PaulT's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the talking-favorites dept

This weeks' "favorites" post comes from PaulT, an English sysadmin living in Spain, who frequently chimes in with smart observations from his perspective.

As is becoming traditional, I'd like to start by both thanking Mike for the opportunity to write this post, but also noting that it's a bit more work than I'd originally thought it would be!

As a foreign resident in Spain, who suffers no end of problem because of the entertainment industry's regional policies, I found Alex De La Iglesia's comments to be heartening. The distribution of legal content in this country is a mess, and a full decade behind the US and my native UK in many ways. It's great that such a talented director is using his position to protest the more backward direction his peers wish to take, though it's a shame that he's abdicating his responsibility in order to do so.

While the music industry is a little bit ahead of the movie industry in their adaptation to the modern marketplace, they do still seem to miss the point on a regular basis. Recently, one of the things that illustrated this was Nokia's "Comes With Music" platform, which seemed to offer very little to address piracy. I predicted that it would be a failure from the start, due to its built in content expiry date and platform restrictions. These not only make it a poor competitor to legal services such as iTunes and Spotify, as well as highly inconvenient compared to piracy. Hopefully, its failure will hammer these lessons home again so that the music industry can concentrate on more viable models.

Thirdly, we have a nacho cheese lawsuit that I'm sure will bring repeats of an ongoing argument. As Mike correctly notes in the article, the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit from a few years ago is a dividing issue with people holding it up as both a valid suit and the epitome of frivolous actions. I'm on the side that feels it's valid (she should have been more careful, but it should not have been served so hot), but we'll see how this new action turns out. I feel that the parents should have been more careful, but it's right for Disney to be punished if their cheese was excessively hot.

A little late to the game, but it was nice to read a rundown of the ridiculous Fox News claims about the videogame Bulletstorm and its supposed incitation to rape. It's nice to see not only that such blatant lies are addressed, but also a mini masterclass in the various ways in which such things can be intelligently and effectively debunked.

Talking of ridiculous claims, we have a few stories about copyright that show how the system is being misused. Rihanna was sued due to some frankly quite generic S&M images in her new video being of some passing resemblance to a photographer's previous images. We have the TSA claiming that copyright is the reason they can't pass over images of their security scans. We also see the interesting question as to whether or not a recent technological marvel only succeeded by violating copyright. Such innovations may be in jeopardy (no pun intended) if the copyright maximalists get their way.

Another theme that seems to have emerged this week was the issue of internet censorship and its misuse, along with unfortunate collateral damage along the way. As the UK is apparently willing to follow the US's lead and France implements internet censorship on the pretense of fighting child porn, there were a few stark reminders that such things tend to have a lot of unintended consequences. Hopefully, Hillary Clinton will follow through and actually enable internet users to be free from this kind of thing, but I somehow doubt it.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Kevin, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 12:43pm

    Nice selection, but...

    I have to disagree with your McDonalds position. The US is bit by bit chipping away at personal responsibility. Its a joke.
    It was Mom and Dads job to make sure it was safe for him to eat.

    For the record reheated cheese does need to ne brpught to a temperature of 165 degrees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:54pm

      Re: Nice selection, but...

      I agree and the why is simple, if ever that same logic was used against parents they wouldn't like it one bit, it would be considered extreme and unjust and there is no good reason to ask more from other people than what we are willing to do ourselves.

      It bother me that people keep putting more power in the hands of incompetent authorities and that same power will be used to harm them in the future.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 8:36am

      Re: Nice selection, but...

      A restaurant has both a moral and a legal responsibility to regulate the temperature of their food. In that case, McDonald's served coffee that was hotter than the legal limit. It doesn't matter that it was spilled - that simply changed the location of the inevitable burns that would follow.

      In the same way, if nachos are served at a burning temperature, then whoever tries it is going to be burned. In that case, it was a little boy, but if Mom and Dad had taste-tested it, they would have been burned. For all practical purposes, it's the same.

      The food was too hot. Someone was burned. End of story.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2011 @ 12:45pm

      Re: Nice selection, but...

      We may have to agree to disagree here, but it's possible for there to be liability on both parties.

      In the McDonalds case, should the woman have been more careful? Yes. Should they have been held responsible for her spilling the coffee? No. Should they have been held responsible for heating the coffee so far beyond its normal temperature that much more severe injuries were inflicted than spilled coffee would usually inflict? Absolutely. They weren't sued because she spilled the coffee, they were sued because it had been heated beyond normal guidelines and because increasingly harmful as a result.

      The same here. Disney aren't responsible for the accident itself. But, if the injuries were exacerbated by excessive heating of the cheese, they share responsibility for the severity of the wounds, even if they're not responsible for the actual accident.

