nd so do I have a right to speak on/access the 99.99% of the sites they blocked which were unrelated without having to pay a premium to do it.
I'm afraid to say: No. You must pay to access those sites regardless of indecency and obscenity laws. It has been that way since the founding of the United States.
In 1780 you had to buy a newspaper in order to read the news. In 1780 you had to buy a quill and ink in order to write a letter to the editor.
You will continue to have to pay for Internet access. However, to read and respond to USENET posts in the alt.* hierarchy you could still access it for free via Google Groups. Or you could buy the service from an external provider.
The ISP has no obligation to provide USENET service regardless of what content resides there.
Those children, however, do have a human right codified within our constitution which protects them from physical or sexual abuse.
I've set up and managed very large USENET news sites, with experience in that going back to the early 1990s. I know exactly what I'm talking about WRT the technology that delivers USENET. I also have a history of posting to USENET that goes back to 1984.
So, I do have some idea about usenet newsgroups and the history of the alt.* hierarchy.
OK, here is the first argument of yours. I'll restate it so you know what I have read into your words:
A) Child-pornography is too loosely defined. Are we discussing pre-teen abuse or the abuse of a teenager nearing emancipation? Then you argue that given this ambiguity, it is not always the case that such activity be termed "rape." You then argue about distribution of private adult pornography, specifically in relation to the Paris Hilton sex tape.
B) By the time it has reached the Internet, distribution of child-pornography is a fait accompli. IOW: those horses are long out of the barn and God knows where the hell they went to. Too bad. But would you kill all horses just because some of yours escaped?
Yes, I recognize my analogy in B) is a straw man.
I think the biggest problem with this debate is that the submitted write-up (and every write-up posted to slashdot this issue) has conflated the business interests of these ISPs (to reduce costs and limit unprofitable service) with the legal and appropriate action of censoring criminal child-pornography.
Thus, I dispute your false dichotomy of being forced to choose between either an "open, free internet" vs. a "closed, monitored, filtered internet" by these actions of the state and privately owned ISPs. All places in society are "monitored" by law enforcement, regardless of whether we're discussing bank robberies and protection rackets or criminal conspiracies to distribute what amounts to a child snuff-film.
"Freedom" doesn't mean "Anarchy". "Freedom" also demands "Responsibility".
Please go back to the business argument here. They are not "blocking access" to stuff that isn't child-pornography on the grounds that it is child-pornography. These ISPs have decided to shut off a service that costs them money to maintain. This, after a request by a NY district attorney to censor access to images of abused children.
The two may have occurred at the same time. That doesn't mean both decisions were reached from the same rationale.
Also: it doesn't help your argument to call me names.
A) Restricting access to child-pornography is not the goal, regardless of what the NY district attorney and those company spokespeople actually said;
B) Broadband ISPs have a conflict of business interest in this action, because some individuals are also engaged in criminal conspiracy to trade copyrighted works - a felony. Thus, it is a conflict of interest for those ISPs who also create and sell copyrighted content to also thwart the activities of copyright criminals.
C) These ISPs have no interest in protecting or helping molested children, beyond the positive public relations such an action might provide.
I think your arguments for A) and C) are based on absolutely no personal involvement in the activities of those who are engaged in enacting this policy. That is, you haven't spoken with the DA in question. You haven't spoken with any of the executives at those ISPs. Thus, that portion of your post is based entirely on bias and not fact.
RE B) you're absolutely right. Those companies have a business interest in protecting their copyrights. nntpd servers are expensive to maintain, they consume vast amounts of bandwidth, and some of the content hosted is criminal and does not serve the interest of that corporate head. Once again, these companies have made a business decision to protect their assets and rights. They have also agreed to squelch access to some of the most vile material spread across the Internet.
A) censorship of child-pornography, which is what the state of New York's district attorney is attempting to achieve. Good for him.
B) the right of a private company to set its terms of service for customers.
RE: B), which is what I believe you are complaining about, may I suggest you contact your ISP and request that they change their business policy. USENET consumes a large amount of bandwidth and requires a significant amount of storage and administrative attention. That ISP has a right to set its internal policy regarding USENET support. You don't like it? Choose another ISP. Or buy USENET service from a different vendor. One can even access USENET for free from certain vendors.
