Slashdot Mirror
ACTA Treaty Released
roju writes "The full text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was released today. It differs from the earlier leaks in that the negotiating stance of each country has been scrubbed. Preliminary analysis is up at Ars, which warns that 'Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet.'"
I may or may not be planning to infringe now.......
"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."
Isn't that called "prior restraint"?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
How convenient.
I've read the text and made a summary of how this affects software patents:
For introductory info, here's other info I've gathered over the past months:
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
So we should lock folks up not because they have committed a crime, but because they might commit a crime in the future.
Buy stocks in companies that build jails . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Since the majority of us have very little control over this, for various reasons, if this is going to pass or not is mostly up to those negotiating it, not our public uproar. That being said, I'm at the point where I think that the future of the net will be a very divisive one, where most of the sheeple are herded around to only a few pastures, but the hackers among us will find increasingly clever and more numerous ways to farther decentralize, encrypt, and generally help privacy. I'm not for ACTA, but I'm all about new technology that can end up protecting netizens. Cecked out wikipedia, anything that has listed as concerns the following should be extremely closely looked at, Secrecy of negotiations, threats to freedom, legal scope, practicality, privacy.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
If you stop breaking the law then they wont believe infringement is imminent.
And obviously don't click on any links to mp3s.
It benefits the business of government and its associates in the "private" sector, at the expense of the little guy. Of course it's convenient.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/acta_draft_issued/
The register has one of the few reviews of this draft that doesn't resort to mindless hysteria. Makes for a good read.
I love the assumption of guilt. Welcome to America "Land of the free, home of the guilty." Theres only 6 billion citizens, if 100,000 of them commit "Copyright Infringement" we must punish the masses.
How does this blurb towards the end of the article:
ACTA doesn't export all of US law in this area, though; the world doesn't get huge principles like fair use (which many countries don't have) and key judicial decisions (like the Sony Betamax case which found that a device with "substantial non-infringing uses" could be sold so long as the manufacturer was not inducing infringement). Countries could adopt these, but they aren't requirements.
square with this blurb towards the beginning of the article:
ACTA would ban "the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure." It also bans circumvention devices, even those with a "limited commercially significant purpose." Countries can set limits to the ban, but only insofar as they do not "impair the adequacy of legal protection of those measures." This is ambiguous, but allowing circumvention in cases where the final use is fair would appear to be outlawed.
To me, the second blurb is pretty much saying "kiss your fair use goodbye, US Citizens"
This draft is so vague I don't even know when I am supposed to feel angry or sad.
Content producers will then be arrested for their own good work. If they create good enough content then they cause (imminent) copyright infringement.
$ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
1. Create any work (it's automatically copyrighted)
2. Sue EVERYONE for imminent infringement
3. Profit, no '??????' necessary
Nothing is being forced on anyone, bear in mind that ACTA is a plurilateral treaty, that means that its adoption and subsequent passing into law by the countries involved is completely voluntary. The UK, for one, is not likely to even consider re-structuring their copyright/digital piracy laws because they've just spent a good few years mulling over the Digital Economy Bill.
The chances of any of this turning up in law anywhere anytime soon are pretty much nil.
ACTA = thinly-veiled protectionism.
It is already doomed to fail, because it will not do a thing to stop "piracy" or prevent counterfeiting of goods. The major parties who conduct these illicit activities are in countries that don't give a shit. The only victims are law-abiding citizens.
ACTA is just old media's last attempt to stop their inevitable collapse. The information age and the innovations it brought changed the playing field forever. Old media know this and are afraid of these changes. Instead of trying to adapt and let the market decide. They are getting the government to "change" the market landscape to maintain the "status quo" of obsolete and cumbersome 1920s era patent and copyright laws. These laws only serve to protect a small minority via artificial monopolies on IP, while raping the vast majority.
Politician don't give a shit about the long-term implications. They only care about the healthy "bribes/favors" that old media provides them. Politicians aren't going to make one of their powerful allies in campaigns into an enemy.
This law will end-ip only accelerate the transfer of economic power to emerging countries like India, China and Russia.
Yes because its not like the US would ever use economic pressure or threaten to withhold aid to 'persuade' anyone to sign.
US companies would never refuse to trade with countries that dont sign which will cause companies in these countries to lobby/force
their government to sign or risk job losses and less taxes etc etc.
It sounds completely voluntary to me.
"Each party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right [copyright or related rights or trademark]. An interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an [infringing] intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right. Each party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement. Such measures may include inter alia the detailed description, the taking of samples or the physical seizure of documents or of the infringing goods." Um...What?
