Slashdot Mirror
HBO Asks Google To Take Down "Infringing" VLC Media Player
another random user writes with an excerpt from TorrentFreak: "It's no secret that copyright holders are trying to take down as much pirated content as they can, but their targeting of open source software is something new. In an attempt to remove pirated copies of Game of Thrones from the Internet, HBO sent a DMCA takedown to Google, listing a copy of the popular media player VLC as a copyright infringement. An honest mistake, perhaps, but a worrying one. ... Usually these notices ask Google to get rid of links to pirate sites, but for some reason the cable network also wants Google to remove a link to the highly popular open source video player VLC. ... The same DMCA notice also lists various other links that don't appear to link to HBO content, including a lot of porn related material, Ben Harper's album Give Till It's Gone, Naruto, free Java applets and Prince of Persia 5."
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
I own the rights to the letter E on line
So Google better take down all links with an E in them.
And this is precisely why there needs to be penalties in place for false DMCA takedown requests.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
The robosigning foreclosure scandal wasn't enough? Algorithms aren't lawyers.
Reddit already covered this over the weekend. Just copy and past your comments from it.
Perjury.
Go to jail, do not pass GO.
While it is not "infringing content", VLC player IS illegal in the USA. It is a digital lock-breaking device. Linux distrobutions which include DVD playback capabilities are also illegal.
This is not surprising to me, but it hardly matters because it's not like VLC will cease to ever be easily available.
Unless there is punishment for these types of blanket requests copyright holders will continue to abuse the DMCA takedown process.
I would guess their crawlers found advertisements or screenshots from GoT at some point. Their lawyers probably drafted the DMCAs from a list without checking.
I don't see any HBO properties on VLC's site though, so not sure about that.
Each link to material they do not own 100'000 USD to the target of the takedown notice and the same to the actual copyright holder. Alternatively, 30 days in jail for the executive in charge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
HBO was just trying to see if Google was paying attention...or would take down anything it asked it to! I guess the idea is that since VLC will play MKV, MP4 or TS files, or basically most of the file formats without DRM out there, it's violating copyright laws
Must've accidentally confused it with videos of themselves screwing us?
A lot of people use torrent sites to quickly watch something they may have missed on cable tv and I personally know many folk who enjoyed a series so much that they went out and bought the box set to have at home. HBO are asking for too much.
Dear HBO,
GFY.
Love,
the Whole Internet
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
your right to submit takedowns is suspended for a month?
These things are supposed to be carefully considered requests, not 'if we hit 7 out of 10, we're happy'...
When have you ever seen IP lawyers overreach their position in any "honest" way? Their methods are ham-handed shotgun approaches. Shoot randomly and hope it hits something.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
What is not mentioned is that the site in question has links to other listings with the release names which may correlate to what their spider was searching, "Game of Thrones." This is very bad practice of the DMCA notice senders as linking to something which links to something which does not even have infringing content itself but a "direction or guidebook" to the potential content.
So the VLC listing had another area that had other listings or popular links and because it had the name they listed it.
There needs to be fines for false DMCA notices like this. They do not own the release name itself.
If I incorporated, and then had my "company" start spewing out DMCA notices algorithmically to every site that responded to a curl? "Does a.com exist? No. Does b.com exist? No... Does aa.com exist? Yes? Ok, they have infringing content, take them down please. Does ab.com exist?"
And isn't there a punishment for lying on DMCA? Someone should enforce that.
is turning chillingeffects web site into the 'google' for good stuff.
The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.
Who would get VLC from a torrent site instead of downloading it from the official site?
Scratch that. Who would download VLC at all? It's a shitty player.
arent these media companies smart enough to realize that piratebay doesnt have any control whatsoever of the names of the torrents? i mean really...if TPB took down all the Game of Throne links that HBO wanted them to, within 5 minutes they would all reappear with slightly different names and different links.
and yes, i know already the answer is no they aren't.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Which covers false DMCA requests where they flag content that really belongs to someone else - such a VLC. You're right though that this perjury thing does nothing to solve the problem of DMCAs being sent for content that fits in to the "fair use" bucket.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.
Which is all dandy until you demand the takedown of something that any lawyer doing the most basic due diligence would know was not theirs. Which has happened countless times, some of them reported on /.