That is not a censorship issue, it is a business decision.
Abused kids don't have the rights to cut off information resources that aren't related to their abuse, nor should they.
Verizon, Comcast, and other large ISPs cut USENET services from their lineup for their own business reasons. That discussion is one you should have with your ISP.
I do not understand how you could even assert what you stated. By implying that abused kids are in any way involved with these policy debates - they're not. Those kids are the only true victims here. And while I'm no fan of "victim politics" let's be clear, a pre-teen child is in no way able to defend him or herself against the actions of criminal adults acting in conspiracy to thwart the law.
We're talking about felony distribution of child pornography. Such material is not "protected free speech" and it never has been. Unprotected speech has a long history of censorship in this country, the court case in the link being just one of many examples. That case is what brought forth and confirmed the argument that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not protected speech due to the risk of unintended mob violence. Threats of violence is another example of unprotected speech.
Thus, while many on slashdot might not like this fact, it is legal and justified to censor material that causes great harm to another person. And in this case, it is great harm done to a child, for profit. To censor this material is to uphold the right of privacy for those children who have been sexually abused in front of a camera for profit. The distribution of that material is assumed to cause those children involved great personal harm. That harm is far worse than the harm to society in general due to a policy of censorship. Particularly since we're not censoring political speech, but are censoring the commercial product of a criminal conspiracy.
Let's be clear: child porn is essentially a snuff-film.
Finally, Verizon owns that hardware. There are no filters in place across the network to block access to the nntpd port or its encrypted counterpart. End users can continue to purchase newsgroup access from a variety of vendors. They can even use free services to read and debate on USENET. The issue here is not about a right to USENET access, but about a private company choosing to heed the request of a district attorney to block access to criminal materials. That they chose to close a large portion of the service down for business reasons is not relevant to the central issue of children's human rights.
Child pornography is not - and has never been - protected speech under the 1st amendment. And just so we're clear: child pornographers rape little children in front of a camera for profit.
I have no problem with Verizon's new policy. They own those nntpd servers, they can do anything they want with them. They could blend those machines and post the video to youtube for all I care.
It is just staggering to me how the bias on slashdot in favor of "free speech" has blinded so many to the terrible horror that children face when abused in this manner. Those children have rights, not the least of which is just the simple right to privacy after the fact, such that their pornographic images are removed from public view. A child's right to privacy, especially in this circumstance, trumps your supposed 1st amendment right to "free speech" - particularly given that this "speech" is not the least bit protected under constitutional law.
And hell, even if it were a concern, I'll take the risk. And if society doesn't act to protect these children, then it will be those kids who are at risk.
I have no sympathy for freedom of speech arguments when it comes to child-pornography and other such forms of snuff-films.
And you're right: false positives in the criminal justice system is bad. When an innocent person goes to jail for a crime he or she did not commit, that is a stain on the justice system itself (along with a terrible injustice for the individual involved).
Censoring child pornography is not to protect adults who like to watch the stuff. It's to protect those kids who were abused in front of a camera for profit. They have a right to privacy. And that right trumps your supposed right to unprotected "free speech."
Can't say I have a problem with the French government attempting to censor child pornography. But who is it they are protecting? Certainly not French citizens, who are no prudes when it comes to sex.
The goal is to protect children who are being raped in front of cameras for profit.
You may copy small pieces of an article for quotation or citation purposes in order to promote a new perspective or provide analysis of that original work. In so doing, you will have created a new original work, which is copyrighted and owned by you - the author.
You may duplicate content that you have purchased for backup purposes. For example, you may photocopy or scan an entire textbook for your own use. You may not then distribute that scan without authorization of the copyright holder. This is why it is legal to rip CDs and move the resulting mp3s to your portable music player. It is also why it is illegal to distribute ripped CDs, whether that be by P2P, FTP, or just copying from one iPod to another owned by a friend.
It's even unclear whether public school teachers and academic universities may duplicate entire articles for class participation. That certainly was the case, though that claim of "fair use" is currently being challenged.
