NinjaVideo.net Founder Gets 14 Months

angry tapir writes "A Virginia judge has sentenced Matthew David Howard Smith, a founder of the NinjaVideo.net website, to 14 months in prison, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday. Smith was indicted along with four others late last year. The DOJ charged that they illegally provided copyright-protected movies and TV programs for download from the NinjaVideo.net website. The site operated from February 2008 until authorities shut it down in June 2010."

Comments

My mind is blown!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ninjas were actually.... pirates?!

Re:My mind is blown!

[Cryacin]

No, they weren't actually ninjas, they were pirates DISGUISED as ninjas. I mean, who would expect a ninja to be a pirate? Fooled you now, didn't it?

Re:My mind is blown!

[lostthoughts54]

had they been real ninjas, they would have never been found.

Re:My mind is blown!

[Tamran]

This could very well be the best first post EVER!

Re:My mind is blown!

[jamstar7]

Wasn't there a chart someplace that talked about the correlation between pirates and climate change? If so, the weather patterns are gonna get VSF.

Re:My mind is blown!

[Dekker3D]

Well, if we're going on this tour anyway.. has anybody checked if they happened to be robots too? Zombies? Hell.. dinosaurs? If the peg-leg didn't give it away, what would?

Man. Now I need to start a pira-... bittorrent site with a peg-leg in the logo.

Re:My mind is blown!

[Lord Kano]

It was pretty good, but IMHO this is the best first post in Slashdot history.

LK

Re:My mind is blown!

[Talderas]

The robots, zombies, and vikings are all waiting for their time to rise.

If anything I would suggest that robots have been starting their rise with the dubstep.

Re:My mind is blown!

[g0bshiTe]

Dubstep is just a longer way to say trance.

meanwhile:

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA's jack-booted goons can steal $40,000 (real money, not imaginary money) from your luggage and only get 6 months for it.

Re:meanwhile:

[bky1701]

Of course, they irradiate you and violate your civil rights as part of their job. Theft is rather inconsequential.

Re:meanwhile:

[reboot246]

The real thieves are elected. Congress makes the TSA look like pikers.

Throw them all out this November. If you recognize the name on the ballot, vote for the other guy.

Re:meanwhile:

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what should be an issue dealt with in CIVIL court and result in some sort of a FINANCIAL reparation (at most) to the owner of the infringed copyrights is actually being punished about 400% more than someone who actually stole actual money and committed an actual CRIME. Fantastic.

Re:meanwhile:

[hey!]

The TSA's jack-booted goons can steal $40,000 (real money, not imaginary money) from your luggage and only get 6 months for it.

Oh buh-ruther. The TSA doesn't have that much style. They probably wear cheap Chinese made oxfords with laces that break. But they work for *us* at a pay rate set by *us* under laws passed by legislators *we* elected. We're too chicken to accept that flying has *some* risk; too cheap to do anything about it; and so mentally indolent we let government vendors set security priorities.

There's nothing outstandingly evil about a man who can't resist the temptation of pocketing a huge wad of unguarded cash that passes through his hands. The wickedness in our character is too petty for us to be served by genuine, glamorous evil (the SS in their jackboots and Hugo Boss designed uniforms). No, we get a mirror of our national character. We get *venality*.

Re:meanwhile:

[stephanruby]

To be fair, in this case their prison sentences seem to be somewhat proportional to the money they made from the site.

The site made a total of $505,000 in ads and donations in the approximate 2+ years that it ran.
Smith received 14 months and made $172,387 (I assume this is the amount he made, because in the case of Dedemko, the amount Dedemko was ordered to pay was the same as the amount he was supposed to have made)
Hana received 22 months and I believe made $210,000
Dedemko made $58,004 (and won't get sentenced until Feb)
And as to the two or three other ninja-pirates, the articles don't really say.

In the case of the TSA agents, the take was $40,000, but we should assume that they probably split the money between themselves so it's probably more like each got $20,000 and then each was sentenced 6 months of prison (along with 5 years of probation). Now this is not to say that the TSA agents didn't steal a lot more on other days (they probably did). And this is not to say that those TSA agents didn't abuse the special privileges they were given (which in my mind makes it a lot worse). Also, the original $505,000 figure I quoted for the ninja video site is probably misleading as well, since a video site like that will have significant expenses for the hardware they're using and the bandwidth they were consuming each month.

So I still agree that the TSA agents got off easy compared to the ninja-pirates, but at least in this case, it doesn't seem like the judge just pulled imaginary numbers completely out of thin air. The ninja-pirates did make some real money from their venture (at least two of them did). And unlike a site like Megaupload, they copied and uploaded 100% of the infringing videos themselves.

Re:meanwhile:

[TheGratefulNet]

$100 says that even if 100% of who is in office, flipped, it would not make a damned bit of diff.

people are people. the system allows people to join politics and get rich.

THAT is the problem.

nothing can be fixed until you fix that.

Re:meanwhile:

[AvitarX]

It would take a few election of that, but eventually two things could happen (but not necessarily).

1) if the job is shorter, it will be less sought after by the power hungry.

2) eventually people that are not not going to take campaign money from big corporations in exchange for votes will make it in.

The most disturbing things about Chris Dodd to me are that he doesn't care about money from his voters, and that he thinks of it as a career.

The fact that huge unpopularity of a bill doesn't put his job at risk, but donations do is a little surprising to me.

Re:meanwhile:

[artor3]

That's stupid. If you want to get ten coins face up, you don't flip them all every time and hope for the best.

Flailing about in a rage won't accomplish anything. The only way to make things better is to actually do your homework and vote for the best person you can find each time.

Re:meanwhile:

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a problem then.

The guy running against the guy in office now is the son of the guy who was in the office before!

Damn it, why didn't I move to Nevada when I had the chance?

Re:meanwhile:

[PopeRatzo]

Throw them all out this November. If you recognize the name on the ballot, vote for the other guy.

Won't make a bit of difference as long as corporate money pays for our elections.

Who would ever say no to a corporation if they know that corporation can turn around and spend $100million on an ad campaign to destroy them, and do it anonymously?

We've had a coup and the corporations have taken over. Elections, congress, president...they're all just a reality TV show to keep the public occupied while the economy is looted.

Re:meanwhile:

[schnell]

Karma suicide in 3, 2, 1...

We've had a coup and the corporations have taken over.

I know it's super cool on Slashdot to talk about how the US is the worst country in the world, it's a fascist dictatorship, all elections are run by corporations, Soylent Green is made by the Federal Reserve, etc. But honestly that is a very simplistic view of things that fails to account for the complex interlocking of interests that makes up US public policy.

If corporations really did "own" the US government...

• Why did the government deny AT&T's merger request with T-Mobile, even with the $millions AT&T spends on lobbying?
• Why do Federal and state governments keep laying taxes on tobacco, even with the $millions the tobacco companies spend on lobbying?
• Why did the Sarbanes-Oxley act pass when all big corporations absolutely hate it and lobbied against it?
• Why did the government reject the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to the US when the oil industry spent $millions lobbying for it?

The truth is that corporations or other interest groups that spend a lot on lobbying often get their way. But they don't always get their way or "own" the government - when enough people speak out against it, it does actually make a difference. We do have a democracy in the United States ... even if you don't like the outcomes sometimes. That means you should convince your fellow Americans to make smarter voting choices, not blithely dismiss the system as corrupt.

Re:meanwhile:

[GPLHost-Thomas]

You want to go on that ground? Yeah, let's do that... Let's talk about Goldman Sachs, our 100 cents on the dollar friend Timmy, and all these crooks, who have stolen not thousands, not millions, not even billions, but TRILLIONS from the economy, have put workers out of their house AND jobs AND on food stamps, sometimes with lethal consequences. Let's talk about them, who aren't worried that an investigation would even start, and lets compare to the file sharer sites.

USA, everyone knows it, is the land of freedom, right? At this point, it's going to be very difficult for the president to have human rights talks with countries like China. USA is not a good example any more, it's one of the worst.

Re:meanwhile:

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Right. This is why the government started an investigation of the financial sector, arrested Geithner and Poulson, closed the FED, and bailed out people and not corporations, why everything is sooooo transparent especially with monetary policies, and that we "see in Washington, the kind of government that can be accounted for" (do you even remember who said that joke few years ago?). You must be right, nobody bought the government...

Re:meanwhile:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a graph that explains it for you.

At left, we see that as people at the bottom of the income spectrum care more about an issue, the probability of action on that issue scarcely budges. At right we see that policy responds a little more to median preferences. But what's clear in both is that the rich are much more successful at getting their issues on the docket.

So no, money alone does buy you your interests. There will obviously be counter-examples. But the policy decisions will largely prevail in your favour unless there is a large countervailing public opinion (as there was with all the examples you've provided). Basically, unless a large portion of the public decides it's an issue, the decision will go in favour of the wealthy.

Money in politics is the single biggest corrupting factor in politics. Remove direct money & indirect money & benefits will be the next biggest factor. & it'll keep going that way, but each time the totals will (in theory) keep decreasing so you're making a net positive change.

