The Companies Who Support Censoring the Internet

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."

Comments

Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

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

Re:Wall Street rules

[Mitchell314]

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

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

Lol, at the bottom of the /. page right now:

Everywhere I look I see NEGATIVITY and ASPHALT ...

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

Heh, well, the positive thing would be widespread resistance, but it's just not there. It's easy for me to boycott because I'm broke.

Re:Wall Street rules

[artor3]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Seumas]

Yeah. Awesome - I'll just make sure that I move out of Oregon so that I'm in on way supporting Nike, Adidas, or Columbia Sportswear (WTF?) through state business breaks of any kind. And discontinue my access to the internet, so I'm not supporting those companies And then I'll be sure not to watch a significant chunk of movies, from the film companies below. Or video games, since about 50% of games seem to come from Activision.

The thing is, I understand the concerns of these companies. I understand that they want to be able to attack forgeries piracy, wherever they may originate (and note, by "piracy", I mean the guys who make and sell copies of digital and other content and sell it for a profit as their own; not some kid in his basement playing an illegitimate copy of a game that he downloaded).

I just don't understand why so many are entertaining the idea - neigh, supporting it - of violating so many rights in such clear and offensive ways. Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process? In fact, yanking the domains should be a lengthy formal process; not a whim.

Also . . . ICE? Immigration? WTF?

Also . . . isn't it great that DHS/Homeland Security is now involved in EVERYTHING? The fate of the entire country is at stake! Code orange must now be raised to terrorism code red, because this guy has a dozen fake Rolexes! Oh noes!

Oh well. I still have netflix, starbucks, minivans, teh baby jebus, and nascar -- and as an American, that's all I need to be content and shut my mouth and look the other way.

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

...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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean libertarians. You know, the guys who actually give a damn about adhering to constitutionality and civil liberties, even when it doesn't directly suit the individuals personal gain in any way.

Re:Wall Street rules

[triffid_98]

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.

My senators and representatives? What am I, Comcast?

There may be the odd politician that will throw us a bone, but given the current electoral vetting process you can be damn sure that most of them never even make it onto the ballot. I do vote, but when it comes down to it Democrats and Republicans are just two heads of the same hydra.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[artor3]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Worthless_Comments]

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

Re:Wall Street rules

[mrnobo1024]

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).

Re:Wall Street rules

[c6gunner]

Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process?

Because any judgments stemming from such lawsuits would be unlikely to even pay their legal bills, let alone recoup the financial losses. They're in a no win situation - sue and loose money, or don't sue and lose money. Just yanking domains is a much simpler alternative.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do sympathize. I'd like to think I wouldn't compromise my own principles if put in that situation, but with millions of dollars on the line things tend to get a bit tense.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Spy der Mann]

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

Wrong. The diversified investment portfolios only give money to the current shareholders and the "financial advisors" (read as: investment salesmen). When you buy stock, you don't buy it from the company, but from the previous stockholder (unless it happens to be from a current company associate). The companies whose stock is public, ALREADY got their money from their Initial Public Offerings.

Boycotts do affect companies, as you don't affect their initial invetment, but their cashflow. Boycott a company long enough (and with enough people), and then they'll start worrying. By the way, with negative publicity, their stock values will decrease, and the stock the current owners are already holding will see their investment in jeopardy. The trick is to have your boycott reach enough people.

Alternate suggestion: Publish the negative stuff on twitter (I am not a lawyer, so be careful with libel lawsuits).

Re:Wall Street rules

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Premier Election Solutions, Inc, you insensitive clod!

Re:Wall Street rules

[stumblingblock]

Every time you open your wallet, it is a political act. Think about every transaction individually, with any prejudices you may rightfully have. No one situation will change the world, but cumulatively, an effect will be made. Just ask a marketing guy.

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

By the way, with negative publicity, their stock values will decrease...

Dream on :-)

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[CptCarrot]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[mjwx]

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

100 to 1 still means there are 3 million of you, if you could congregate in one state then you should be able to guide political processes without worrying about the mouth breathing masses.

Re:Wall Street rules

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[jonwil]

No-one who wants genuine change could get the media airtime required to stand a chance of being elected.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix the system not the people.

In a democracy, isn't that the job of the people? Or do you leave it to 'They'?

Re:Wall Street rules

[CycleMan]

Keep saying that. It helps convince other people that they have no chance to sway elections. Because former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura clearly ran as (R) or (D). And so did current Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee. Newsflash: they ran as Independents and won. Lisa Murkowski lost the (R) primary and ran for Alaska Senate as a WRITE-IN candidate and won. Not saying it happens every time, but for these to happen at the state-wide level, it means that big things are possible.

And maybe there are elections for state legislature or county supervisor or attorney general or school board or water district or mayor or sheriff where someone isn't a big (D) or big (R) and they can win, if people like you decide to give them a chance and talk them up. Or you can just fold, give in, and leave politics to other people. Just because my guy or gal doesn't win all the time (or even most of the time) doesn't stop me from voting.

One more thing: your Senator, Member of Congress, and State Representatives know who votes and how often. I know this because I worked for one and we had that data going back years. It may affect how much they listen to your comments and suggestions, because if you never vote to begin with and then they ignore your request or vote differently than you'd like them to, what are the odds you'll vote against them next time?

Re:Wall Street rules

[orphiuchus]

Oh, it was mentioned, but nobody ever answers the question.
They just float it out there to give the illusion that they have some solution then go back to arguing about if the government should pay for the overpriced health care through taxes, then assign it to citizens, or if the government should mandate that the citizens pay for overpriced health care. Nearest I can tell the only thing that the health care legislation fixed was forcing the providers to accept people with pre-existing conditions, and that's not without its flaws anyway.

If someone has a condition that costs $90k a year to control, and they apply for health care that costs $7k a year, the company knows off the bat that they are going to lose $83k a year for accepting this person. Their only choice is finding a way to make up the money they lose with higher rates for everyone else. Maybe the actual issue should be why does it cost $1500.00 for a ambulance ride, and $25k for diabetes treatments per year?

I know that went off topic, I just never understood how this could work.

Re:Wall Street rules

[orphiuchus]

I think a big part of the problem is that actual systemic change isn't the sort of thing that happens without casualties. Every time in history that a society has attempted to redesign itself all at once, on the level that most internet-dwelling political savants want, it has led to either a civil war or mass starvation.

Change isn't free.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Spyware23]

Change things from *inside* a democratic system? Great idea! How about... we all stop voting! Yeah, that'll show 'em! Lets cancel out their phony elections by not showing up en masse. But oh, wait, according to you, withholding your vote from a system you choose to not participate in because your moral standards don't allow you to is lazy.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Eraesr]

Sorry, I'm out.
D'addario is on the list and I just can't shed their guitar strings like that :-(

Re:Wall Street rules

[shentino]

Do you have any words of encouragement for the few prudent voters drowning in a herd of sheeple that are hypnotized by corporate run media?

Re:Wall Street rules

[shentino]

Hear hear!

Especially when we get suckered by wolves peeling off their sheep suits once they're voted in because we can't fire them after they show their true colors.

Re:Wall Street rules

[shentino]

And people wonder why their vote doesn't count anymore these days.

Re:Wall Street rules

[shentino]

The cheapest thing would be to yank health insurance for everyone and say to hell with society, let darwinism weed out the weak links of society.

Not humane, but it is economical. Unless of course, human life, comfort, and dignity have a measurable value.

Re:Wall Street rules

[ScentCone]

ICE? immigration? WTF?

So here you are making what sounds like a complex complaint about all of this, and you can't be bothered to look up what the "C" stands for?

Re:Wall Street rules

[Wolvenhaven]

Something like this? http://freestateproject.org/

Re:Wall Street rules

[MoeDrippins]

> And anybody who actually wants the job is probably unfit

Amen to that. The people that want jobs in politics are the ones we least want doing those jobs. It's a pity that "serving the people" has turned into "politics" to begin with I guess, but there it is.

Re:Wall Street rules

[easterberry]

And then I'll be sure not to watch a significant chunk of movies, from the film companies below. Or video games, since about 50% of games seem to come from Activision.

Excellent, glad to hear. Oh wait, you're being sarcastic. Nevermind. Yes, stop buying Activision video games. You don't need Assassin's Creed 7: Precambrian Age. Remember when Modern Warfare 2 came out? And there was a huge stink because they threw PC users under the bus and everyone signed petitions and bitched and moaned and said they were boycotting the game. And then the game came out and they all immediately bough it anyways?
 
  Do you also remember how they didn't fix any of the things people complained about? These things are related. Personally I did minimal whining, I didn't sign anything but what I DID do was NOT BUY THE FUCKING GAME BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A BOYCOTT WORKS! You don't need any video game, by anyone. I have personally boycotted Activision for a while now. They come out with a game I want from time to time but I spend the money on movies/music I want to support, or food, or books, or games by OTHER COMPANIES.

I don't support Coca Cola and Nestle so I don't buy there products either. Which is hard because I LIKE a lot of their products. I grew up with their products. Do you know how many companies those guys own?! It's ridiculous! But that's the thing about boycotts. They aren't fun. They aren't easy. They aren't supposed to be. They're hard and involve personal sacrifice of things you want for the hopes of making things betters.

Not buying Activision games isn't even that hard. They make overpriced games that aren't even very good. Support some independent developers instead. Or go through your catalogue of pirated games/movies/music, decide what you've genuinely gotten the most value out of and buy a legitimate copy.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Anthony Mouse]

Riiiight, because when your choices are "Rich corrupt POS corporate ass kisser" A or B you can change the system by voting.

So vote in the primary, before your choices are so limited?

