-07-27 08:42 · Score: 1

"There is no excuse for making pirated copies of that show available."
Of course there is. There are plenty of reasons and excuses. If you think anyone lost any money over those low-quality rips, they need to turn on their reality device.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by taustin · 2004-07-27 09:34 · Score: 1

Of course there is. There are plenty of reasons and excuses.

I can think of only one: criminal intent.

The guy belongs in prison.
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by taustin · 2004-07-27 09:38 · Score: 1

If you buy a book, do you believe you can make infinite copies of that book and sell them? If so, you should be in prison

That's your opinion.

No, that's the law. If you don't like it, write your congressman, or move to somewhere that's not the law.

What if I buy an educational book, rewrite the contents,

Irrelevant, since Adam didn't rewrite shit. He just distributed (and sold) the original episodes.

Nice try to change the subject, though.

and give it away, nonprofit,

He sold VCDs, by most reports. But, again, nice try to change the subject from the criminal acts the buy committed.

Does Cliff's Notes pay a royalty to the people who publish Shakespeare's work?

Shakespeare's work is public domain, and has been for centuries. Again, nice try to change the subject, but still irrelevant.

Since you have failed to actually address the real point - that this guy was distributing someone else's copyrighted works for profit, which is a felony - I have to conclude that you agree completely that he belongs in prison.
Re:Fraud - the real reason the FBI was after him? by hkmwbz · 2004-07-27 21:15 · Score: 1

"I can think of only one: criminal intent."
Criminal? Give me a break. He didn't sell the episode downloads. It was a fan site and the purpose was a service to fans of the series. And he's brought in plenty of $$$ to the copyright holders.
"The guy belongs in prison."
For mail fraud, yes, if that is true. Not for making low quality rips available for download.
You need to stop buying into the "intellectual property theft" nonsense and start thinking on your own. You shouldn't need huge companies to tell you what is right and wrong.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

ACLU? Try the EFF. by SuperKendall · 2004-07-27 03:14 · Score: 1

The ACLU has no relevance for protecting rights anymore. If you want to join someone who might be able to help, try the EFF instead.

If you disagree - where is the ACLU in this case? Or indeed in any case involving the DMCA?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

unpatriotic by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-27 03:19 · Score: 1

Text and images from this site may not be used without permission.

Having violated the SG1Archive.com copyright, you are now a terrorist. Please report to your nearest baseball stadium for beheading.

--

--
make install -not war

I don't buy it by penginkun · 2004-07-27 03:19 · Score: 1

This doesn't smell right to me. Where's the news in the major outlets? There are only two entries in Google News, and one of them is this article. If this were true, there'd be stuff from all the majors out there, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. I may well be wrong, but this sounds like a hoax to me.

Re:I don't buy it by syberanarchy · 2004-07-27 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Why would the major outlets want to draw attention to this?!
CNN is owned by AOL-Time Warner, which owns major movie and music labels.
Fox is one of the MPAA's largest members, and...
...MSNBC is a joint venture between a television broadcast network and Microsoft, which has a vested interest in working with Hollywood on the widespread distribution of DRM.
They have no reason to tell you about this, for the same reason that the murderer doesn't inform the cops of the crime that just happened, and the adulterer doesn't inform his wife of his little "business vacations'" true purpose.
Re:I don't buy it by penginkun · 2004-07-27 07:25 · Score: 1

Um...because it's NEWS? Seriously, I've heard bugger all about this anywhere but slashdot and some dinky Canadian news site. You seem to think that the media outlets will stifle a news story which might sound bad for them. OK, that sounds feasable, but there are only TWO stories. Not five, not ten, just TWO, and neither of them is from what I would call a "reputable" news source.

There seems to be a consensus here that the guy's a scammer. What I'd like is a little proof that any of this has happened/is happening.

So he's being charged in LA. Fine, what's the case number? I'll look it up the next time I go downtown. Who's the judge? Who's his lawyer? What's his bar number? How about a scan of the "affidavit" for the search warrant? How about the names of the agents who conducted the search and seizure?

If this really happened, someone can get at least SOME of this info-the case number at least, since that should be a matter of public record.

On the other hand... by SuperKendall · 2004-07-27 03:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

We're also smart enough to see that Kerry is no different than Bush, a fact that seems to elude Kerry supporters and other democrats.

When you are not voting for something, but against something - often the replacement is not what you expect.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:On the other hand... by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 04:03 · Score: 1

We're also smart enough to see that Kerry is no different than Bush, a fact that seems to elude Kerry supporters and other democrats.

No?

Are you sure?