Re:meanwhile:

[sirjeff30]

Why did the government deny AT&T's merger request with T-Mobile, even with the $millions AT&T spends on lobbying?

The government didn't deny anything. Sure, the DoJ filed a suit, and the FCC said that they opposed the merger, but at the end of the day AT&T withdrew it. You want to think that "the people" had a part in that. I think it was more of a case that Sprint Nextel and Verizon were throwing around more money than AT&T, so they got what they wanted.

Why do Federal and state governments keep laying taxes on tobacco, even with the $millions the tobacco companies spend on lobbying?

Because the health-care industry spends more? Or, maybe it's because it's a cash cow like the alcohol industry? Drug dealers use a similar methodology. They'll give you a hit or two, knowing that you'll become addicted, then they can make their money back, and then some.

Why did the government reject the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to the US when the oil industry spent $millions lobbying for it?

How much did the environmentalists spend lobbying against it?

The government is all about money. Laws and regulations are bought and sold every day.

Re:meanwhile:

[Anachragnome]

And it was all for nothing....

http://ninjavideo.co/

Re:meanwhile:

[L4t3r4lu5]

USA, everyone knows it, is the land of freedom, right? At this point, it's going to be very difficult for the president to have human rights talks with countries like China. USA is not a good example any more, it's one of the worst.

Absolutely! Just last week dozens of Occupy protesters were gunned down in a Bloody Sunday-like massacre by the US military, in much the same way as they have been in Egypt, Syria, and Libya! Worst of the worst, America is! Oh, and I heard that families of factory workers are being threatened just so the owners don't have to improve working conditions! Boy, I wish I lived in China where I can access only state sponsored media and speaking against the government gets you "disappeared".

Your groupthink mentality is exceeded only by the hyperbole in your post. Please, don't say the US is one of the worst places on earth when they're not gunning down their own civilians in the streets.

Re:meanwhile:

[bky1701]

The anonymous comment above this one was not mine, so I am posting non-anonymous. Please ignore this post, random people...

I rather abused the friend/foe feature for a while, but have more been removing people from the list lately when I see reasonable posts made by people I have as foes. Don't take it personally, I can't remember the reason and indeed, there may not have been any of particular note.

Anyway, I'm glad someone agrees with me, as at times I wonder if it is me or everyone else who is truly insane!

Re:meanwhile:

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Making a competition of who's the most aggressive state is a total non-sense. That's what you are diving into. No one is entitled to the depravity of others. Yes, US gov. is evil, recognize it and fight it, and stop making a competition to see who's the worst. That was more or less the idea, but you didn't get it this way, it seems. And again, I can state once more: it's going to be very difficult for the president to have human rights talks with countries like China. USA is simply *NOT* in the position of doing that, when it's killing people by the thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and putting its own people in jail, or even foreigners, for no valid reason, with or without due trial (Guantanamo anyone?). To give lessons on human rights, you should be totally clean, that's not at all what defines USA.

Re:meanwhile:

[kramerd]

I wont make the argument that corporations own the government, because quite frankly, I don't understand what the US government has been doing for the past 6 years or so.

AT&T/T-mobile didn't happen because t-mobile didn't actually want it. T-mobile wanted the multi-billion failure clause, which they were certain they would get, since the merger was known to be illegal by anyone who read it.

Federal and state governments tax tobacco because it is too late to banish tobacco. Pushing cigarrettes to the black market would bankrupt the remaining states who are still solvent.

SOX passed because of enron, tyco, and worldcom. The remaining big corporations were in favor of it, because it quelled public opinion and increased penalties for when fraud is caught, which is still surprisingly rare. The only people who did not like SOX are CEO types who know of fraud in their companies.

Obama shut down the keystone pipeline as a reelection ploy to entice environmentalists. This was a terrible idea that only hurts everyone. Pissing off Canada, increasing fuel costs in the US. China will now buy the oil from Canada, and sell it back to the US, so environmentalists lose too. No one has any idea why this happened. It boggles the mind. (everyone loses this one)

Re:meanwhile:

[Viol8]

"Because the health-care industry spends more?"

Does it?

"Or, maybe it's because it's a cash cow like the alcohol industry?"

Is it?

"How much did the environmentalists spend lobbying against it?"

And what, the government though that it would eventually get more tax money from enviromentalists than from oil companies?

Sorry, I obviously missed the bus to your paranoid fantasy world because I don't see it.

Re:meanwhile:

[kinnell]

To be fair, in this case their prison sentences seem to be somewhat proportional to the money they made from the site.

Only if you think it's reasonable that copyright infringement should be a criminal act. Remember that copyright is an artificail monopoly granted to provide a profit motive, and the only harm infringement does is to profit margins. In a fair legal system, the only reasonable punishment would be a claim for monetary loss settled in a civil suit. Copyright infringement should be treated much like breach of contract, but due to lobbying and corruption, big media have managed to convince government that copyright infringement is theft, which it isn't.

Re:meanwhile:

[maple_shaft]

The only people who did not like SOX are CEO types who know of fraud in their companies.

Thats not true at all, most CEO types do not like SOX because of how complicated and expensive it is for them to be compliant. In principle they like the idea that corporations are having their books more tightly scrutinized but they tend not to like anything that increases their costs.

Obama shut down the keystone pipeline as a reelection ploy to entice environmentalists. This was a terrible idea that only hurts everyone. Pissing off Canada, increasing fuel costs in the US. China will now buy the oil from Canada, and sell it back to the US, so environmentalists lose too. No one has any idea why this happened. It boggles the mind. (everyone loses this one)

Surely it was a strategic move to rally up support from the ever dissatisfied and under represented left, but in reality this was not a terrible idea that hurt everyone. The biggest losers here are oil companies because they actually have to spend money now to transport crude oil from Canada to refineries in the lower part of the state. The refineries are already there and have no shortage of work, you can't count those as "new jobs" as those are people already working. The jobs created to build the damn pipeline would be about 10k and all of it temporary. After that no more jobs, just a giant friggin pipe cutting across the country. On the other hand, a good number of permanent jobs are built up around the fact that crude has to make it from point A to point B, which would result in a net increase of permanent jobs in Rail and Trucking. So essentially building the pipeline creates more jobs, efficient approaches KILL jobs while inefficient approaches CREATE more jobs.

The hilarious aspect of this all is that the environmentalists herald this as an achievement for the environment when in reality the greenhouse gas emmissions from increased rail and truck transport of crude oil will probably have a more detrimental impact on the environment.

Re:meanwhile:

[neonKow]

Leave it to slashdotters to come up with such a hack!

It's too bad this would be more likely to suceed than trying to pass legistlation that tries to keep our representatives from voting based on donations rather than votes.

Re:meanwhile:

[PopeRatzo]

Why did the government deny AT&T's merger request with T-Mobile, even with the $millions AT&T spends on lobbying?

Somebody else spent more on lobbying. That one's easy.

Why do Federal and state governments keep laying taxes on tobacco, even with the $millions the tobacco companies spend on lobbying?

All that happened before the corporate coup. Do you know how long ago that huge settlement against the tobaccos occurred? There's just now way to prop up tobacco any more. Now they're just managing its decline. By the way, the tobacco companies are doing very very well despite the draconian taxes.

Why did the Sarbanes-Oxley act pass when all big corporations absolutely hate it and lobbied against it?

All the big corporate squealing about SOX in 2002 was just alligator tears. They knew the big payoff was coming. I mean, that's the perfect setup: On the cover you put Big Government showing Big Business what's what but inside the pages, you have absolutely no enforcement. The details of SOX is not in the law, but in the way the specific regulations were written. Remember the bill that was passed in a rare act of unanimity by congress was only the broad strokes. The regs were still years from being written and look at who George W Bush and co assigned to writing the regs?

You need to read a blog by Yves Smith called "Naked Capitalism". If you go there, you'll see the impressive credentials and experience in the financial industry of the author. You'll also learn a thing or two. Hm, that's the second time today I've recommended that blog to someone. I should see about getting some commission.

Re:meanwhile:

[neonKow]

Why did the government deny AT&T's merger request with T-Mobile, even with the $millions AT&T spends on lobbying?

Because those that really put up the roadblocks were not elected officials (FCC and DoJ).

Why do Federal and state governments keep laying taxes on tobacco, even with the $millions the tobacco companies spend on lobbying?

For every tobacco industry company, there is a United Fruit Company or a California prison worker's union. It's also not reassuring that it took tobacco losing it's image of "coolness" and gained a reputation for giving Americans cancer before Congressmen/women and presidents were willing to publically stand against the industry. . . AFTER state attorney generals sued them.

Why did the Sarbanes-Oxley act pass when all big corporations absolutely hate it and lobbied against it?

A number of huge scandals occurred, and this would help the public image of the representatives who votes for such a high-profile act. The fact that SOPA and PIPA got as far as they did should indicate clearly that Congress was chasing publicity, not public good.

Why did the government reject the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to the US when the oil industry spent $millions lobbying for it?

