Slashdot Mirror
Google Deal Allegedly Lets UMG Wipe YouTube Videos It Doesn't Own
Sockatume writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Google has given music conglomerate UMG the right to arbitrarily eliminate YouTube videos. When UMG had Megaupload's 'Mega Song' removed from the site, it was assumed that they had made a DMCA claim, and that YouTube was responding under its 'safe harbor' obligations. Megaupload's legal response argues that UMG has no grounds to request a DMCA takedown. However in court filings (PDF), UMG claims that its licensing agreement with Google gives it the power and authority to unilaterally wipe videos from the site, bypassing the DMCA entirely. If true, that means that your activities on YouTube are not just curtailed by the law, but by the terms of their secret agreements with media conglomerates."
Big Content doesn't need a law to shut you down.
This is the start of UMG's war against cats doing funny things
If that's true, maybe an alternative to YouTube will actually get some traction.
This will come and bite UMG in the ass, and hopefully hard. Well, I can hope.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Time to sue Google! I'm sure THAT will end well.
Again and again, Google proves that it's beholden to the big content publishers and does everything they ask. "Don't be evil," indeed.
I would be amazed if Google truly signed an agreement with UMG that allowed UMG to basically shut down YouTube whenever they wanted. If there are no limits on UMG's ability to take down videos, why don't they just take down all the videos and eliminate youtube permanently?
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
I have to wonder if Google would agree with this. It's entirely possible (given that we do not have access to the agreement in question) that by one interpretation, it does allow UMG to do exactly that—but that this was never Google's intention.
It would be really fun to watch Google bring out the actual agreement and show how it doesn't, by a reasonable reading, permit this.
(And yeah, I know it's also possible that Google did, in fact, intend this, but in general, that seems unlikely, as it would be simply stupid for Google to allow something of that nature without heavy, heavy restrictions on it.)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I posted the solution in a comment to yesterday's story: leave YouTube behind.
So, does this mean that a corporate agreement can trump a national law? Not arguing if the law is good or bad, but allowing a corporate agreement an end-around to a law seems, well, illegal.
Is it time to start abandoning YouTube?
Sounds like a reach around deal to me to keep each other happy. Youtube isn't a need or a right and they owe you nothing.
Can anyone recommend any Youtube alternatives that are just as fast and free storage and at the same time will not be bullied by UMG / MPAA / etc.?
Why wouldn't you expect that Google (a corporation) can control the content that you give them (youtube videos) any way they wanted?
You're giving them your content, common sense (maybe not so common?) dictates that they can control their service / business as they see fit.
Google has decided that their relationship with UMG is more important than their relationship with the users.
If you don't like it, boycott Google and all their services.
...The one you read and agreed to before uploading content to YouTube, and then there's the "secret" TOS you aren't allowed to read and agree to before uploading content to YouTube, yet you are held to both?
Methinks YouTube will have some 'splainin' to do to a judge as to how that's OK when all others must disclose their entire TOS.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Every friggin thing I do, is controled/guided by someone else momentary agreements. I can't run a piece of software, including GPL stuff, I can't use my visa/MC to pay for anything unless I agree to their terms of use. I can't even play XBOX without giving up the right to sue microsoft. and let's not forget what happens when you don't read apple's newest 43 page terms of service (human centipede). If you added up the legal costs it would take to honestly thoroughly review living, it would cost $1,000,000 just to get by. This is capitalism - it's one of the bad parts about it. Things get out of control as science hones in on maximizing profits.
SO I do what everyone else does. I ignore it and hope it never gets me in trouble - there is NO other choice (in america anyhow). Any other thinking is plain la-la land.
I post videos on UTube. if they take them down, oh well. if they sell them for $5,000,000, oh well.
seperate but related - SOPA - this is one are where I actually agree with the republicans in principal - let the market work it out, do not grow government to protect the rich. let the whiney ass BMGs figure it out for themselves.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I think Google needs to rethink either its corporate behaviour or its motto, because the two do not happily coexist.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
"Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage."
I'm astounded that people are, uh, astounded by this possibility. Do you seriously think posting things on YouTube is a right? The site is a service provided by a corporation and is almost certainly awash with "secret" agreements, just because of the subject matter of the site and how popular it is. I use sarcasm quotes for secret because Google has no obligation to disclose its contractual relationships with third parties because you, the user, aren't party to them.