In our current voting system, voting Libertarian simply gives Bush half a vote.

This is a fact not lost on the Republican Party, which is having a hard time convincing enough people to vote for Bush, and is currently in legal trouble in two states for funnelling money to Nader, in the hopes that he might be able to weaken Kerry enough.

--
May we never see th

WTF ? Lieberman ? by LordPixie · 2004-07-27 03:33 · Score: 1

Lieberman ??

The same Lieberman that was strongly advocating video game censorship ? Wow, he's not the kinda guy who would put crazy shit into law. If you're going to go off the beaten path and write in someone not even running, surely you can find a better running mate for McCain ? Clark, perhaps ? Ficus ?? A clod of dirt ?

--LordPixie

Television episodes by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:33 · Score: 1

I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.

Actually, the FBI can't go after a murderer unless he crosses state lines, or someone that steals a Ferrari (since the FBI only deals with crimes involving losses of half a million dollars or more).

But, apparently, when it comes to taping television episodes and putting them up for download, *then* our FBI (cue "This Is Your FBI!" theme music) can get involved.

I guess they can't get *shot* at investgating a crime like this one ...

--
May we never see th

Re:Television episodes by sexylicious · 2004-07-27 04:40 · Score: 1

That would make sense if those shows are worth more than 500,000. ;)

It also makes sense since the guy put the stuff up on foreign servers. That's international, and that little fact likely brought the FBI into things.

Slashdot comments ARE indexed by Google by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · 2004-07-27 03:39 · Score: 2, Informative

see?

Google searches for many hot button issues including the DMCA often return a Slashdot comment as a top hit. Here is one awesome search that returns nothing but wisdom, by the way.

It only indexes the cached version, not the dynamic version, as you (tried to?) point out. HTH HAND!

--
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.

Re:Slashdot comments ARE indexed by Google by gurps_npc · 2004-07-27 08:07 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight, you tell google to ONLY search slashdot and claim it is "One awesome search that returns nothing but wisomd"??? At the very least you should tell people that to get this search result you restricted it to ONLY Slashdot.com

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Re:Slashdot comments ARE indexed by Google by el_gordo101 · 2004-07-28 06:44 · Score: 1

Look further. The search pulls any article from /. with his/her username ("Exmet Paff Daxx"). Daxx was being witty, whilst showing off the fact that google does indeed index the /. archives.

--
TODO: Insert witty sig

patriotic duty by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-27 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." - Voltaire

People might defend the guy without deciding whether he's worth defending. OTOH, the government is prosecuting the guy as a terrorist, justifying an invasion of his privacy (financial records) unwarranted by the act of which he's merely accused, not even convicted. Now that the "Patriot" Act is used to prosecute mere copyright violation, Slashdotters can choose to defend our rights to privacy by protecting our rights to copy, even when the copyright violation is valid. Even we nerds and geeks who make our living from copyright protection are more threatened by unjust laws like the "Patriot" Act. If only the rest of the population would participate in such central decisions of our democratic society, with the degree of organization that counterbalances the lawyers at the "Justice" Department, we might actually resolve some of these issues, and debunk these false choices.

--

--
make install -not war

Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 03:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act.

You, sir, are full of shit.

Kerry supports letting the PATRIOT Act expire, Bush supports renewing it.

--
May we never see th

Re:Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act by Erwos · 2004-07-27 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Um, the problem essentially boils down to:
1. You posted an ambiguous statement from CNN.com. The way _I_ read it was that Kerry supports keeping the PATRIOT Act in a form that lets it expire without Congress specifically voting as such. This is not _at all_ the same as saying "I will let it expire".
2. Kerry's OWN WORDS contradict what you just linked to, if we go with your interpretation.

I think someone's full of it, but it's not me.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-07-27 06:52 · Score: 1

Anything short of Kerry saying, "I will veto all bills Congress passes until they provide a bill to revoke the Patriot Act and undo all the damage done up to this point (freeing people, making unsecret all secret courts, telling everyone what information they collected, etc)." The fact is, even if such a bill was provided, it's unlikely the damage *can* be undone, as a lot of the "secret" information not only was probably not kept (lack of records to keep it secret), but undoubtly those who invoked the Patriot Act in the government don't want to announce their various non-ethical usages of it. There's nothing really to compel them to hand over such information, either (trying to do a witch hunt for possible information can't be done effectively). It's for this reason, that laws like the Patriot Act should *never* be passed or endorsed. Trying to fix the problem now is much too late a point. Bowing down to fear that Bush will stay in office and continue with an Act that Kerry voted for is the same nature of events that allowed the Patriot Act to be passed without mass riots in the first place!