The truth is that corporations or other interest groups that spend a lot on lobbying often get their way. But they don't always get their way or "own" the government - when enough people speak out against it, it does actually make a difference. We do have a democracy in the United States ... even if you don't like the outcomes sometimes. That means you should convince your fellow Americans to make smarter voting choices, not blithely dismiss the system as corrupt.

The system is very corrupt. Our elected officials have very little loyalty to the well-being of the people they are supposed to represent, at least as far as "All men are created equal" is concerned. It doesn't matter if it's the best or the worst in the world; we can do much better, and we should. And it doesn't get better without the sharp, blood-raising criticism that we're finally seeing these days.

Re:meanwhile:

[neonKow]

If you know anywhere NEAR enough dealers to have a significant sample size, you are already an addict, and there is no reason to give YOU anything for free...

Re:meanwhile:

[neonKow]

The hilarious aspect of this all is that the environmentalists herald this as an achievement for the environment when in reality the greenhouse gas emmissions from increased rail and truck transport of crude oil will probably have a more detrimental impact on the environment.

I'd say it's a little more complicated than that. In the short term, the pipeline would save on emissions, but making it easier to transport oil into the country is obviously going to lower prices and increase usage in the long run.

Re:meanwhile:

[L4t3r4lu5]

I was replying to the parent regarding the USA being "one of the worst" regarding "human rights". Yes, they do horrific things, but they're nowhere near as bad as other places, and that's the only point I was trying to make. They're not gunning down their populations for wanting political change; Bush didn't deploy the military in the Blue states because they didn't support him, yet Gadaffi, Mubarak, and Assad are all guilty or accused of that.

Yes, bad is bad and evil is evil, but there are some evils worse than others. If talking to a less evil country makes a more evil country less evil, I would see that as a net gain.

Re:meanwhile:

[delinear]

Unfortunately the people who vote on removing the money are the ones receiving the money. Short of revolution, it's incredibly difficult to kick start that process. In the UK we had a huge scandal over politicians' expense claims which played out over months in the mainstream media which resulted in a couple of notable heads rolling, red faces and slapped wrists all around, and what, slight re-wording of the voluntary codes of practice and pretty much business as usual?

Re:meanwhile:

[neonKow]

All the DoJ is doing is punishing someone for earning money while breaking the law, not making him repay "theft." This isn't a civil suit; it's a white collar crime.

No, I don't agree with the penalties currently associated with copyright violations cases, but it doesn't help anyone for you to mis-represent the situation and get riled-up over that.

Re:meanwhile:

[Hatta]

You know why the US isn't gunning down protesters in the streets? Because they don't need to. Our propaganda system is still the best in the world, and most people still buy into the American Dream. That won't last forever, and eventually you won't just see the fringe left on the streets, but everyman. That's when they'll bring out the guns.

Re:meanwhile:

[gman003]

violate your civil rights

Not the only thing they violate.

Re:meanwhile:

[schnell]

Somebody else spent more on lobbying.

Who? Seriously. Think about the parties involved. AT&T threw everything it had to get it to pass. Verizon sat on the sidelines, as did Google and the other big tech players. The only ones in really vocal opposition were Sprint and lots of consumer groups - are you really suggesting they out-spent AT&T?

Or is it maybe just possible that the US political system is not the simplistic "which corporations spent the most buying politicians" you seem to think it is? Can't you honestly just admit that sometimes - sometimes - it isn't all black and white?

Re:meanwhile:

[GPLHost-Thomas]

I was replying to the parent regarding the USA being "one of the worst" regarding "human rights". Yes, they do horrific things, but they're nowhere near as bad as other places, and that's the only point I was trying to make.

They are. One of the worst countries, for sure. FACE IT! There's not so many countries in this world with laws like the Patriot Act and the NDAA. I really hope you wont be one of these jack a** stupid enough to tell that the NDAA wont ever be implemented! Also, as a live example of what USA can do (eg: jail forever without trial, torture, you name it...), there's Guantanamo bay! Now, if you're on the ground that we can find worse, yeah, sure, North Korea, Syria, Iran and China might be. But what's the point? See who's worse? That wont make you go very far. And USA is still not in a position to make any critic about anyone.

They're not gunning down their populations for wanting political change

It's been a long long time that there wasn't a decade without the USA being at war somewhere. USA is gunning in other countries for geopolitical reasons, that's not better.

Re:meanwhile:

[maple_shaft]

The hilarious aspect of this all is that the environmentalists herald this as an achievement for the environment when in reality the greenhouse gas emmissions from increased rail and truck transport of crude oil will probably have a more detrimental impact on the environment.

I'd say it's a little more complicated than that. In the short term, the pipeline would save on emissions, but making it easier to transport oil into the country is obviously going to lower prices and increase usage in the long run.

Parent here... I am not so sure about that though. The traditional effects of supply and demand that would take place in a normal market don't really pertain when it comes to gasoline, because in reality there hasn't been a true grand scale shortage of supply in over 30 years. I cannot recall a single time where I had difficulty locating a supply of gasoline. In a free market, as a buyer I negotiate with a seller for a mutally agreeable price on gasoline, and if the terms are not agreeable to me, I can do without for now and look for another supplier. I can't do that with gasoline because I NEED it to go to the store, get to work, etc... It is a commodity. In reality if every supplier had unlimited supply, which they mostly do for all intents and purposes, and if those prices were set across the board then I would eventually be forced to pay whatever is being asked.

The buyer has no real power here so econ 101 rules don't apply to this situation. Commodity trading of crude oil sets the price such that across the board, all gas stations are going to pay the same for gasoline across the country, barring federal and regional taxes. True they have some control on their markup, but there are a lot of gas stations to pick from so their is enormous competitive pressure to keep the markup at minuscule levels and depend on profit by volume, because sure as the sun rises, the gasoline truck will come to refill the tanks once a week. Unlimited Supply.

The wild price fluctations are not a result of increased demand or decreased supply, despite what the media reports. Market fluctuations are almost exclusively the acts of Wall Street speculation of commodity futures. So where does Demand come into play then? The demand while it has gone down slightly for frivolous waste of gasoline and more fuel efficient vehicles, has not really affected the driving habits of Americans at any significant level. Demand grows organically with population growth as it would if you looked at other necessary commodities like corn (adjusted of course for ethanol fuel demand). Unlimited Demand.

It is a fallacy to assume that in an environment of Unlimited Supply and Unlimited and easily predictable Demand that lower costs in transporting crude will result in increased Demand for crude. The only thing this guarantees is that oil companies have cut their transportation costs significantly and increased their bottom line.

Re:meanwhile:

[celle]

"giant friggin pipe cutting across the country"

    Right across a primary groundwater source that runs from North Dakota to Texas. And much of the ground water source in Nebraska is near the surface. Care to guess how much of our food and agri-resources, for ourselves and sold to other countries, is produced by irrigation? Do you want the odds of all those fields across 9 states being sprayed with oil and made unproductive before the oil company admits there was a leak (or rupture) in a buried pipeline that no one will know about until it's to late?
    Let us just place this pipeline there maintained by an industry that's got a history ignoring maintenance for profits. The very reason they want it there in the first place, profits from exporting the nastiest, most expensive crude made to international markets instead of local ones. Is it worth risking starvation? Oil is transitory and not necessary to survive, food is necessary to survive. How many disasters does it take before big oil, hell any business, is deemed untrustworthy in their decision making when it comes to the public vs profit?
    So let them just transport the nastiest, dirtiest, crude oil en mass across much of our most productive agricultural land and over our largest underground aquifer that also services many central US cities. The whole thing managed by irresponsible oil conglomerates and local politicians who just see the tax dollars for the first decade until the pipeline depreciates out(no more taxes) and physically fails due to lack of oil company maintenance(plenty of citations). Guess those temporary jobs and few years of taxes will be worth the cleanup, starvation, and other hell, right?

Citation: I live here and am responsible for some of the very food and resources you consume.

This is not a worse case scenario just one based on previous and current behavior of the various participants.

This also assumes the pipeline will be built properly and not cost cut in the first place or specs ignored, see gulf disaster.

PS I'm actually surprised other countries aren't screaming bloody murder as many of them get food from the US as well.

Re:meanwhile:

[Rasperin]

It's called throwing a bone so that the rest of the stuff can be hidden under the covers of all the good things they do. They just don't do enough good things anymore...

Re:meanwhile:

[Requiem18th]

Are you implying that the US has a democratic government because they listen to massive outcries from the population? In that case even monarchy could be described as democracy because even kings used to take the possibility of mass rebellion into consideration.

Sorry but no, a democratic government is one that works for the interest of the population as part of its normal operation, not just under extreme circumstances. The problem is that you can't keep a large percent of the population engaged politically for that long. I know the saying "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" but if I have to watch my representatives 24/7 just to make sure they aren't working against my interests they are simply not doing their work of, you know, representing me.

The system is broken because representatives don't represent their people. It just is. Just imagine what difference it would made if after their period ended, a vote was raised to judge how well a senator represented their state, and if they didn't follow campaign promises or made some really unpopular choices they faced jail time. I'm sure a lot of unpopular laws wouldn't have passed in the first place.

I have better system in mind, but that just one example of how could you improve on the current system.