Don't get me wrong, this is a pretty skeezy agreement, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that YouTube is different from any other business asset. Its operation is governed by a load of inter-party contracts, it is controlled with no external oversight, and it exists to make money. The only difference is that we are now both the resource and the consumer, and I don't think people have quite internalized the logical conclusion of that relationship. Google doesn't owe you anything or exist to safeguard some specious rights. Everything between you and them is business, nothing more and nothing less.
I'm surprised that there are no anonymous competitors by now. Sort of a bittorrent model where videos are spread across many hosts, and are encrypted such that the hosting computer doesn't even know what it's hosting.
I'm amazed that Google is so trusting of UMG. Now they could basically shutdown YouTube entirely if they so desired.
Google needs to keep the labels sweet. Their Google Music product (which is in a US only beta stage for those who aren't familiar with it) needs deals with them to succeed and at the moment I don't think everything is sorted. It's a major product for them and they can't afford another big product to fail. It's fair enough to assume Google will grant them favours, in this case control over content on Youtube to get deals sorted.
But more importantly, Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place. In a statement supporting Megaupload's complaint, CIO Kim Dotcom had stated "it is my understanding" that Universal had invoked the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions.
That is the best name for a CIO ever.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Megaupload's song was removed from Vimeo as well as Youtube. Does that mean that Vimeo has a similar agreement in place, or was that one an actual DMCA takedown?
All ur free speech r belong to us.
*video complaining about this very news item*
*UMG removes it for "copyright reasons"*
Just theoretically ... not knowing what I'm talking about, I might guess that MegaUpload probably has a basis for claiming that they are competition. Such a secret agreement, if it existed, would be in violation of antitrust laws.
It wouldn't give you anything against Google, probably, but it definitely would give you something against the media overlords.
The thing to do, actually, would be to search out all *others* who had similar problems, if they existed, and file a joint lawsuit. No, not class action -- only the lawyers benefit from that. Just a joint lawsuit.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
And I've never paid for any YouTube. At least not to see anything.
So better than complaining that free stuff has secrets, we'll complain that the secrets deny us free stuff?
If you want free speech, don't look to corporations to provide it. Eventually, this will come to the point where you'll pick up your truly free speech from a peer-to-peer connection, like a WiFi hotspot somewhere you happen to 'know about', then from phone to phone, or in the cafe. At least until they figure out how to block those outlets.
We are in the fight of our lives, to ensure we can preserve our freedom of speech, assembly, and redress. There is no assurance that we will prevail, either. It's a lot easier to suppress speech when it is under the guise of protecting other rights, despite those being largely the rights of corporations - as if they should have any. But that's another fight. Sort of.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
While this technically has no direct involvement of the DMCA process, it was born of the interest of keeping in compliance with the DMCA and its processes.
This rather reminds me of Sony's request for an exemption to hack into people's computers to search for copyrighted material.
I think at this stage, Google needs to hear from its users (the eyeballs they get paid for having access to) and for them to demand that this practice stop as it demonstrably puts anti-competitive power in the hands of exclusive parties.
I put my stuff on blip.tv, rather than YouTube, and have since Google acquired YouTube. But it really is my stuff. If you're creating interesting original content, blip.tv is a good place to put it.
It's not free, but web hosting is a lot cheaper than it was in the mid-2000s when YouTube appeared. You could always put .webm and .mp4 videos on your own site on your own domain and use HTML5 <video> and Flowplayer (SWF wrapper around MP4) to show them.
So much for "You can make money without doing evil"
Google. We're just like every other faceless corporation. Except you gave us all your private info. Thanks!
I find being offended by me offensive.
Megaupload is a business, and this video is basically an ad for them. UMG is claiming that they've got an agreement that lets them shut down content they don't like, and they're using it to shut down ads for their semi-competition, similar to paying a newspaper or TV station not to carry ads for competitors. IANAL, and I don't know how strong a lawsuit that gives them, but it should at least be enough to subpoena the shutdown requests and the alleged agreement between UMG and YouTube. If the shutdown requests allege violation of copyright, then they're also on the hook for libel.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Apparently the market has figured out how to handle its own business without the interference of the government. So now we can repeal the DMCA, right? .... right?