Any other duplication or distribution of copyrighted works, especially if done for profit, is a felony.
Yup, I give that away with a Creative Commons license. That license requires those who republish to include full attribution and not change the content in any way.
You have broken my copyright license and thus duplicated that content illegally.
Enjoy your dada-esque experiment with scissors and eink.
A) I read the article. Go screw.
B) Yes. Some bloggers have been stealing AP content and then collecting advertising revenue from the work of AP staff. I call that theft.
C) Yes. I mean DRM "that works". I am believe that DRM hardware based solutions are workable and will take hold in the market at some point in the future. I used to oppose such an outcome. Not any longer.
D) I'd like a non-polluting free energy solution too. But it looks like nuclear reclamation is the only solution to that problem. Unfortunately, now we're off-topic.
A) Not Drudge. It is the "Drudge Retort", a counter-site to the drudge report. But don't worry, when one of my articles got picked up by the Drudge Retort, I too was confused and thought I'd made the Drudge Report's FP.
B) I'm a writer. My copyright is mine, not yours.
C) Look up "fair use" and see if duplication of large sections of a copyrighted work has ever been acceptable prior to the advent of digital technology. It wasn't.
I like digital distribution. I hate thieves. Especially of my work, because when people steal stuff I worked hard to create, it pissed me the fuck off. It would piss you off too, had you done that work.
Don't worry. I stopped regularly posting here some time back. Perhaps you'll not even see me again. But if you'd like to be certain of that, I suggest you foe me and set your comment prefs to -5 for foes. And I'll just disappear from your view.
It's about time some of these news organizations acted to protect their copyrights. It's one thing for a blogger to cut and paste out bits of an article for analysis and context. It's quite another to cut out large sections - or the entire thing - and then collect advertising revenue off the work of others.
I see this far too much. Time for a beat-down.
Wackos on teh intartubes has slowly beat into my head over the last decade the rationale for DRM. All I want is for writers, musicians, artists, and other content creators to retain their copyrights and DRM keys. Yes to DRM; no to centralized distribution monopolies.
How that negates humanity building habitats in space or on planets is beyond me. I'd recommend you rethink that line of argument.
B) One mines where the deposits are.
Whether humans will mine asteroids in the asteroid belt or move desirable asteroids to a mining and processing facility I'll leave up to our future selves.
C) You argue a size limitation for each Stanford Torus habitat. They can hold only a mere "thousands" of inhabitants. Then you argue that given the large number of potential inhabitants that our future selves "couldn't build habitats fast enough" in order to meet demand.
Where did the number "thousands per habitat" come from? Why not millions? These devices scale well as long as materials are available to build them. Further, you argue that humans couldn't build these habitats fast enough. Yet are you arguing that it would be *easier* or *cheaper* to terraform Mars? No way. It wouldn't. Finally, I note that machines will be building these devices, not people. So, as long as one can scale up the manufacture of machines to build the habitats, one can build as many habitats as one likes.
D) "All things being equal - you always have that advantage of NOT floating off into space if something goes wrong with your artificially maintained habitat."
Terrible argument. I won't even bother.
E) "Oh... and something tells me that a civilization that has the ability to build torus like that has no problems with launching expenses."
What makes you think that? Even were we to build an orbital space elevator, it will still take vast amounts of energy/kg to push something up to orbit. A space elevator may be more efficient than chemical propulsion, but you still have to accelerate an object to 7km/s bare minimum just to get in to LEO.
F) "On another point, having colonists sitting on a large chunk of rock, building infrastructure and creating tax revenue for your government is one thing."
Terrorism? Are you seriously arguing terrorism now?
Buddy, you just spent fifteen minutes throwing everything you could grasp at the wall and got nothing.
Why won't Apple or AT&T sell me the damn thing online and ship it when one is available? I just don't have time to go to a damn store and wait in some bullshit line in order to buy something that should be available from an online store.
Hi Apple! Hi AT&T! I'm your target market. Please make it easy for me to buy your product.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid to say: No. You must pay to access those sites regardless of indecency and obscenity laws. It has been that way since the founding of the United States.