Re:meanwhile:

[unity100]

Why did the government deny AT&T's merger request with T-Mobile, even with the $millions AT&T spends on lobbying?

simply because that conflicted with the interests of the CURRENT faction controlling the administration.

Why do Federal and state governments keep laying taxes on tobacco, even with the $millions the tobacco companies spend on lobbying?

they want to reduce social security as much as they can. tobacco increases health burden. with that, you cant just cut social security spending. healthcare becomes a pain in their ass.

Why did the Sarbanes-Oxley act pass when all big corporations absolutely hate it and lobbied against it?

because otherwise the big fraud you have seen in 2008, would have happened five years earlier. and as you can see, DESPITE that act, it still happened - wall street scammed ENTIRE world. leave aside any shareholder in u.s. so, as you can understand, it didnt mean shit. they knew they can ignore it, and they circumvented such measures through other ways.

Why did the government reject the Keystone Pipeline from Canada to the US when the oil industry spent $millions lobbying for it?

youre thinking too simple. pipeline from canada to u.s. is as in the interests of canadian private interests as usa. in politics, you hold back such stuff to force the other party to do other stuff. as it happens, draconian measures for copyright are in consideration in canada, a prison system that matches with the u.s. (for profit) is being created, and many other stuff.

Re:meanwhile:

[PopeRatzo]

Or is it maybe just possible that the US political system is not the simplistic "which corporations spent the most buying politicians" you seem to think it is?

No, I'm sorry. It is not possible.

Have a look at the excellent film Inside Job by Charles Ferguson. Read the blog "Naked Capitalism" by Yves Smith for a few weeks, and check some of the most dramatic assertions for yourself. When Yves Smith asserts some unbelievable fact or statistic, go on and do a few minutes of research to see if the author is making up any of the stuff in the blog. Then come back and tell me you don't believe there has been a corporate coup in the United States, that when it comes to money in politics, there is nuance about the level of influence of a very small number of very rich people and that there are still free and fair elections anywhere in the United States for office above the level of school board.

Re:meanwhile:

[Atros81]

Point to one single case where Obama did ANYTHING that might be considered apposing gun rights? I'm hardly a partisan by any means, but I'll take the lesser of two evils, who's been trying but has been fucking stonewalled by a do- nothing-congress who has leadership who has made their most important goal to make him a one term president, rather then actually DEALING with the challenges our country faces. (Mitch McConnell)

Re:meanwhile:

[randyleepublic]

The key letter here is the "s" on the end of the word "corporations". You are confusing evidence of corporate in-fighting for evidence that the government is somehow still of, for, and by the people.

most disappointing site ever

[noh8rz2]

I have to say, when I visit a site entitled "ninjavideo.net" I have certain expectations... and those expectations were not met by what I received!

Re:most disappointing site ever

[Delarth799]

I assume you wanted to see videos of actual ninjas instead of some kid running around pretending to be a ninja?

Re:most disappointing site ever

[L4t3r4lu5]

I have to say, when I visit a site entitled "ninjavideo.net" I have certain expectations... and those expectations were not met by what I received!

I challenge you to try and photograph a ninja, let alone film one in action. UFO's, Bigfoot, and unicorn poop have nothing on these guys ability to never be seen.

Re:most disappointing site ever

[noh8rz2]

Touche, sir! While I am still disappointed by the misleading website URL, I must also acknowledge that my expectations may have been unrealistic.

Re:most disappointing site ever

[__aaqvdr516]

Video of a ninja parade has been released.
http://www.theonion.com/video/ninja-parade-slips-through-town-unnoticed-once-aga,14181/

Meanwhile...

[guspasho]

In other news, no one involved in the massive fraud and graft that trashed the world economy has seen the inside of a jail cell.

Justice is served only to those who can afford it.

Re:Meanwhile...

[the eric conspiracy]

Incorrect.

From Politifact

"The highest-profile convictions we found were from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, which was a mortgage lending firm based not on Wall Street, but in Ocala, Fla. Its former chairman, Lee B. Farkas, was convicted of directing nearly $3 billion in fraud that put thousands out of work and contributed to the collapse of Colonial Bank. The collapse was the sixth-largest bank collapse in U.S. history. A judge sentenced Farkas to 30 years in prison on June 30, 2011. Several other executives associated with the firm pleaded guilty in related cases. "

Re:Meanwhile...

[AK Marc]

If every Fannie Mae loan ever given were to default, the effect would have been negligible on the market. The defaults didn't cause the problem. The cause was that you could only make 6% on a 6% loan. So the banks decided to multiply the risk of that 6% loan a hundredfold and then could make 600% on that 6%. And they lied about the risk of that 6% loan when multiplying the risk. When the crisis first started, the default rate was well below historical norms. The problem was that the lies used to sell the derivatives were exposed. If there were no derivatives, the defaults wouldn't have been felt at all on Wall Street. If every piece of land under a loan were to default, there wouldn't be as big of a blip as the default rate ramping back up towards historic norms with these fraudulent derivatives. It wasn't the defaults that caused this, but the invented derivatives.

Separate from this is the racism that comes out about it. I've seen it blamed on black people. Those people should never have been allowed to own land, let alone have a government agency encourage it. And those poor white bankers ("poor" meaning "some of the richest people in the country") were taken advantage of by those shifty no-good negroids. "Sub-Prime" was the name for a crisis caused by rich white male bankers committing fraud when creating derivatives, but they are also the ones who got to name it, and rather than the "1%ers say, Fuck You America" crisis, it's the "minority caused sub-prime lending" crisis. The poor people didn't cause it. They didn't lie. Who did lie are the mortgage brokers and the bankers. And the rich white bankers blamed the poor blacks. And sadly, that's what the conservatives wanted to hear, so there's so much out there on the blacks causing the crisis by defaulting less than norms that the truth will be buried by the real criminals, like always.

If you want to blame a politician, blame Bush for deregulation that let the banks invent the fraudulent derivatives.

Re:Meanwhile...

[X.25]

Incorrect.

From Politifact...

Yes, "Taylor, Bean & Whitaker" are the ones who orchestrated and executed the whole thing.

Are you dumb?

Re:Meanwhile...

[mug funky]

nope, justice wasn't done to them either - justice would be them in prison too.

those who can afford it, choose to subvert and pervert it.

Re:Meanwhile...

[bug1]

President Bush had tried to reform things

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'" - Yoda

Re:Meanwhile...

[Warlord88]

Interesting. Usually, I would have expected Farkas to wiggle out with the help of $$ and serve little to no time, which is the case with almost every rich guy. But in this case, it seems that he is still serving time! From Wikipedia:

Farkas is currently serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution, Williamsburg, a facility in South Carolina that holds minimum and medium security inmates, and is scheduled for release in 2037

Re:Meanwhile...

[ScentCone]

His point is that he tried, while his political opponents not only didn't try, but actively went to a lot of trouble to prevent change. People like Barney Frank are the ones who anti-tried to fix it.

Re:Meanwhile...

[SirGeek]

In other news, no one involved in the massive fraud and graft that trashed the world economy has seen the inside of a jail cell.

Justice is served only to those who can afford it.

You mean:

Justice is served only to those who can not afford it.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize those derivatives you are talking about were removed for the VERY fact to create the ability to loan more people money (specifically 'the poor')? That was the arguments being used to remove the last of the glass stegall act. It was the argument they used to do it. I remember watching the hearings. I remember when they voted it down telling everyone I know 'there will be a recession/depression soon'. No one thought I was in my right mind they were too busy making too much money.

The last of the glass steagall act was swept away in 1996, 1997, and 1998. A full 3 years before bush took office. Where do you think all of that dot com money came from? We just came off a decent recession and suddenly were flush with cash... Do the math. The 2001 bust was just a trial run of what is to come (and the next one *will* be worse).

I knew many people who were taking on loans they could never realistically pay back. My father who makes about 20k a year was being offered 250-300k loans. He would have been out on his ass if I had not talked him out of it. It takes two people to get a loan. Someone willing to loan the money and someone to take it. The banks were busy offloading any sort of bad debt onto the gov as fast as they could so they could have the closing fees. The people who were taking these loans thinking 'sure 50% of my income no problem, but hey I have a new car and a HUGE house'. The government regulators in fannie and freddie (run mostly by former democratic congress critters) were too busy taking in millions to give a shit. There are many examples where they just said 'oh it will fix itself no problems whatsoever'.

Do not delude yourself. We *all* did it to ourselves. To just blame just the bankers is short sighted. Oh they have their share of blame (lots of it). But so do the people who took on the debt (both ' the poor' and gov regulators).

Hell on my house I put less than 1% down. That was unheard of until about 1999. They usually wanted at *LEAST* 10%. I had bankers offering me loans on my loans to 'avoid fees'. It didnt take me but about 10 seconds after hearing that one to realize there was something seriously shady going on. I had at least 20 offers to refinance at 'lower rates'. Not a one was a good deal except to the guy closing the loan.

Once the defaults started the derivatives unwound like a cheap suit. As there were derivatives on derivatives on derivatives.

