"It was a boneheaded stunt and while I don't think it should qualify as sexual abuse, I have no problem with him being prosecuted at least for taking advantage of the children (I'm sure there are lots of protective statutes he violated) and investigated. Considering he thinks that mixing kids with sexual material is funny and has shown a propensity to create videos of children, I have no problem with authorities checking him out to make sure he hasn't done anything else like this or worse. I would think they would be negligent if they didn't check him out."
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"? Why are you caught up in anti-pedo hysteria that you have forgotten those two extremely important concepts?
By posting the video, he harmed no one. He did NOTHING whatsoever that merits ANY sort of official attention or scrutiny from the police or anyone else. The arrest and charges are pure, simple bullshit. The mere allegation that he is a sexual predator is so chock full of bullshit I can't believe this article isn't a prank. Now his life is ruined because the county prosecutor is a total jackass.
FOAD it is, because there was no allegation of copyright infringement in this suit. Just that someone providing (original, in this context) free porn is illegally competing with paysites that offer professional porn. That's it.
Yup. The guy who filed the suit is Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. I couldn't see whether he owns any sites (to avoid), though... a quick Google search only turned up various articles about this lawsuit.
The first time I heard of this lawsuit was yesterday, and I was absolutely appalled at the audacity of the plaintiff to assert that someone providing free porn was illegally undercutting professional porn studios.
Jesus Christ, I'm glad this lawsuit decided turned out the way it did. Think of the precedent it would have set had the plaintiff won. The recording industry could sue indies who release their music under a Creative Commons license, claiming unfair competition. Same with the movie studios and sites like Vodo. Or companies that sell encyclopedias versus Wikipedia. Or hell, Microsoft and Linux.
From the complaint:
"The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors,. Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on redtube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content."
If you have a difficult time competing with free, that's your problem. You have no business whatsoever trying to get the government to interfere on your behalf.
> US courts ruled that Sony does not have to abide by the law in the US
Wait, what? Did I sleep through the day where that class-action suit was settled, or thrown out of court, or something? I thought it was still ongoing.
> Internet access should be an inalienable right, and the government must make sure that every human being on USA soil has free unrestricted access all the time.
I agree that this is a nice sentiment, but it will probably get you flamed by free-marketeers who see this as an entitlement, not a right. "Someone has to pay for it," they will say. And suggesting a publicly run Internet infrastructure will get the "Why should I have to pay for your Internet access?" response.
I don't understand how you got from point A to point B in your post. Are you saying that because the Internet is quite important nowadays, we need to screw it up with overzealous copyright enforcement?
> Hell, even MSN/Gtalk use SSL encrypted connection going via a central server
My understanding of the MSN instant messaging network is that everything is sent unencrypted, in total plaintext, unless you and your contact are using a third-party encryption system. And Windows Live Messenger, by far the most popular client for MSN, has no options for message encryption whatsoever. Additionally, as far as I know, there are no plugins for WLM that enable encryption; you basically have to use Pidgin with OTR or something.
I would dearly love to be proven wrong about this.
ibuypower? Lul. My friend recently bought a $1200 gaming PC from them via Newegg. Frequent crashes and bluescreens- a hardware issue. He had to send it to them THREE TIMES for repairs before it finally began to work normally.
Apparently you didn't read my post either, which points out that the entitlement complex goes both ways. Authors don't have natural rights to control post-sale use of their work any more than a bridge builder has any natural right to control post-sale use of his bridges. You, on the other hand, are attempting to assert (or at least imply) that such rights are self-evident, and of COURSE you can't share certain bits on your hard drive with others, because, well, it's just how it IS. Could you provide an adequate justification for such far-reaching and draconian copyright laws before you attempt to bash file sharers?
Nice use of rhetoric, by the way. "Taking by force what others produce." Yes, those poor mistreated copyright holders, who've had their own valuable creative works literally stolen from their hands by those evil pirates.
>...where people have a tremendous entitlement complex when it comes to intellectual property.
You have hit the nail on the head. I'm very tired of reading news articles about subjects related to copyright, and seeing the amount of pure greed that gets self-evidently tossed around in the comments sections. You would think that some people were rigorously trained from birth to think of no one but themselves, and to not consider the consequences of their actions. But nope: "Look Out For Number One" is the old motto. If it brings a short-term benefit to you, then to hell with the long-term economical, social and political ramifications of your actions. It's as if these people believe they're entitled to the world brought to them on a silver platter by everyone else. And, of course, let's not forget about the flimsy rationalizations and justifications used to excuse their entitlement complexes. Some people will go to any lengths to justify their actions, and arguing with them is a huge waste of time; you'll never get past the very core of their thinking, which is "me, me, mine, mine, gimme, gimme." The debate of pirates vs copyright holders is old, tiresome, and was lost long ago, because in the end, it's just theft, pure and simple.