That's the kind of shit that should lead to the lawyer being disciplined. But don't. And if you want to look for things that are seriously screwed up with the USA today, you can start there since it's already on the table.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Why don't they just ask to take down the internet?
Un-possible. Adult entertainment industry will recreate it back.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
There should be a three strikes rule on this -- submit invalid requests three times, you get ignored as a troll from there on out.
So being able to watch random videos and DVDs you own violates copyright? So when you buy a DVD you can't actually ever watch it since you would be violating copyright laws...
Start asking sites to take down marketing and promotional HBO material on their behalf. No mass media content on Youtube. Internet killed TV - replace them.
Really. This is idiocy.
Between all off the free sites out there and the piracy, how precisely does anyone actually make any money on porn anymore? I've been surfing porn for more than a decade now, and I have yet to actually ever buy anything.
I guess there are people who don't know how to operate the internet or something, but I can't imagine that number of people is growing.
I seen from TFA that HBO at one point requested their own website to be removed. If I was Google I'd be paying extra special attention to requests for Mega Corp A to take down Mega Corp B's website (or even better their own), and react quickly. Of course I might be a little slower in dealing with the subsequent undo requests whilst watching the ensuing entertainment.
Falsely claiming to have rights to something you don't, including copyright, is fraud. When HBO claimed to have rights to VLC they either were mistaken or fraudulent. If there is some other reason some DA were pissed at HBO this creates an opening.
It shouldn't lead to the lawyer being disciplined. It should lead to the company being disciplined. HBO should be responsible for the content of the list.
your right to submit takedowns is suspended for a month? These things are supposed to be carefully considered requests, not 'if we hit 7 out of 10, we're happy'...
Alternatively, some of the takedowns may be executed.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
This link is to a search engine, where "juegos de naruto" give some hits for "juegos de tronos" which is Game of Thrones. How on earth is this a valid takedown request? Why should Google remove links to a search engine, especially when the search is for something other than the infringing material?
Niche appeal. Porn is all about catering to very precise tastes. You may easily find very broad categories of porn, but once people determine what appeals to them, reliably scratching that itch can be a challenge. Porn is very much an industry that bends over backwards to cater to the precise needs of consumers precisely because they are competing with the very large quantity of free stuff out there.
The DCMA is a decidedly imperfect piece of legislation, and can be blatantly abused, as we've seen time and again.
That said, a blanket request based on an automated scan really is in many cases the ONLY thing that could plausibly work. If I want to post infringing material, getting a new URL or domain is trivially (scriptably) easy. Fighting scripts by hand is impossibly time consuming. Fighting scripts with scripts is the only plausible approach that could work.
Scripts sometimes make mistakes. Criminalizing mistakes isn't "obviously correct" as an approach.
If you want to argue that the net should be a 100% copyright free zone, you're entitled to make that argument. If you're NOT arguing for that, please explain what you see as a "workable" alternative to not-100%-perfect mass takedown notices.
Deliberately ABUSIVE takedown notices (such as a company claiming all negative online reviews are DCMA violations) are something I'd like to see the DCMA address better. But the problem there is NOT that notices are made in bulk, but rather that they're made in bad faith - they deliberately and knowingly target non-infringing content. THOSE we should fight. (In this case, I'd argue the "under penalty of purjury" assertion of a good faith belief in infringement is violated, but I'd like to see the DCMA slightly stengthened around this).
I've been surfing porn for more than a decade now, and I have yet to actually ever buy anything.
My guess? For enough many it's more about the "intensity" (can't call it quality) rather than the easiness to find "appetizers".
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I'd still pay HBO a reasonable amount of money to watch their shows online. But I can't. First, I have to buy cable TV ($60/mo), then I also have to buy a special package that includes HBO ($30/mo), and then I still have to pay extra for HBOGO. So over $100/mo to watch a couple good shows. Yeah, I'll just keep using torrents. Even though it's still a huge ripoff compared to other services like Netflix and Hulu, I'd pay $10-15 per month just for HBO online. Let me know when you're serious about wanting my money, HBO.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I'm going to get copyright on the process of thinking about watching anything from HBO and another copyright on the process of not thinking about it.. Dam, I already owe myself for not... opps .. for thinking.. darm... for not ... gee this could be a cash cow!