Just outsource it to someone else...
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Boneheads.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
According to this article on TorrentFreak: http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-video-reinstated-universal-says-you-cant-touch-us-111216/
The video is back. Google gave UMG an ultimatum: Show us a reason it should be pulled, or it's going back up. UMG didn't respond.
Google seem to be trying their best to the biggest douches on the net. I think I can safely say I won't be buying another Android phone again and I'm going to start migrating off of Gmail. I've already started using DuckDuckGo for all my searching.
I had suspected this from the beginning.
I really couldn't understand why Megaupload ever went to court over this. Youtube has the right to take down anything that they choose. They are a private corporation.
It seems naïve to think that they wouldn't make deals with big players for exclusive takedown rights. There would be big money in such a contract.
Megaupload would just be best served to just use this publicity as a platform. Give a link to the video on a different site, and hopefully it will hurt youtube's popularity also.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
1) Message claimed that video was blocked on "copyright grounds". Not on grounds of deal with Youtube.
2) Does UMG have the same deal with Vimeo?
There's quite a few alternatives (Vimeo?) that exist out there. Don't think that Google and YouTube are irreplaceable. Vote with your feet.
Waiting for the first Big Content vs. Big Content YouTube war!
That is, when one Big Content company that has this agreement with YouTube declares war on another Big Content company that has the same agreement with YouTube, and they take down all of each other's content.
Wait a minute.... wouldn't we wind-up with YouTube as originally envisioned?
The only way to win this game is to not play at all...
"I am the law!"
This alleged agreement isn't in conflict with the DMCA. The DMCA says that if you own some copyrighted material, and service provider's customer puts up content that infringes it, and you allege that it's a copyright violation, the service provider has to take down the content to avoid having you sue them, and if the content provider counters that it's not a violation, the service provider can put the content back up without risk of you suing them, until you give them more paperwork to make them take it down again. (I think "more paperwork" is defined as some kind of copyright infringement lawsuit against the alleged infringer, but I haven't looked at it in a while.)
UMG is alleging that their agreement with Google lets them demand that content to be taken down without there being a copyright violation. You can't do that, because you don't have that kind of agreement with Google and you don't have a law that lets you do it. It's not in conflict with the DMCA, though it may be in conflict with common sense or "not being evil", and UMG may be using it in ways that count as restraint of trade or are otherwise illegal or unethical, but that's not the DMCA's problem.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's just not slashdot unless there are half a dozen google smearing articles everyday.
Google has no obligation to host your pirated - or non-pirated - videos. As such, taking down a video to avoid a lawsuit is hardly "evil."
Abuse of copyright.
Tortious interference.
Perjury.
Theft of copyright (the video itself is a new work)
Google is not obligated to host your videos. If you think hosting pirated videos is "free speech" then get some web hosting and host your own. You can also pay for your own lawsuits.
So if you don't host my pirated content, then are you a douche?
Please be very specific.
Anyone can post a block of data to Freenet. It's the recommendation engine (people who like this will like that, people who put this on a playlist will like that, etc.) that I haven't figured out how to anonymize.
It took me a while to find this story
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/13/1811250/Hotfile-Sues-Warner-Bros-Over-Abuse-of-Takedown-Tool
The record labels were caught abusing the anti-piracy tools that Google gave them to police their own content.
I produced corporate videos. We properly licensed a piece of classical music for online use in a video from a major orchestra who specialise in tracks for companies such as ours.
When the video was uploaded Youtube slapped adverts all over it due to a copyright claim from UMG.
Our complaints and appeals to Youtube were ignored and in the end we ended up having to change the music. We even had assurances from the orchestra itself that UMG had no claim at all
The full motto is 'Don't be evil to your customers.'.
UMG is their customer - Google isn't being evil to them - so where's the problem.
one of those asshole dump trucks that drives around dropping 2" pieces of rock out the back and has a sign affixed to it proclaiming "Not Responsible For Broken Windshields".
I love those asshole dump trucks!
Every time I see one, I throw a rock through their windshield.