Really. Can we as a society step up and reign in the copyright holders once and for all, before it's too late? Multi-generational copyright lifetimes, anti-circumvention provisions, and million-dollar penalties for small-scale, non-commercial infringement are ultimately much worse for everyone than some kids sharing games on BitTorrent.
If Facebook is a phone book, it's the first phone book to record everyone's numbers and addresses, no matter where they are. It is not a local source of information, as actual phone books are.
Ohh, so users have to authorize it. Meaning they get an extra line on an app confirmation screen that they probably won't notice because such screens get mindlessly skipped all the time, much like EULAs. I guess that makes it okay, then!
A phone book is a local directory of information. Sitting in Chicago, I could not look up the phone number and/or address of someone who lives in New York, unless I had access to a New York phone book.
Being on the Internet, Facebook transcends such obsolete things as state or national borders. You can see the phone number and/or address of anyone, anywhere in the world, so long as they've listed it. There's the difference, and the danger.
You speak as though this absolves Facebook of any responsibility in the matter, when it does not. People have a reasonable expectation that they can limit who sees what they post on a social networking profile. For Facebook to decide that personal info is open by default, such as in this case, is nothing short of an appalling lack of personal responsibility on/their/ part.
You are correct in that people need to be more careful with what they put online, but companies like Facebook also have duties to responsibly handle what users post on their services. As far as I've seen, Facebook frequently fails to live up to its expectations.
I once tried to set my Hotmail account to forward mail to my Gmail account. This was a couple of years ago, and I remember that Hotmail would only let me forward my mail to another Hotmail account. -_-
Riiight... And people who used limewire and the pirate bay were looking for redhat releases.
And besides that, if the biz that sells legit and non-legit stuff can't figure out a way to separate the two in their books, they are probably not a legit biz in the first place.
If I bought a t-shirt from The Pirate Bay, would I be violating some sort of law? I've never heard of anything that would suggest so.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was a boneheaded stunt and while I don't think it should qualify as sexual abuse, I have no problem with him being prosecuted at least for taking advantage of the children (I'm sure there are lots of protective statutes he violated) and investigated. Considering he thinks that mixing kids with sexual material is funny and has shown a propensity to create videos of children, I have no problem with authorities checking him out to make sure he hasn't done anything else like this or worse. I would think they would be negligent if they didn't check him out."
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"? Why are you caught up in anti-pedo hysteria that you have forgotten those two extremely important concepts?
By posting the video, he harmed no one. He did NOTHING whatsoever that merits ANY sort of official attention or scrutiny from the police or anyone else. The arrest and charges are pure, simple bullshit. The mere allegation that he is a sexual predator is so chock full of bullshit I can't believe this article isn't a prank. Now his life is ruined because the county prosecutor is a total jackass.
Are you sure? As I recall, Geohot was just sued by Sony in California, despite the fact that he lives in another state entirely.
FOAD it is, because there was no allegation of copyright infringement in this suit. Just that someone providing (original, in this context) free porn is illegally competing with paysites that offer professional porn. That's it.
Yup. The guy who filed the suit is Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. I couldn't see whether he owns any sites (to avoid), though... a quick Google search only turned up various articles about this lawsuit.
The first time I heard of this lawsuit was yesterday, and I was absolutely appalled at the audacity of the plaintiff to assert that someone providing free porn was illegally undercutting professional porn studios.
Jesus Christ, I'm glad this lawsuit decided turned out the way it did. Think of the precedent it would have set had the plaintiff won. The recording industry could sue indies who release their music under a Creative Commons license, claiming unfair competition. Same with the movie studios and sites like Vodo. Or companies that sell encyclopedias versus Wikipedia. Or hell, Microsoft and Linux.
From the complaint:
"The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors,. Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on redtube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content."
If you have a difficult time competing with free, that's your problem. You have no business whatsoever trying to get the government to interfere on your behalf.
I figured this wasn't worth posting as a whole new story, so I figured I'd add a follow-up comment on this one.
The US government has seized several more domain names since I posted this story. A list:
* HQ-streams.com
* HQ-streams.net
* Atdhe.net
* Rojadirecta.com
* Rojadirecta.org
* Firstrow.net
* Ilemi.com
* Iilemi.com
* Iilemii.com
* Channelsurfing.net
These sites appear to be related to sporting event streaming, and by a marvelous coincidence, the Super Bowl is this weekend.
Source: http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-seizes-sports-streaming-sites-in-super-bowl-crackdown-110202
"I will make it legal."
--Darth Sidious
Link is a goatse site
I checked to make sure that the site was, in fact, seized before I posted this story.
Assume good faith.
> US courts ruled that Sony does not have to abide by the law in the US
Wait, what? Did I sleep through the day where that class-action suit was settled, or thrown out of court, or something? I thought it was still ongoing.
> Internet access should be an inalienable right, and the government must make sure that every human being on USA soil has free unrestricted access all the time.