Imminent copyright infringement? Why don't they just take down the sodding internet already.
"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."
Isn't that called "prior restraint"?
This already exists in trademark law. There are even things called Anton Piller orders (after a famous case) that allow you to seize infringing goods before you even file suit, to prevent the other side from destroying all the evidence once they get your complaint letter.
Note, in many countries, getting a preliminary injunction or a Piller order requires the plaintiff to post a pretty substantial bond. And if it turns out that the other side is doing nothing wrong, they get that bond. This prevents you from using the process to destroy someone's business.
It's precrime + Nazi laws that can lead to lockup just for being some who want to speak up as a law like that can make easy to cut off any one who may even thing about trying to say something bad about some on in power.
At least the constitution does not let stuff like that happen.
But in places like china they can then just use the ACTA to get a way with it.
There you hit the nail on the head. Once the US moved to a privatize prison system, we ended up with an economic incentive to increase crime while at the same time jacking up penalties for increasingly trivial non-white collar crime. We also now have a whole industry related to shipping, importing, exporting and warehousing prisoners across state lines and even from one region of the country to the next.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
We have absolutely nothing to worry about. Obama and the Democrats would NEVER let this happen! Loyal slashdot readers understand this. So relax, folks. Let's move on....
how many people who do real robberies will get less time then file downloads?
So I can get less time by robbing apu then I get by downing a CD / moive?
Countries negotiate away our rights with impunity, the reason they get away with it being that citizens -- myself included -- have neither the guts nor the means to stage an armed uprising against today's leading governments and often have no clue what's going on anyway. Is there any hope for freedom in a world where the powerful conspire to restrict it against the best interests of the people?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
on your rights, on your freedoms, and on the richness of your culture
not by artists, but by an entrenched oligopoly of a dying distribution network (replaced by the internet)
the proper response to this declaration of war is not via legal means. all legal means have been corrupted bought and sold by entrenched corporate interests
the proper response is complete subversion of all media on the internet
we can't beat them in the legal arena. not because our legal arguments are inferior. indeed, they are superior. but we can't compete on the same playing field in terms of financial influence over our legislative bodies
so we will instead starve these assholes to death by destroying all of their sources of income: complete ubiquity of their media on the internet, free and higher quality (no DRM) than their locked up bullshit that only punishes the common man (it certainly doesn't punish pirates)
let the war being: tens of millions of poor, technological sophisticated, and media hungry teenagers versus a couple thousand lawyers
it's going to be a rout and we're going to win this war, by destroying these corporate interest that impoverish our culture and imperil our rights and freedoms by draining their finances
it is no longer good enough to merely ignore this bullshit. it is incumbent upon anyone with a sense of morality to outright destroy media corporations for the crimes they are inflicting on our cultures
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But with more people in jail then less tax money to pay for it.
Will things get so bad that we will have to be like rome and have people on death row killing each other in a coliseum on PPV?
"the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure."
Common sense: If the measure can be circumvented, it is not effective. If it enforces something else than copyright (for instance, by disallowing fair use), it is not effective. In other words: this rule never applies.
Too bad there is so little logic, realism or common sense in USA law.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
> It sounds completely voluntary to me.
Yeah, just like the parrot is "just resting".
In fact, here in Brazil it's all voluntary and we hear US music all the time because RAP & Funk are so much better than classical, Or Charles Aznavour or the three tenors or Mr. Bocelli.
It's totally voluntary, indeed, that we have to watch OSCAR awardings of US films with the rest of the world competing in ONE "Best foreign movie" category.
I wonder if sending a music file to a friend in some countries would be primarily an ACTA or export restriction list violation.
And for this neat treaty -- which undoubtedly will be considered law over here -- what do we get? Special treatment, folks, I'm sure we're gonna enter a Special 301 list after this. Thank you so much!
Just a cold note: if ACTA was any remotely good, we would be paying to enter it. That's just how voluntary it is.
I give it two weeks before we start seeing junk all over the net, possibly even here, along the lines of "ACTA not as bad as previously thought" or "why ACTA could actually save OSS" or other completely ripe horseshit like that. Hopefully everyone is smart enough to realize that's just the shills outing themselves, but they won't be.
Hate this fuckin' planet so hard. Let me off.
So no 1th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, Amendment under this.
As this lets them cut you off with out a trail by jury and can be used to stop free speech.