I wonder, given how long copyrights endure and the potential for profit during that period, what kind of damages one could sue out of UMG for unlawful destruction of automatically copyrighted intellectual property when the YouTube-hosted version was the sole copy?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Because most people don't want to be a part of a child porn network, and don't want to get hauled in to court for hosting child porn
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
One of the few people here who has any sense.
Google is not obligated to host you pirated content for free.
Pay for your own hosting, to host your pirated content, then you can pay for the lawsuits as well.
In the Matrix, machines depend on humans for energy - that's just a metaphor.
Google's energy is content. Google keeps humans happy by providing them a lot of freebies. The whole purpose of the human race is to create content for google to index, serve etc.
Welcome to the Matrix.
"Don't be (caught being) evil"
IMO: complaining is one thing, posting mis-information is another.
But, in any case, nobody has denied you the "right" to do either.
Pay for your own website, and host your own content, if you don't like Google.
Nobody is censoring you. Please stop lying.
Google has no authority to censor anything. But google is not obligated to provide you free hosting for your content.
Pay for your own website and hosting if you don't like Google's - perfectly legal - policies.
If YouTube has contract agreements that allow 3rd parties to actively monitor and approve posts, doesn't that invalidate its safe harbor status?
This is a great tool for the media industry! Anyone who starts taking too much of their market will find there work removed from the web. Of course agreements like this are never abused so it is perfectly reasonable.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
According TFA it's a secret agreement. That does not mean that UMG can do anything it wants.
If you let private parties control any activity in life, to any percentage, they basically control YOU. And no - there wont be any 'competition' - because in a dog eat dog world, you end up with one big fat dog. Or, a few of them - who will form a pack.
Read radical news here
Why are we letting a small handful of corporate pigs destroy our very society in ways that Carnegie and Rockefeller couldn't even have even fantasized about? If everyone would put down the simplistic bullshit red - blue fighting (the very thing their news puppets promote), it would be very clear that is us (all the American people) versus around a hundred or so very rich people who believe their wealth and power is more imporant than the very concepts of an open and democratic society.
GET THEM.
aytch tee tee pee colon slash slash www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs
Move along, nothing to see here.
YouTube's brand continues to be strong, which surprises me. Just in the last couple weeks I stopped watching YouTube vids because all of a sudden instead of showing me the video I clicked on, I was shown a commercial for some kind of car. Huh? I didn't click on a car commercial, I clicked on a cuteass cat video, or whatever. If I ask a website to show me something, and it shows me something else, then that website is broken. I do my best not to use broken websites, so I'm doing my best not to use YouTube.
Today's article about an agreement with a fascist music company only makes things worse, but YouTube was already done before that.
There are plenty of video streaming websites. I, too, like the rest of you, really liked how YouTube was easy to use, but some things spoil when they go past their expiration date, and YouTube has expired. It's time to move on.
This sounds like Big Content getting Google to commit the civil crimes of false advertisement, breaking contracts, and the like.
Google advertises itself as a video-hosting service. In exchange for following their published rules, the public can upload content knowing that Google won't intentionally take it down without a good reason. This forms a contract of sorts.
Big Content is either getting Google to break the contract, in which case they may be guilty of tortuous interference of a contract, or they are getting Google to make false advertisements, in which case they may also be breaking civil law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Google: Do no evil, unless contractually obligated, then it's okay.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"We reserve the right to remove any content at any time for any reason."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
My guess is that this isn't as cut and dry as Arstechnica makes it out to be. Something tells me the cited provisions of the contract don't clearly state that UMG can takedown any video they like, even if they don't own it. Now, maybe it can be interpreted to allow that, but I doubt it is spelled out in clear language. I'm not saying that I trust Google, but just that it doesn't make sense they would agree to this.
It is clear to me that Google cares a lot about its image and this is something that Google would not want to get out. However, if you agree to such a provision, you have to assume at some point that the other party is going to excercise it. If I'm Google, that means I have to assume that UMG will at some point takedown some video that they don't own. I have to also assume that somebody is probably not going to like that very much and make a big stink about it. Then people are going to wonder how UMG was able to do such a thing...and boom it comes out and Google looks like an asshole and their image takes a hit.