Re:Wall Street rules

[nschubach]

By having a mass boycott on the voting system, you allow those that don't know about the boycott or don't care about your stance elect someone to have some control over your life. In effect, you are letting your ideas not be heard by not voting.

I have never understood the idea of not voting. The only time someone would not vote (if you ask me) is when they were happy with the state the system was in.

Re:Wall Street rules

[nschubach]

You can't "fire" them (well, you can, but the process is not easy) but you can refuse to re-elect them. Enough of this and people who think they can ride out the rest of their life in office soon find that they can't.

Re:Wall Street rules

[shentino]

Only problem is that since they're in office for years at a time they've already done their damage by the time you get rid of them.

The corporations funding their campaigns know this.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Lehk228]

if by legitimate you mean as ineffectual as mathematically possible then yes you are correct

Re:Wall Street rules

[mcgrew]

Liberals? That would be, uh, who? Rather than voting for liberals, I have been choosing non-Republicrats for some time.

The people who insist that voting doesn't matter are kind of partly right. It certainly doesn't matter if you vote for a Democrat or a Republican; both of the major parties are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners -- Universal Pictures, Sony, BP, etc. The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which foreign business has bought them off.

American businesses? There are none; they're all multinational corporations that would sell American out in a heartbeat. These people are not patriots, and in fact often act traitorously (PATRIOT act, anyone?)

The partly or mostly foreign owned US media (Fox for example, owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch) has everyone convinced that a vote for a non-Republicrat is a wasted vote. Yeah, from their perspective it is -- they want the Republicrats to stay in power.

Vote Green or Libertarian. You have nothing to lose; the traitorous Reublicrats have already sold it to the highest bidder.

Re:Wall Street rules

[nschubach]

Change doesn't happen overnight.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Hatta]

People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem.

No. People who vote either democrat or republican are the entirety of the problem. Those who refuse to participate are at least not making things any worse.

Re:Wall Street rules

[sorak]

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 don't keep informed about political issues and candidates are also part of the problem. There's a reason why our debate is constantly getting dumbed down to "has to wear a helmet" levels. There is a reason why you see commercials making ridiculous accusations against other candidates ("my opponent voted to put child molesters in day care centers."). It is because this stuff influences votes. When people get serious about politics, AND THEN start voting, we will see some change.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Posting=!Working]

Your choices are:
1. Vote - This has a extremely small chance of changing the major problems, and a slightly larger, but still minute, chance of changing a minor problem or two.
2. Don't Vote - This has no possible chance of ever changing anything.

It's not a protest if you don't vote. It does absolutely nothing and doesn't even have a theoretical chance of making any positive difference. It will only accelerate the transition to outright plutocracy. The politicians would love it if there was an extremely low turnout, less campaign funds spent means more in their pocket and, hell, maybe even a reason to give corporations a vote. It won't cause a revolution.

Ask Al Gore or Al Franken if people not voting matters. They certainly did in Florida in 2000 and Minnesota in 2006.

Re:Wall Street rules

[babblefrog]

Could also be that GP has better things to do with his time than beating his head against a wall. It might be that lazy has nothing to do with it.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Badbone]

How about instead of snark, you contact your senators and representative, and vote for liberals (that's liberals, not Democrats) whenever possible?

Because voting doesn't work. When team blue is just as bad as team red (because they have the same corporate sponsors) voting not only doesn't matter, it legitimizes a broken system.

Re:Wall Street rules

[mcgrew]

It's a little late for hope. I know mine's completely gone. I was disgusted by the letter from the companies to the government. It was full of lies and half truths. Some choice snippets that particularly galled me:

We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community.

There is no "intellectual property community", there are various and diverse artists, inventors, and technologists who have nothing to do with each other.

While our employees live in different regions of the country, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard, they are committed to quality and innovation and they welcome competition.

Jesus H. Christ, what unmitigated bullshit! The RIAA is after file sharers not because they're losing money to pirates (studies show that pirates spend more on music than non-pirates), it's a blow agaisnt the indie artists who can't get radio airplay and depend on P2P. The indies are the RIAA's competetion. I don't know what's more unbelievable, that these sociopathic parasites spew this nonsense, or that people are actually stupid enough to believe it.

However, allowing others to unfairly compete by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights created by our employees cannot be tolerated. This theft diminishes our ability to keep and create jobs, and makes it far more difficult to attract the capital needed to invest in new products and services.

Theft isn't rape, and copyright infringement isn't theft. This intellectual "property" they speak of does NOT belong to them any more than a renter owns his house. Like the renter, the IP moguls have a limited time monopoly, not ownership. The IP belongs to we, the people. And BTW, the extreme copyright lengths are stifling creativity, and software patents stifle innovation. Imagine how innovation would suffer if patents lasted as long a copyrights? And a software patent is like granting a patent to Disney for the idea of a cartoon mouse or duck.

In order to protect our free enterprise system, and the standard of living it has contributed to our nation, it is critical that we multiply our efforts to identify and punish the criminals who steal what we create and produce.

Our standard of living has been dropping for a couple of generations, unless you're one of the top 10% of earners. And there's that bald faced lie "stealing our property" again.

I can't read any more of that tripe without wanting to do violence, and since I hate violence I'll stop.

Re:Wall Street rules

[hduff]

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.

How's that working for you so far?

I thought so.

Re:Wall Street rules

[perbert]

Wait, so one person can't possibly effect a boycott, but one person not voting is legit? There seems to be a disconnect here...

Re:Wall Street rules

[rednip]

Then just keep voting for the one who is more progressive than the other, both in the general election and the primaries. Maybe eventually, you'll find your choices more palatable, but at the very least you'd actually be doing something other than whining about it.

Re:Wall Street rules

[TheEyes]

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.

My senators and representatives? What am I, Comcast?

  There may be the odd politician that will throw us a bone, but given the current electoral vetting process you can be damn sure that most of them never even make it onto the ballot. I do vote, but when it comes down to it Democrats and Republicans are just two heads of the same hydra.

And that's exactly the reason for our current problems. After the Republican-appointed Supreme Court (2/3rds of justices appointed by Republicans) threw out campaign finance reform, allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporate interests, Democrats immediately tried to reinstate the law, and then tried to pass a new law at least mandating disclosure. Senate Republicans fillabustered the law, delaying it until after the election; now it's dead.

Without Republicans, we would have a public option for healthcare.

Without Republicans, we wouldn't have a chronic shortage of federal judges these last two years (due to secret holds by unknown Republican senators.)

Without Republicans, we would have network neutrality.

Without Republicans, we would have closed Guantanimo last year.

Without Republicans, we would have had a stronger stimulus, with far less wasted on tax cuts for the rich, and would probably have 1-2% lower unemployment than we do now.

Look, Democrats aren't really all that "good" a party either; some of their constituencies, especially trial lawyers, frighten the heck out of me. But don't tell me the Democrats and Republicans are the same. I know better.

Re:Wall Street rules

[russotto]

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.

Re:Wall Street rules

[operagost]

If by "liberals", you mean classical liberals and not FDR government-control-of-society liberals, I agree. It's government overreach that enables the seizing of domain names because they somewhat resemble or satirize those of multinational corporations. It's government overreach that extended copyrights from 14 years to (at least) 95. Government regulation should be reserved for consumer protection from fraud and harm, and to regulate monopolies-- not to create monopolies or enrich them at consumers' expense.

Re:Wall Street rules

[operagost]

Please stop watching Maddow and Olbermann. There is a shortage of judges because Obama has been slow to appoint candidates (remember, Democratic majority in the Senate), and Gitmo could be closed by a stroke of his EO pen. And we know he loves him some EO.

Look at the list of his pending appointments on Wikipedia. They're all from Jan 5. You think maybe the Senate needs a little time to review those before approving them? Oh, I forgot: these are the same guys who pass 1000-2000 page bills without reading them.

Without Republicans, we would have had a stronger stimulus, with far less wasted on tax cuts for the rich

What tax cuts for the "rich"?

Re:Wall Street rules

[operagost]

Lieberman ran and won as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination as well.

Re:Wall Street rules

[memnock]

after perusing the list, i'd say it's not hard for me to avoid buying from those companies. i already avoid a few of them already. i haven't bought Nike anything for over a decade. on purpose. Hastings is the only new bookstore in my town and i've purchased from them before. now that i know about this list though, i'll avoid them.
however, just not buying from them isn't as effective. it'd help if you emailed them and said that you're not buying from them because you don't support their stance on censorship or something similar.

Re:Wall Street rules

[JackOfAllGeeks]

The only time someone would not vote (if you ask me) is when they were ambivalent to the state the system

FTFY. If they were happy with the way things were, wouldn't they vote for the incumbent to keep it that way? Not-voting is for the ambivalent or those who have resigned themselves to powerlessness.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Idbar]

I want to believe that your comment is a joke nobody understood. You're claiming something of the level of a bullied kid in the school, who believes that the least he does, the less bullied he'll be.

If you don't vote, you're just agreeing to let everyone else pick for you. And unless you have a broken voting system (which may be perfectly the case), voting should be your option. If not, then you should VOTE anyway for someone the change the broken system. I don't see how "doing nothing" has helped anyone. ever.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Raenex]

Obama was voted president, so we must be getting exactly what we want, right?

Who is "we"? Do you think "we" could define exactly who "we" wants, without pissing off the other people named "we"?

Re:Wall Street rules

[Omestes]

I think you mean libertarians. You know, the guys who actually give a damn about adhering to constitutionality and civil liberties, even when it doesn't directly suit the individuals personal gain in any way.

As long as you keep the "l" lower-cased, then they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm a liberal libertarian (also called a social libertarian), so we obviously can exist.