Both should be disciplined. If you hire a killer to kill someone, the killer isn't going to get off free on the account that he just did what he was hired to do. Of course you won't succeed with the defence that in the end it wasn't you who killed that person either.
If i was Google, I'd start charging companies for fake DMCA notices. $100k per notice that isn't actually pointing to an infringing file that the DMCA filer doesn't own the copyright to.
I bet these "mistakes" would stop happening pretty quick.
Be seeing you...
1. Create throw-away sock puppet identity.
2. Post DMCA take-down notices to Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.alleging copyright violation in high-value properties owned by [insert HBO, Time-Warner, Your Favorite]
3. Lulz!
We need to be just as understanding and willing to give the benefit of the doubt as HBO is when someone inadvertently shares their IP against copyright.
That is, not at all.
I don't think lawyers should be held responsible to know what property HBO owns.
Sorry. I think the lawyer is fine.
Whenever I use Google, within minutes there tends to be a report at the bottom of missing searches due to the usual DMCA activity. Almost universally, on searches that have nothing whatsoever to do with HBO content, clicking on the link that shows the actual complaint received by Google gives a company working for HBO.
So one looks down the hundreds of URLs that Google is told to block by HBO. Some, maybe 50%, are clearly referring to HBO TV shows (although whether those sites actually have infringing content is debatable). 50% of the URLs are clearly NOTHING to do with HBO content at all.
Now, knowing that HBO is run by idiots (and HBO shows, while expensively produced, tend to be very very dumbed down compared to other cable networks- see Game of Thrones for a perfect example of this), the explanation seems to be that HBO pays the company searching for its content online a fee for every link sent to Google under the DMCA.
So the cretins at HBO happily pay criminals who pad their work with at least 50% fake URLs to double the money they receive from HBO. Now, as time progresses, the crooks will seek to boost their income by figuring out new kinds of content to add to their URL lists. This positive feedback causes the agents of HBO (for whom HBO is wholly responsible) to desire to label ever more of the Internet as 'infringing'.
Why is this story here? Because we all smell the stink of the slippery slope. VLC player allows the playback of video from ANY source, and especially eschews DRM systems. Hey, that obviously means VLC is like those dirty 'water pipes' or bongs that earn Yanks serious prison time if they dare to sell such in those same US States that agree with the right to Lynch a black child. Florida and the like would send the makers of VLC player to prison in a heartbeat.
And my point is hardly a 'tin foil hat' one. A few years back, Tony Blair's propaganda master, Rupert Murdoch (you Yanks better know this modern day Goebbels as the owner of Fox) had thousands of Americans fined for simply buying so-called 'card reader' technology. Ownership of a device simply designed to READ a smart card became proof of the users intent to 'pirate' Murdoch's satellite TV service in the USA. The deep irony here is that Murdoch himself, using depraved criminal hackers working at his subsidiary in Israel, flooded the European market with actual counterfeit satellite smart-cards that gave illegal access to his rivals' services. When Murdoch's criminal activities were discovered, he suffered the same fate as when his illegal phone hacking in the UK came to light- ie., none whatsoever. Murdoch, like the BBC, are official propaganda arms of the British government, and governments do not prosecute themselves.
I'm not saying that HBO is in the same league as Murdoch- that is just hilariously stupid. HBO is simply incompetent, mean-spirited, and indulges in childish wishful thinking. HBO's biggest problem is its refusal to offer many of its potential paying customers access to its material in a form more suited to the 21st Century.
As for VLC player, well as I implied earlier, it is already illegal in the USA under various depraved legal principles including enhancing infringement by users and its incorporation of many computer algorithms covered by US patents. It was originally a project in the French university system to allow students to set up the first widespread video over internet networks TV channels. Today, amongst other uses, it attempts to be the one-stop video player for all codecs, and on a modern processor does a very good job even with HD material.
Provide a "strikes" setup for those who use automated DMCA processing:
* If you send in an automated request for something you clearly should have known was bogus, that's a strike. If you send in an automated request for something that was "okay, yeah, I can see how you might have been confused by that," it's a large or small fraction of a strike, based on the circumstances.
