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'."
Is that a shock? Terrorism is the new buzz word, slap it onto anything you don't like and it's instantly evil.
Hell lets just call Nazis terrorists now. They are pretty much interchangable if you ignore the "short" gap between the end of the second world war and today
I like muppets.
<SARCASM>
So people who drive too fast obviously have terrorist connections. They should be punished as terrorists.
</SARCASM>
Haven't you heard? Terrorism is the new communism now.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
For prior art see The War on Drugs. Those ads after 9/11 linking buying a dimebag to supporting terrorists were another great example. It is sad to see this posted here where we all "get it" and aren't suckered into the same old FUD. Most however, politicians included, will take these statements at face value and begin to think accordingly.
And just like The War on Drugs it is a farce that ignores the realities of the world we live in in favor of making money on an outdated status quo.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
I think this is directed to the people who sell pirated DVDs on the street, not P2P users.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Now, if only we could catch Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden in violation of copyright laws! Then he'd have to deal with the RIAA and the MPAA.... heaven help him!
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
Fucking socialist bastards.
This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism includes state housing, healthcare, and welfare. What you are thinking of is right wing authoritarianism, also known as facism. Please use proper terminology when trying to state a flame war over political ideology.
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
Ever heard the Cheeky Girls? Point proven.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
With thunderous applause and nice little back-hands to the Trade Federation, i mean, RIAA/MPAA. How absolutely marvellous. So I guess there's no chance that Mickey Mouse will become public domain at any point in the next couple of centuries. I wonder how much more junk legislation can get passed due to "terrorism". We've already seen the patriot act, which everyone knows and loves. Now all the big business concerns are getting their little pet hates resolved as well. The ext time some "terrorist" event occurs, I wonder if the Senate will vote to give the Chancellor, (cough) I mean err President some 'emergency' powers. They do say that fact is often stranger than fiction. My concern is that maybe fact will become even 'darker' than fiction.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
i.e. before they had all the power in government.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Well, okay.. it doesn't come as a big surprise that an organization that engages in a variety of criminal acts doesn't care about copyright laws either. Maybe they steal candy too. There's no point in making already illegal activities even more illegal. If they cared, they wouldn't do it anyway.
The article itself points out that they benefit from a range of different criminal activities. Further limiting domestic rights to fight foreign troublemakers doesn't seem to work.
see a Text Widget
My guess is that in two years (or less?), your right to think freely will also be considered a danger as it might be linked to terrorism in some way (as of yet to be discovered)...
You might call this a troll post, but seriously guys (and gals), doesn't anyone in the US Government think rationally anymore? Or is that also somehow an act of terrorism? Sheesh.
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to patent and copyright violations."
with apologies to
Thomas De Quincey
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Congress approves another 50 billion to enforce copyright in the name of "War on Terror".
Ya ya, I'm joking. But WHAT THE FUCK!!?? ?The War on Terror" is supposed to be just that; Fighting Islamic extremist who wish to do America harm. But noooo, those inside the beltway of Washington DC are using this as an excuse to fleece the population with some notion of security in order to hold on to power.
Yes, I voted for Bush because I trust the Republican party with national security more then the "other" party. But fact is, all those maggots in washington do nothing but fight among eachother in senate in order to maintain power at the expensive of those to voted them to such positions in the first place.
Arrrghhhhhh. I sware. Fuck em, my face it going to explode I'm so pissed!!!
Life is not for the lazy.
...We finally figured out how we can take back our land that was given to Israel. It's quite simple actually, we just pirate Episode III, and the U.S. government will become so wrapped up in finding out who did it, they'll completely forget the Middle East actually exists.
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
Too true. How many bills had Bush vetoed?
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
Yeah, they certainly enjoyed the Libertarian line until it came to their term in power.
Do you remember Reagan's acceptance speech?
"...Government *is* the problem"
How soon they forget.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
only outlaws will participate in piracy. So naturally the organised crime groups got involved. It's the same reason crime gangs run the drug trade, it's the same reason the Mafia controlled alcohol distribution in the Prohibition, and abortions before they became legal. Whenever legitimate businesses can't do something that's very much profitable, the illegitimate ones will. Piracy funds terrorism because it is illegal, not the other way around.
I am trolling
Bill: "We should really ban open source."