Most capital-"L" libertarians I met aren't about doing much of anything against their own personal gain (what, have they stopped worshiping the Rand?!), most of them use their politics as a post hoc justification for being greedy, entitled, egotists who think they have a right to their piece of the pie, all else be damned. Not all, just most of the ones I met. Same with the "adhering to Constitutionality" bit, this is true only if you recognize their particular reading of the document and completely ignore every other, equally valid, reading of it. As for "civil liberties" you mean only the ones that directly lead to personal financial gain. Most libertarians forget about anything that doesn't have a direct monetary value.

It have as much contempt for capital-"L" Libertarians as I do for Democrats and Republicans. Actually as any named party; by adhering to any of them you pretty much prove that you don't want to think rationally about your political stances, you just want to subscribe unthinkingly to a ready-made ideology. All of them put their bullshit dogma above the only thing that actually matters, the individual humans that compose our country, and our world.

* or some limited subset thereof

Re:Wall Street rules

[JackOfAllGeeks]

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

Not if it's just one person here or there, no. But for the last 20 years, we've only had about 50% of the voting populace turn out to a Presidential Election, and under 40% for midterm elections. Even if you ignore the fact that some percentage of the populace DOES show up and vote for Paul or Nader, if 50-60% of the voters did so it would make a difference.

"You" may not be able to effect change with your vote alone, but "we" can if we'd work together. I think that was the original point.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Omestes]

Liberals? That would be, uh, who? Rather than voting for liberals, I have been choosing non-Republicrats for some time.

You realize that the Democratic party doesn't have a monopoly on liberal, right? "Liberal" really has nothing to do with "Democrat", yes, most Democrats are more likely to be liberal than Republicans are, just like the Republicans are more likely to be conservative than Democrats. I could draw a Venn diagram. Most Democrats are liberal, but not all liberals are Democrats. They aren't synonyms.

Of late, the Democratic party has drifted pretty far from its liberal, progressive, base and roots, and has turned into the centrist party, compromise party.

Both the Libertarians and the Greens could be called liberal. The Greens are pretty much just liberal. the Libertarians are socially liberal (for the most part), and economically conservative.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Velex]

100 to 1 still means there are 3 million of you, if you could congregate in one state then you should be able to guide political processes without worrying about the mouth breathing masses.

Yeah, but then they'd have to vote to make it happen.

Re:Wall Street rules

[skarphace]

Convincing you your vote matters is how they maintain their control over you. You're a fool if you think you can change anything by voting.

You got that exactly backwards. The two controlling parties want to make you think your vote does not count, so you won't bother coming out to vote. The non-voters are a strong base. If they all get into the process, that is when unpredictable things happen. Like it or not, that is exactly how Obama got elected. A lot of new and disillusioned non-voters like yourself actually came out to the voting booth.

You're unecessarilly jaded and cynical if you believe things can't be changed by votes. Do us all a favor and go put your vote into some 'crackpot' 3rd party that you never think could win. The more votes 3rd parties get, the more the 2 majors will have to change to keep up. At the very least it shows them there is a possiblity that they might not have neverending control and think twice when they do ridiculous shit that nobody likes

Re:Wall Street rules

[skarphace]

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.

I'm not smug, nor a supporter of the status quo. However, the latter is a valid point. If the ONE thing we get in the constitution when it comes to having a say in our government is ignored, you absolutely are forfeiting your voice.

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

What if Mickey got 40% of the vote?

You're well within your rights to just give up and hate the ugly nebulous 'system', but it's just people we're talking here. You're one of them, like it or not. Just because they're outside of your monkeysphere doesn't mean they don't exist or are some 'system' out to get you. You're still one of us, like it or not.

Re:Wall Street rules

[TheEyes]

Please stop watching Maddow and Olbermann. There is a shortage of judges because Obama has been slow to appoint candidates (remember, Democratic majority in the Senate), and Gitmo could be closed by a stroke of his EO pen. And we know he loves him some EO.

I don't watch Olberman, and I don't even know who Maddow is. Gitmo can't be closed until there is funding to move the prisoners somewhere else, which was explicitly revoked by congressional Republicans. Or did you think the two hundred or so political prisoners still held there just evaporate at the stroke of his pen?

Look at the list of his pending appointments on Wikipedia. They're all from Jan 5. You think maybe the Senate needs a little time to review those before approving them?

Do they need more than two years? The Senate's had the appointments "on hold" for so long that they had to be re-submitted for the new session of Congress.

Without Republicans, we would have had a stronger stimulus, with far less wasted on tax cuts for the rich

What tax cuts for the "rich"?

How about the $270 billion the Republicans just gave out to people making more than a quarter million a year? Oh, they were bleating about the deficit, and how they wanted to let unemployed people starve in the middle of a recession to save their malnourished children, but when it came to giving their favorite contributors free money from the Treasury, hey, screw the deficit!

Re:Wall Street rules

[xero314]

The cheapest thing would be to yank health insurance for everyone and say to hell with society, let darwinism weed out the weak links of society.

This is absolutely true... if you ignore the high cost of employee absence, training, unpaid bills, loss of tax collection, or anything else you lose when a person gets sick or dies. Public health care is Darwinism. No where does it state that survival of the fittest means, ever man for himself, or else we'd probably have no ants, termites, Meerkats or naked mole rats (or humans).

Wait, now I see your point, it will be cheap once humans are all dead.

Re:Wall Street rules

[gearsmithy]

Sorry artor, it is his right to not vote, and it is not your place to tell him to do so. You are entitled to your opinion, but you don't see anonymous coward lecturing you on what you should do.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Kazoo the Clown]

That's right, as less than half of those eligible actually vote. If instead they all voted a third party in protest, all the reps & dems could be on the outside looking in. Not holding my breath, tho....

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

I don't support Coca Cola...

You don't? Your government corn subsidies do...

...and Nestle...

pretty good trick...

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

Like the renter, the IP moguls have a limited time monopoly, not ownership...

IP is like air, actually like smoke! :-) It's only yours while you keep it inside. Once you let it out, it's there for everybody.

I can't read any more of that tripe without wanting to do violence...

In case of emergency, fire one up!

Re:Wall Street rules

[Rakarra]

So you were a registered voter, informed about more than the two dem/repub choices and you STILL refused to vote?

Jesus Christ.

Thanks a lot, now I have -no- hope for our political future.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Rakarra]

100 to 1 still means there are 3 million of you, if you could congregate in one state then you should be able to guide political processes without worrying about the mouth breathing masses.

Yeah, but then they'd have to vote to make it happen.

Right, they'd have to actually get off their asses instead of just complaining that nothing can be done.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Rakarra]

The cheapest thing would be to yank health insurance for everyone and say to hell with society, let darwinism weed out the weak links of society.

Not humane, but it is economical. Unless of course, human life, comfort, and dignity have a measurable value.

Everyone would have to be a Christian Scientist in order for that to happen!

Re:Wall Street rules

[Rakarra]

No-one who wants genuine change could get the media airtime required to stand a chance of being elected.

Perhaps, but that's not necessarily the media's fault. The big problem is that advertising, campaigning, these are all very expensive activities, and all that money needs to be privately raised.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Rakarra]

Also . . . ICE? Immigration? WTF?

Of course. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They handle basically "things that come into the country." Customs has long had the responsibility of preventing "foreign knock-offs" from entering the country if they're pirated, in violation of US trademark, counterfeit, etc.

Re:Wall Street rules

[suutar]

If the non-voters get up in arms enough to go vote for whoever isn't Republican or Democrat, green guy could have made it. The problem is not that most of the non-voters are in despair, it's that most of them aren't dissatisfied enough to get off their butts.

Re:Wall Street rules

[HiThere]

If Mickey Mouse got 40% of the vote, you'd never know. They don't count votes for unrecognized candidates. We never did find out how many people voted for Pat Paulson. All that happened was they strengthened rules against TV personalities campaigning for president. (And they started running more actors as candidates.)

FWIW, I do vote every time. It's more or less a habit. But I sure agree with those who say it doesn't change anything. I'd go further and say that it is specifically tailored to not change anything at higher than the local level. (It may be significant in who your representative is, but it's only significant in who your senator is if you live in an exceptionally small state. Rhode Island, perhaps, or Vermont. Some place that doesn't have more representatives than senators.

Re:Wall Street rules

[easterberry]

I do not and it is! The trick is to live near a No Frills grocery store and a Bulk Barn, figure out which brands AREN'T owned by them and buy exclusively from those. Not eating candy or drinking pop much and thinking bottled water is a retarded concept helps.

Also, locally raised/grown products(not farmers market local, but like, within my province) combined with cooking my own food for most meals helps. And I figured out which fast food places are Pepsi based instead of Coke if I feel like being lazy.

Yeah. Turns out I HAVE done my homework actually. Sorry if you thought you were catching some kid being all anti-corporation.

Re:Wall Street rules

[russotto]

You're well within your rights to just give up and hate the ugly nebulous 'system', but it's just people we're talking here. You're one of them, like it or not. Just because they're outside of your monkeysphere doesn't mean they don't exist or are some 'system' out to get you. You're still one of us, like it or not.

There are those people with power, and those people without. There's a difference between the two.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Seumas]

Everyone knows what ICE is. They don't belong policing the internet. They belong policing ports of entry and physical items actually in the country. Not domain names.

Ideally, I mean. Obviously the rest of the government feels they belong doing just that.

Re:Wall Street rules

[ScentCone]

It's not about the domain names, per se. It's about the "businesses" that use them as fundamental parts of running a criminal enterprise. You do understand that part, right?

Re:Wall Street rules

[mcgrew]

You realize that the Democratic party doesn't have a monopoly on liberal, right?