* After you get above 1 strike, you get 24 hours to promise it won't happen again. This is your "free strike." You also get a pass for errors in the next 24 hours, just because change doesn't happen instantaneously.
* Starting 24 hours after your first warning, the stakes get raised:
* If you have more than 1 full strike in the last 7 days not counting those strikes that were "forgiven," 10% of your automated takedown requests are processed manually. More than 2, 20%, more than 3, 30%, more than 4, 40%, and after that, Google sues you for a declaration that your DMCA takedown notices are too error-filled to be considered reliable, and asking the court to allow future notices only if the company sending them pays the full labor cost of manually processing all of the requests and declaring that Google is in compliance if it makes "good faith" efforts even if it is humanly impossible to process all of the requests in a timely manner. The court order would be in effect until the company had gone 30 days without sending in any questionable takedown requests.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
HBO's dmcanot is already known to be unusually stupid and overbroad. My personal experience is that that one bot has a 100% failure rate in an environment where all the other dmcabots really aren't very bad. HBO probably "thinks" Slashdot is infringing, simply due to mentioning the GoT trademark.
The sad thing is that overbroad or not, once you have a DMCA notice, an unthinking intermediary (and yes, Google is such a beast) will cut you off unless you counter-notice. So just like that, the Internet is a lawyers-only club, since any page about anything can always be sent a DMCA notice with no consequences to the sender.
I overall think DMCA's notice/counternotice mechanism is a basically good idea for buck-passing and getting ISPs out of fights, but this phenomenon does show one of its serious flaws. HBO has become a poster-boy, showing there need to be consequences for fraudulent or other bad-faith notices such as what they routinely do. Maybe each one should require the posting of a bond or something like that, and the bond is surrendered to the victim if they file the counter-notice. The requirement could even be just limited to entities with an established pattern and history of abuse, so that HBO would have to pay, but MGM, Showtime, Disney etc wouldn't.
Oh, did you spot that? Yes, I'm lumping Disney in with the good guys in this context. That's how awful HBO's dmcabot is.
demand the takedown of something that any lawyer doing the most basic due diligence would know was not theirs. Which has happened countless times, some of them reported on /.
That's the kind of shit that should lead to the lawyer being disciplined. But don't.
And won't: http://internetdefamation.net/defamation-cases/rossi-v-motion-picture-association-america
If this takedown notice was submitted by a lawyer - bar grieve him/her.
California allows citizens to do presentments to Grand Juries. So write up the paperwork and do a presentment to a Grand Jury in California for a perjury charge.
Just to make sure, I tried downloading the torrent data to see if it really is VLC, not just a rename of Game of Thrones content. But there are no seeds, so there is no data.
Why issue a takedown for a torrent with no seeds?
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Since HBO also complained that their own website violates their copyright, Google should honor that and remove all HBO content from search results!
What happened to HBO calling Game of Thrones piracy a compliment?
They should definitely contact Chris Sevier for legal advice. He's a lawyer, currently unemployed, and knows a few things about the internet.
free Java applets
please please don't free them ever again !
gtkaml.org
VLC should send takedown notices on HBO's web site. See how they like it.
Avast is lightweight... I am ruining it right now on 450mhz pentium 2 with 384mb of ram. Avast is the only free av that didn't slow this machine down.
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Yeah, lets ban Hondas too - because I've heard they're sometime used in robberies.
I enjoy Game of Thrones, but find very little other content on television that appeals to me. I decline to pay my local cable monopoly $300+ for one show, so buying the DVDs is my only way of making a contribution to the show's bottom line.
I use VLC for pretty much everything that isn't Hulu or Netflix. I guess the folks at VideoLAN can put that extra $40 to better use anyway.
We need a 3-strikes law for DMCA takedowns - 3 false DMCA takedowns and you lose your associated DMCA copyright for 1 year. Every 3 false DMCA takedowns the duration should increase exponentially.
... and when you cancel, let them know why.
sure fire solution.... let the market work
These guys surely must be kidding! I use VLC on my macbook and also on Linux. Its the only player thats entirely accessible for the blind. So what are these guys going to do? sue the entire BLC using public? I wish them luck with that!