Oh and they STILL have not fixed it. Within 5-10 years we will have another recession/depression. Right now it can not really happen as no one is loaning anything as the prime rate is too low and no one is making much. But mark my words when the prime rate starts going back up (somewhere between 3-4%) you will see 'recession is over' and other such crap being bellowed around. Then within 3-5 years of that will be another crash.

Re:Meanwhile...

[hedwards]

No, the value of those loans was only a small fraction of the derivatives market. The fact is that even if every single one of those mortgages had gone tits up we would still have been in better shape than we are now had the bankers not been working on things.

I remember a wise saying, unfortunately, I forget who said it, the more clever the bankers investment tool gets, the further away you should keep your money.

Re:Meanwhile...

[hedwards]

The problem is that these issues are very complicated and Fox News viewers are very, unintelligent. Fox News, the same network that went to court specifically to protect its right to make up lies.

Re:Meanwhile...

[thomst]

AK Marc raged:

It wasn't the defaults that caused this, but the invented derivatives.

Separate from this is the racism that comes out about it. I've seen it blamed on black people. Those people should never have been allowed to own land, let alone have a government agency encourage it. And those poor white bankers ("poor" meaning "some of the richest people in the country") were taken advantage of by those shifty no-good negroids. "Sub-Prime" was the name for a crisis caused by rich white male bankers committing fraud when creating derivatives, but they are also the ones who got to name it, and rather than the "1%ers say, Fuck You America" crisis, it's the "minority caused sub-prime lending" crisis. The poor people didn't cause it. They didn't lie. Who did lie are the mortgage brokers and the bankers. And the rich white bankers blamed the poor blacks. And sadly, that's what the conservatives wanted to hear, so there's so much out there on the blacks causing the crisis by defaulting less than norms that the truth will be buried by the real criminals, like always.

It's actually worse than that.

It wasn't poor people who took out the majority of the loans that went bad when the market collapsed. It was speculators - people who bought houses and (especially) condominiums specifically to flip them. With mortgage bankers offering 0% down loans based on "stated income" (i.e. - "please lie to us about your income"), the industry practically got down on its collective knees and begged house flippers to abuse the system. And they did. In droves. That's why, today, Las Vegas is crammed with high-rise condos that're lucky if they have 15% occupancy rates - because the majority of the mortgages that were taken out during the bubble were for investment properties, not for owner-occupied residences.

And the problem isn't confined to just Las Vegas and Modesto and Boca Raton, either. In freakin' Bulgaria, the so-called "Bulgarian Riviera" is lined with a wall of empty high-rise condominiums a hundred miles long - yet another artifact of the global speculative housing bubble.

It wasn't poor black people who caused the bubble. It was (mostly) white speculators trying to get rich by flipping properties.

If you want to blame a politician, blame Bush for deregulation that let the banks invent the fraudulent derivatives.

Not just Bush - Clinton, too. Where Washington is concerned, there's plenty of blame to go around. (Although, admittedly, Bush appointed nothing but foxes to guard our collective henhouse. Clinton just tore down the Glass-Steagall fence around it.)

Re:Good

[MightyMartian]

Does that include the Universal Musical Group who have broken contracts, put up hundreds of MP3s on download services without consent of the artists and then have gone out of their way to obfuscate the revenue collected?

"What are you in for?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright infringement."
"That's serious fucking business! A national security issue, even! Clearly this is a good reason to throw people in jail!"

Re:"What are you in for?"

[amiga3D]

Fucking lucky not to be sent to Gitmo. They're starting to refer to copyright infringers as terrorists.

Re:"What are you in for?"

[gmhowell]

"Copyright infringement."

...and they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.

Re:"What are you in for?"

[Spad]

They're probably all paedophiles too...and communists.

Re:"What are you in for?"

[firex726]

At this point "terrorist" has lost all meaning.
It means nothing other then "Person we do not like"; might as well call them Communists, same thing at this point.

Re:Good

[h2oliu]

Does that include the Universal Musical Group who have broken contracts, put up hundreds of MP3s on download services without consent of the artists and then have gone out of their way to obfuscate the revenue collected?

Sure.

Re:oh well fuck em

[sakdoctor]

So ... you liked piracy before it was cool?

More Forced Labor

[bky1701]

The United States is a police state. If you faciliate communication in ways not approved by the military-industrial complex (including the media), you will be sent to the gulag for hard labor. When are we going to be liberated?

Re:More Forced Labor

[Ihmhi]

We possess the means to liberate ourselves. All that is left is to decide which ones we use. The court? The public square? Voting? The rifle?

Re:More Forced Labor

[bky1701]

The first three seem to have gotten nowhere so far, with corruption at every level and candidates literally corrupted as part of assuming office.

Re:More Forced Labor

[evilviper]

The first three seem to have gotten nowhere so far,

That's exactly what happens when YOU put absolutely no effort in.

Tell you what, you're good at making big noise on the internet... why don't you lead up the revolution? Grab your gun. We'll all be right behind you, I swear...

Re:More Forced Labor

[countertrolling]

...corruption at every level...

Including the voters who expect a piece of the action. Corruption high and low... meeting in the middle..

Re:More Forced Labor

[amiga3D]

In a police state they'd have kicked your door in, clubbed you senseless, hauled you off never to be heard from again. Your family and friends wouldn't even ask about you for fear they'd be next. This site itself, silly as it is, would be taken over and it's management would be also hauled away. I don't like what's going on either but jeez! Get some perspective.

Re:More Forced Labor

[ScentCone]

The United States is a police state. If you faciliate communication in ways not approved by the military-industrial complex (including the media), you will be sent to the gulag for hard labor.

Which explains why you're free to say those exact (utter BS) words here, in public, to your heart's content. Idiot.

Try that in places around the world where that's actually true, just for a bit of perspective. Not that you would, since you're a proud living-in-mom's-basement rebel without a damn clue.

Re:More Forced Labor

[ScentCone]

Right, it's "fascist" to control dangerous substances. I suppose we're also, like, totally Fascist, man, for prosecuting murderers and rapists, or people who con little old ladies out of money, or ...

Never mind, you're 12 years old and can't actually use a dictionary. I see that now.

Re:More Forced Labor

[hedwards]

Except that courts, the public square and voting aren't things that the folks with the rifles tend to use for that purpose. There's a correlation between voting for candidates that promise this sort of bad behavior and folks that insist upon owning firearms.

No implication of causation there, just a correlation worth considering when deciding which boxes are likely to get more thoroughly exercised and in what order.

Re:More Forced Labor

[Anonymous Coward]

(BTW: I'm not the GP). I just checked out your comments page to see if you were a Conservative shill. The first one that came up was the above. So far, so good.

Right, it's "fascist" to control dangerous substances. I suppose we're also, like, totally Fascist, man, for prosecuting murderers and rapists, or people who con little old ladies out of money, or ...

Hurting people who smoke non-dangerous drugs like marijuana is certainly in the realm of fascism.

Hurting people who decide to grow dangerous plants is also in the realm of fascism. For example, the sugar cane plant is used to create table sugar; which is associated with heart disease, obesity, diabetes and DEATH! Because people have an inherent moral right to do what they want with there bodies (whether it be a relatively innocuous thing like smoking marijuana, or something relatively dangerous like ingesting sugar), punishing these people and putting them in jail is certainly in the realm of fascism.

Aside from your other logical fallacies, this very lame ad hominem just proves that Conservatives can never win an argument that is based on logic:

Never mind, you're 12 years old and can't actually use a dictionary.

Re:More Forced Labor

[delinear]

Do you think a police state happens overnight, or that people in police states never made this kind of argument before the tipping point? (hell, even after the tipping point people would say "don't rock the boat, they're not after us" right up until the door is broken down - that's how police states even continue to function). Would you rather people wait for an actual police state to be in effect before speaking out about the erosion of rights?

Re:More Forced Labor

[ScentCone]

Hurting people who smoke non-dangerous drugs like marijuana is certainly in the realm of fascism.

No, making people who don't increase their own odds of early-onset mental problems, a broad spectrum of addictive behaviors, respiratory trouble, seriously impaired productivity and stunted cognitive development and the rest pay for the results of the people who do is grotesque Nanny Statism and a particularly ironic form of slavery. Same applies to making productive people who know how to eat vegetables pay for the medical care racked up by people who die slowly and expensively because they did nothing but sit in front of the TV and eat sugar and fat. Regardless, you're still completely mis-using the word "fascism," which you surely know, since you are obviously a highly educated, elite liberal arts major. And that brings up the question of why you would so deliberately mis-use such a clearly defined word. I suspect it's because you don't want to be seen eroding the credibility of all of the shrill whiners who use that word so reflexively ... but only because they more often use it in defense of leftist sensibilities.

this very lame ad hominem

Nah, it was an appropriate characterization of the juvenile perspective expressed by the person who - like you - trotted out the hilariously wrong "police state" meme. Most people who make it past adolscent levels of "debate" along those lines figure out how ridiculous they sound. I'm helping out with that, by making sure they notice it sooner, rather than later. Which is very generous of me.