If some where to make a web page get it shut down take it all the way to the supreme court as there is not way that this law will be able to stand with all the Amendments that is takes away.
I am very suspicious of the iPad. I expect that it will be used to infringe on several important rights holders in the music and movie industry. We need to seize all iPads before they can be used to commit this treasonous act.
To the CopyRightMobile, ACTAman!
In my opinion, the primary goal is to forbid Linux. Free speech will be an unintentional victim.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
The whole treaty smells of desperation and fear. The Trad whiteshirts must be seeing their careers in copyright law dissolving in the next 5 years. Copyright law is going to end up as a red flag career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws unless IP is engaged with in modern frameworks. Not that I will cry any tears for the copyright crocodiles.
Waiting for the other shoe to...
do you know that many set top boxes and other stuff that is in the back round use Linux
so what will killing off linux do? Kill mac os x as well?
Now while some supporters of the notion might not see any particular reason for a person to need to circumvent copy protection for their own private use, when a publisher might choose to actively support it anyways, it actually ends up creating a situation where, for example, the publisher might be perfectly okay with you copying that movie to your iPad (presumably for your own private use), but when new technology comes out in a few years that doesn't happen to be all that compatible with the iPad, unless the company has had the resources to invest in keeping up with changes in technology for the purposes of utilizing their older material, a person is left being locked into only dealing with Apple stuff -- they cannot legally transfer their already purchased material to any entirely new device of a similar purpose that they might happen to acquire over time. In addition to almost openly serving the agenda of big businesses while strangle-holding the little guy, it creates a situation that, however inadvertent, ends up directing what sort of technologies can be legally developed in the future. It is my contention that ANY law that does this sort of thing is, regardless of how it might be intended to be used, a bad law, and should be stricken or completely redrafted so that this situation does not ever arise. At the very least, devices themselves that can circumvent copy protection without requiring sanctioning of the copyright holder should not be illegal. At most all that should be illegal is the act of a person that uses such a device to infringe on copyright (but here's the funny thing, with that provision, then they are already breaking a law, so outlawing circumvention serves no real purpose).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is 'imminent,' even if it hasn't happened yet"
This is exactly what you would expect when only one party (Big Media) has any true input into a law. It seems the rightsholders get an injunction if they make a argument that infringement might happen.
Could this injunction end up as one of the 3 strikes the poor consumers have? If so a consumer who had downloaded something before could get another "strike" without even downloading a thing. Especially since everything is handled without the Justice System being involved (railroaded).
About right for the new world of American Big Media internet. New Zealand anyone?
Nothing to worry about. Not much to discuss either. No Treaty signed by Obama will ever achieve Senate approval.
Wait... you are a patriot, aren't you?
You can't spell "patriot" or "prior restraint" without "riot".
Yeah robbers are bad. But for some perspective, in the USA there were 441,855 robberies in 2008.
;).
Assuming the average robbery took in USD5000 (a generous figure right?). That's USD2+ billion dollars a year. If it's USD500 on average, then it's 220million/year.
For perspective, the bailouts are going to cost the US citizens a lot more than that (and also google for: trillions Federal Reserve - they seem to be hiding something). Only in the financial world can you buy insurance for a property for many times what it's worth, put highly flammable stuff in the property, then when it all goes up in flames, get really really rich and get away with it.
If the robber beats people up or kills people, that's different. But honestly between being roughed up a bit and losing a huge chunk of my life savings when I'm retired (either through banks, pension funds blowing up or by crazy inflation), I'd take being roughed up a bit.
I'm not saying robbers shouldn't go to prison (they should). But I find a lot of people saying that robbers should be treated badly in prison etc, I think that's counterproductive. Most are stupid people - robbery is a bad way of earning a dishonest living.
So my views on file downloads shouldn't be a surprise: what's the big deal? Sharing is caring right?
You can use that document, you get your “representative” into pound-me-in-the-ass prison for treason. And the fact that the whole thing was kept secret shows that it was (...how do you call that in English?...) wanton treason (?).
At least in Germany, you get the maximum punishment for this, similar to murder, rape, etc.