      I'm a believer in parental responsibility, and the parents should have been more careful and controlling of their child. But, accidents do happen and food should not inflict severe wounds when they do unless that is somehow unavoidable. I'll await a verdict before deciding if that was the case here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 1:03pm

    Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

    Indoctrinations every Saturday at high noon. Free Kool-Aid.

    Techdirt logo kool-aid cups available on our web site:
    http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

      So the kool-aid heads are winning? Otherwise, why even bother posting at all, unless of course, no, it couldn't be!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

      Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

      It's rather telling when trolls have been resorting to this for the last month...

      but but KOOLAID.

      but but CULT.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 7:26pm

        Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

        They can't come up with anything original. Typical IP maximists. Too stupid to think straight.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 7:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

          I don't think they're stupid, just uncreative. They should study the history of art as it might help.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 10:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

            You clearly missed the fact that I have been paying attention. Mike is not interested in originality/creativity, he wants pure copying:
            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100826/09354110786.shtml
            http://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20110202/23230912933/star-wars-is-remix.shtml

            I followed your master's example, I included Free and Cwf+Rtb. This is exactly the kind of thing Mike expects from his minions and you call it unoriginal, stupid and uncreative. Could it be that you do not always agree with your puppet master?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 11:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

              "Mike is not interested in originality/creativity, he wants pure copying"

              I don't see how any of the links you provided demonstrate that. Please elaborate. Saying that copying is good does not mean that originality is not good.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 4:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

                Fair enough, not pure copying but lots of copying and starting with copying.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 1:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

              I do not care what Mike wants. I do not care what you want. All I care about are the arts and the progressing of those arts, which is going to happen with or without Mike and you.

              Copying is a very important part of the arts. Ask any artist.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 4:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

                Exact copies are not art. Your argument depends on how you define copying.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 8:41am

      Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

      How come no one ever listens to me about the damned Kool-Aid???

      The Jonestown folks didn't drink Kool-Aid. They drank Flavor-Aid, dammit!

      :P

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        vivaelamor (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 4:28pm

        Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

        "The Jonestown folks didn't drink Kool-Aid. They drank Flavor-Aid, dammit!"

        I remain ignorant of both.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Kevin Carson, Feb 21st, 2011 @ 11:22am

        Re: Re: Fanboi Strokefest 2011!!

        Yeah, but that kind of ruins my idea for a Kool-Aid commercial parody where the giant pitcher crashes through the wall after Jim Jones hollers "Hey, Kool-Aid!"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    but but CENSORSHIP!

    That was Mike's cry of the week, only mentioning it in the last paragraph is telling. I notice most of the koolaid-heads around here didn't fall for it either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 19th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

      Re:

      Haha, you guys are so funny. No victories so you have to play make believe...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:07pm

        Re: Re:

        Is it about "victories"? If so, it was still a great week.

        What amazes me is that you guys don't seem to see that Mike gets his manties in a knot over something, and his posts go from somewhat information (but slanted) to "oh yeah, well look at this! and this! and THIS!" as he tries so hard to slam things he doesn't like. It's like watching a kid upset because someone took away his favorite toy or wouldn't give him desert after dinner.

        That's why the "but but CENSORSHIP!" comment, because he got so worked up over censorship that he ended up agreeing with a Chinese firewall creator. Friggin' hilarious.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's exactly what a child molester would say. Clearly.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 6:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Mike didn't agree with a Chinese firewall creator. The United States of America met a Chinese firewall creator's approval.

          Just because you missed the point doesn't mean it wasn't there.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 10:30pm

      Re:

      "but but CENSORSHIP!"

      I've posted this before, but in the likely case that you intentionally missed it, I'll post it again.

      Censorship is real.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 6:07am

        Re: Re:

        None of it is true censorship. Censorship is really when an otherwise legal point of view is shut off, so people cannot get any access to that point of view.

        Shutting down sites made up mostly of infringing videos, helping people connect to illegally pirate stuff? You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law.

        Shutting down child porn sites? You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law.

        Remember: We wouldn't tolerate that behaviour "in the real world", so why would we tolerate it online? If you consider this censorship, then you consider all laws to be censorship, which would be silly.

        More importantly, if you consider it censorship, then the Kool aid is having the desired effect, allowing you to remain a loyal Techdirt reader and not to question some of he more simple concepts.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 7:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Censorship is really when an otherwise legal point of view is shut off, so people cannot get any access to that point of view."

          The above are examples of that. A legal point of view is shut off from mainstream media television and broadcasting airwaves.