In 1780 you had to buy a newspaper in order to read the news. In 1780 you had to buy a quill and ink in order to write a letter to the editor.
You will continue to have to pay for Internet access. However, to read and respond to USENET posts in the alt.* hierarchy you could still access it for free via Google Groups. Or you could buy the service from an external provider.
The ISP has no obligation to provide USENET service regardless of what content resides there.
Those children, however, do have a human right codified within our constitution which protects them from physical or sexual abuse.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm
I've set up and managed very large USENET news sites, with experience in that going back to the early 1990s. I know exactly what I'm talking about WRT the technology that delivers USENET. I also have a history of posting to USENET that goes back to 1984.
So, I do have some idea about usenet newsgroups and the history of the alt.* hierarchy.
OK, here is the first argument of yours. I'll restate it so you know what I have read into your words:
A) Child-pornography is too loosely defined. Are we discussing pre-teen abuse or the abuse of a teenager nearing emancipation? Then you argue that given this ambiguity, it is not always the case that such activity be termed "rape." You then argue about distribution of private adult pornography, specifically in relation to the Paris Hilton sex tape.
B) By the time it has reached the Internet, distribution of child-pornography is a fait accompli. IOW: those horses are long out of the barn and God knows where the hell they went to. Too bad. But would you kill all horses just because some of yours escaped?
Yes, I recognize my analogy in B) is a straw man.
I think the biggest problem with this debate is that the submitted write-up (and every write-up posted to slashdot this issue) has conflated the business interests of these ISPs (to reduce costs and limit unprofitable service) with the legal and appropriate action of censoring criminal child-pornography.
Thus, I dispute your false dichotomy of being forced to choose between either an "open, free internet" vs. a "closed, monitored, filtered internet" by these actions of the state and privately owned ISPs. All places in society are "monitored" by law enforcement, regardless of whether we're discussing bank robberies and protection rackets or criminal conspiracies to distribute what amounts to a child snuff-film.
"Freedom" doesn't mean "Anarchy". "Freedom" also demands "Responsibility".
Please go back to the business argument here. They are not "blocking access" to stuff that isn't child-pornography on the grounds that it is child-pornography. These ISPs have decided to shut off a service that costs them money to maintain. This, after a request by a NY district attorney to censor access to images of abused children.
The two may have occurred at the same time. That doesn't mean both decisions were reached from the same rationale.
Also: it doesn't help your argument to call me names.
Here is what I read from your two posts:
A) Restricting access to child-pornography is not the goal, regardless of what the NY district attorney and those company spokespeople actually said;
B) Broadband ISPs have a conflict of business interest in this action, because some individuals are also engaged in criminal conspiracy to trade copyrighted works - a felony. Thus, it is a conflict of interest for those ISPs who also create and sell copyrighted content to also thwart the activities of copyright criminals.
C) These ISPs have no interest in protecting or helping molested children, beyond the positive public relations such an action might provide.
I think your arguments for A) and C) are based on absolutely no personal involvement in the activities of those who are engaged in enacting this policy. That is, you haven't spoken with the DA in question. You haven't spoken with any of the executives at those ISPs. Thus, that portion of your post is based entirely on bias and not fact.
RE B) you're absolutely right. Those companies have a business interest in protecting their copyrights. nntpd servers are expensive to maintain, they consume vast amounts of bandwidth, and some of the content hosted is criminal and does not serve the interest of that corporate head. Once again, these companies have made a business decision to protect their assets and rights. They have also agreed to squelch access to some of the most vile material spread across the Internet.
You've got to be kidding me. Stand up for what you believe in and make your case. I won't make it for you, I disagree with you vehemently.
Then what are you complaining about?
You conflate two issues here:
A) censorship of child-pornography, which is what the state of New York's district attorney is attempting to achieve. Good for him.
B) the right of a private company to set its terms of service for customers.
RE: B), which is what I believe you are complaining about, may I suggest you contact your ISP and request that they change their business policy. USENET consumes a large amount of bandwidth and requires a significant amount of storage and administrative attention. That ISP has a right to set its internal policy regarding USENET support. You don't like it? Choose another ISP. Or buy USENET service from a different vendor. One can even access USENET for free from certain vendors.