Now remember: If you are not doing anything against this, you show that you are OK with it, and let them continue on that path. Especially if you use the invalid (because of circular reasoning) excuse of “But what can a single person do alone?”. (People are only alone, if everyone is using this excuse. So it’s fulfilling its own prophecy, and wouldn’t be the case otherwise. It is also the only reason dictators stay alive that long when a population of millions wants to see them dead.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Absolutely everyone I know should be restrained because they are guilty of this "imminent copyright infringement". At least over 90% of the people i've ever known has at least once in their lives done any of the following:
- Downloaded copyrighted material
- Watched copyrighted material on Youtube
- Heard a copyrighted song 'performance'
- Got a copied CD (or tape) from a friend
Anyone who has not done any of the above (or equivalent) is either well over 80 and only has a record player, or they *will* infringe directly or indirectly in the next couple of years... Instead of finding "imminent infringers" they might as well restrain all people under 80.
If this passes I'll probably end up on INTERPOL's most wanted list.
Posting anon because I'm only half kidding.
- Seedbox operator, second-generation uber-pirate, heir to a room full of warez dating back to the early 80s.
after debating whether I should go legal and pay SOCAN the licensing fees for restarting my non commercial shoutcast station I decided to switch to all Creative Commons licensed music. Its taken a while to download enough quality music and listen through it and weed out the "experimental" stuff. I've also had to change my music format but in doing so I also discovered other genres that I never bothered looking at. So far its been a win win situation and I've already donated some money to a netlabel, except for my wife rolling her eye at my yet another "hobby" which involves computers.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I searched the entire document for "fair use" and came up with only one entry, footnote 47:
"[For greater certainty, the Parties understand that third party liability means liability for any person who authorizes for a direct financial benefit, induces through or by conduct directed to promoting infringement, or knowingly and materially aids any act of copyright or related rights infringement by another. Further, the Parties also understand that the application of third party liability may include consideration of exceptions or limitations to exclusive rights that are confined to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder, including fair use, fair dealing, or their equivalents.] At least one delegation opposes this footnote."
I wonder which delegation(s) that is (are)? If footnote 47, or some equivalent, does not appear in the final version, would we have a conflict between ACTA and 17 USC?
It differs from the earlier leaks in that the negotiating stance of each country has been scrubbed.
That way, each country's leader could blame the more draconian provisions on the other countries, and thus no one is to blame. You see this in organizational politics too: when it's unpleasant, make it from the committee rather than from the people in the committee.
I am officially gone from
in the 1950s
in the 1980s, the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house
now, in the 2010s, the internet is suppose to kill the cinema house
oh sure, the internet killed the dvd, but from the 1950s through the 2010s, people have been going to the movies to constantly growing profits
watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare, even with all the crying babies and cellphones. and even on your 60 inch hd lcd with 5.1 dolby: you're by yourself. oh you have your firend sover? they want to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it and are always available on a moment's notice?
there's something about an audience that oos when you oo, aahs when you aah, and shrieks when you shriek, that heightens your movie going experience
meaning: hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever
music: live gigs
books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc
no one, NO ONE needs to control digital distribution to make cash
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...people who pay little in taxes.
So no 1th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, Amendment under this.
I was unaware we had a 1th amendment. Perhaps a 1st amendment?
</pedantic>
increasingly trivial non-white collar crime
But with more people in jail then less tax money to pay for it.
That's why you make the crimes of the poor carry the stiffest penalties. Their contributions are small as free taxpayers but substantially larger as supported prisoners.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Don't let it take that long; take the non-apathetic approach and actually contact every Senator on this issue. Get everyone to do so. They're the ones that will have to put this to a ratification vote, and they're the ones that need to be advised that the laws it will require violate the central document of our current government.
watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare
To you it might not. But a growing number of people with 60-inch LCDs find DVD-rips "good enough".
hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever
music: live gigs
books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc
A few problems with this:
tell me how many people would watch a movie for free at home rather than pay at a cinema (versus how many watch it for free at home... and would never pay at a cinema, that's the twist ain't it matey?)
is it 90%? is it 10%? give me a number
well whatever it is, i say this: no % gives hollywood the right to rape our rights and freedoms, to try and control the internet (which it can't anyways), just so they can squeeze a few more drops of blood out of us. and the % is SMALL anyways! probably single digits. my whole point is, even if it's 99%, that gives hollywood no right to make a business model out of the impossible (controlling the internet)
this is the new (aka, old, 1920-1980) financial universe hollywood needs to function within: cinema house only. excuse me while i play the world's smallest violin: that's an extremely lucrative universe
the golden age of hollywood: it was all cinema houses. before the vcr/ dvd, it was all cinema houses. gone with the wind? jaws? avatar is just about to come out on dvd, but it has already made a massive profit, ON TOP OF A MASSIVE PRODUCTION COST, all in the cinema house
so i think hollywood will do just fine darling, and your entire argument has been rendered defeated
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So... if I go to the movies and use optical and auditory sensors (eyes and ears) to record to some media (brain), would I be breaking the law?
