Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Companies Who Support Censoring the Internet

Posted by samzenpus on from the list-you-don't-want-to-be-on dept.

RichiH writes "From Techdirt: 'A group of companies sent a letter to to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton (with cc's to VP Joe Biden, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. John Conyers, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley), supporting the continued seizure of domain names they don't like, as well as the new COICA censorship bill, despite the serious Constitutional questions raised about how such seizures violate due process and free speech principles.' A full list of companies who you might want to avoid buying from is included, as well."

20 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Wall Street rules by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

    Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Wall Street rules by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about instead of snark, you contact your senators and representative, and vote for liberals (that's liberals, not Democrats) whenever possible? There are people in government trying to block this, you know. Hell, it'd already be law if not for Senator Wyden.

      People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

    2. Re:Wall Street rules by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...vote for liberals...

      I'll have to conscript one. There are no liberals volunteering to serve. A lot of posers, but nothing realistic. And anybody who actually wants the job is probably unfit. It's better to reign in their authority no matter who we vote for. They have way too much power.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Wall Street rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

      Excuse me?

      Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.

      Fix the system not the people.

    4. Re:Wall Street rules by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me?

      Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.

      Fix the system not the people.

      See, you're confused. You say you don't want to "enable the government by voting". That's wrong on two counts:

      1) The government is just a system. It doesn't need "enabling". It just is.
      2) The plutocrats and corrupt politicians that you really have a problem with don't need your vote. They win by default when you don't vote. It is by not voting that you "enable" them.

      Be an apathetic coward wallowing in self-pity if you like, you have that right, but don't delude yourself into believing that it isn't that very act that is causing the problem.

    5. Re:Wall Street rules by Worthless_Comments · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think your vote actually counts? Heh. Tell it to Diebold.

    6. Re:Wall Street rules by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

      People who realize that voting doesn't matter are a tiny minority of the population. We are outnumbered 100 to 1 by the ignorant masses who buy into the phony conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, and don't even know what the actually important issues are (i.e. the ones where both parties always stand together against the public interest).

    7. Re:Wall Street rules by countertrolling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is by not voting that you "enable" them.

      Au contraire. Your vote implies your consent to their authority. Refusal to vote means refusal to consent. The government will assert its authority regardless, but not voting is a perfectly legitimate form of resistance.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:Wall Street rules by CptCarrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only problem with that is, that not voting isn't really resisting, it's capitulation. The only way of resisting is voting for someone else (you do know that there are more than two parties in your country, don't you?). Or you could, well I don't know, join one of the parties and try to change them from the inside. Just saying the system sucks because it doesn't do what you want for you, and then not going to vote is just lazy. Resisting means doing something to change things, not just sit and watch. But that's just mho.

    9. Re:Wall Street rules by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Riiiight, because when your choices are "Rich corrupt POS corporate ass kisser" A or B you can change the system by voting. And maybe if I think really hard I can grow wings out my butt and fly south for the winter. As long as the MSM is owned by the megacorps you can pretty much give up anybody actually getting a third party elected for anything but local races because they will never get seen enough to even be a blip on the radar.

      I sat out the last election, so I'll give you the choices for senate and you tell me oh wise one how voting would have changed shit. On the one hand you had Bozeman, whose entire platform is pretty much "Pro Life 4ever!" and on the other side you had Blanche Lincoln, a DINO that sucked corporate dick so much she should have had kneepads sown into her dresses. There was a green guy but he never got to debate, or run a single ad, or pretty much do anything at all so he had as much of a chance of winning as you do hitting the powerball.

      So tell me oh wise one how EXACTLY is voting changing shit when you get choices like that? As long as we have a two party system we have NO voice, because it is simply too easy for the corps to simply buy both sides and call it a day. Hell look at the choices for the last 3 presidential elections, the highest office in the land. That is the BEST we could come up with? Really? There is a good reason why fewer and fewer people are voting, it is because they see the system is too corrupt to change in this manner. Trying to fix the system by voting is like saying you can win at Three Card Monty if you really keep your eyes on the lady when in actuality you are just watching a show while the guy behind you picks your pocket.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Wall Street rules by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only problem with that is, that not voting isn't really resisting, it's capitulation.

      Whether you vote or not really has little to do with whether you are resisting or capitulating.