Re:oh well fuck em

[bky1701]

The reason these people can make their money is because the RIAA/MPAA has threatened the P2P peers for uploading. The problem of "profiteering" is entirely created by the copyright holders and I have zero sympathy for them.

My tax money supporting the film industry

[BlueCoder]

I am upset that my taxes go to supporting the film industry's copyright policing like this.

Keeping a person in jail for a year costs between 25-50K not including court costs.

That's money that can be used for more worthwhile things. What it's being spent on will not result in any changed behavior or profits for the entertainment industry. It only drives things more underground and makes people become more sophisticated. The only people making money from this are the lawyers collecting paychecks and not producing anything of worth for society.

It's also exposes all the corrupt politicians and the justice system. While they have always been corrupt I would have been happier to live in ignorance than to have it exposed out in the open like this.

Copyright police? Censorship? The original politicians that started this country are turning over in their graves. This country was started as a backlash to self serving corruption like this.

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[bky1701]

The founders were not saints. Most were tax evaders or smugglers angry about the British crackdowns on their activities. Almost all owned slaves. Many were womanizers. Once in office, they pretty much all abused power; the Alien and Sedition Acts were possibly worse than their modern counterparts, especially compared to what was actually possible in the day. My point is, they might have been perfectly fine with a lot of what is going on today. Indeed, they'd likely be more concerned about the Federal Reserve than with the rampant corruption and rights violations.

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[nnet]

"...This country was started as a backlash to self serving corruption like this...."
heh no. They wanted to start their OWN self-serving corruption. They were tired of being at the bottom of someone elses totem pole :)

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[shellscriptz]

"Keeping a person in jail for a year costs between 25-50K not including court costs." ... either way its more than I make unfortunately. Buy a dvd? Shit, I save all my money for food and electricity. Thank the good lord I have an EFF friendly neighbor with open wifi.

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[jamstar7]

Of course they'd be a damned sight more concerned with the Federal Reserve than with corruption. The Federal Reserve is a private bank that only deals with other banks. It usurped the Constitutional monopoly of the Federal government to mint and print money and put that in the hands of the banks. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money fiat money for the definition of what we have here. With fractional reserve banking as well, the banks 'create' money every time they write a check or float a loan. The money comes out of thin air, the very definition of fiat money.

If the government took back control of its money, they could wipe out a good percentage of the corruption in this country.

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[misexistentialist]

The founders were not saints. Most were tax evaders or smugglers angry about the British crackdowns on their activities. Almost all owned slaves. Many were womanizers. Once in office, they pretty much all abused power; the Alien and Sedition Acts were possibly worse than their modern counterparts, especially compared to what was actually possible in the day. My point is, they might have been perfectly fine with a lot of what is going on today.

True, they were men. Obviously they would be opposed to the current feminist-alien state supported by an enormous taxation superstructure.

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[randyleepublic]

That's what's so cool about the money scam. No one gets it and no one ever will. It is indeed the perfect crime.

Re:My tax money supporting the film industry

[randyleepublic]

By the way, you don't get it either. Fiat money is the only kind you want. If a nation ever tried to hew to a strict gold standard, it wouldn't last 5 years.

Re:At least...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be a better judgement if they took the accounts for the operation, sold the assets (pay for legal fees + fines) and gave out mandatory volunteer time instead. No need to throw them behind bars when it isn't a violent crime for so long. 2-3 months at worst, unless they have dependents.

That way the guy will get a pretty thick boot to the rear and will still be productive to society.

"Authorities"?

[jginspace]

The site operated from February 2008 until authorities shut it down in June 2010.

Ninjavideo.net was among the first group of sites seized by ICE and their "authority" is questionable.

Interestingly, ICE have not placed a redirect to their Youtube video yet on any of the Ninja* sites (see TVshack.cc for an example) so presumably the decision to steal/confiscate the site is still being contested by Matthew David Howard Smith or an associate.

Re:"Authorities"?

[hedwards]

I get ICE, technically I'm sure some of those downloads were international. What I really don't get is why the DHS is involved in this at all.

Re:"Authorities"?

[lostfayth]

ICE is a branch of DHS these days:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the second largest investigative agency in the federal government. Created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, ICE now has more than 20,000 employees in offices in all 50 states and 47 foreign countries.

www.ice.gov/about/overview/

Re:At least...

[Thexare Blademoon]

This is Virginia. We don't think here.

you realize one CDO could be a billion dollars

[decora]

the fraud perpetrated by Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, etc, in one single day dwarfed by a dozen fold the fraud this mortgage guy perpetrated in his whole career.

where do you think they sold all those fraudulent mortgages?

Re:you realize one CDO could be a billion dollars

[mc6809e]

the fraud perpetrated by Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, etc, in one single day dwarfed by a dozen fold the fraud this mortgage guy perpetrated in his whole career.

where do you think they sold all those fraudulent mortgages?

  Lehman et al aren't ratings agencies. It was the ratings agencies that vouched for those mortgages. Of course Lehman et al didn't trust those ratings and shorted most of the paper making billions. But they didn't originate the mortgages. It was lending agents and applicants that committed the fraud.

Re:you realize one CDO could be a billion dollars

[pieisgood]

The way I understand it is that they never sold mortgages. They sold insurance (Credit Default Swaps) on the low end or per-packeged mortgage clumps, but unlike an insurance company they didn't have to have the requisite capital to enter these contracts... and when the mortgages went under they had to pay the mortgage holders the losses they took on that mortgage.

simplified, they gave insurance to banks who sold mortgages on houses... those mortgages went bust and thus they had to pay. But they didn't have the capital to pay thus the shit storm.

Re:you realize one CDO could be a billion dollars

[GPLHost-Thomas]

No. Goldman Sachs (just as a single example, because they're the biggest crooks of them all) has been selling junks KNOWING they were junks. And you know what? They are continuing to do so.

Re:you realize one CDO could be a billion dollars

[GPLHost-Thomas]

CDS are only a part of the fraud. Another is selling derivatives knowing that they were/are junks, because you make money when buying, then reselling them for more expensive, whatever the actual real value of them.

Re:you realize one CDO could be a billion dollars

[delinear]

Not only selling junk knowing it was junk but then betting against that junk in the hope that it would fail (when they'd already stacked all the cards in order to achieve this). If I sold a race horse that I'd crippled, pretending all was okay just so that I could then bet against that horse in a race, I'd certainly be in jail for fraud and illegally using my insider knowledge. Meanwhile the banking system continue to award themselves record bonuses, knowing they're untouchable (aside from the odd scapegoat thrown to the press).

Re:Good

[AmazingRuss]

Yep, thieves are thieves. Were it up to me, they'd all be in jail.

Not into letting some go because others get away with it. That's toddler logic.

Acronym Wars

[phrostie]

is it just me or are the MPAA and RIAA and other acronyms doing just fine without their SOPA and PIPA?

Re:Acronym Wars

[hedwards]

Same goes for the top 1%, they're doing just fine without their tax cuts. Doesn't stop the whining about how raising taxes on them or failing to renew tax cuts is going to kill American jobs though.

Re:Acronym Wars

[jez9999]

I dunno, but they're both a PITA and if they target you you're SOL; I just wish they would STFU and GTFO.

Re:Acronym Wars

[MrSteveSD]

We need to start fighting back with our own acronyms. How about ROCTA (Reduction of Copyright Term Act)?

Proper response to piracy

[GillyGuthrie]

Many game developers are fed up with PC piracy and feel they are in a lose-lose situation and they don't want to choose between DRM-laden software or Internet activation... these companies (maker of Crysis comes to mind) vow to develop more heavily for the "console" platforms (XBox, etc.) because piracy is less common there. Of course, if Crysis 3 is console-only, people will probably go the extra mile and modify their boxes and pirate it anyways, but that's beside the point. The point is, game devs (along with authors and other artists) have manned up for ages and when piracy becomes an issue for them, they find a solution that doesn't involve hundreds of frivolous lawsuits that is harming everybody with its costs in tying up our legal system.

Re:Proper response to piracy

[Shikaku]

Many game developers are fed up with PC piracy and feel they are in a lose-lose situation and they don't want to choose between DRM-laden software or Internet activation... these companies (maker of Crysis comes to mind) vow to develop more heavily for the "console" platforms (XBox, etc.) because piracy is less common there. Of course, if Crysis 3 is console-only, people will probably go the extra mile and modify their boxes and pirate it anyways, but that's beside the point. The point is, game devs (along with authors and other artists) have manned up for ages and when piracy becomes an issue for them, they find a solution that doesn't involve hundreds of frivolous lawsuits that is harming everybody with its costs in tying up our legal system.

I wonder how Steam is... It should be tanking and going out of business with all this piracy...

Re:Proper response to piracy

[pgward]

I like to think steam is doing a lot to further this cause. They are by no means perfect, but they are a step in the right direction. I personally went from being a heavy user of pirated games to being 100% legit due to the service offered by steam. It is not perfect, but I'll take community, auto-mated maintenance, single point of sale, specials and good service over punk buster and/or downloading cracks any day.

