Slashdot Mirror
Terrorist Link to Copyright Piracy Alleged
xbsd writes "John Stedman, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in charge of IP violations, testified in front of the Senate Homeland Security committee that some associates of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah may be involved in copyright violations. According to CNET's Declean McCullagh: 'Even though Stedman's evidence is circumstantial, his testimony comes as Congress is expected to consider new copyright legislation this year. An invocation of terrorism, the trump card of modern American politics, could ease the passage of the next major expansion of copyright powers'."
<SARCASM>
So people who drive too fast obviously have terrorist connections. They should be punished as terrorists.
</SARCASM>
I take issue with the word "terrorist", or at least its modern application in the US., but that is besides the point. I do take issue with law enforcement being more concerned about copyright violations than deadly explosions and attacks....... this seems to be what is going on. Am I missing something?
The Crimson Dragon
Well lets see, do they attack 3rd party providers and technology infrastructure that has nothing to do with copyright violations. Well .... Yes.
.... yes
... yes.
... yes.
Do they use strong arm bullying tactics, and threats to get their way. Well
Do they hate people who love freedom. Well
Do they they try to controll society by fear instead of facts. Well
They must be talking about themselves.
PS: Lets not use "their" terms. Piracy is where you board a ship and murder people, I think the appropiate term is information liberators.
" Hitler wanted everybody but blond haired, blue eyed people dragged out into the street and shot."
Uh are you sure? Hitler being a brown eyed black haired person might have objected to that.
... is getting in my nerves. Why should the big corporations here have the right to meddle into our copyright laws, and then slap the name "terrorism" in the justification of doing so? The problem with these copyright laws that the MPAA/RIAA have been pushing is that they are forgetting our (the citizen's) end of the stick. They have been increasing the duration of copyrights and patents to the point that most of us would be dead before we see Mickey Mouse in the public domain (since they keep extending it). They have been increasing the punishments for people who have already been illegally copyright infringing (since when does uploading a movie to the Internet warrant a 3-year prison sentence?), and illegalizing things that should be under fair-use (e.g., the DMCA; why should the government tell me what to do with my DVDs in my own private use?). The politicians are ignorant about technical issues, the voters are ignorant about the politicians, and they're letting the corporations run amok. But where is our public domain? Where is our "fair use"? Where is our freedom?
It's like our government is being run by the Socialist Party and the Fascist Party. Both of them don't care about liberty and both don't want a small government. All they want to do is to continue manipulating the public until they reach their logical goals: a huge, authoritarian government. The only difference is that the socialists would justify it in the name of "helping the poor" and the fascists would justify it in the name of "moral values." Both would justify it in the names of "protecting the children" and "defending this country against terrorism."
Come on Libertarians and Greens. They will have to win the 2008 election if we ever hope for this country to be saved by this rampant corporatism and the move toward totalitarianism.
If the **AA spends wipes out common piracy, people won't be getting their free movies through BT, Kazaa or whatever. By the laws of human desire, the next cheapest way to get this content would be the knockoff DVDs right? Won't kicking people off of common piracy just make professional piracy more profitable?
Therefore fighting piracy funds terrorism.
wanted for bombing a civilian airliner by the Venezuelan authorities, in which case the USA is happy to protect you.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
What? You're fucking kidding me, right?
"Nazi" stands for "Nationalsozialismus" in German: IE, "National Socialist". Hitler proposed and put into place many, many different social welfare programs. Was he a fascist? Yes. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a socialist.
Socialism, like communism, puts the decisions of the populace under the government's mantle of control regardless of whether or not the individuals want such 'protection'. Both socialism and communism draw their theology from the same marxist books. If you've bothered to pay attention at all to the last 100 years of history, much of the socialist rhetoric around 1900-1910, and the communist rhetoric leading up to WWII (both in the USA) was very similar to both the "party lines" of the Democratic party (and some of the Republican policies as well, actually), and the Soviet agenda.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
There's a two-pronged attack against freedom going on in the US. The government is attacking the right to privacy, and the copyright cartel is attacking the right to free exchange of information. Is it really any surprise that they'd eventually figure out how to work together?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Someone really needs to put up a web site shaming everyone who's used 9/11 to advance their own interests or to demonize the opposition as terrorists.