Random manager: "I know how to sway Congress, just tell them terrorists are using open source software, and they'll outlaw it in no time."
Bill: "Do they? Use open source, that is??"
Random manager: "I haven't met any terrorists, so I wouldn't know. The point is, they could."
Bill: "Good point."
If only. People listen and say "ah, terrorism, must stop that, yes, here, take all our rights and freedoms, they don't matter". It's still working. Look at realID etc.
I am trolling
...in all the blather about this and other idiocy infringing on our rights and privacies... there's been studious willful ignorance of the left wing's similar tendencies. Except, they are even bigger abusers of the "for the children" FUD card.
I just wanted to point that out before a lot of anti-Bush crud started up yet again. Just remember Clinton and his cronies were no different, really. Political correctness, their own version of terrorists in the form of "right-wing hate groups", more political correctness...
I'll say it again, whoever wins, we lose. Next elections, we need to be looking to wipe out both Republicans and Democrats at the polls. Trouble is, the third parties out there are either left of Stalin, loopy wingnuts like Perot, or worse altogether than that. Sadly, the common public doesn't seem to have much interest in a party with a rights, privacy, and constitutionalist bent. In short, the only people truly belonging in government are those who really don't want to serve in their heart of hearts and the people are prone to electing whoever grubs and scrounges for it the hardest.
So I don't expect these copyright issues to change, I don't expect the undue influence of major corporations or noisy political groups to lessen. I really don't. Sadly... So now we have another reason to infringe on the civil rights of our people. Did we really need another reason? Did they need one? Do they ever?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
... 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.
Before the Soviet Union collapsed, everything evil was blamed on communists, and any response, no matter how stupid, was deemed acceptible in order to fight communism. And it "worked". The Soviet Union's collapse occured after the US did all sorts of stupid things in the name of fighting communism, therefore the fall of communism *must* have been brought about by America's direct intervention!
Fighting terrorism is no different. And I quote:
Homeland Security is a bigger threat to the American way of life than anything Osama bin Forgotten can come up w/. Feel free to do something about it...
[o]_O
you're fighting terrorism! Don't take the chance that you're legitimately purchased DVDs are in fact funding terrorists. Get out there and seed one for Uncle Sam!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Joe Stalin was dictator and he got his education in Tiflis Theological Seminary. Stalin used communist party to get into power and then killed all hard line commie competitors like Leon Trotsky during Great Purge. After that the proper name of his rule was Stalinism
Dyslexics have more fnu.
"Socialism," by which you mean some sort of statism, and capitalism are inseparable. The origin of the modern state is indistinguishable from the formation of modern capitalism. Capitalism requires a labor force that can be moved around, made abstract, is not too tied to one way of living or another, has a certain basic education. Capitalism in its modern form requires considerable state infrastructure to create currency, manage trade policy, control monetary policy, provide infrastructure for transportation, to prop the system up when it is about to break (see the airline bail-outs) and the like. The creation of the modern citizenry that owes primary loyalty to a nation-state is completely in line with the creation of a consumer/producer who sells his work in the market place. There is no capitalism without socialism.
You are all socialists in that regard. The question is a matter of a degree, and who gets "serviced" by these government institutions. The government is really a whole network of institutions, and just who those institutions work for is often up for grabs. Many conservatives are quite happy to evoke the idea of "laissez-faire" after they hide or ignore the ways in which the interests of the powerful are being buttressed by the state. When the state provides any services to the not-powerful, though, it gets tarnished as "socialism."
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.
Of course, this is a simplification, but offers a starting point. Next:
Stalin was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact that "nazi" comes from "national-socialism" or that Lenin and Stalin claimed to have "embraced and extended" Marx's theories is circumstantial for the end result - everything must start somewhere. You might as well say that Napoleon was a republican, since he begun by serving the French Republic.
Now look up those definitions on your own if you don't trust these, but to spell it out for you: Hitler was the head of a fascist regime in its purest form ('extreme right wing' some would call it). Stalin was the head of an authoritarian regime whose ideology is usually known as Marxism-Leninism (or 'extreme left wing') - some people would say it was not communism, but a perverted form, while others will argue that it was indeed communism - and the logical conclusion of any attempt to follow the theoretical sequence capitalism -> socialism -> communism to its end.