Re:Proper response to piracy

[gl4ss]

truth is, all game developers who come up with a really, really good game end up with gobs and gobs of cash.

just like it was in the c64 days.
just like it was in the amiga days.
just like it was in the 486dx with doom is the shit days.

piracy isn't the real problem for game developers, the "problem" is that they have competition from other game producers.

doj workers however don't have any other business than prosecuting people of course.

Re:Proper response to piracy

[blahplusplus]

The real issue was never piracy it's about dev's having a dumb captive audience that will pay for the same games over and over again. Any devs who whine about piracy when you look at sales numbers of skyrim of Call of duty are idiots.

Re:Proper response to piracy

[ScentCone]

truth is, all game developers who come up with a really, really good game end up with gobs and gobs of cash

Which would be interesting if it were the least bit true.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So a thieve is someone who buy's a dvd and share's it with a friend? or someone who watches a tv series (free ota cbs grey's antomy for example), records it and share's it with a friend? or uses tivo to record 1000's of shows and share them with some one who responds in kind in life and shares them to another friend and on and on? Would you consider a close relative a thieve because they were on a party, popped their cell to record a baby laughing and there was some copyrigthed music on the background? Would you put in jail someone who recorded your bbq and posted it online? recorded a theater movie with a shitty quality cellphone and posted it online for people whom would'nt ever go to the movies to watch it? ('cause no one who actually goes to the movies would watch that kind of s#!t)? WTF is wrong with you? .. if you were an intelligent human beeing, you'd consider asking the copyright holders to make the actual movies,music,images,tv series, etc.. available online for the same fee they charge at a timely manner which would definitely avoid all these "pirate sites" who only exist because the "holders" wont release for whicherver stupid reason they think is right what people want to see. Remember the prohibition? the only reason ppl kept "pirating" alcohol is because it was nowehere to be found.. once the prohibition stopped .. only very few kept "pirating" alcohol, the rest of the people went back to paying/buying their alcohol ... yeah.. i'm sure your (great)grandpa should ROT IN JAIL for drinking during the prohibition .. 'cause let me tell you..he did! .. so yes.. ever borrowed a book? watched a DVD on a friend's house? listened to someone elses ipod? ROOOOT IN JAAAAILLL TOO!!!!

uhm, you mean like youtube?

[decora]

if they wanted to stop piracy on youtube, they could just grep for "no copyright infringement intended" and "fair use", that would get about 500,000 hits and they could stop the "thing thats like Rhapsody only no commercials and you can play whatever song you want"

Re:uhm, you mean like youtube?

[delinear]

They already have a kill switch for Youtube content, it's just that playing whack-a-mole there is probably a full time job for a bunch of minimum-wage-slaves, while this is a case their trained lawyers and bought-and-paid police force can sink their teeth into.

where are you people for the Stephen Kim trial?

[decora]

when they are locking up people on bogus Espionage Act charges, you don't seem to care... but take away your ability to get free porn and video games... omg they are worse than hitler.

Re:Good

[AmazingRuss]

You sound like a thief.

Re:oh well fuck em

[exomondo]

It's just like Gabe Newell pointed out, that Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. I believe that to be true, buying music used to be a PITA, either horrible DRM schemes or the fact that you had to physically go to a store when the technology clearly existed to make this quick, easy and convenient. Until the rise of (mostly) DRM-free stores like iTunes, Zune, etc... I used to pirate music because it was easier not because it was cheaper, i had the money and i was quite willing to pay, but they decided to make it really inconvenient for me to be their customer. Now i buy all my music off iTunes and Zune because it's so easy, I can even do it in the car, on the plane or while i'm walking down the street! Same with Steam or XBox Games On Demand or PSN, rather than going to a store these services have made it much more convenient and I'm willing to pay for that convenience because that's really what I wanted.

The RIAA/MPAA are just dinosaurs, relics of the time before the internet who are now finding themselves too far behind and too far out of touch, all they have left is lawyers.

Gabe Newell interview

Re:Good

[AmazingRuss]

I knew one of you "it's not theft" language lawyers would show up. It's fucking theft. Period.

The guys at Megaupload made huge amounts of money facilitating theft. They flaunted it, lived like greedy mafia pigs, and here you are defending them.

As for the second point, that's just toddler logic. Some rich pricks get away with murder, rape, torture, and any number of other crimes. You want to stop prosecuting those crimes too?

Re:oh well fuck em

[hjf]

I know plenty of people here who like to pirate because they DON'T want to pay for stuff. They'd rather download a movie in parts from a file download service (disconnecting from the internet every now and then to renew their IP address and jump the time limits) and spend days doing this rather than walking even 1 block to a video rental store and pay $2 to watch the movie.

This was true when internet was 512k and downloading a movie took more than a day.

There are people who just don't want to pay for stuff - sadly, this "conveniency" piracy makes it too easy for most people to think "this is how things should be", and convince themselves that "free" is the only acceptable price. Piracy here is the norm, not the exception. We have VOD services, and Netflix and most people I showed netflix to just laugh at you for paying $8 a month to watch movies "you can gef for free".

Re:oh well fuck em

[exomondo]

I know plenty of people here who like to pirate because they DON'T want to pay for stuff.

Of course, there are always going to be people who will be of that mindset.

There are people who just don't want to pay for stuff - sadly, this "conveniency" piracy makes it too easy for most people to think "this is how things should be", and convince themselves that "free" is the only acceptable price. Piracy here is the norm, not the exception. We have VOD services, and Netflix and most people I showed netflix to just laugh at you for paying $8 a month to watch movies "you can gef for free".

There always will be those who won't pay just because they can get it for free but if it's easier or just as easy to get it legitimately, even if that means having to pay, I'd say that would win a lot of people over, or would have if it were implemented in the early days.

I think it likely has something to do with the way convenience piracy got so widespread and accepted through the time when the RIAA/MPAA thought they really could control the internet with lawyers and so didn't bother with it as a distribution medium, which means your paying customers turned to piracy for convenience and now you also have a generation of people who have only known generally-accepted convenience piracy, it's hard to turn them into paying customers.

Re:Good

[LordLimecat]

Way to change the subject. The case isnt about what UMG, North Korea, or Pol Pot has done, but about what the ninjavideos folks did.

Seriously, is this what passes for discourse now on slashdot?

Re:We dun poked the bear..

[green1]

Why any site that allows users to upload any content at all would risk having equipment, staff, or customers inside the USA at this point is beyond me.

If I was running such a site I would make sure the DNS was under a non-us country code, all employees were located outside the USA (And knew not to travel there for any reason), the servers would be hosted outside the USA, and I would block any US IPs. Not doing this puts you at a HUGE risk that just isn't worth it. All it takes is a few users to upload things that aren't popular with some rich lobby group in the USA and you're out of business, all your assets confiscated, and on your way to prison...

Let the USA rot in it's own internet backwater, the rest of the world doesn't need it. Maybe enough sites blocking american visitors would start to make some of them actually care enough to clean up their mess.

Start of a trend?

[basecastula]

Will this finally help ween people off worthless media? Maybe that would show the industry to make content worth paying for.

Obligatory Demotivational Poster

[oracleguy01]

http://www.despair.com/corruption.html

Re:oh well fuck em

[exomondo]

There's another angle to "convenience piracy" on music which is that the albums always leaks days or even weeks before you can legit buy them.

That's absolutely true and also applies to the artificial delay the movie industry places between the cinema release of a film and the release of it to VoD or DVD/Bluray. Not to mention non-worldwide releases of music and movies.

Re:oh well fuck em

[hedwards]

I'm probably going to have to crack my steam games because I'm going somewhere that I'm not going to be able to connect to the internet regularly. Steam is a complete joke when it comes to offline mode. Sometimes you can be offline for months other times it decides that it needs to phone home after a few days.

Re:At least...

[hedwards]

14 months isn't reasonable, this should have been a civil matter, the parties that owned the copyrights are rich enough to be able to file suit. These aren't exactly independent production companies that genuinely can't afford to bring these things to trial, these are rich corporations that would have no problem whatsoever paying to protect their property. This isn't like somebody burgled their office which would be a legitimate reason for the authorities to handle it.

Meanwhile Goldman sachs

[voss]

Sold derivatives to customers which they knew had inflated ratings, then shorted against their own product and did no jail time.

for those who don't get the reference

[KingAlanI]

it's a quote from Alice's Restaurant Massacree by Arlo Guthrie (Arlo's minor crime is littering instead of copyright infringement)

Phew!!

[Al in SoCal]

I feel so much safer!! Thank you DOJ for making me and my family safe again.

Flawed logic

[dutchwhizzman]

These coins have faces on both sides. That's why flipping them won't make a difference.

And really..... "The Other Guy"? Democracy shouldn't be about having to choose from two evils. There should be enough options to choose from. Maybe the state representatives are a bad way to have your vote represented in Washington. How about having at least congress voted for nationally? That way other views than straight democrat/conservative get a chance to actually get representation.