Therefore, I have to assume that the language doesn't give UMG carte blanche with Google's CMS and likely contains some amount of restrictions.
If Google had said ahead of time "We have agreements with content providers that require us to remove any content that they don't want us to host" then you are right, we wouldn't have a gripe.
But they didn't. They presented themselves as willing to host anything that didn't violate their publicly stated terms and conditions (which include copyright-related conditions).
When a person acts in good faith based on this, they have a right to be surprised and object when it turns out Google is NOT willing to abide by the public agreement.
Google's legal problem is not so much that it allowed a third party to dictate its policy, but that it didn't say so in advance.
Google's public relations problem is that its current practices appear to contradict its existing public image of a "non-evil" company.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... when the power of the corporations far exceeds that of the government? When, in fact, the government has become the tool of the corporations, as opposed to the counterbalance that it is supposed to be.
Check your premises.
Many have suggested it's time to take action.
Many have suggested people need to seize control over communications, by whatever means. Some have been heard saying threats on corporate executives would be reasonable, although I personally don't feel that way.
Many people have suggested taking acton against the law makers since it is their job to prevent things like this from happening. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Some have mentioned that they have heard that gangs looking to rais their popularity amoung the people, would use their stolen vehicles to destroy the FEMA camps with the fences around them. After all, if the camps are not prisons then people should be able to come and go as they please.
I am posting AC because I have mod points and have already modded in this thread and don't want to screw up those points, but I felt I must point out a simple solution that has been stated here on Slashdot before:
The high-tech companies that are impacted by things like the DMCA and other "laws" make, as a group, around somewhere around 75 to 100 _TIMES_ what the combined revenue of Hollywood (both the MPAA and RIAA) companies make. After taxes. So the solution is simple: Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Yahoo, Facebook, and all of the other high-tech companies should either form a single entity to begin buying up the content producing companies OR they should each spin off a new division and then acquire one of the content producing companies.
Once the entire RIAA and MPAA stable of companies is owned by one technology firm or another OR the "single entity" above owns a rather large portion of those companies, then all of those K Street boot-lickers can be put to good use -- getting the DMCA and other laws that negatively affect the United States technology companies (and those companies from other countries operating within our borders) R E P E A L E D. With that much technology resource(s) behind content producing, surely they can come up with a solution to meet both the customer's expectations and the content owner's need for revenue.
Pipe dream, right? Wouldn't it be nice though?
Yeah, but they'd probably bring antitrust action against them for upsetting the status quo, despite the status quo being far more deserving of such action.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Well this sucks, I already deleted all my Youtube channels and one was pretty big because they wanted me to connect my accounts and wanted my cell number, no thanks. So Youtube is out and Vimeo and Dailymotion is in BUT what the hell do I use instead of Google seach?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
...is the fact US government probably can not remove a video from Youtube like this (and without generating huge shitstorm).
But a corporation can.
Welcome to the bright future.
From what I read, UMG was simply saying that using YouTube's tools to remove a video doesn't constitute a take-down notice in the DMCA. So they are not subject to the liabilities of the DMCA.
What they are subject to in this case is YouTube's terms, which will state that they can't knowingly make misrepresentations. So it will be up to YouTube to penalize them. So UMG hacked the system (using the correct definition of that word). Going forward YouTube can make it's content filtering tool generate an actual DMCA take-down requests, which will subject the person making the request to the legal consequences of that. That would probably be good.
If Megaupload cannot sue under the DMCA (although when the takedown walks like a DMCA duck and quacks like a DMCA duck...), they should be able to amend their suit to sue under Tortious Interference in a business relationship. For UMC to be able to silence their competition in this manner on a public forum, which YouTube has become, this certainly cannot be legal.
Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml
Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml
So just more of hyper-aggressive google smearing that is so prevalent on slashdot these days.
I'm going to do something, that truly expresses my disdain for this nonsense: I'm not using youtube.com for anything again. Ever.
Fucking Google
So are this seems to be a question of UMG behaving like thugs (and who is surprised about that?) and their seeming ability to take down anything that they don't like on YouTube without resorting the the DMCA and the requirements and penalties for misuse of same. The unasked question is: And who else also has this ability wrt YouTube via secret agreements?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"If true, that means that your activities on YouTube are not just curtailed by the law, but by the terms of their secret agreements with media conglomerates."