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act by syukton · 2004-07-27 08:06 · Score: 1

There's a difference between "repeal" and "wait until it expires." It has to do with the immediacy with which the abuses of power are halted. The poster to which you respond might be full of something, but it isn't shit.

--
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Re:Wrong -- Kerry opposes the PATRIOT Act by hesiod · 2004-07-27 08:56 · Score: 1

> 2. Kerry's OWN WORDS contradict what you just linked to, if we go with your interpretation.

We're talking about Kerry here... that can apply to just about anything he's ever publicly said.

(this is not an endorsement for Bush)

impressive sales by dmf415 · 2004-07-27 03:46 · Score: 1

That's pretty impressive that he helped sell over 100,000 SG1 DVD's by providing direct links to amazon.com
He should have been paid a commission for his actions. Send a letter to the MPA to have them PAY UP!

Parent should be amended. by GrnArmadillo · 2004-07-27 03:48 · Score: 1

I posted this to my own journal last night, where a friend who happens to be more discerning than I dug up the same information that's in these comments. The parent article should be amended to point out that commenters have found that the guy is probably at least GUILTY of copyright infringement (which his own account of events carefully leaves out) before soliciting donations for his legal defense.

Re:Parent should be amended. by ac7xc · 2004-07-27 04:50 · Score: 1

Nobody is guilty of anything unless he/she is found to have violated the law by a judge and jury.

Re:Here comes a rant/Massive countersuit. by bwcbwc · 2004-07-27 03:55 · Score: 1

Preferably under the RICO Act

--
We are the 198 proof..

Re:Dear stupid fucking idiot: by mo^ · 2004-07-27 03:58 · Score: 1

Dude, dont bottle it up, let him KNOW what you think of him (her :oP

--
bah!*@%!

Your sig... by upplepop · 2004-07-27 03:58 · Score: 1

Gmail DOES support Safari, versions 1.2.1 and newer. They recently added this feature. You do know that Gmail is still in beta, don't you? Don't get mad at them for not having certain features yet.

This is a simple Copyright/DMCA Problem,not crime by ac7xc · 2004-07-27 04:04 · Score: 1

Through the DMCA notice procedure the MPAA could have had the web site taken down and if the man kept offending the MPAA or creators of SG1 could have had a injunction slapped on this person. But what is really going on here is FBI Agents, DOJ and MPAA are putting another notch in their belts.

If he gets twenty years for copyright crimes then the US taxpayer gets to pay $30,000 a year to house him in pirson. Not to long ago a man in Wisconson was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for playing on a police radio on halloween. I swear to god our government is out of control and I'm about to join Keith Henson in Canada because America is becoming a police state with the war on terror, drugs and now copyright infringement.

What good is the first amendment when if you commit a civil tort the state criminalizes it and puts you in prison for copying a f**ing movie or a book?

Why I support gun rights by 0x0d0a · 2004-07-27 04:17 · Score: 1

I can't really say that my political views line up with any single party.

However, I do have to say that I do support the same gun rights and widespread ownership of arms that the NRA supports.

Here's the rationale: the reason you ensure that the citizenry has effective access to military-class weaponry is that there is then no way that a small number of people in political power can suppress and control the masses, else they'll have a mass revolution on their hands. Sure, one or two angry people will get immediately killed, but if things get really out of hand, enough for a sizeable chunk of the populace to take up arms, a corrupt administration could be overthrown.

So, ultimately, gun control advocates want to exchange some robustness (ability of a society to dissuade the existence of out of control leaders) for some efficiency benefits (fewer people being shot). Gun rights advocates want the opposite. Given the number of dictatorships that have existed around the world (and that have come from non-dictatorships -- dictatorships aren't just "soemthing that happen to somebody else"), I view having an ultimate check on abuse of government power as more important than the risk of gun deaths, especially since I know that it's possible to implement a nation that has very strong gun rights but doesn't suffer gun crime problems (Switzerland, which has a much lower rate of gun crime than the United States, requires every male of fighting age to own a rifle (they're all technically part of the militia, which is one reason that nobody occupies Switzerland), and allows civilians to own things like howitzers).

I agree that the Constitution alone saying something is not a sufficient reason to engage in it -- that being said, the Constitution has served us admirably well for a while, and elements of it should not be thrown out without some serious deep thinking.

--
May we never see th

All well and good... by syberanarchy · 2004-07-27 04:32 · Score: 1

And if true, the guy's a scumbag. I'd suggest donating to EFF instead of giving the money direct, adding a little note asking them to check into this, and if legit, act appropriately.