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
IN a perfect world, where we are represented in congress, as opposed to congress being for sale, we could get the DMCA amended... I would like to see it say that the takedowns requested must be granted or denied as a unit.
You'd see a shitload less bullshit requests, and a lot more careful review of the items requested.
CAPTCHA: BROWBEAT
I don't think lawyers should be held responsible to know what property HBO owns.
Sorry. I think the lawyer is fine.
A lawyer hired to handle something like this, should damn well know how to research to see if the content being targeted for take down is their client's imaginary property. So yes, the lawyers should indeed share the responsibility.
This space unintentionally left blank.
If HBO wants GoT not to be pirated so much, here are a couple of tricks;
1- Publish on Netflix.
2- Publish on iTunes in less than a year after release.
3- Publish on your own site.
By forcing users to pay for a whole channel just to watch one show is digging your own grave.
Anyone that doesn't want cable (I'm one) cannot watch GoT legally unless you wait until February to get season 3.
For the win!!!
torrents??? actually paying for television???
HAHAHAHAHAHAA
they *may* be citing VLC because somewhere in its code, it contains infringing material. Maybe an error message of "Hodor hodor hodor"
great, a new tiny programming language project on github in 3, 2, 1...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
is copyright the one you have to defend lest you lose your right? or am I thinking trademark?
that could open up a nasty can of worms if some third party collected those instances like that.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
tastes...scratching that itch...bends over backwards...competing with the very large quantity
Where can I find this video?
Why doesn't Google charge money for erroneous DMCA takedown requests. I hear they get thousands of them and many are inaccurate either accidentally or by design. They are required to respond to legitimate requests but for errors I think a service fee is in order.
I thought HBO had a more sensible approach to piracy. Or was that just the Game of Thrones producers?
I like to pay for content I enjoy, to promote more of that type of content, but I'm not giving money to people who don't play fair, and don't care about the health of the market and culture in general.
We are all God's parents.
Perhaps they are using a new program/script that does all their Lawyering for them. It must have 'accidentally' gotten the extra VLC link, assuming it was their content. No moderately versed PERSON would make this mistake, so it must be a machine. Therefore, we have a new threat in the wild: A never sleeping, never eating, intellectual property attorney that has no common sense or morals.
Oh wait....that isn't really all that new. Maybe the electricity part is new?
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Actually DMCA takedowns have helped me find pirated matarial quite easy, as per law the request has to state the link to take down so, if you want to find where to download say the walking dead episodes just use google to search trough the chillingeffect.com :D
google> site:chillingeffects.org the walking dead
Lawyers hired by HBO to issue legal notices regarding HBO properties should absolutely know, at the very least, that the properties detailed in their legal notices are actually HBO properties.
Why? Obviously they have an obligation to make sure that HBO knows that, but being an expert in copyright law does not make you an expert in HBO's diverse holdings.
The courts won't punish HBO, so I thought maybe I could. As punishment, I was going to go download some HBO show illegally. (Pretty much the only way I can punish them.) But that doesn't make any sense, because I don't want anything from HBO. And since I wasn't buying anything from them anyway, it makes no difference at all.
I watch as many HBO shows as I want for free and completely legally. Showtime too. Also Hollywood movies. Foreign. etc.
How?
I get them on DVD or Blue-Ray from the library and its affiliates. Just have to wait a year or two, sometimes less. No biggie. A few things are unavailable, I can live without them. So could you. In fact we could both live without any HBO shows if it came down to that.
Yes, I pay library taxes, but I would pay those anyway, gladly, because the library system is invaluable to me and society as a whole.
So no, you have no justification for violating copyright, breaking the law, and yes, effectively stealing.
A takedown request, really??
No. What HBO did was a request directed at Google, stating they have to exclude specific url's from search requests.
What does it mean? It means that of a google user searches for 'vlc torrent' , he/she will not get to see this link:
http://www.torrentportal.com/details/6093721/VLC-Media-Player-2.0.7-Final-(32-64-bit)-Official.html
(the link itself will remain unaffected of course)
Now.. if you look at the complete list, you will see there are a lot more bizarre requests in there. (mature & feet for instance)
Conclusion: some intern screwed up. That;s all.