Which is why I suggested Green or Libertarian. The Republican and Democrat candidates for Illinois Governor were both solidly against legalizing marijuana, while the Green and Libertarian were both for legalization. I'd be a fool to vote for a man who wants me in jail. I ultimately voted Green in that election.

I'd say if one considers himself conservative he should vote Libertarian or Constitution Party (If there's a CP candidate on the ballot), and if one considers herself liberal she should vote Green. Because a vote for either a Republican or Democrat is a vote for the rich multinational corporations. A vote for a Republican or Democrat is a vote against American and the American way of life.

Re:Wall Street rules

[Omestes]

Because a vote for either a Republican or Democrat is a vote for the rich multinational corporations. A vote for a Republican or Democrat is a vote against American and the American way of life.

I agree with you, most of the time. Though there still are some true liberals and conservatives kicking around in the rotting carcases of the Big Two still. I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primaries, for example. Didn't have a chance in hell of winning, but I felt he was, at least, honest and actually standing for his beliefs (I don't agree with all of them, obviously, but they lined up more than most). The previous senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, was also a true liberal who was mostly untouched by whatever ails the rest of Washington.

There are still a couple true conservatives kicking around in the Republican party as well. I won't try to enumerate them, since I don't have as solid a grasp on that side of the aisle. Ron Paul, arguably, comes to mind, though.

The two parties aren't necessarily evil in themselves, their members have just been corrupted, or deluded, over time. Having a third, fourth, of 100th, party would be a marked improvement over having just two, but it wouldn't be a guaranteed fix. Look at most of Europe whose member states generally embrace tens of parties, which is also suffering from some serious political problems with corrupt, or overly idealistic, morons.

We probably won't ever escape having two main parties. As a disease it hit us early, and has pretty much been written into government. I'm sure we could someday allow a massive overhaul of how we do things, but I'm not holding my breath.

Ultimately, no matter how idiotic, corrupt, egotistic, authoritarian, or blindly dogmatic they are, the Democratic and Republican parties aren't really at fault. Its us, the voters, who vote them in. When they act badly, we will re-elect them, so there is no need to fear for their jobs, and no real feedback. We really can't blame them, until we STOP VOTING FOR THEM. Worse, we vote for their clones when we vote them out, see the Tea Party victories, most of the canidates had the same moral, ethical, and ideological failings of the people they voted to replace. Worse, most of them just changed their rhetoric from "Republican party line" to "tea party insane ranting" mode a couple months before the election, and we still bought it. Not a year back most of them were endorsing the same toxic policies that are bringing America down to the bottom of the First World, but we still voted for them...

Obama, there is another example.... An example I won't get into, since this already changed from a reply to a rant. Sorry about that.

Re:Wall Street rules

[triffid_98]

Look, Democrats aren't really all that "good" a party either; some of their constituencies, especially trial lawyers, frighten the heck out of me. But don't tell me the Democrats and Republicans are the same. I know better.

I didn't exactly say they were the same, except in that they're quite commonly rich lawyers in bed with corporate America/special interest groups.
On the Democratic side you have big media/unions, on the Republican side you have big oil/big pharma. Both of them would like to expand government and take away individual rights. Each party just wants to take away different ones.

Re:Wall Street rules

[TheEyes]

I didn't exactly say they were the same, except in that they're quite commonly rich lawyers in bed with corporate America/special interest groups.

On the Democratic side you have big media/unions, on the Republican side you have big oil/big pharma. Both of them would like to expand government and take away individual rights. Each party just wants to take away different ones.

I'd argue that big media is contributing roughly equally to both campaigns, though weighted more to Republicans these days thanks to Limbaugh's radio empire and News Corp. And frankly of the big special interest lobbies I like the unions the most: they're largely responsible for the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and workplace safety, among other important rights that we take for granted these days. Sure there's the ongoing problems with pensions and retiree health care, but when you look at the history of both problems you see it's not the unions' fault--hell, they've been agitating for fully-funded programs over unfunded mandates long before the Republicans got religion about structural deficits; it is literally their livelihoods at stake here!--but rather the politicians themselves, on both sides of the aisle, who wanted to simultaneously promise the moon while steering funding away from actually keeping those promises. It allows them to give ever larger pensions to unions, and thus ignore their other issues like workplace safety, while giving money to other interests like the corn lobby so they can get more votes.

OTOH, trial lawyers are a big Democrat booster, and that frightens me big time because their main agenda is ensuring that everyone will continue to sue at the drop of a hat over the most frivolous things imaginable. These are the guys impeding tort reform, and I hate them with every fiber of my being.

Re:Wall Street rules

[triffid_98]

I'd argue that big media is contributing roughly equally to both campaigns, though weighted more to Republicans these days thanks to Limbaugh's radio empire and News Corp. And frankly of the big special interest lobbies I like the unions the most: they're largely responsible for the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and workplace safety, among other important rights that we take for granted these days

Big media meaning Hollywood/Disney/IP Law. Most special interests donate to both parties, it's just a question of ratios.

As for unions, I agree that in the past they were responsible for a lot of good things. But that was 50+ years ago. Now they are an anachronism. Unless you're a government employee the chances of you being in a union are 0.002%.

In my city police and firefighters are pulling in in excess of $110k and full (85% of full salary) pensions + medical for them and their spouses after 20 years. That's just retarded for jobs that don't even require a college degree. Our fire chief retired this year with $280k in retirement, and is now 'consulting' for the department at a rate of $200k as the intern chief.

The list

[Anonymous Coward]

Nike - Beaverton, OR
Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
NBC Universal - New York, NY
Viacom - New York, NY
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
Activision - Santa Monica, CA
Adidas Group - Portland, OR
Xerox - Norwalk, CT
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
Coty Inc. - New York, NY
EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
Chanel USA - New York, NY
True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
National Basketball Association - New York, NY
National Football League - New York, NY
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
Timberland - Stratham, NH
Major League Baseball - New York, NY
Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
Burberry Limited - New York, NY
Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR

Re:The list

[Fishead]

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.

Re:The list

[gstrickler]

You have something against overpriced, over-hyped, cables?

Monster, explain again how your super high fidelity cables are going to improve my HDMI connection, or even the analog audio of my (quieter than most but still) relatively noisy automobile environment. I keep forgetting what advantages your cables provide in such situations.

Re:The list

[the_womble]

The bits get stuck if the copper does not point the right way. Low quality cables also cause bits to degrade which means that they will obviously not sound the same as the near perfect bits that have passed though Monster cables.

Nine out of ten Monster customers confirm that good cables sound better than cheap cables.

The other 10% confirm that bits are happier travelling through Monster cables and they are therefore more ethically acceptable.

Please note that if you are reading this over anything other than an audiophile quality ethernet cable you will not be able to understand it properly and will therefore think its all nonsense. Please try a better quality cable to understand properly.

Re:The list

[Illogical Spock]

The communication will be more free and open if you use Monster Cables, because we use gold connectors and state-of-the-art components to allow your communication pass without interference or any noise. This is why the cable costs 250 times more that other one.

Re:The list

[TyFoN]

So this is the list of companies that never will receive my money again. Not that it would be hard, I have hardly ever bought anything from any of these in the past.

Re:The list

[Mr. Underbridge]

I've heard Monster is lobbying to ban coathangers and alligator clips.

Re:The list

[c6gunner]

This is why nerd boycotts never work. It's like a Mormon boycotting Budweiser, or a hippie threatening to boycott the Ivory soap company. Not exactly great tactics. The only companies that would take you seriously are the ones you'll never have an excuse to boycott.

Re:The list

[Osgeld]

zing

Re:The list

[Seumas]

Are you sure about that?

Viacom == CBS, Comedy Central (Colbert/Daily Show), BET, The CW, MTV, Showtime, many radio stations, last.cm, CNET, download.com, gameFAQs, GameSpot, Metacritic, techrepublic, tv.com, ZDNet, Simon & Schuster, Westinghouse, etc.

NBC Universal == General Electric, Comcast, NBC, USA network, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Weather Channel, AT&T, Hulu, Vivendi, MCA, SyFy, Universal Music, Biography channel, National Geographic channel, A&E, Tivo, many radio/tv stations, etc.

Not to mention the many other subsidiaries of the companies and branches listed above. And that's just two companies. Chances are good that you'll buy something (or many things) in the next year that benefit Nike or Adidas or Activision, but are under brands and subsidiaries that we aren't familiar with.

It is extremely difficult to actually boycott a corporation these days. Hell, if you decided to boycott Proctor & Gamble, you'd probably never be able to buy a single thing for the rest of your life.

Re:The list

[bzipitidoo]

Yes, boycotts are mostly unworkable.

Don't merely deny yourself to deny them. Take your business to the competition. A problem with that is, sometimes there isn't any competition. Lack of competition, and the ongoing efforts to eliminate competition, are the biggest problems capitalism faces.

Lawsuits and court cases are a lot of effort, and may fail. And are reactionary besides. Go on the offensive. Proposing alternative laws may be better. How about a constitutional amendment? A "Free Sharing" amendment, sort of like Free Speech. If it gained traction, would solve a lot of these issues. They'd be scared silly by the prospect of such an amendment actually becoming law. It would shift the debate, and they'd be too busy fighting to hang on to their intellectual monopolies to have the energy to keep up this continual testing of the waters to see how much censorship they can get away with.

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that you're joking, but I've dealt a lot with extension of various things, mainly DVI, in my work, and there's actually a BIG difference between different types of cables. A DVI signal that won't travel more than 3 meters in one type of cable may very well travel 12 meters without problems in another (usually more expensive of course) type of cable. That being said I have no experience of this particular brand of cables, so I don't know if monster cables are any good or not.