Would they dispose of my media?
Yikes!
A network the government cannot block? Things will eventually come to one being needed. If one doesn't exist yet, the IT wizards should start creating one now.
"I qualified as a Telecommunications tech in 1979" by FalconDOUCHE (1289630)
on Tuesday April 27, @11:42PM (#32008806)
LMAO -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1619750&cid=32008590 see subject above, read url, and rinse-lather-repeat, falconDOUCHE... how stupid can you be? LOL, I bet you did that MERE TECHIE job on lol, telegraphs. I mean based on your dimwit reply in the url above, where you called others names no less?? Please, falconDOUCHE - do you think ANYONE believes that which I quote of you above, after reading the URL below it? LOL, not. Chump YOU make it "too easy" to make you look like a FOOL... you can't even get email right (see url to anyone reading, lol), so you're far from a "telecom tech". I'm glad you get your mod points back because the next time you call anyone names like you did in the url above? That quote above, and the url below it, will come to light about your non-existent telecom tech skills (Lol, no way you are or were, because you can't even get simple facts about email right).
It sems Ac does not speak english as first language.
The best bit he thinks I look like a fool!
But by all means keep trying, if you waste your time here you are not bothering other people and frankly I am enjoying the fun of watching you make yourself look like a bigger tool with each post.
Later kindy boy!
"you do realise that there was no email in 1979 dont you? Oh of course being 10 you wouldnt" by Falconhell (1289630)
on Wednesday April 28, @12:35AM (#32009320)
Dimwit, there's been email systems since before ARPANET http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/email.html ... utterly unbelievable: Here's a quote from said "HISTORY OF EMAIL":
***
Email is much older than ARPANet or the Internet. It was never invented; it evolved from very simple beginnings.
Early email was just a small advance on what we know these days as a file directory - it just put a message in another user's directory in a spot where they could see it when they logged in. Simple as that. Just like leaving a note on someone's desk.
Probably the first email system of this type was MAILBOX, used at Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1965. Another early program to send messages on the same computer was called SNDMSG.
Some of the mainframe computers of this era might have had up to one hundred users -often they used what are called "dumb terminals" to access the mainframe from their work desks. Dumb terminals just connected to the mainframe - they had no storage or memory of their own, they did all their work on the remote mainframe computer.
Before internetworking began, therefore, email could only be used to send messages to various users of the same computer. Once computers began to talk to each other over networks, however, the problem became a little more complex - We needed to be able to put a message in an envelope and address it. To do this, we needed a means to indicate to whom letters should go that the electronic posties understood - just like the postal system, we needed a way to indicate an address.
This is why Ray Tomlinson is credited with inventing email in 1972
***
LMAO, wait wait... it gets BETTER next, below (so "play it again, SAM"):
"I qualified as a Telecommunications tech in 1979" by FalconDOUCHE (1289630)
on Tuesday April 27, @11:42PM (#32008806)
LMAO -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1619750&cid=32008590 see subject above, read url, and rinse-lather-repeat, falconDOUCHE... how stupid can you be? LOL, I bet you did that MERE TECHIE job on lol, telegraphs. I mean based on your dimwit reply in the url above, where you called others names no less?? Please, falconDOUCHE - do you think ANYONE believes that which I quote of you above, after reading the URL below it? LOL, not. Chump YOU make it "too easy" to make you look like a FOOL... you can't even get email right (see url to anyone reading, lol), so you're far from a "telecom tech".
I'm glad you get your mod points back because the next time you call anyone names like you did in the url above? That quotes above, your screwups in it, and in the ones you screwed up on in the url below it, will come to light about your non-existent telecom tech skills (Lol, no way you are or were, because you can't even get simple facts about email right).
They only said this, in response to your ignorance dumbo, lol:
"you do realise that there was no email in 1979 dont you? Oh of course being 10 you wouldnt" by Falconhell (1289630)
on Wednesday April 28, @12:35AM (#32009320)
Dimwit, there's been email systems since before ARPANET http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/email.html ... utterly unbelievable: Here's a quote from said "HISTORY OF EMAIL":
***
Email is much older than ARPANet or the Internet. It was never invented; it evolved from very simple beginnings.
.
.
.