That is not a censorship issue, it is a business decision.
Verizon, Comcast, and other large ISPs cut USENET services from their lineup for their own business reasons. That discussion is one you should have with your ISP.
I do not understand how you could even assert what you stated. By implying that abused kids are in any way involved with these policy debates - they're not. Those kids are the only true victims here. And while I'm no fan of "victim politics" let's be clear, a pre-teen child is in no way able to defend him or herself against the actions of criminal adults acting in conspiracy to thwart the law.
We're talking about felony distribution of child pornography. Such material is not "protected free speech" and it never has been. Unprotected speech has a long history of censorship in this country, the court case in the link being just one of many examples. That case is what brought forth and confirmed the argument that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not protected speech due to the risk of unintended mob violence. Threats of violence is another example of unprotected speech.
Thus, while many on slashdot might not like this fact, it is legal and justified to censor material that causes great harm to another person. And in this case, it is great harm done to a child, for profit. To censor this material is to uphold the right of privacy for those children who have been sexually abused in front of a camera for profit. The distribution of that material is assumed to cause those children involved great personal harm. That harm is far worse than the harm to society in general due to a policy of censorship. Particularly since we're not censoring political speech, but are censoring the commercial product of a criminal conspiracy.
Let's be clear: child porn is essentially a snuff-film.
Finally, Verizon owns that hardware. There are no filters in place across the network to block access to the nntpd port or its encrypted counterpart. End users can continue to purchase newsgroup access from a variety of vendors. They can even use free services to read and debate on USENET. The issue here is not about a right to USENET access, but about a private company choosing to heed the request of a district attorney to block access to criminal materials. That they chose to close a large portion of the service down for business reasons is not relevant to the central issue of children's human rights.
Child pornography is not - and has never been - protected speech under the 1st amendment. And just so we're clear: child pornographers rape little children in front of a camera for profit.
I have no problem with Verizon's new policy. They own those nntpd servers, they can do anything they want with them. They could blend those machines and post the video to youtube for all I care.
It is just staggering to me how the bias on slashdot in favor of "free speech" has blinded so many to the terrible horror that children face when abused in this manner. Those children have rights, not the least of which is just the simple right to privacy after the fact, such that their pornographic images are removed from public view. A child's right to privacy, especially in this circumstance, trumps your supposed 1st amendment right to "free speech" - particularly given that this "speech" is not the least bit protected under constitutional law.
Not buy'n it.
And hell, even if it were a concern, I'll take the risk. And if society doesn't act to protect these children, then it will be those kids who are at risk.
I have no sympathy for freedom of speech arguments when it comes to child-pornography and other such forms of snuff-films.
And you're right: false positives in the criminal justice system is bad. When an innocent person goes to jail for a crime he or she did not commit, that is a stain on the justice system itself (along with a terrible injustice for the individual involved).
Censoring child pornography is not to protect adults who like to watch the stuff. It's to protect those kids who were abused in front of a camera for profit. They have a right to privacy. And that right trumps your supposed right to unprotected "free speech."
Can't say I have a problem with the French government attempting to censor child pornography. But who is it they are protecting? Certainly not French citizens, who are no prudes when it comes to sex.
The goal is to protect children who are being raped in front of cameras for profit.
I laud the French for their forward thinking.
You may copy small pieces of an article for quotation or citation purposes in order to promote a new perspective or provide analysis of that original work. In so doing, you will have created a new original work, which is copyrighted and owned by you - the author.
You may duplicate content that you have purchased for backup purposes. For example, you may photocopy or scan an entire textbook for your own use. You may not then distribute that scan without authorization of the copyright holder. This is why it is legal to rip CDs and move the resulting mp3s to your portable music player. It is also why it is illegal to distribute ripped CDs, whether that be by P2P, FTP, or just copying from one iPod to another owned by a friend.
It's even unclear whether public school teachers and academic universities may duplicate entire articles for class participation. That certainly was the case, though that claim of "fair use" is currently being challenged.
Any other duplication or distribution of copyrighted works, especially if done for profit, is a felony.