Re:The list

[jonwil]

Looking at the list of P&G brands on Wikipedia I cant find a single product on there that I have bought in the last year except possibly Duracell batteries (and if I was going to boycott P&G, I would ensure I bought Energizer batteries instead)

Re:The list

[multipartmixed]

They sell 2m DVI cables for $89 CAD plus tax.

I think that's all you need to know.v

Re:The list

[echucker]

OK, I'm on wireless. How to I prevent bit alignment issues without proper cabling?

Re:The list

[GameboyRMH]

There is always the option for the latter to say "none of these products are satisfactory, so I buy none" rather than the consumer's slavish following.

So I'm assuming you posted this from an unsecured wireless AP.

Re:The list

[AngryDill]

Most of these companies are no big loss, if you ask me. About the only thing I'll miss is "ping". I'm sure I can use "nmap" instead, but I'll be fantasizing about good old simple ping while I do so.

a.d.

Re:The list

[nschubach]

Monster Cable Antennas are oxygen free and therefore the waves do not get distorted? (Not even sure if they make antenna products...)

Re:The list

[elrous0]

Village Roadshow Pictures

Forget it. there is NO WAY I'm giving up my "Sex and the City 2" blu-ray!

Re:The list

[russotto]

Monster Cable Antennas are oxygen free and therefore the waves do not get distorted? (Not even sure if they make antenna products...)

Probably the antenna equivalent is Terk (made by Audiovox). Less overpriced than Monster, but typically less effective than the competition (where Monster is pretty much the same).

Re:The list

[Rakarra]

Yes, boycotts are mostly unworkable.

I think it's the problem with giant conglomerates. You're not merely boycotting a single company, you're now boycotting most of society, because everything has come together under a single umbrella.

Re:The list

[Rakarra]

> Are you sure about that?

Yes, quite sure thank you.

Try this change in your lifestyle: give up passive consumption of "entertainment". Instead take up a hobby; woodwork, bee-keeping, radio ham, whatever.

Suddenly, avoiding companies such as those listed above is trivial.

On the other hand, not everyone wants to live a 19th century lifestyle. Asking people to make that choice is one the conglomerates are happy to do; it means they win.

Re:The list

[Seumas]

I could have been clearer in my post. I wasn't indicating ownership of properties on the right of the "==" to the entities on the left. I was just pointing that those two companies from the letter of support are directly associated with the ones on the right.

Re:The list

[Seumas]

Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic in stating that you couldn't live if you cut out P&G products. What I should have said was that you would have to be exceedingly pro-active in enforcing a boycott of such a conglomerate, because while there are alternatives to each of the products they sell they are responsible for so much of the inventory in a grocery store that the average household is certain to buy many of their products every trip to the store, unless they check each individual item as it goes into the cart.

The same goes for companies like Colgate and many others. If you divided your local shopping place (groceries, office supplies, variety, etc) up in corporate territories on a map, it would be four or five superpowers and then a sprinkling of tiny nation states.

Of course, the problem gets worse if you start saying that if one corp shares a board member with other corps, you're not going to buy anything produced by *those* corps, either.

Re:The list

[WizADSL]

You're absolutely right, most people don't realize that copper has a grain like wood. If your data travels across or against (gasp!) the grain then obviously it will come out the other end corrupt (if at all!). That's why each conductor in the cables I use is .99999999999999999999999999999% pure aligned copper and at least 1/4 inch thick, it is then insulated with polyethylene and a layer of lead. I mean seriously, how else would you move a 1 volt signal at 20mA 3 feet?

Re:The list

[Deliveranc3]

Shop first at the dollar store. Create competition.

There are companies that want to produce a good enough product at a great price and sell LOTS of them, then there are IPOs.

Xerox?

[phiz187]

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?!

Re:Xerox?

[lorenlal]

Kudos for picking that one out. I notice that there's very little tech in this list. In fact, the overly large representation from sports-related companies has me wondering what's up with them. I know counterfeit sports apparel is a bit of a pain for them, but I didn't know that it was that bad.

Maybe Xerox is looking at finally taking on Apple and Microsoft over that whole GUI thing?

Re:Xerox?

[schwit1]

The volume of counterfeit golf clubs coming from Asia is huge.

Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Nike - Beaverton, OR
PING - Phoenix, AZ

Re:Xerox?

[NotQuiteReal]

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...

Re:Xerox?

[countertrolling]

The oppressed becoming the oppressor? Somebody has to suffer.

Re:Xerox?

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:Xerox?

[Z34107]

It's worth noting that while Nike supports stronger anti-counterfeiting laws (natch), they wrote Senator Wyden asking him not to break the internet. From the letter:

"The Internet is too important to our economy and to advancing American values to be inappropriately regulated and censored under the guise of protecting IP"

Re:Xerox?

[Mr. Underbridge]

They're heavy in big media (which most certainly includes sports leagues) for obvious reasons. They also appear to have representation in products that are easily knocked off (ie, the label is all the shitty product is worth). Sports apparel is definitely a category where the label is what you're paying for. But there are many others listed that fall in that bin that aren't sports related - Tiffany, Chanel, etc.

Re:Xerox?

[elashish14]

The sports companies are there for a very good reason: illegal streaming of live games and content. And they totally deserve it. Buying a yearly subscription for the NFL, NBA and MLB easily costs more than many cable subscriptions. They won't have success in taking the streams down (many are out of the US or P2P-based), but they can still threaten to stop providing money for their bought-off politicians and beaurocrats.

Re:Xerox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon is already on my list for banning Wikileaks. Much more significant than what ICE does.

I personally believe that a war on counterfeit, branded items should be a higher priority (see all counterfeit CISCO gear). Nothing to do with censorship here. But if you sell CISCO gear, it is suppose to be from CISCO not from some Chinese knockoff. The reasons are plain and simple,

  1. the company bears the blunt of complaints - if counterfeit stuff is broken, then the company image suffers, not the knockoff creator's
  2. customers pay thieves for products that have no warranty, no backing of any kind.
  3. counterfeit products may result in injury or worse - see counterfeit toothpaste laced with antifreeze that killed dozens of people, or the melamine milk in China

This is what ICE is *suppose* to do. They are suppose to confiscate counterfeit goods and work to shut down these operations.

What ICE should NOT be doing is censoring the internet! Copied bits are not counterfeit goods, unless someone is selling them as the originals.

Re:Xerox?

[schnell]

Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games?

Listen buddy, your overall idea is somewhat reasonable but your examples are over the top and make you look like you don't know anything about sports and/or the leagues' copyright concerns. Here, for example, is the actual text you refer to, which goes at the end of NFL games: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."

The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded

Sports leagues don't care if you record things in your home for your use. Notice how they've never gone after TiVo, set a broadcast flag or anything else? They call out "private use" because they want commercial establishments - like sports bars etc. - to have to buy "business" TV licenses to show the games because those companies are making lots of cash by using the games to get you in their bar. You can make arguments that "anyone who has a Super Bowl party will get sued!!!! ZOMG!!! ZERG RUSH!!!!!!!" but in the real world this is not what is going to happen, even if it may technically run afoul of the language.

A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats...

These things are already "fair use" by news media. Those disclaimers you're worried about are intended to prevent simulcasts of games from unauthorized parties (i.e. radio/TV/whatever stations basically doing their own play-by-play "I watch the game and tell you what's happening.") This isn't because the NFL doesn't want you to hear what's happening in the game, but because the radio/TV/whatever organizations that are doing the official game broadcasts paid a CRAPLOAD of money for the rights to do so, and expect to have you tune in to them as a result. No tinfoil hats needed here, please move along.

Re:Xerox?

[epyT-R]

THAT is why they support internet censorship.

Then the owners and stockholders should be branded traitors and shot for their attacks on civil liberty..after all, they go after consumers and service providers... Extreme positions invite extreme reprisals...right? Apparently, if one has enough money to bribe...

Re:Xerox?

[mangu]

I agree with what you said, but disagree about the ethics. I think it's wrong that so much money gets channeled into sports.

For one thing, sports get boring when there's so much competition by sports equipment manufacturers. Records get broken by milliseconds because one of the guys used a special polymer in his shoe or something like that. That's not an athletics competition, that's a competition on which corporation can rake in more money to invest in gear that will bring no benefits to anyone. What's the point in paying $300 extra for a pair of shoes that will let you shave a thousandth of a second from your 100 meter run?

Another problem with sports paying so much is that many young people become hypnotized with that and start believing sports could be a wise career choice. Millionaire athletes are a small minority, most professionals in sports struggle to find employment as coaches after their short career is over.

In the end, sports broadcasting is faced with two conflicting rights. On one hand there's the right of the owners to charge for the images of the event. On the other hand there's the right of people to transmit and watch events that interest them.

If sports broadcasting were free, there would be no "sport" bars, any bar could have a TV. Bars would have no need to charge extra for that TV, customers would benefit from that. The only losers would be team owners and their associations like the NFL. If the NFL isn't happy with not being millionaires, good for them. Let them find some other business to do and let less greedy people play football.

Re:Xerox?

[russotto]

Listen buddy, your overall idea is somewhat reasonable but your examples are over the top and make you look like you don't know anything about sports and/or the leagues' copyright concerns. Here, for example, is the actual text you refer to, which goes at the end of NFL games: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."

Which is ridiculous, because, according to them, "accounts of the game" includes someone who was there (or who watched the telecast) describing it, not just accounts of the game done by employees of the NFL or their affiliates.

You can make arguments that "anyone who has a Super Bowl party will get sued!!!! ZOMG!!! ZERG RUSH!!!!!!!" but in the real world this is not what is going to happen, even if it may technically run afoul of the language.

I don't know if they've ever sued, but they have sent C&Ds about it in the past.

Re:Xerox?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell are you talking about, did you even read that article? It was someone from Wyden's office who made that comment, not Nike.