From The Demagogue Files...
"Interpol believes there is a significant link between counterfeiting and terrorism in locations where there are entrenched terrorist groups."
--Jack Valenti, MPAA Chief (Source: senate.gov)
"There are also indicators that some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR [Intellectual Property Right] crime"
--Lieutenant John Stedman [View PDF], Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles (source: senate.gov)
"Anti-spammers are terrorists at heart and attack websites and email accounts of companies wishing to bring their products and services to the general public via email, an enviromentally sound, REMARKABLE medium!"
--StealthLaunch/PopLaunch, mass-marketing firm
(source: the Register)
The National Education Association is "a terrorist organization"
--Rod Paige, Education Secretary
(source: usatoday.com)
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Leader (source: commondreams.org)
[Discussing liberal Federal judges]
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings"
[Followup question asks if liberal judges really are the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War...]
"Yes, I really believe that,"
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Leader (source: nydailynews.com)
[When asked about abortion in the US]
"I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own," she added."
Karen Hughes, Bush Campaign advisor (source: cnn.com)
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"
--Dick Cheney, Vice President of the US (source: about.com)
"America's under attack and so are we."
--Kenneth Lay, CEO, Enron (source: Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room)
Anyone got
Being in U.S. Army, one of the interesting briefings we were given recently was that of protecting civil liberties. It spoke about several times in the recent past in which a supposed threat appeared to our nation, and our freedom of speech, due process, etc. were damaged from the nation's fear of the enemy, and how we should not just let it happen again.
It's something I had never thought about before, and I think it is amazing to see it happening in front of me, and not on some slides about what happened during the Cold War, or Vietnam, or World War II. When governments are given power outside of their proper jurisdictions to combat real threats, those powers will inevitably be used for unintended and improper purposes.
"Homeland Security is a bigger threat to the American way of life than anything Osama bin Forgotten can come up w/."
Indeed, at a certain point, it becomes preferable to risk a small chance of being killed at the hands of a terrorist than to risk a larger chance of being arrested and shipped off to a Guantanamo-style concentration camp and stripped of the same rights that you'd be if you were killed at the hands of a terrorist, except for the right to life (if life in a filthy prison cell can be called a right).
What we must do is to figure out at what point are our individual freedoms more in jeopardy. It is very simple to do: take 'how many innocent persons have been killed by terrorists' and compare it to 'how many innocent persons have been detained indefinitely in prison without due process'. Then imagine the odds of _you_ being one of those innocent people. Which scenario would you rather risk yourself being a part of?
Enough.
Reading Boing Boing this morning, I was flabbergasted as I read the comments of Marybeth Peters, the United States Register of Copyrights. The circular logic and specious reasoning she employed made me question if she has the intelligence required to hold such a position. She raises the ugly specter of terrorism when she says, "although the information is sketchy at best, there have been a series of rumored ties between pirating operations and terrorist organizations." This supposed link is used to bolster the claim that we need more draconian Digital Restrictions Managament (DRM) to prevent casual copying. Yet, it is well known that any DRM can be circumvented given enough time, so piracy rings will still flourish; conversely, those exercising their fair-use rights or committing casual copyright infringement spend no money to do so and obviously do not provide any funds for terrorism. In light of this, perhaps Ms. Peters can explain how extending the reach of copyright would affect any rumored terrorism funding. Ms. Peters true feelings are perhaps best understood by this statement, "While it is not realistic to expect to eliminate all piracy, I do believe that we can continue to improve the global situation, to the benefit of authors and right-holders here in the United States and throughout the world." Evidently, she does not feel any need to protect the rights of consumers to watch or listen to their media. She further insinuates that attempts to make U.S. copyright laws more balanced are making it easier for criminal piracy rings to operate abroad.