... i would reject the DMCA notice outright, due to faulty information, and keep doing it until the list turns sensible. That way it doesn't hurt other projects, and would force these companies to pay attention to what they are really asking for. And as far as VLC goes, i would place it as "sacred", since it is a good player, not bogged down with tool bars and ad ware all over the place. It does what it is supposed to, and it does it well.
Kind of Ironic. I can't even play HBO and MAX videos on my PC any more with whatever they/MS/Adobe did to Flash Player API... And I'm legal to do it! EPIX still works..
VLC ask Google to tell HBO to STFU. Thank you :)
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
While I get its their IP and they can request what they have, does anyone else find it a bit ironic that this was a mere 3 months ago?
"Traditionally, studios and networks are very much on the line of 'Downloading is bad, illegal piracy is bad, we do not support this at all.' HBO has been surprisingly polite if not kind about the illegal downloads. You had HBO's programming chief, Michael Lombardo, saying a couple weeks ago that his bigger concern wasn't the people who were downloading, but that by downloading they'd get an inferior product."
source: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/07/176338400/pirates-steal-game-of-thrones-why-hbo-doesnt-mind
libdvdcss (distributed with VLC in the official distribution) is most likely against the DMCA. So they're right, in a strange backhanded way. Eh, a broken clock's right twice a day.
Give a corporation a fly swatter and it will immediately and inevitably
start using it as a mace while scheming to convert it into a nuclear
dirty bomb tool for terrorism.
It should be no surprise that the world's corporapists have, and will
inevitably continue, to abuse and corrupt our commonwealth systems of
law and governance in order to perpetuate the endless expansion of
their rabid, glutenous greed and lust for monopoly power. Corporations
are, after all, mandated by design of charter to be raping, murderous
sociopaths, to be entities that pursue unrestrained profiteering and
monopoly market control in wanton, blind disregard of any real
considerations of human conscience, civil society or environmentally
destructive consequences, Pouring an expanding mountain of raw meat
into the shark tank of share holders is the singular, all consuming
function of a capitalist corporation.
Thus, over the past few decades, the conglomerate corporations have
co-opted and raped our national democracy and legal system so extremely
(primarily through unconstitutionally installed and secretive "trade"
agreements, eg. the DMCA laws) that the U.S. media moguls now claim
divine right to be judges, juries and executioners who can employ
terrorist threats that essentially demand a pound of flesh in
retaliation for petty misdemeanors like viewing unlicensed content
or unlocking your cell phone software. From what we know of the
secretive Terrorist Partnership Pandemic (aka the Trans Pacific
Partnership agreement or TPP) that is now in process of being
shoved down the throats of the world's citizens by corporate puppet
governments everywhere (prominently including the rabidly right
wing concessions known respectively as the U.S. congress and the
Obama administration) the corporapists are currently trying to
expand their extremist censorship and fascist agenda into a global
oligarchy.
So, as a predictable and expected matter of course, the corporapist
media conglomerates are now wielding their self made legal meat
clever like a chain saw hoping to tear apart the free democracy of
the internet. It is just a matter of course that they would seek
to viciously and voraciously attack all free, liberated, open source
software as well. And consistent to chainsaw madness, it is just a
matter of course that they are trying to take down an open tool like
the VLC media player application with fraudulent association to
totally unrelated issues of unlicensed content.
The overriding fact (and the ultimate denial of our developed world
privilege) is that capitalist corporations must inherently seek to
destroy all free markets, all freedom, all consumer choice, all
forms of democracy and all civil liberty because these are the
necessities of sustainable, humane economic and social systems
-- the social structures of foster a healthy immunity to the
corporate cancer of unbridled avarice. It is every capitalist
corporation's defined, dictated and inescapable destiny to be a
suicidally unsustainable sociopath, wrapped in the impossible
premise of infinite growth from finite resources, the foundational
myth of capitalist dogma.
But let us please not condemn or even criticize all those proud
flagships of industry! It's not their fault, it's just genetically
integral to their nature. They deserve our pity not our scorn.
Just look at that ever growing tank of insatiable sharks they
have to feed, fully aware that these animals will happily
cannibalizing their own offspring.
[log entry: Arxion Rose, 2013.07.19]