Yup, I give that away with a Creative Commons license. That license requires those who republish to include full attribution and not change the content in any way.
You have broken my copyright license and thus duplicated that content illegally.
I could not disagree more with your armchair psychology and simplistic ethics.
Enjoy your dada-esque experiment with scissors and eink.
A) I read the article. Go screw.
B) Yes. Some bloggers have been stealing AP content and then collecting advertising revenue from the work of AP staff. I call that theft.
C) Yes. I mean DRM "that works". I am believe that DRM hardware based solutions are workable and will take hold in the market at some point in the future. I used to oppose such an outcome. Not any longer.
D) I'd like a non-polluting free energy solution too. But it looks like nuclear reclamation is the only solution to that problem. Unfortunately, now we're off-topic.
I wrote it, I retain copyright, it is mine.
Not yours. Not "society's".
Mine.
A) Not Drudge. It is the "Drudge Retort", a counter-site to the drudge report. But don't worry, when one of my articles got picked up by the Drudge Retort, I too was confused and thought I'd made the Drudge Report's FP.
B) I'm a writer. My copyright is mine, not yours.
C) Look up "fair use" and see if duplication of large sections of a copyrighted work has ever been acceptable prior to the advent of digital technology. It wasn't.
I like digital distribution. I hate thieves. Especially of my work, because when people steal stuff I worked hard to create, it pissed me the fuck off. It would piss you off too, had you done that work.
Don't worry. I stopped regularly posting here some time back. Perhaps you'll not even see me again. But if you'd like to be certain of that, I suggest you foe me and set your comment prefs to -5 for foes. And I'll just disappear from your view.
It's about time some of these news organizations acted to protect their copyrights. It's one thing for a blogger to cut and paste out bits of an article for analysis and context. It's quite another to cut out large sections - or the entire thing - and then collect advertising revenue off the work of others.
I see this far too much. Time for a beat-down.
Wackos on teh intartubes has slowly beat into my head over the last decade the rationale for DRM. All I want is for writers, musicians, artists, and other content creators to retain their copyrights and DRM keys. Yes to DRM; no to centralized distribution monopolies.
Here are your arguments:
A) Humans build for today, not tomorrow.
How that negates humanity building habitats in space or on planets is beyond me. I'd recommend you rethink that line of argument.
B) One mines where the deposits are.
Whether humans will mine asteroids in the asteroid belt or move desirable asteroids to a mining and processing facility I'll leave up to our future selves.
C) You argue a size limitation for each Stanford Torus habitat. They can hold only a mere "thousands" of inhabitants. Then you argue that given the large number of potential inhabitants that our future selves "couldn't build habitats fast enough" in order to meet demand.
Where did the number "thousands per habitat" come from? Why not millions? These devices scale well as long as materials are available to build them. Further, you argue that humans couldn't build these habitats fast enough. Yet are you arguing that it would be *easier* or *cheaper* to terraform Mars? No way. It wouldn't. Finally, I note that machines will be building these devices, not people. So, as long as one can scale up the manufacture of machines to build the habitats, one can build as many habitats as one likes.
D) "All things being equal - you always have that advantage of NOT floating off into space if something goes wrong with your artificially maintained habitat."
Terrible argument. I won't even bother.
E) "Oh... and something tells me that a civilization that has the ability to build torus like that has no problems with launching expenses."
What makes you think that? Even were we to build an orbital space elevator, it will still take vast amounts of energy/kg to push something up to orbit. A space elevator may be more efficient than chemical propulsion, but you still have to accelerate an object to 7km/s bare minimum just to get in to LEO.
F) "On another point, having colonists sitting on a large chunk of rock, building infrastructure and creating tax revenue for your government is one thing."
Terrorism? Are you seriously arguing terrorism now?
Buddy, you just spent fifteen minutes throwing everything you could grasp at the wall and got nothing.
--M
It's amazing how much you wrongly believe you know about me.
Why won't Apple or AT&T sell me the damn thing online and ship it when one is available? I just don't have time to go to a damn store and wait in some bullshit line in order to buy something that should be available from an online store.
Hi Apple! Hi AT&T! I'm your target market. Please make it easy for me to buy your product.