But even if this guy did defraud people, how does this make him guilty of violating state or federal law that puts lives in danger. That's the supposed benchmark for a patriot act use, and so far, this doesn't fit the bill, unless those dvd players that don't exist were funding mafia or arab terrorists, etc.

RTFL by Goobermunch · 2004-07-27 04:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Has anyone here actually read the PATRIOT Act? It was kindly linked in earlier in the thread. Here's some relevant parts: 18 USC 2516 was amended to permit wiretaps relating to computer fraud and abuse. There's no language in this amendment limiting its application to terrorism. 18 USC 2703 was amended to permit the government to obtain a significant amount of information from a "provider of electronic communication services," including name, address, connection times, length of service and type of service, phone number or IP address, and credit card number or bank account. All it takes is an administrative subpoena. There's no language in either the amendment or the statute itself limiting its application to terrorism. (This one is one of the provisions exempt from the sunset clause). Not all of the PATRIOT Act was designed to deal with terrorism. Some of it was designed to allow the FBI greater access to information they couldn't get elsewhere. You might well point this out to your Senators and Representatives when you write your letters. That said, there's little point in raging that they're using "provisions of the PATRIOT Act" in a non-terrorist case. The powers they're using aren't limited to that purpose. They're part of the expanded powers of your government. --AC

Re:RTFL by Feynman · 2004-07-27 05:35 · Score: 1

You're right. In fact, the parent post need only read the first sentence. This legislation was enacted:

[1] To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, [2] to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and [3] for other purposes. [numbering and emphasis added]

Re:ACLU? Try the EFF. by geniusj · 2004-07-27 04:42 · Score: 1

This isn't the DMCA. This is the Patriot Act. The ACLU does in fact hate the patriot act and has actively fought it in the past.

It's USAPATRIOT by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-07-27 05:00 · Score: 1

Like Some Guy I know says: Get the name right... Calling that act a patriot is like calling Bennedict Arnold a good guy. (OK: he didn't quite put it that way).

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

Yes it is. by Fuzzums · 2004-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

It goes against everything that has to do with kapitalism and making profit. Therefore it is against democracy.

And since we all know you're a terrorist if you're against democracy. So copyright is one of the roots of demodracy and it has to be protected and enforced by any means.

--
Privacy is terrorism.

PayPal audit? by nurb432 · 2004-07-27 05:03 · Score: 1

Will they be auditing paypal as well, as the FBI must 'investigate' ( i.e. raid ) everyone that contributes to a 'terrorist organization'?

At this rate anyone that says anything that isn't 'approved' online could fall into the same classification, with how far they are stretching the patriot act...

Its too bad none of us are surprised.. powerless but not surprised...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Look again! by abb3w · 2004-07-27 05:07 · Score: 1

Technically, they weren't hosted there. If you fix the broken archive.org-internal links on the page Almace linked to, anyone who can read enough HTML to identify a link can see that the filez were largely hosted on mac.com.

Not to say this is or isn't at least contributory infringement-- IANAL.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

Harry Potter and Warner Bros. by ezbngreeen · 2004-07-27 05:15 · Score: 1

Lets hope that the FBI doesnt kick down the doors of little kids now... remember all the problems with Warner Bros. and the children who had fan sites that they went after in 2000? Read the article http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/21/19 10224&tid=153&tid=17:

bad bad bad bad - slashdot should not do this by kardar · 2004-07-27 05:19 · Score: 1

This guy is obviously a questionable character - putting up an article like this is just feeding hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars of donations into his hands.

Whom can you trust these days?

Obviously, not slashdot. The link to the article on the guy's own website, written by the guy himself, is a bad idea. Linking to a third-party article, that's a different story - linking to a blog where this is discussed - this is another story.

It is quite apparent that lots of people have been ripped off by this individual and giving him a voice in such a public place as here is really quite irresponsible. Either that, or all of us who read slashdot are just a huge group of blind wooly mammoths following other wooly mammoths who are about to fall off a gargantuan cliff with a sheer drop and have absolutely no clue about it.

I am glad to see the law enforcement doing their jobs. Individuals such as this person here BELONG behind bars, where they perhaps might learn a little something about showing respect to their fellow human beings. I hope he gets what's coming to him. He certainly deserves it.

The Patriot Act isn't limited to terrorism by ksheff · 2004-07-27 05:21 · Score: 1

As it is written, the Patriot Act isn't limited to terrorism. It is essentially a big patch file to existing US laws. Unless it a particular section specifically limits it to fighting terrorism (w/ a reference to how that is defined), then it can be used against any criminal activity.