Re:Xerox?

[Rakarra]

Please mods, don't let this AC comment languish at Score:0. The grandparent's post still stands at Score: 4, Interesting, despite being factually incorrect.

D'Addario

[JohnHorton]

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.

Re:D'Addario

[grainofsand]

Agreed. Try Ernie Ball - I have been using them for years and love them.

Re:D'Addario

[amanicdroid]

Good strings. I'll only buy those for my electric from now on. Ernie even interacts on his own internet board.

Re:D'Addario

[grainofsand]

Uhm - that's amazing customer service given that he has been dead since 2004.

But still - great strings and a good company to deal with.

   

Re:D'Addario

[Kernel Krumpit]

Ernie Ball it is then - bye bye D'Addario (also after decades of use) - for all our band members and their string playing peers. thank you.

Re:D'Addario

[douglips]

Ernie Ball also went totally Microsoft free after the BSA screwed them for $100,000:
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

Re:D'Addario

[Anonymous Coward]

Ernie even interacts on his own internet board.

Sadly, he passed away in 2004.

Re:D'Addario

[amanicdroid]

That makes me sad. Well, I saw someone from the company interact on the board and honestly defend the strings in a search I did a while back. No glittering generalities, just that they make the best strings to their specifications and don't overcharge for it.

Re:D'Addario

[amanicdroid]

I'd give you +1 for decency if I could.

Re:D'Addario

[TechyImmigrant]

Me too. I use(d) D'Addario strings. Now I have a reason to hate them.

I'm really glad my employer wasn't on that list. There are way too many Oregon companies there.

Re:D'Addario

[TechyImmigrant]

If you can get them, try the gold plated strings. They cost more, but they sound good and proportionately, last a lot longer than they cost more.

Re:D'Addario

[JohnHorton]

I'll definitely have to try them.

Re:D'Addario

[DeathElk]

Perhaps you should do some research before you judge. From the comments on the Tech Dirt article (TFA), a comment by Jim D'Addario...

I personally wouldn't allow this action to deter me from using D'Addario strings. Their interest in this document is simply trying to limit the rampant counterfeiting of their product.

By the way, you might find this article interesting...

Re:D'Addario

[fucket]

I read the post and it makes it even more obvious that Jim D'Addario entirely misses the fucking point.

Re:D'Addario

[scdeimos]

Nike can jam it, AFAIC, but if you read the comments attached to TFA you might have seen this comment from Jim D'Addario...

Jim D'Addario, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 6:10am

You really should visit and talk to some companies that are living this experience. There is no way to file a legal law suit in every instance someone is stealing my D'Addario Strings trademark. We are family owned business in the USA with sales of $150 million. Sounds big, and rich and all that!!! However last year we spent $750,000 on legal battles and got nowhere. We would be bankrupt trying to protect the 1000 jobs that we provide here in the USA. We are not General Motors, IBM or NIke. The scale is not there.

If we were allowed legitimate access to the Chinese market and the Chinese were not counterfeiting our product we would be able to create 200 to 500 more jobs in the USA.

Don't paint everyone with a broad stroke of the brush. Telling the companies on the list to work harder is an insult. We work as hard as we possibly can already (its 5:30 AM where i am right now and dont stop working until 6:30 PM.

I have personally visited stores in four Chinese cities to see 7 out of 10 sets of my brand of strings are fake. The packaging is perfect, right down to the American flat and the words "Printed and Made in USA". The strings are shxt.

I wonder how that would make you feel if you started a brand name from nothing in 1974 and built it to the largest in the world only to watch people completely rip it off.

So your suggestioin to me is to work harder and sue everyone? I may as well close up or cash out and watch the 1000 jobs evaporate. Or better, maybe i should move the factory to China and destroy another 1000 US jobs?

Go on Alibaba.com and witness the hundreds of thousands of fake product listings. There is nothing on the site that is real or legitimate. At some point the government has to take some kind of police action. This is not just a civil matter, there are criminal (grand larceny) implications here.

I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves. Let the theives absorb the burden of defending themselves, don't expect the legitimate folks to foot the bill.

How is possible for the public to ask the legitimate manufacturers to bear the role of the government and police every instance of fraud with a law suit? It would be tens of millions of $$$ a year.

Learn more before developing such strong views and 'black listing' good people.

Jim D'Addario - CEO D'Addario and Company

Re:D'Addario

[Anonymous Coward]

We are family owned business in the USA with sales of $150 million. Sounds big, and rich and all that!!! However last year we spent one half of one percent on legal battles and got nowhere.

Re:D'Addario

[mjwx]

Perhaps you should do some research before you judge. From the comments on the Tech Dirt article (TFA), a comment by Jim D'Addario...

I did. It's bollocks. Sounds like Gerry Harvey whining that he cant compete with businesses that don't have assanine procedures. His post if full of weak thought terminating cliche's meant to distract you from what he's actually trying to do

You really should visit and talk to some companies that are living this experience.

That's right, you could never understand. Now eat your Censor-O's and be happy obediant citizens. This is a call to (his) authority on the grounds that no-one else could know

We are family owned business in the USA

Appeal to patriotism.

However last year we spent $750,000 on legal battles

Not our problem that you've chosen a business model based on suing customers rather then securing your own supply chain.

We would be bankrupt trying to protect the 1000 jobs

Appeal to fear. Completely unfounded.

the Chinese were not counterfeiting our product

Finally, find an enemy to blame it on. One distant and foreign (scary) enough that no-one questions it.

I stopped reading after that because the bollocks was just too obvious. Clearly written by a marketer under the guise of a heartfelt message from John.

I have one question, can users actually tell the difference between real and counterfeit strings. I play the guitar casually and I can, but I don't buy his strings (not available in OZ, due to legal difficulties). If you're worried customers cant tell the difference, you're doing it wrong.

Re:D'Addario

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution: he should switch to Internet-only sales.

If his strings were only available from the company website, his overall sales would be lower but he would control distribution.

Instead he chose to chase the dollars by pushing-out his retail market and he is struggling with the consequences now.

Sympathy meter reads: ZERO

Re:D'Addario

[cbope]

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

Re:D'Addario

[ScentCone]

Re-read it. He thinks there should be some sort of due process involved.

Re:D'Addario

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:D'Addario

[scharkalvin]

So in short, you want the government to sue the pirates for you. You do have a legal avenue if fake products are brought INTO this country, but what to do if they are sold online or overseas? Some etailers such as ebay will remove fakes from their sites if presented with proof or a legal claim. Still, I hate to say this, but the burden of protecting YOUR copyrights and trademarks is up to you. You can't expect the government to do this for you. In other times a country might have considered such acts by another an act of war (such as what happened in "the mouse that roared") but the US won't go to war with China (or even block imports of similar products....though we SHOULD do that).

Re:D'Addario

[Hatta]

No sympathy. Being copied does not legitimize theft.

Re:D'Addario

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Personally, that fact alone is enough to make me like them. I know the vast majority of people will have no idea about this, but it's good to know there's at least one shining example of a company going FOS.

Re:D'Addario

[Just Some Guy]

Still, I hate to say this, but the burden of protecting YOUR copyrights and trademarks is up to you. You can't expect the government to do this for you.

You're factually wrong. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is specifically responsible for policing the importing of counterfeit goods and "intellectual property theft".

Re:D'Addario

[russotto]

I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves.

Ah, Jim, if they take the "URL" first and then force the site owner to sue to get it back, that's what we who remember the 20th century call "prior restraint". Generally considered a bad thing where speech is concerned.

Re:D'Addario

[said213]

Monster makes guitar strings?

Re:D'Addario

[Raenex]

Sales != income.

Re:D'Addario

[Rakarra]

Uhm - that's amazing customer service given that he has been dead since 2004.

But still - great strings and a good company to deal with.

 

He interacts with his customers through an online psychic medium.

...

I'm joking, but I can totally see a number of groups taking that idea seriously.

Re:D'Addario

[DeathElk]

Thanks for the meaningful reply, I wasn't necessarily saying I agreed with his actions. However, based on the advice that his company has been given, this action has been perceived as the best way to combat counterfeiting.

It's easy for us to sit back and judge these actions, but I know that if I was in his position and someone was threatening my family business that has been built up over generations, I would fight back. Hard.

Re:D'Addario

[DeathElk]

But being ripped off by counterfeiters does legitimise attempts to stop the scam. He has probably chosen the wrong method, however it would be irresponsible of him not to try and stem the counterfeiting.

Re:D'Addario

[Hatta]

All he really has to do is produce noticeably better guitar strings than the counterfeiters. If he does that, then customers will learn to avoid merchants that sell the fake stuff. If he can't do that, then the brand is worthless anyway.

Re:D'Addario

[mjwx]

It's easy for us to sit back and judge these actions, but I know that if I was in his position and someone was threatening my family business that has been built up over generations, I would fight back. Hard.

By all means, work against counterfeiters but law suits and censorship are not the answer. If that $750,000 had of been spent on advertising, R&D or even payoffs to store owners it would have been a hell of a lot more effective at combating counterfeiters then going to the lawyers who have effectively failed to stem the flow of counterfeit goods.

Remember what he's proposing, the artificial restriction of freedom (to information), there is, in my humble opinion no justification for that.

When I buy guitar strings, I generally look for Made in USA or Made in Japan because the quality of the metal used counts for a lot (bad strings == bad sound). The A$2 extra it costs is worth it. Same with pliers, the last pair of Chinese made pliers I bought have an bottom E string sized dent in the jaws (plus side, I now have a pair of cable strippers).