Re:Flawed logic

[delinear]

We're at a point where technology should make democracy much more realistic. Why don't we have systems to allow the populace to vote individually on the big topics instead of everyone having to pick from one of two parties that vaguely aligns with their views (and if your views are radically different to both parties you're out of luck). I'm not suggesting the government should be bound to such votes, but at the very least they should have to consider the will of the people and stand up and explain why, in this or that case, they thought that will should be overruled. We should be using this opportunity to make the political process as transparent as possible, but instead the people in power are using their position to spin everything they do and say and keep the public in the dark. And then we have the cheek to suggest that other countries democratise their governments...

Re:Good

[Joce640k]

Remind me again what SOPA was needed for...? I forgot.

proper response: make good games

[Lazy Jones]

I don't see Notch (=> Minecraft) having these issues with so-called piracy. I perfectly understand people who feel ripped off by titles that raise expectations and then disappoint all honest customers.

ninjatune.net is awesome!

[Lazy Jones]

in case you didn't know it. ;-)

Re:High court vs low court treatment

[bmo]

You missed it.

Righthaven LLC is no more.

That website the grandparent posted was Righthaven's until it was auctioned off to pay the debt it owed. It sold for something like $3000. Up until the SOPA protest day, it had a logo, and on SOPA protest day, what you saw was the owner's protest.

The Nevada Bar is looking for sanctions against the lawyers that made up the now defunct Righthaven LLC.

--
BMO

Re:oh well fuck em

[bmo]

>There's another angle to "convenience piracy" on music which is that the albums always leaks days or even weeks before you can legit buy them.

Good luck living in the US and trying to buy foreign media. Most of the time it's simply not available at all, even when you subscribe to things like the Shanachie newsletter and catalog.

So if it's not available, I pirate. Fuck 'em.

--
BMO

Re:shorter

[TaoPhoenix]

You can't get too much shorter than the 2 years of a House Rep. If anything, there are commentaries that it's too short for good people to get stuff done.

But then, with all of the weasely ones in there, I'm vaguely glad it's that short, it's just tough to get it all turned around.

Re: Don't Always get their way

[TaoPhoenix]

You're right, it's not a 100% slam dunk situation yet.

Funny thing is, there seem to be weird swings, with the media lobbies and the OMG Terrorist lobbies somehow getting way more than their share of wins. Tobacco isn't (yet!) digitally reproduce-able, and the Terrorist is the Universal Boogeyman who can never be declared defeated.

So yes, we're not quite killing people for being atheists yet, but it's getting pretty bad.

A matter of degree

[neurosine]

The idea of subjecting one individual who is simply enabling the sharing of data to time in a US prison is an absurd horror. This should be a civil case, not one we as taxpayers pay for, even as we cry out against it. It is an abuse of justice.

Remeber kids.....

[MitchDev]

You'll get in less trouble shoplifting the music/DVD/software than you will for downloading it....

Re:Remeber kids.....

[basecastula]

That's the opposite of what we want. Smaller retailers don't get money for the loss if its stolen.

Re:Remeber kids.....

[MitchDev]

The law of unintended consequences... altho I'm sure the big corps would like to see the little stores go away...

Re:Good

[firex726]

Not only that but you have them selling music that they do not legally own.

Artists makes music under contract. Leaves contract. Makes more under different name/likeness. Years later artist finds that old music company is publishing his new music and not paying him anything.

Re:shorter

[AvitarX]

The votes on the kill Americans inside America act shows the senate to be worse than the house though. The two year term appears to help.

The funny thing is our founders (many of them anyway) were afraid of the house, because of the populace.

Re:Good

[delinear]

No, it's not theft. This is nothing to do with "language lawyers" it's to do with actual law. We don't call car jacking "rape", we don't call tax evasion "murder" and we shouldn't call copyright violation "theft". All of those things have very specific meanings in the legal system and calling one thing a different thing just leads to confusion (which is obviously the intention of the rights holders - and I'd say question any group's motives who want to further confuse tricky legal situations since it can serve no good purpose). If copyright violation is as bad an offence as actual theft, let it stand with it's own name, don't try to give it a scarier sounding name - the law should not be a PR game.

Re:oh well fuck em

[delinear]

The reason they don't like to release as soon as content is ready is that the labels like to manage the PR to head off early, negative feedback. People are more likely to say they like a piece of content if their magazine/radio show/website of choice has told them everyone else likes it. The labels are terrified of content standing on its own merits, because frankly there's a lot of dross out there.

Re:oh well fuck em

[neonKow]

Netflix and Hulu did amazingly well. The problem is, not only is there NOT a video rental every 1 block like you suggest, even if there were, there is a good chance I would rather pay $2 to not have to leave the house for a movie, then to walk to the rental place, even if the movie were free there.

New Website

[Psychotic_Wrath]

I'm guessing its not an official replacement, but it looks and feels very similar http://theninjavideo.net/

ha ?

[unity100]

that post basically summarizes the situation : even if stuff MAY have appeared positive throughout the way, you are still in deep shit, if you end up in a cesspool of shit.

wow. please dont say stupid things

[unity100]

Absolutely! Just last week dozens of Occupy protesters were gunned down in a Bloody Sunday-like massacre by the US military, in much the same way as they have been in Egypt, Syria, and Libya! Worst of the worst, America is! Oh, and I heard that families of factory workers are being threatened just so the owners don't have to improve working conditions! Boy, I wish I lived in China where I can access only state sponsored media and speaking against the government gets you "disappeared"

why gun down people, when you can baton down them after keeping press off vicinity ? why kill people if you can just make them invisible ? a citizen which cannot do anything, is a harmless citizen. and at that stage, you can just keep drumming that you have freedom of speech in a country - as long as noone's speech can be heard by anyone else.

in u.s. everything is tied to money. if you dont have money, you dont have freedom of speech. you can practice it only to your neighbors, blow the ears of a few friends, and your relatives. that doesnt mean shit. to have your voice heard, you must have a lot of money. to have that money, you have to be in good terms with those who have money, or they will send you to oblivion. and when you have the money and in good terms with those who already have the money, your interests need to coincide with theirs so that you will have any kind of possibility to appear in tvs, give ads to them, publish, and be heard.

internet changed all of that. but as you can see, they have been 'fixing' that for some time.

so, just dont talk like stupid people who think that appearances change things :

in china, your words and protest matter - you are dangerous as a citizen if left to talk.

in america, as a citizen you are left to talk because what you say wont be heard by anyone, and the few people you talk to in your neighborhood wont have any effect. if you go over that and attempt to talk to more people, youll get batoned down.

Re:Good

[unity100]

so, your situation is just to let 'thieves' who you can put into jail put into jail, and the thieves you cant, just let free to live as the holders of the entire music and entertainment sector in united states ..........

wow.

Re:Good

[StikyPad]

That post went from coherent to rambling nonsense faster than a sorority girl on 10 cent pitcher night.

Re:oh well fuck em

[hjf]

Well not every block, but video rental stores are still around.

Netflix only offers old movies here in Argentina (the newest i've watched there is "Superbad"), and hulu isn't available outside US.

Re:oh well fuck em

[neonKow]

What is your point? The question is that if you could stream, would you still bother pirating, even if streaming costs money and the alternatives did not?

People tend to be honest, but they tend to be lazy before they are honest.

Re:Good

[MightyMartian]

Not changing the subject at all, but rather inquiring as to why we pick on one group of thieves in the world of entertainment, and yet not going after another. For that matter, why is it that guys who pirate Hollywood movies are hunted down like dogs, but just about every producer in Tinseltown isn't sitting behind bars for the "creative" accounting that would most certainly see accountants and executives in any other industry flung into deep dark pits.

It strikes me that the media conglomerates want it both ways. They want the freedom of robbing artists and smaller investors blind, but suddenly want to stand on principle because some stupid asshole downloaded a rip of a DVD. It's like a crack dealer turning in one of his customers because the guy didn't pay, and the police happily doing so, without consequence to the crack dealer.

Re:We dun poked the bear..

[green1]

I'm posting on an international website that happens to be hosted in the US and has a large number of US users.

It also has a lot of non-US users.

Re:oh well fuck em

[hjf]

The point is that solutions are only halfway there. Netflix here in Argentina is only available for a very small fraction of people. For starters, it requires a credit card. Everyone has a credit card, right? No, you'd be surprised how uncommon credit cards (actually the Visa/Mastercard/Amex trio) are outside the "first world". Is there an option for all these people to pay? No. Do they bother searching for an option? Hell no. Prepaid cards? Payment places (where people go pay their bills)? No. Pay at a bank? No. Pay with your cell phone? No.

So it's a situation where people can't access stuff. Not that they don't want to pay for stuff -- hell, people actually pay money for ringtones! Why? Because it's as easy as sending a text. If you could watch a movie and pay for it with a text message, i'm sure a LOT of people would jump right in.

Re:oh well fuck em

[hjf]

Also, I forgot to answer your question: yes, I wouldn't bother pirating. I have a netflix account - still on the free month, and I'm analyzing wether I'll keep it or no. Probably I won't, since most of these movies I can watch on cable (which I'm already paying for).

Actually cable gives me newer movies and series (I get to see The Walking Dead 2 days after the US release. Why would I even bother downloading it?). Maybe i'm just the kind of people that likes to surf the channels and land on random programs... which is exactly what I do.