It is the bag of goodies that the FBI and other agencies wanted from Congress at the time. They did the same sort of thing after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. The politicians want to appear that they are doing something about the problem, so they give them what they want, for the most part.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs

Religious Right or Fanatical Nuts by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 05:21 · Score: 1

Call them whatever you like, here is what they stand for:

Apostolic Congress :

Here is their mission statement: Christians are affecting policy in Washington, and bringing about real change in America.

"The Apostolic Congress also SUPPORTS the Sovereign nation of Israel. We work very close with the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC."

This is how they were formed: "In 1981, early in the Reagan Administration, Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door for Apostolic Christians into the White House." Now, 'Bro Stan' happens to be a big buddy of Rev. Moon (Crown Nut!).

The following is a blog on Apostolic Congress, Rev. Moon and how they are courted by this administration.

Jerry Falwell:

My only remembrance of this guy is when he came on TV and told the rest of the nation that (a) there is no Global Warming and (b) Scientists are blatantly uninformed or lying and (c) he would gladly purchase another SUV the very same day to prove his point. All this in apparent response to "Would Jesus buy an SUV" campaign or something of that nature. Seeing how indignant our dear reverend became on the blatant misuse of the Church's Trademark on "Jesus", I guess his response was justified :)

Also, remember that once Falwell criticized Rev.Moon, the Crown Nut, all the way till the day, Crown Nut bailed him (and his church) financially and now he sings his praise.

So, what do we have here people? Is this the type of people the current administration needs to be in bed with?

That screaming you hear is coming from beyond the graves.. This nation's founding fathers want their country back..

--
Rapid Nirvana

I hate bullshit by leereyno · 2004-07-27 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

The question I have, which the actual article cleverly ignores, is whether or not he was doing something illegal or not. Advertising and promoting the sale of DVD's doesn't make up pirating them in the first place. Clearly the fact that gestapo has abused its powers in pursuing this case is a bad thing, but that isn't the same thing as the MPAA and the FBI ganging up on an innocent fan for their own amusement.

If this guy was hosting pirated copies of the show then he needs to be called to task for that. If the FBI abused the patriot act in the process of their investigation then they need to be called to task also. The FBI's wrong-doing doesn't make this guy right.

I'll not give him one thin dime for a "defense fund" if he is going to side-step the question of his guilt. I'd much rather put that money towards fighting the patriot act itself.

Lee

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.

Re:I hate bullshit by maximilln · 2004-07-27 05:59 · Score: 1

If this guy was hosting pirated copies of the show then he needs to be called to task for that

What are "pirated" copies? "Pirated" implies theft. At some point Adam probably legally viewed the SG-1 series under a license to view them extended to him by his cable company. He broke the licensing agreement by rebroadcasting but he didn't steal anything.

What amazes me is how the lobbyists have managed to make breaking a license agreement the same category as a murder (felony).

Wake me up when the media industry gets of its license-bong and comes back to the real world where goods are bought and sold.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:I hate bullshit by leereyno · 2004-07-28 14:23 · Score: 1

The SG-1 episodes are copyrighted. That means that the copyright holder has the right to say who can make copies of those shows and under what circumstances.

I agree that the current situation where copyright violations are treated as criminal offenses instead of civil offenses is absurd, but that doesn't mean that the underlying concept behind copyright law is in errror.

The purpose of copyrights is to encourage people to produce intellectual and artistic works for the ultimate benefit of everyone. Copyrights were originally limited in scope and duration. The idea was to make sure that authors and artists got something in return for their efforts. Unfortunately this system has been perverted by those whose interests are served by copyrights being both universal and eternal. Copyrights today are little more than a means by which corporations exact a private tax from the public for every possible use of anything they have a copyright on.

I don't think this situation will last forever. I think that one of these days someone somewhere is just going to start killing IP lawyers and greedy corporate pirates in spades.

Things are getting worse and when they get bad enough they'll start to get bloody. This is why the second amendment exists, so that if things ever completely go off the rails, the people will have the political power (which comes from the barrel of a gun after all) to overthrow the existing power structure and institute a new one more to their liking. I wonder if I'll live to see the first shots fired....

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.

Copyrights? by hypergreatthing · 2004-07-27 05:31 · Score: 1

Can someone explain to me how recording a TV show and hosting it is a violation of copyrights? It was broadcasted. You're telling me that my Tivo violates copyright laws? And if it doesn't, how does sharing what my Tivo recorded with someone else is a violation?