I agree that this is a nice sentiment, but it will probably get you flamed by free-marketeers who see this as an entitlement, not a right. "Someone has to pay for it," they will say. And suggesting a publicly run Internet infrastructure will get the "Why should I have to pay for your Internet access?" response.
I don't understand how you got from point A to point B in your post. Are you saying that because the Internet is quite important nowadays, we need to screw it up with overzealous copyright enforcement?
> Hell, even MSN/Gtalk use SSL encrypted connection going via a central server
My understanding of the MSN instant messaging network is that everything is sent unencrypted, in total plaintext, unless you and your contact are using a third-party encryption system. And Windows Live Messenger, by far the most popular client for MSN, has no options for message encryption whatsoever. Additionally, as far as I know, there are no plugins for WLM that enable encryption; you basically have to use Pidgin with OTR or something.
I would dearly love to be proven wrong about this.
I know you're just trolling, but you generally don't pay for Linux.
ibuypower? Lul. My friend recently bought a $1200 gaming PC from them via Newegg. Frequent crashes and bluescreens- a hardware issue. He had to send it to them THREE TIMES for repairs before it finally began to work normally.
YES. Mod parent up- this was an incredible short film that moved me in both its animation quality and its story.
It's also on vodo if you want a free, high-quality version: http://vodo.net/sintel
Apparently you didn't read my post either, which points out that the entitlement complex goes both ways. Authors don't have natural rights to control post-sale use of their work any more than a bridge builder has any natural right to control post-sale use of his bridges. You, on the other hand, are attempting to assert (or at least imply) that such rights are self-evident, and of COURSE you can't share certain bits on your hard drive with others, because, well, it's just how it IS. Could you provide an adequate justification for such far-reaching and draconian copyright laws before you attempt to bash file sharers?
Nice use of rhetoric, by the way. "Taking by force what others produce." Yes, those poor mistreated copyright holders, who've had their own valuable creative works literally stolen from their hands by those evil pirates.
>...where people have a tremendous entitlement complex when it comes to intellectual property.
You have hit the nail on the head. I'm very tired of reading news articles about subjects related to copyright, and seeing the amount of pure greed that gets self-evidently tossed around in the comments sections. You would think that some people were rigorously trained from birth to think of no one but themselves, and to not consider the consequences of their actions. But nope: "Look Out For Number One" is the old motto. If it brings a short-term benefit to you, then to hell with the long-term economical, social and political ramifications of your actions. It's as if these people believe they're entitled to the world brought to them on a silver platter by everyone else. And, of course, let's not forget about the flimsy rationalizations and justifications used to excuse their entitlement complexes. Some people will go to any lengths to justify their actions, and arguing with them is a huge waste of time; you'll never get past the very core of their thinking, which is "me, me, mine, mine, gimme, gimme." The debate of pirates vs copyright holders is old, tiresome, and was lost long ago, because in the end, it's just theft, pure and simple.
Really. Can we as a society step up and reign in the copyright holders once and for all, before it's too late? Multi-generational copyright lifetimes, anti-circumvention provisions, and million-dollar penalties for small-scale, non-commercial infringement are ultimately much worse for everyone than some kids sharing games on BitTorrent.
And the hundred-dollar question: From what popular comedy show did the Blues Brothers originate?
If Facebook is a phone book, it's the first phone book to record everyone's numbers and addresses, no matter where they are. It is not a local source of information, as actual phone books are.
Ohh, so users have to authorize it. Meaning they get an extra line on an app confirmation screen that they probably won't notice because such screens get mindlessly skipped all the time, much like EULAs. I guess that makes it okay, then!
A phone book is a local directory of information. Sitting in Chicago, I could not look up the phone number and/or address of someone who lives in New York, unless I had access to a New York phone book.
Being on the Internet, Facebook transcends such obsolete things as state or national borders. You can see the phone number and/or address of anyone, anywhere in the world, so long as they've listed it. There's the difference, and the danger.
You speak as though this absolves Facebook of any responsibility in the matter, when it does not. People have a reasonable expectation that they can limit who sees what they post on a social networking profile. For Facebook to decide that personal info is open by default, such as in this case, is nothing short of an appalling lack of personal responsibility on /their/ part.
You are correct in that people need to be more careful with what they put online, but companies like Facebook also have duties to responsibly handle what users post on their services. As far as I've seen, Facebook frequently fails to live up to its expectations.
I once tried to set my Hotmail account to forward mail to my Gmail account. This was a couple of years ago, and I remember that Hotmail would only let me forward my mail to another Hotmail account. -_-
Riiight... And people who used limewire and the pirate bay were looking for redhat releases.
And besides that, if the biz that sells legit and non-legit stuff can't figure out a way to separate the two in their books, they are probably not a legit biz in the first place.
If I bought a t-shirt from The Pirate Bay, would I be violating some sort of law? I've never heard of anything that would suggest so.
I think you're just needlessly bashing pirates.