To go back to the original point, in practice there is not a whole lot of difference in form between the two extremes, but you have to bear in mind that socialism means state ownership and in the extreme (communist) case no private property, while fascism means state control, which is a little less. Also, in theory socialism does not advocate an authoritarian government, but it can easily fall into one when pushed. Now, what we have here is neither
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
I prove my case. Among The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party were:
- 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
- 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
- 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
- 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
- 18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
When Hitler had his power he abolished unemployment in half year. Is that socialist enough.Dyslexics have more fnu.
You made the common error of backing up your claim with facts. Please re-read the posting FAQ. Well-supported arguments are not allowed here.
Attn: Mr. Sheik Osama Bin Laden
Dear Sir,
Your IP address 259.0.0.1 has been detected sharing on the 'Pear To Pear' program by the name of 'e-Jihad', the following files which have been determined by our trained human staff to be copyrighted works or material by music and motion picture artists:
ROT13 email encryptor_decryptor.com
Reparations of $1000 per song and $2000 per movie file hitherto listed are hereby requested before the 30th of next month, or our lawyers shall begin precedings.
Copyright infringement is a crime.
Flying cars, AI, Cybernetics
(Blade Runner, RoboCop, Total recall)
Instead of that what we have?
The classic case where the government became the lapdog of massive corporations and industries and the case where the government calls a terrorist anybody who don't agree with their corrupted attitude.
(Blade Runner, RoboCop, Total recall)
What a bummer!
What's next? Ill learn that coffee is people?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Fascistic socialism is just communism.
Have you even read Marx? Communism is an economic system in which the people themselves collectively own the means of production; communism is *NOT* the strict authoritarian regimes you've come to know and hate. Fascistic socialism is Fascism. Communal ownership of factories and fields is Communism. I have no-the-fuck idea where you pulled *your* definition of communism from, but it sure wasn't from Marx, nor any valid political scientist.
Did anyone RTFA? Oh wait... this is Slashdot, nevermind. The "copyright violations" in question involve the fashion industry, ya know... making counterfeit watches, purses, etc. They aren't referring to P2P, filesharing, warez or anything of that sort.
.-.
A party name doesn't mean a lot. There wasn't much in common between the USSR Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party for example. And remember that Vicente Fox's party in Mexico is the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, proving that a party can live with about any name, even such a fantastic one.
Sometimes I wonder if the words "socialist, communist, liberal", derived and some others shouldn't be prohibited in the USA. Most people haven't any idea of their meaning.
Socialism is a form of economic production and distribution of wealth. It is not a form of government. Hitler was a totalitarian ruler. His economic policy may have had socialist retoric but what it accomplished was the aggrigation of wealth by the select few, hardly socialist in practice.
Also, don't be an idiot and say Nazi's were socialist because they called themselves socialist. Do you beleive everything the Nazi's tell you?
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
not sure whether it's firefox or the html, but here's the actual link to the archived video of the testimony
a m
http://hsgac.senate.gov/audio_video/052505video.r
Before you go off on the people that 'have it wrong', keep in mind many were actually taught this way.
I have noticed this in several cases, where depending on where you grow up, and when, primary education teaches different versions of 'facts'.
Sad really, how the education system pushes their twisted agenda, quietly, over generations...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's like saying the the crime rate would fall if everyone would just quit robbing, raping, and killing each other. Just because the statement is true, that doesn't make it useful. The "true communism has never been tried" argument is equally fatuous.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Nazi" stands for "Nationalsozialismus" in German: IE, "National Socialist".
Yeah. So? Do you think the Democrats and Republicans are arguing over whether we should have direct or representative government? National Socialism was a name not a description. Hitler wasn't a socialist by any reasonable definition.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Intresting thing to deduce from what I said. The problem that west has with Hitles is that he has been canonized as ultimate evil. Yet it is considered politically incorrect to look out how this evil functioned and gained it's power.
<p>
It gained power by:
<ol>
<li>frightening majority of it's people by telling them that nation was constantly threathened from inside and outside,
<li>convincing that majority that they as a nation had special place and destiny in the world,
<li>ridiculing opposite viewpoints and making them look unpatriotic.
</ol>
Nowdays people look out and despise flags with svastika and naziuniforms. Modern version of evil may gain it's power looking wery different but using the same method.
Dyslexics have more fnu.