This is why Ray Tomlinson is credited with inventing email in 1972
***
LMAO, wait wait... it gets BETTER next, below (so "play it again, SAM"):
"I qualified as a Telecommunications tech in 1979" by FalconDOUCHE (1289630)
on Tuesday April 27, @11:42PM (#32008806)
LMAO -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1619750&cid=32008590 see subject above, read url, and rinse-lather-repeat, falconDOUCHE... how stupid can you be? LOL, I bet you did that MERE TECHIE job on lol, telegraphs. I mean based on your dimwit reply in the url above, where you called others names no less??
Please, falconDOUCHE - do you think ANYONE believes that which I quote of you above, after reading the URL below it? LOL, not. Chump YOU make it "too easy" to make you look like a FOOL... you can't even get email right (see url to anyone reading, lol), so you're far from a "telecom tech".
LMAO... Ahhh, FalconDOUCHE - I have to say it: You are the STUPIDEST person I've ever encountered, literally, on this website in oh, 7 yrs. or so now. I base that on what is above, lmao... hilarious. At least you earn the "dubious honor" of being "STUPIDEST POSTER ON /.", lol (so look at the bright side!)
"you do realise that there was no email in 1979 dont you? Oh of course being 10 you wouldnt" by Falconhell (1289630)
on Wednesday April 28, @12:35AM (#32009320)
Dimwit, there's been email systems since before ARPANET http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/email.html ... utterly unbelievable: Here's a quote from said "HISTORY OF EMAIL":
***
Email is much older than ARPANet or the Internet. It was never invented; it evolved from very simple beginnings.
This is why Ray Tomlinson is credited with inventing email in 1972
***
LMAO, wait wait... it gets BETTER next, below (so "play it again, SAM"):
"I qualified as a Telecommunications tech in 1979" by FalconDOUCHE (1289630)
on Tuesday April 27, @11:42PM (#32008806)
LMAO -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1619750&cid=32008590 see subject above, read url, and rinse-lather-repeat, falconDOUCHE... how stupid can you be? LOL, I bet you did that MERE TECHIE job on lol, telegraphs.
I mean based on your dimwit reply in the url above, where you messed up on the fact that hotmail does give away your IP address, and where YOU called others names no less??
LMAO!
(Man - Please, falconDOUCHE - do you think ANYONE believes that which I quote of you above, after reading the URL below it? LOL, not.)
FOOL... you can't even get email right (see the last url below the 2nd quote of "the professor" here, to anyone reading, lol), so you're far from a "telecom tech".
LMAO, look at the professor correcting himself now, hilarious! Didn't you say this below (note the BOLD portion, Professor FalconDOUCHE):
"you do realise that there was no email in 1979 dont you? Oh of course being 10 you wouldnt" by FalconDOUCHE (1289630)
on Wednesday April 28, @12:35AM (#32009320)
No mention of Australia there, or about email being public etc. as you said in the post I am replying to (lmao, covering up for your fuckups falconDOUCHE? It's NOT WORKING... after all, you said the above, not I or anyone else).
Additionally, Professor "FalconDOUCHE"?
There's been email systems since before ARPANET http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/email.html ... utterly unbelievable: Here's a quote from said "HISTORY OF EMAIL":
***
Email is much older than ARPANet or the Internet. It was never invented; it evolved from very simple beginnings.
This is why Ray Tomlinson is credited with inventing email in 1972
***
LMAO, wait wait... it gets BETTER next, below (so "play it again, SAM"):
"I qualified as a Telecommunications tech in 1979" by FalconDOUCHE (1289630)
on Tuesday April 27, @11:42PM (#32008806)
LMAO -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1619750&cid=32008590 see subject above, read url, and rinse-lather-repeat, falconDOUCHE... how stupid can you be? LOL, I bet you did that MERE TECHIE job on lol, telegraphs.
I mean based on your dimwit reply in the url above, where you messed up on the fact that hotmail does give away your IP address, and where YOU called others names no less?? LMAO!
(Man - Please, falconDOUCHE - do you think ANYONE believes that which I quote of you above, after reading the URL below it? LOL, not! LMAO... you can't even get email right (see url to anyone reading, lol), so you're far from a "telecom tech").
The fac that there was no public availability or even knowledge of the existance of email at that time neans that simply it was unheard of.
To all intents and purpises there was no email in Australia, so despite ypur laughably pathetic atempts at scorn, you as always FAIL.
I guees it is your constant failiure that left you a bitter, strident person. I feel sorry for you.
But dont stop, I have not had so many laughs for ages!