Re:Copyrights? by maximilln · 2004-07-27 05:51 · Score: 1

Can someone explain to me how recording a TV show and hosting it is a violation of copyrights? It was broadcasted. You're telling me that my Tivo violates copyright laws? And if it doesn't, how does sharing what my Tivo recorded with someone else is a violation?

It's nothing short of legal chicanery. TiVo is properly licensed to record and rebroadcast. You, as a private citizen, are not. You, as a private citizen, will never be able to afford the type of licensing that TiVo has. At best you, as a private citizen, might be able to purchase a license from TiVo to view their licensed material. TiVo's license probably limits you to rebroadcasting with the TiVo equipment. I doubt that TiVo's license allows you to hook your TiVo up to the 'net and stream the contents out.

I'd still like to know what "licensing" is, in reality. Where I come from if you accept money for something then you've SOLD it. Once you've sold it to someone they're free to do anything they want with it. You can rent physical property to be returned. Other than helping attorneys make criminals out of everyday citizens, though, what is this concept of "licensing" which allows you to rent intangible data and prosecute the recipient if they pass that data along.

Is this the secret password club or what?

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

Reminds me of RICO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 05:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Congress, then: "RICO will only be used to go after the mafia"

Fact, now: RICO is used on ordinary citizens over 10,000 times per year.

RICO is a prime funding tool employed by law enforcement agences all over the country. Property stolen from innocent citizens by police, acting on leads from criminals try to 'cut a deal', do not have to be returned. Write an article in a local paper criticizing a local police, or politician, and you could be the victime of 3:00 AM raid. Even if the lead fingered a real criminal, but gave an inaccurate address, the victims of the RICO raid still lose their property. If you are lucky enough not to be shot and killed (some have been), you can set on the front sidewalk in your pajamas and watch the your 'protectors' take your house, car, and personal valuables as 'guilty property', while neighbors gossip about what you could have done to 'deserve' such treatment. Even with the help of lawyers, which you now can no longer afford, you rarely ever get your property, or reputation, back. The only ones immune from RICO are the politically correct politicians.

A Letter to your Congressperson by Kwil · 2004-07-27 06:01 · Score: 2, Informative

The following letter is hereby placed in the public domain. Please feel free to copy it, make what modifications are needed and send it to your Congressperson.

--------

The Hounorable (insert full name of your representative)
(insert Rm.#),(insert name of)House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative:

I am writing to you about the recent use of the Patriot Act by the FBI to execute a warrantless search and seizure upon Mr. Adam McGaughey, owner of the SG1Archive.com website at the behest of the MPAA.

While I do not endorse copyright infringement as allegedly practiced by Mr. McGaughey, I deplore the use of my tax-dollars being used on the behalf of the MPAA rather than having them pursue their litigation through civil means.

However, what I am most concerned about is that the FBI has used the provisions in the Patriot Act to execute a warrantless search and seizure in a case where there was no imminent or life-threatening danger or possibility of terrorist activity. This is an abuse not only of the Constitution of our great land, but also of your good word and trust as you were assured, and so assured me, that the Patriot Act would never be used for the prosecution of ordinary criminals.

I am making you aware of this situation so that you may take action on my behalf to ensure that this does not happen again, and that I may feel secure in my choice of voting for you in the next election.

Thank you for your time.

(insert signature and full name & address)

--

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

Patriot Act and Ashcroft by AaronW · 2004-07-27 06:09 · Score: 1

Just remember in November, a vote for Bush is also a vote for John Ashcroft, who rammed through the Patriot act after 9/11. Before 9/11 it was only a wet dream of Ashcroft's. Remember, Ashcroft lost his election run to a dead man.

This wouldn't be the first time the FBI has used the Patriot act outside of terrorism, as others have already stated. You can bet it won't be the last, either.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.

Yep, pretty much the same by SuperKendall · 2004-07-27 07:38 · Score: 1

They both oppose same-sex marriage.

Both of them supported the war at the start. Now Keryy opposes it of course, but anyone can look back and say we shouldn't have done it.

Are either of them really going to be different on handlng Iraq going forward though? I doubt it, neither can go for a quick withdrawl as it will just make things worse.

I just don't see that much of a difference in positions there, really - not in anything that's going to have an impact going forward.

Plus I have to say that Kerry looks utterly artificial in any picture I've ever seen him in. Perhaps it's the botox, but he always looks like a plastic model, kind of like that tiny Sprite mascot - only not as pleasing to look at.

Bush on the other hand always looks so dour. Would it hurt him to smile a little more?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Of COURSE it's terrorism! by beamin · 2004-07-27 07:57 · Score: 1

It's violating the rights of a sacred corporation!