How is this news? Terms of Service aren't new; Terms of Service clauses that do not favor individuals are also not new. This story is utterly irrelevant under the looming specter of SOPA. If you are American, stop reading this comment, stop reading slashdot, and go DO something about it. The rest of us can only sit back and watch the shitfest unfold.
Can anyone recommend any bank alternatives that are just handing out big bags of money to anyone who asks?
(Hint: Huge server farms and massive network connectivity have significant costs. (Misleading "YouTube's bandwidth bill is zero" headlines not withstanding.))
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
YouTube actually reinstated the original "The Mega Video" posted by Kim. Check here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs
They just censor the statistics now.
While it might not be the crux of this dispute, if this turns out to be true Google might have to explain in a future antitrust hearing how it is that a media company has the power to remove any video it feels is competitive with it.
Going back to the TV series "Get Smart", the main sponsors of the show wanted to have the actress that played "99" removed because she had previously been in an advertisement for a competing product. The network (not just those that worked on the show but the actual network executives) had to go as far as saying they would find another sponsor if that's what they had to do to keep her. Of course in most situations nobody would have stood up the the whim of the sponsor.
It's all very petty school playground stuff but played by people with money that do not understand that they are being petty.
Bing!
For years I have said here on slashdot that the natural hate that most people shows for their governement is stupid. Governement can be elected. Governement can be toppled. Governement can be protested to with varying mixing result (US protest seems to peter out rapidely, try french Manif' that is a bit different). What can you do agaisnt a corporation ? You DO NOT elect them. You CANNOT toopple them. Protest agaisnt them CAN safely be ignored msot of the time.
Western governement aren't half as scarry , and half as restrictive than corportation do. AND more to the point the same corporation now more or less lead governements by the hand by lobbying.
Corporations ARE to me much much more scarrying and restriuctive on speech than all governement. They are doing voluntary with a zeal many in western governement does not have.
Big Brothers will not be a governement, but a serie of corporation linked into a netrworks protecting their itnerrest , and corrupting governements around, trampling the people on the way.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Use DuckDuckGo, it's more useful than Google anyway.
This is unlawful conduct under Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010, as well as RICO statutes.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
From the Content Verification Program Application page:
"I understand that this tool is only for submitting notifications of alleged copyright infringement, and abuse will result in termination of access to YouTube."
So has YouTube terminated Universal's access yet?
http://www.aliexpress.com/fm-store/708019/other-products.html
Welcome to Christmas, I'll gift! !
Christmas arrived, and to support my friends and my friends love to say thank you walked into my life, I will do my best to give you unlimited fun!
Christmas season, shop specially prepared small gifts, as long as the consumer in the shop, you can receive a small gift in Figure random sent, welcome all to buy.
Even if there is no snow Christmas can also be romantic, with the blessing even feel warm winter, Christmas Eve I wish: May the happiness and your life accompanied! Wish you a gift mountains!
http://www.aliexpress.com/fm-store/408333
Alibaba International Station ID: CN1002276145
Mobile: 13676944403 0371-55901796
About US
Q: Why are your prices so low, are these quality items and brand new?
A: YES, you pay the FACTORY PRICE!
We sell brand new items directly from factory in Asia. That is why our prices are so competitive.
To maintain quality control we do personally inspect for each item prior to shipment. All items are 100% new and inspected.
1.We guarantee 100% customer satisfaction. If your item is not as described or faulty when you receive it we will replace it for you with no additional charge.
2. Many sellers supply grey market, We guarantee that our products are brand new, official and first-class quality.
We want to thank you for your interest in our products. We are a new seller in this market, and it is true that you may have suspicions of our creditability, as with any new seller. However, we have the capacity to accept 10 orders per day at the moment and we can show you evidence of previous orders. If you need more proof, our suggestion is that you buy a sample product first, because the best way to verify the quality is when you get the product and are able to test it first-hand.
We hope to develop a strong, long-term, mutually beneficial relationship with you. To simplify things, you can buy the product from us and sell it directly to your customers - we are happy to ship the product to them directly.
If you think we can meet your requirements, please send us your order soon.