Re:D'Addario

[zero0ne]

Agree, he could also set up deals with distributors in other countries, and make sure that those companies get sole rights to sell it in that country (just not make it). They would then get bigger by promoting the fact that THEY and only THEY have the real deal, better product. Once big enough, they can use their financial might to get rid of the copy-cats through their own legal system.

Re:D'Addario

[TechyImmigrant]

Noo. Optima.

They sell them on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Optima-Plated-Electric-Strings-010-046/dp/B003JJG5UI

Monster would charge you $200 for non gold plated. Optima charge you $30 for gold plated, but they last a very long time because they don't rust with your finger sweat.

Or with a more precise title

[unity100]

The list of "The enemies of phttp://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=11/01/20/0134258#eople"

Badges?????

[Anonymous Coward]

"Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!" Brought to you by your elected representatives. Remember us the next time you vote.

Re:list FTFA

[amanicdroid]

I'll miss my D'Addario guitar strings, nifty Adidas apparel and 30 Rock. The rest can rot in hell for all I care.

The new aristocracy

[Datamonstar]

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.

Re:The new aristocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

So they should be stopping soon right?

What is it that they will stop doing?

Re:The new aristocracy

[Seumas]

They're a few centuries late, then.

Re:The new aristocracy

[JohnHorton]

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.

Then they can stop now, as this already exists today.

Re:The new aristocracy

[countertrolling]

What is it that they will stop doing?

Being aristocratic..

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us...

Re:The new aristocracy

[Evil_Ether]

As you title implies that's how it's always been. This is nothing new it's just a group of artificial persons (corporations) legally required to embody the worst virtues of humanity rather than a single person. A lot harder to get rid of a corporation then a despot.

Text of the Letter

[cappp]

For those interested in reading the letter itself

We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community. While our employees live in different regions of the country, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard, they are committed to quality and innovation and they welcome competition. However, allowing others to unfairly compete by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights created by our employees cannot be tolerated. This theft diminishes our ability to keep and create jobs, and makes it far more difficult to attract the capital needed to invest in new products and services. In order to protect our free enterprise system, and the standard of living it has contributed to our nation, it is critical that we multiply our efforts to identify and punish the criminals who steal what we create and produce.

Thus, we appreciate the effort and energy behind Operation in Our Sites. The actions announced on November 29, 2010 once again demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others. We believe that the online marketplace can only work for consumers and creators if there is respect for property rights and the rule of law - and urge you to continue to act against the kinds of domains that you have targeted. Unfortunately, there are far too many sites stealing from our businesses but we believe that your efforts will drive consumers to the many legitimate online ventures and services that we have worked hard to foster and support.

We encourage you to work with your colleagues in the Administration and the Congress toward enactment of the principles central to S. 3804 - the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. The legislation crafted by Senators Leahy and Hatch was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and will undoubtedly be reintroduced this congress. The proposal expounds upon the law enforcement techniques at the heart of "Operation In Our Sites" and will ensure that rogue sites cannot evade U.S. jurisdiction by escaping offshore to foreign-based registrars, registries and country codes in order to peddle stolen American intellectual property back into the U.S. market. In addition, the Leahy-Hatch proposal provides an entirely new level of protection for U.S. rights holders by establishing the legal framework necessary to disrupt the business models of the illicit, offshore sites by starving them of the financing, advertising and access to consumers upon which they depend. The carefully balanced measure would allow American law enforcement officials and U.S. courts to deny thieves the ability to use the Internet to enter the U.S. market and undermine our businesses while reaping financial gain for themselves.

We hope that you will continue dedicating resources to Operation in Our Sites and work toward the Obama Administration's endorsement of the Leahy-Hatch legislation.

Re:Text of the Letter

[Seumas]

[cite]demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others[/cite]

By judiciously assess, they of course mean act as all branches of government and law enforcement instantaneously and therefore forgo formal due processes. After all, if I see someone accused of something I'm smart enough to know when a guilty sumbitch is a guilty sumbitch. Why waste all that due process when I can just call a spade a spade and exert my own justice, right there?

Hell, we didn't need that whole formal due process bullshit for those Duke Lacrosse guys. It was obvious they were guilty right up front. Should have just locked them up and thrown away the key. All this bullshit wastin' my tax dollars when everyone under the sun knows them boys did what they were accused of! Well, I mean . . . except when all that due process found that they were not only innocent, but that the police department failed in numerous capacities and the prosecutor was guilty as hell.

Re:Text of the Letter

[PerformanceDude]

While our employees live in different regions of the world, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard for a pitance, sometimes kill themselves in despair and they welcome competition for their labor as that might just pay them another $1 per month.

There - fixed that for you NIke...

Re:Text of the Letter

[scdeimos]

Reading the "think of the employees" garbage made me think of Nike, too. Funny that.

Re:Monster Cables?

[BobZee1]

at the risk of being the one that missed your potential sarcasm, but monster has been over charging for cables forever. without our freedom of speech, how can we warn others?

Simple solution?

[oldhack]

I looked up the company names, and they are a motley crew, presumably attempting to preserve their corporate image.

Perhaps a new TLD for official corporations might be in order.

Re:Simple solution?

[Jesus_666]

I propose .scum.

An upside

[cappp]

Note that they specifically mention S.3804 which includes some decent legal requirements for site seizure - ironically enough, if those had been in place the actions by ICE would likely have not been allowed. The Summary notes for instance that the bill

Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.

Go Ahead, Make My Tor!

[Anonymous Coward]

If more people used Tor and ran their websites as hidden services (with the domain of .onion), this wouldn't be a problem.

DuckDuckGo has stepped forward with a Tor hidden service, most others should too.

Shocked and Appalled

[II Xion II]

Monster Cable too!

The folly of such an honest and innovative company. ;)

BREAKING NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

All companies will support censoring the internet if it makes them money. Those with stockholders would argue it is their obligation to do so if it benefits their company. Full report at 11.

Odd List

[Frosty Piss]

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

Re:Odd List

[countertrolling]

Wonder what the common thread is?

Lawyers, guns, and money...

Re:Odd List

[Frosty Piss]

Wonder what the common thread is?

Lawyers, guns, and money...

Then the hookers can't be far behind!

Re:Odd List

[trentblase]

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.

Re:Odd List

[dwywit]

The shit has hit the fan...HA

Re:Odd List

[makomk]

Monster Cable is always suing other people over the Monster name.

Not just the name. They've also threatened to sue companies for selling cables that are a vaguely similar shape to their own cables - i.e. Monster cables are cable-shaped, so are the other company's, and this somehow constitutes trademark infringement. With this change in the law, they wouldn't even have to sue - they could just get an injunction to get the competitor's website taken down by seizing the domain name and it'd be up to said competitor to file a lawsuit challenging it.

Re:Odd List

[jedidiah]

Yes. ALL of their value is in their brand and people notice and care if you try to use a fake.

Any people that care about such things will ostracize you for it. It's a self correcting problem that doesn't really need extra legislation.

Re:Odd List

[zero0ne]

damn, there goes monoprice.com - where the Hell am I supposed to find cheap cables now!

Re:Odd List

[trentblase]

I'm not saying the legislation is good (haven't read it). However, it's not a "self-correcting problem" because many people can't identify a fake. Furthermore, if I fat-finger tifany.com and buy some jewelry, I may not know that it's fake until after I get the merchandise. There are after the fact remedies, but there is a good argument to be made for preventing these problems in the first place.

Re:Odd List

[jedidiah]

Actual industry figures have already addressed this "dire issue". It doesn't concern or bother them because they really aren't the target market to begin with.

These people might as well be creating fakes on Alpha Centauri.

There is really nothing to prevent unless it becomes a genuine consumer protection issue. Fat chance of any of these legislative busybodies caring about the actual consumer.

Activision? Really?

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

"......by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights."

Isn't this their business model?

Re:Activision? Really?

[Osgeld]

since ghostbusters on the 8 bitters I honestly thought it was selling half broken last minuet bullshit, but maybe you are right

COICA

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we call it the CLOACA act instead?

Re:COICA

[Adambomb]

One orifice to rule them all!

Boycott

[cez]

not worthless! Vote with your wallet. I know I'm personally never going to Xerox anything ever again or any derivative thereof... that will show them!

New Word

[atari2600a]

We all have to get together some time & coin a derogatory term just as offensive as the N word, but for the copy'right'. Then, we need to heavily document it's creation to ward off the trademarkers so they can't stop us from calling them it.

TFA is propagandist garbage.

[MarkvW]

Maybe there is an issue out there, but TFA is slanted like Goebbels propaganda. Anybody have a link to an evenhanded report on the matter?

Re:TFA is propagandist garbage.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think TFA has covered the basic facts of the matter.. It does direct some anger at these companies, which is understandable since they're patting customs enforcement on the back for performing quite possibly illegal website seizures on those companies' behalf.

Add: National Association of Realtors

[Larisa]

They should add the National Association of Realtors to that list. They may not have signed the letter in fact, but they apparently support censorship in principle and action. The 800-lb legal gorilla of the NAR jumped on my own back, only yesterday. I set up a site for an audio drama I recently produced -- a fun little ghost-story for geeks, which happens to lampoon the Realtors and high-tech CEOs of Silicon Valley, whom we all love to hate. My URL corresponds to the Title of that fictional story, "The Realtor and the CEO" (http://www.realtorandceo.com). They decided that they did not like my using the word realtor as part of a literary title, and are now trying to coerce me into giving up the URL, the Title of the audio drama, and any reference to realtors in the story -- which happens to require eliminating or completely rewriting a main character. Seems First Amendment rights mean nothing, if you do not have a $100,000 war chest.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[Caraig]

The term 'realtor' is apparently 'srs bzns.' But a little more long-windedly, it's a term that for some reason has enormous protection on it, usually enforced by the NAR. I'm not quite sure why but they seem to be trying to make it about as privileged as 'doctor' or 'engineer.' (That's 'civil engineer,' for which there are some specific certifications you have to qualify for before you can call yourself that.) If you are somehow in real estate, you may not call yourself a 'realtor' unless you are a member of one of the handful of realtor associations or councils. It's really quite amazing when looking at it from the outside.