      There is a school of thought which says that if you vote, you're accepting the legitimacy of the system and the outcome and if you lost, you should just sit down and shut up. There is also a school of thought which says that by not voting you are forfeiting your voice and you should just sit down and shut up. Both of these arguments are usually employed by smug supporters of the status quo.

      The only way of resisting is voting for someone else (you do know that there are more than two parties in your country, don't you?).

      Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.

      Or you could, well I don't know, join one of the parties and try to change them from the inside.

      You won't be able to attain power within the party without compromising yourself enough so that it's _you_ who changes rather than the party. "Change the system from within" is, again, an argument of smug supporters of the status quo.

      Just saying the system sucks because it doesn't do what you want for you, and then not going to vote is just lazy. Resisting means doing something to change things, not just sit and watch. But that's just mho.

      It's not laziness to refuse to bother with methods which cannot work. Tilting at windmills is quixotic; arguing with them is a waste of breath. Unless you have some way of getting sand in the bearing or knocking down the base, you're best off just letting the windmill be and working around it the best you can.

  2. Xerox? by phiz187 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really Xerox? After all of the legal drama you've gone through, as publishers tried to hold YOU contributorily responsible for copyright infringement committed by your users?!

    --
    Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
    1. Re:Xerox? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Looks like a bunch of "name brands"... the kind of thing a frugal shopper should avoid. You've heard of those brands because they pay a lot for you to hear about them.

      Most of them make quality products, but some of them I have avoided specifically because I would like "unbranded" items. Just a quirk or mine, I guess.

      Notice you don't see price "equalizers" on the list, like Google, Amazon, web travel sites, or heh, that famous "Kirkland" brand...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:Xerox? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sports affilate groups (NBA, NFL, MLB, etc..) have much to lose if they lose their licensing monopolies. EG, they can currently charge Comcast/NBC for the "Priviledge" of airing the superbowl, and have sole copyright over the entire "Performance" of *all* games played under their banners, regardless of which agency is doing the filming. Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games? The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded, etc?

      [sarcasm]A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats, and dare I say it... FAIR USE (as in, the REAL deal) clips of game events to be proliferated without their having their fingers in the pie! I mean, Somebody MIGHT get to see a world record touchdown FOR FREE! [/sarcasm]

      This same mentality is also applicable against the people who save up for the Season Pass tickets, get good seats on game day, and decide to bring the camcorder. Their camcorder footage is the property of [NBA/NFL/MLB/etc], and NOT them, and totally illegal as far as same is concerned. The fear that such footage might end up on YouTube, for free, makes their sphincters tighten.

      THAT is why they support internet censorship.

  3. D'Addario by JohnHorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until I read this, I used D'Addario strings on my guitar. Now that I see their name on that list, I will never use them again. Thankfully, I don't make use of any of the products of those other companies. That being said, there is no way to "vote with your wallet" anymore, because the corporations control everything, and shy of living an agrarian life in the middle of nowhere, your money will end up in their hands. Even if people on the whole turned against them, buying only locally made products, etc, the corporations would just lobby to have their way, and get it.

    --
    Sic Semper Tyrannis
    1. Re:D'Addario by cbope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was right there with Jim until he basically said the accused parties are guilty until proven innocent. Sounds kinda bass-ackwards to how I was raised...

      Personally, I don't have a problem with D'Addario's position, I use only GHS strings on my guitar :P

    2. Re:D'Addario by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But isn't that exactly what custody is? Or are you suggesting that even if a guy goes on a killing spree with hundreds of witnesses and multiple video recordings, he should be completely free until the day the jury convicts him?

      No, but that's why he gets a bond hearing, so that the judge, prosecutors, and defense can decide whether he should be permitted to go free until he's convicted or not.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  4. Re:The list by Fishead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA

    LoL, yeah, I could see how Monster Cable's business model could be threatened by free (as in bird) and open communication.

  5. The new aristocracy by Datamonstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't stop until there is a class of people who can do whatever they please, and another class of low-lifes (us) that must be subject to their power, for their their (our) own good.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  6. Re:Odd List by trentblase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What an odd group. Wonder what the common thread is? How is it that these companies cmae together to sign this letter?

    It looks like a list of companies that have a lot tied up in their trademarks. Monster Cable is always suing other people over the Monster name. Xerox has always been on the verge of having it's name genericized. Fashion houses have almost their entire value in their brands. At least the tech companies can fall back on their patents to defend their turf.