It is hard to understand how some of the recent extensions to copyright control could possibly benefit citizens. For example, retroactively extending the length of copyrights had no consumer benefit; it prevented thousands of copyrighted works from entering the public domain. While this artificial monopoly has helped the media companies profit, it has not led to the creation of any new 75-year old books, movies or music.
Meanwhile, the large media companies continue to funnel money to politicians through the RIAA and MPAA. This money buys influence. This influence has led to a continual increase in the control of copyright owners and a corresponding decrease in the rights of citizens to watch and listen to their media. When congress passes laws contrary to the publc interest, one must examine what leads to this action. It seems apparent that the corporate money congress receives from the MPAA and RIAA members has encouraged them to pass laws that benefit only those companies. To combat this, citizens that want fair copyright laws need to emulate their corporate rivals. While copyright reform is in the public interest and would probably be widely supported with more information, it is not an issue that most people care a great deal about. However, there is a community of several hundred thousand citizens that do care a great deal about these issues. If these Americans could be coordinated to raise money, several million dollars would be raised to use towards supporting congressmen who believe in copyright reform. So that is what we will do.
This is a call to arms. I pledge $100 annually for 10 years to a political action committee (PAC) that works solely to reform copyright regardless of political affiliation, provided they collect a minimum of $1,000,000 in pledges for the first year. This PAC will work solely to change laws through the legislative system, but helping to elect sympathetic lawmakers, and not through the courts. The leaders of this PAC should be respected and recognized within the copyright reform community; reformers like Mark Cuban or Cory Doctorow would immediately give the PAC credibility and visibility. If we feel that copyright reform is important, it's time to put our money where our mouth is. How much is it worth to you to keep your TiVo legal, or your iPod? Copyright is a legislative creation and requires a legislative solution, and the best way to do that is a PAC. We need a lot of people to make this work, but if it can't be done right it might not be worth doing at all. Please join us.
To think those heartless terrorists enjoying episodes of Dr Who, Lost and stargate like the rest of us tears at the very fabric of civilisation as we know it. By gum this has to be stopped!!! Thank God we'll probably see Congress approve another 50 billion to enforce copyright in the name of "War on Terror". I for one will then feel so much safer ...
Is it lost on the proponents of the War on Drugs that, were it not for the War on Drugs, buying that dimebag wouldn't fund terrorists?
g h
Social and Economic conservatives tout their mythological Free Market, and how the Free Market is beneficial for the consumer. Bbut when it comes to the War on Drugs, they've created the most lopsided market, and one that operates at such incedibly inflated prices, precisely because of their attempts to restrict it.
Marijuana, which can grow practically anywhere, sells for $2000 a POUND? That number should be more like $2 a pound. That extra $1998, the price the market has settled upon due to the artificial constraints, simply funds the mechanisms which make a highly sought-after yet illegal product ubiquitously available.
And I'm not going to do the math, but I'm willing to bet the Feds spend on the order of $1998 per pound to try to "interdict" marijuana in the first place. Not to mention the economic loss of throwing people in jail, clogging up the courts. Though, they've been able to mask those costs by building private prisons -- all those 20 year jail sentences for possesion create jobs. And anything that creates jobs can't possibly be bad! (I'm not a big believer in "lost economic activity" since it's all based on "coulda, shoulda, woulda" but surely it does have an economic impact when we have one million of our citizens incarcerated for violating drug laws.)
Marijuana, which left to the free market would cost $2 a pound, ends up costing something more like $4000 a pound, in direct and indirect costs.
And somehow this makes sense, to bequeath millions of taxpayer money, to create a comlete social apparatus, with its own courts and police, dedicated to illegalizing a hardy plant. A weed which has negligible health consequences compared to tobacco and nicotine (not to mention pharmaceuticals), and has never been shown to kill the user -- unlike alcohol, tobacco, ephedrine, Celebrex, Dextromethorphan, just to name a few.
All this because Nixon was paranoid that hippies would get high, and think about things:
http://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+tapes+get+hi