That being said, I think you have standing because part of 'fair use' is satire... but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, and if you want to fight it, you might want to find a lawyer who'll work pro bono. Check with the EFF, they might be able to provide some lawyers in your jurisdiction who might want to grab this case.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[CycleMan]

If you made one change to "real estate agent" instead of Realtor(®), they wouldn't have an issue. Per the NAR website, "Only real estate licensees who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® are properly called REALTORS." It's like Xerox (versus photocopy) and Kleenex (versus facial tissue). No, I'm not in the real estate business, and no, I don't really appreciate the difference that membership in this organization provides. But it's their registered mark, and they are required to work to protect it if they want to keep it that way. There is no National Association of CEOs that created the term "CEO," so you're safe on that front. Since I don't know the full facts of your specific situation, I can't address the merits of the NAR's case, but again, changing to the term "real estate agent" would probably get them off your back pretty quickly.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[Lehk228]

just replace it with it's synonym "Scumbag highschool dropout in a cheap suit"

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[Larisa]

Sounds so simple, but in fact would require a complete new production, and also a change in theme and plot, since the main indicator of the fallen CEOs' status in the world is their changing relationship with the Realtor.

(SPOILER:)

The word "Realtor" was chosen *specifically* because the CEO must be dealing with the most prominent, prestigious, and prosperous type of professional in the field of real-estate. The CEOs essentially go from condescending to and blaming that top professional at the beginning, to begging her for help, to defeat the ghosts in the end. To eliminate the primary indicator of status change would destroy the satirical point of the piece.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[jollyreaper]

What are the consequences for you if you tell them to turn their complaint sideways and cram it up their collective ass? Can they seize your domain?

You could always have a humorous into to your story where you say "Because of a certain trade association specializing in the field of real estate, we cannot call this person by the title used in the real world. So this worthless fuck-spat of a human being, this shit stain on the underwear of humanity, this contemptible waste of flesh and space who couldn't even honorably serve as mulch without ruining the ground he's in will hereafter be referred to as the Reltor(c)." And register it yourself.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[russotto]

My URL corresponds to the Title of that fictional story, "The Realtor and the CEO" (http://www.realtorandceo.com). They decided that they did not like my using the word realtor as part of a literary title, and are now trying to coerce me into giving up the URL, the Title of the audio drama, and any reference to realtors in the story -- which happens to require eliminating or completely rewriting a main character. Seems First Amendment rights mean nothing, if you do not have a $100,000 war chest.

By "trying", do you mean they've actually sued you, or are they just writing nasty letters? Because it doesn't cost $100,000 to just stick the nasty letters in a file somewhere in case they actually do sue you.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[Larisa]

ROTFL!!! Thank you, jollyreaper. You just made my week.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[Larisa]

So far, just nasty letters from their legal department. Trying to figure out how to respond.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[jollyreaper]

No problem! Feel free to use the idea if you'd like. Preventing you from using the exact word "realtor" shouldn't prevent you from portraying the occupation, right? I don't think even the scientologists could stop you from writing a story about a hack scifi writer named Elrond Lubbard who invented a fake religion called Lyingtology. Hearst failed with his lawsuit against Welles.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[CycleMan]

I agree that it would be a lot of work on your part. A new domain, re-recording dialogue everywhere the word "Realtor" was spoken and possibly having to realign background audio tracks and SFX timings, and more. The word "Realtor" is a trademark of NAR and they have very specific guidance about its proper usage.

Without having listened to your piece, I can't tell if it would be even more powerful to have the CEO begging an average-Jane real estate agent (rather than a guru in her field) for help at the end.

Sports

[DukeKottyn]

Hey, no NHL though. Another reason hockey is the best sport. They let their players fight, and support free speech! (Or at least, aren't actively engaged in destroying it.)

Internet Access is a Privlage, Not a Right

[ryanisflyboy]

You still enjoy free speech, but only on Tuesdays or Sundays while wearing your knickers standing on the toilet in your bathroom with a government trained jaguar lying in the tub. The jaguar won't have been fed in six days due to a bureaucratic mix up (turns out it is impossible to file triplicate copies of feeding form W-FU-HMBOY-5 after a Ted Stevens look-alike found the warehouse).

Don't worry, if the jaguar bites you Medicare will cover the ER expense. But only for the first 20 minutes. After that unionized monkeys trained to act like doctors will stand over your corpse throwing feces at the wall while inviting the nurses to a smoke out on Friday. It's gonna be a killer time.

While this may seem a horrible way to ensure a basic human right, the courts can find no legal means to prevent it (the feces slinging monkeys, or the free speech).*

*Please note that only certain subjects are approved on Sundays, such as: the mating calls of feral cats, ingredients found in a bag of Pop Rocks, and Tommy Wiseau.

Re:Internet Access is a Privlage, Not a Right

[NJRoadfan]

Tommy Wiseau... now thats just cruel.

Register domains elsewhere?

[Ice Tiger]

Maybe time to move DNS out of the USA?

Re:Register domains elsewhere?

[GeorgeS]

This is already being done. The Cesidian Root has been providing an alternative global DNS for years.
They even still resolve wikileaks.org

Full Disclosure: I run 2 of the root servers/resolvers for the Cesidian Root and fully support IPv6 too :)

Oh man...you're in for a shock

[mykos]

If you think this article is propagandist garbage, you should see the propaganda that some of the companies in the article crank out.

it's not just for nazis anymore

[Msdose]

Most online newspaper comment is censored by organized faceless mostly left-wing political correctness groups who demand the removal of any comment which tells the truth not to their liking. They leave truly abusive comment alone so it looks like the comments are all worthless and not worth reading. The newspapers allow themselves to be censored while claiming to be against censorship.

Re:it's not just for nazis anymore

[Lehk228]

[citation needed]

IP "Czar"?

[Fred Ferrigno]

Victoria Espinel's actual title is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. It's a mouthful, I know, but the "czar" title is a ridiculous media creation.

Re:IP "Czar"?

[jedidiah]

No. Czar is a good way of putting it. It may be unintentionally on point, but it still is.

Re:IP "Czar"?

[Fred Ferrigno]

What? You might as well call her the IP Reichsführer for all the sense it makes. She's a minor administration official. Her real title is appropriately mundane and bureaucratic, as is suitable to her actual role.

Re:Bit

[TaoPhoenix]

This bit supports Net Neutrality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbBqPkdheFg

Me too

[multipartmixed]

Dammit, I was hoping that was a different D'Addario. Loved their phosphor bronze strings..

Intellectual Pooperty

[RichiH]

As the one who submitted the story, I am happy that the tag intellectualpooperty made it onto the front-page. Similar to Digital Restriction Management, it's an easy, somewhat tongue-in-cheek way to adapt and subvert the terminology of the other side.

And if only one single person realizes that the term _property_ is being abused due to me using _pooperty_, then yay.

Holy hell

[GameboyRMH]

Keeping track of all the companies I need to boycott is getting tough. Maybe I should switch from a blacklist to a whitelist approach.

LIEberalS

[p51d007]

Amazing isn't it? Liberals want to take down things they don't like. So much for free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought or expression. They want to clamp down on things they see as a threat to their power.

Re:The list (litz)

[scharkalvin]

Most of Monster's audio cables use a kind of Litz wire which is composed of many thin gauge wires insulated from each other and wrapped into a thicker gauge strand. There are many of these strands in each conductor. This kind of wire is very effective at eliminating 'skin effect' that causes the current to flow only on the outside of the wire at high frequencies which in turn presents a high impedance to the flow of the signal. While this all sounds great in theory, the skin effect does not become a big problem until you get into radio frequencies. Skin effect does not present itself very much at AUDIO frequencies.

A friend of mine wired his speaker system with #12 Romex cable feeling that the heavy gauge was more important for the long runs in his high powered home theatre system with 4 ohm speakers. We could NOT hear the difference between using the Romex (that's what you have carrying the 120v AC power in your walls!) and high priced speaker cables.

Re:Viacom

[GameboyRMH]

South Park should move to a different network ASAP, they can't show a cartoon Mohammed on their current one.

Raaaaaaage

[dhermann]

Oh, man, I am totally boycotting all these companies. Nike? No problem, I'm a Puma guy anyway. Just suck it! Ha ha! Looks like I'll need to get rid of my Callaway clubs as well. No big deal, they weren't a good fit for me. But I can't replace them with Nike, Cleveland Golf, or PING? Hrm. Okay, that might be a little tough-- Taylor Made! Ha! Sergio Garcia is awesome. Also looks like I can no longer watch professional baseball or football either. Right after my Bears made it into the playoffs! Packers at Soldier Field for the NFC Championship... No! Not my Columbia jacket, too!

Can't I just sign a petition or something?

vote fail

[TiggertheMad]

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.

Wrong. If someone needed a certain percentage of the total potential vote to get into office or pass a bill, this would be true. Not voting would in effect be saying no. However, since the simple majority carries the vote, not voting is implicitly acquiescing to the desire of the majority that bothers to vote.

It is not a form of resistance, is simply allowing others to decide for you.

Another good hitchiker's quote

[Lanteran]

The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

kiss creativity goodbye....

[ender89]

is it just me, or are most of these media companies? As in, the only people to gain anything from shooting down net neutrality? If their petition changes anything, maybe we should let drug companies take over the FDA and Deputize the RIAA as secret police.