Disney Terrorists by old_unicorn · 2004-07-27 08:03 · Score: 1

Actually it clearly states on Disney tapes - pirating videos funds terrorists. So clearly copyright issues are a terrorist act in their eyes. Of course terrorists also buy newspapers, so running a newsagents is a terrorist act, and I bet terrorists eat too, every day probably, so supermarkets are major terrorists, and terrorists may even read slashdot, so I am probably supporting terrorism right now!

--
***You learn something Every day. And then you die.***

Finding the bill by pommiekiwifruit · 2004-07-27 08:36 · Score: 1

Finding the bill was not that easy, because only one copy of it was printed, at midnight the night before the vote, and hidden in a secret location in a hollowed out volcano...

Surely it would be better for bills to be available electronically (with an MD5 checksum) for everyone for some time before the vote...

There has to be more to this by dashiell · 2004-07-27 08:58 · Score: 1

Something is fishy with this story. The MPAA is evil, that's a given, and I understand why they'd have it in for this site, but why would the FBI waste their time raiding this guy's home and investigating him if he wasn't doing something more than running a website. There are plenty of sites that infringe on movies' copyrights and the FBI isn't raiding their homes. If the FBI was involved the charges have to be more than just infringing on copyrights. For that kind of stuff companies sent cease and deceits orders and force the site down.

Re:google cache by hesiod · 2004-07-27 09:01 · Score: 1

> Well that has never stopped Slashdot before from their quest to gain the Almighty Buck.

So that's why I got this bill from them to use what I thought was a completely free message board (no, advertising does not count as a cost)... Fucking moron.

We're not consumers by Tony · 2004-07-27 09:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why should I pity the large corporations who have a habit of thumbing their nose at both the law and the consumers?

I agree with most of what you say, to some extent. But, we're citizens, not consumers. As soon as you let them label us as consumers instead of citizens, they win.

As citizens, we control them. As consumers, we are controlled.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Not a scam by Kukuman · 2004-07-27 10:10 · Score: 1

boy, I don't know... check out this link. Looks pretty official to me.

Copyright violators are not yet "criminals". by ezraekman · 2004-07-27 10:41 · Score: 1

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "criminal" as follows:

Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
Relating to the administration of penal law.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law defines "criminal" thus:

relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect> <criminal conduct>
relating to crime or its prosecution <brought a criminal action> <criminal code> compare CIVIL 4, PENAL

Also from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, Definition 4 of "civil" is:

relating to private rights and to judicial proceedings in connection with them; especially : relating to legal matters other than those characterized as criminal <a civil action> <a civil infraction>

There were, of course, other definitions present for these words, but they were not directly related to this issue. My point is this: current legal actions by organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA aside, copyright infringement has yet to be classified as "criminal". It is still a civil issue. Your letter does not clarify this point, and I feel that it is an important one. Your letter likens copyright infringement to a crime that you can get arrested for; it is not. It is very important that our representatives understand this distinction. The alternative is that they *do* lump it into the same category, and that no one will listen to reason. (By saying "listen to reason", I mean "listen to me".) ;-)

According to Barnes & Noble it's terrorism in by ArcticCelt · 2004-07-27 10:45 · Score: 1

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

When you go on the Barnes an Noble site and you make a search for "Hacking the Xbox", a classic book for Xbox Modders, you find this disturbing result...

Hacking Xbox = Terrorism
(look red box at the left)

--

Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove

When a power is available... by HiThere · 2004-07-27 12:06 · Score: 1

When a power is available, it *will* be used, unless the consequences of using it are severe and expected.

Assume that what the FBI did was illegal. What negative consequences will occur, and who will they affect?

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

the ACLU *is*relevant by Rasputin · 2004-07-27 12:17 · Score: 1

Thanks for repeating right wing propaganda about the irrelevance of the ACLU. However, a quick search of the ACLU web page comes up with several DMCA related actions. For example, here's one:

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID =7109&c=42

--
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass

All things come to an end ... by moby · 2004-07-27 12:45 · Score: 1

... and eventually so will the MPAA. We can only hope it's sooner than later.

related story by elucidnation · 2004-07-27 13:49 · Score: 1

On a similar note, it was reported in todays Dayton Daily News that a 33-year-old Franklin man has joined the growing list of people facing criminal charges as a result of Operation Falcon, a global Internet porn and money-laundering investigation by the federal agency established to combat terrorism. David Kinnison remained in the Warren County Jail, awaiting arraignment on Wednesday on 200 charges of pandering obscenity involving a minor. Kinnison, an unemployed teacher living with his mother, is among 70,000 people identified as having purchased child pornography on the Internet as a result of evidence gathered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to Franklin police. I have zero sympathy for pedophiles and those who financially support them, but why is this a homeland security issue: Is an unemployed teacher, who lives with his mother in some backwater town in southwestern ohio a terrorist threat? Should buying child porn be a crime? Absolutely. I just don't see the homeland security justification any more than i see using the Patriot Act to fight copyright violations.

Random Fandoms Unite! by CristalShandaLear · 2004-07-27 16:42 · Score: 1

If you SG-1 folks need help from the Potter Fans, we've got your back.

Idea for an essay... by Jack+Schitt · 2004-07-27 17:02 · Score: 1

That's it. I'm tired of this. I'm going to spend some free time when I have some to try and figure out what the U.S. would be like nowadays with any form of copyright law. A system of acknowledgment would exist instead to prove the original creator of the article, but the creator would not hold any rights to prevent duplication.

Kind of ironic that I'll probably end up using a pirated version of MS Office to write it...

--
This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit

So where are they then? by SuperKendall · 2004-07-27 17:52 · Score: 1

Why are they in all these little cases, and sitting to the side on the bigger ones - like DeCSS? Thanks for the side brief!

Almost all the time when you hear about the larger cases, it's EFF lawyers going in to help, and the ACLU standing by the side saying "Hey, that sounds alike a good idea". If they say anything at all. Except for maybe protecting professors, who are probably quickest to turn to the ACLU.

Thanks for the knee-jerk liberal reaction in calling me a "right-Wing propagandist", however it's not true. I'm not saying the ACLU never had a valuable place, I am saying they are out of touch with the importance of very abstract issues in a dangerous way. They are really not capable of recognizing consistently the most dangerous threats to our freedoms today, which is where the EFF comes in. Would you really disagree and say that a dollar sent to the ACLU will go farther than a dollar sent to the EFF as far as affecting the DMCA goes, or stopping future legislation like it, goes?

Just blindly standing up for an institution does you little good. You need to evaluate if that institution is doing the job you want it to do - and that's why I donate a pretty substantial sum to the EFF every year.

I also donate to the FSF, but that's for different reasons.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:So where are they then? by Rasputin · 2004-07-29 06:29 · Score: 1

1) I did *not* call you a right wing propagandist. I said you were repeating right wing propaganda. There's a significant difference between the two assertions. If you're going to put quotes around a statement, then make sure it actually is a f'ing quote!

2) Your initial statement was "The ACLU has no relevance for protecting rights anymore." Now, you're saying that they have a role, but aren't as important as the EFF. Again, very different.

Please, keep giving money to the EFF. They're a good organization. So is the ACLU. Bad mouthing one to promote the other is counter productive.

--
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass

Inappropriate Laws by SeanDuggan · 2004-07-27 23:57 · Score: 1

While I do agree that the Patriot Act is a bad idea and should be taken off the books, I'm not so sure I agree with your assertation that laws should only be used in their original contexts. Sometimes the laws are used in different manners to cover holes in the system. For instance, they couldn't arrest Al Capone over his organized crime activities, so they brought him up on income tax charges after introducing a a line in the form requiring reporting of illegal gains.

There are cases where this is definitely abused. Prosecuting pro-lifers under RICO laws (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_rico.htm) is one case. I think this is another one. However, I disagree with a bland assertion that laws are only valid if applied in their original context.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Bullshit by DrMorpheus · 2004-07-28 01:21 · Score: 1

The patriot act was a collection of general powers, not a collection of only-in-terrorism-cases powers.

The name, USA PATRIOT Act, is an acronym!

It stands for, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"!

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

You don't get it by lorcha · 2004-07-28 03:29 · Score: 1

Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.

That is not it at all. In fact, that's no even close. Nobody wants to see law enforcement paralyzed by obsolete technology resulting in high-tech criminals operating with impunity. New technologies that can help catch criminals and exonerate innocents are very welcome.

The problem people have with the USAPATRIOT act is that it concentrates too much power with the federal executive branch. While the technology is not objectionable, the fact that the justice department, the FBI, the CIA, the TSA, and other federal agencies can use this technology without judicial oversight. All anyone's asking for is that the XYZ agency take 5 minutes in front of a judge to explain the suspicion in person X and what intelligence they hope to gather. That's it. No more. And I don't think that's being unreasonable.

Law enforcement should have all the latest toys. But if someone's privacy is being compromised, I feel a judge needs to give the thumbs up.

--
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent

Slashdot Mirror

Patriot Act Used to Enforce Copyright Law?

563 of 725 comments (clear)