          Shutting down only the illegal sites isn't what I have a problem with (other than for the purpose of copy'right' infringement, but my problem there is with copy'right' law itself), it's all the legal sites that they are 'accidentally' shutting down in the process, without taking the time necessary to avoid making such dumb mistakes, that I have a problem with. It makes the process of creating websites more expensive and risky which makes the expression of various points of view on those websites more expensive as well. and passing more laws (ie: COICA) that can be used to assist these people in much more easily shutting down sites they don't like can also lead to abuse. Not to mention it can make Internet connections more expensive which at least partly denies us the points of views of those who can't afford an Internet connection as a result and it at least partly denies those who can't afford an Internet connection as a result some of the various points of views expressed on the Internet.

          The censorship abuse mentioned above didn't happen immediately all at once. It happened incrementally over a very long period of time. Public airwaves used to be open to everyone to use, but one day the FCC took over. At first, after taking over, they placed requirements on the minimal amount of competition that must exist in the market as an attempt to pretend that taking over public airwaves was about serving the public interest. Taking away something rightfully belonging to the public and immediately handing exclusive use of it to big corporations will lead to public outrage. but, over time, as people got more and more used to not freely using public airwaves to communicate with (since they were slowing becoming prohibited from doing so), the FCC started allowing more and more of those public airwaves to be controlled by fewer and fewer entities. Now the FCC grants a monopoly on public airwaves use to a hand full of corporations and various state/local governments grant monopoly power to corporations for cableco infrastructure use. The result is that a hand full of corporations (like five) control a considerable majority of information distribution channels outside the Internet and the result is that dissenting points of view are censored.

          Censorship isn't something that just happens all at once. It's an incremental process resulting from laws get passed that artificially make open communication more expensive. and to say that it can't happen, or that this is not the governments intent, is absolute nonsense. The laws in place that grant monopoly power over cableco and broadcasting use are intended to result in the censorship of dissenting views, and that is their result, so there is good reason to believe that many of the Internet laws the government wants to pass are intended to do just the same thing.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 7:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Censorship is really when an otherwise legal point of view is shut off, so people cannot get any access to that point of view.

          Eighty-four thousand. 84,000.

          Eighty-four thousand websites all “breaking the law” on Friday? Then all of a sudden they started getting legal again Sunday evening? But some sites were still breaking the law until Wednesday?

          According to FreeDNS, mooo.com was seized and suspended on Feb. 11 at around 9:30 p.m. PT. Service was not restored until Feb. 13 at around 7:15 p.m. The admins at FreeDNS noted that once the suspension was lifted, it would still take three days for all affected sites to be fully restored. In other words, not only would some of the sites be unusable by their owners until Feb. 16, but they would continue to display the "child pornography" accusation.

          When ICE says 84,000 sites have an illegal point of view, then ICE is the law.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 8:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "When ICE says 84,000 sites have an illegal point of view, then ICE is the law."

            and what's worse, most of this is probably censored from our one sided mainstream media. Censorship is a reality and it's bad laws that enable this censorship to continue.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 8:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              (or, to the extent that it does make it on mainstream media, it will be told from a one sided perspective).

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 7:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Same argument, different day.

            1 domain. 84,000 sub domains that are not legally under the control of the registrar. One way to shut it down. 84,000 third level domains, 84,000 pages, 84,000 blog entries, it is all the same thing at that level.

            More than anything, it is an indication of 84,000 people who need to discover that domains only cost about $8 a year, and none of this would happen.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 21st, 2011 @ 4:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              1 domain. 84,000 sub domains that are not legally under the control of the registrar. One way to shut it down.

              This is simply untrue. You could easily shut down just the illegal sites. I don't know why you keep insisting otherwise, other than technical cluelessness.

              More than anything, it is an indication of 84,000 people who need to discover that domains only cost about $8 a year, and none of this would happen.

              Sorry, but that's not how the First Amendment works.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 5:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "None of it is true censorship. Censorship is really when an otherwise legal point of view is shut off, so people cannot get any access to that point of view."

          Today on Name That Fallacy we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.

          Using any position of power to exert control over information may be considered censorship. You have the issue the wrong way around when you say people cannot get any access, as it is not the person accessing the information who is censored. If someone doesn't read an article because it comes up with a government mandated warning saying 'don't read this article' then that is censorship.

          "You can call it censorship, but that would be wrong. It's trying to stop people who are breaking the law."

          The two are not mutually exclusive.

          "If you consider this censorship, then you consider all laws to be censorship, which would be silly."

          Censorship is not really an inherently bad word. The reason it tends to be considered bad is because people tend to believe free speech to be important, so censorship is treated with caution. Laws that require advertisers to tell the truth are technically censorship, but you may not find the same people arguing against them as might argue against censorship on this issue.

          "More importantly, if you consider it censorship, then the Kool aid is having the desired effect"

          That's what you consider to be the more important part of your post?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 6:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          None of it is true censorship. Censorship is really when an otherwise legal point of view is shut off, so people cannot get any access to that point of view.

          Heh. No. This is so far from the truth it's difficult to take you seriously. In China, speaking out in favor of Falun Gong is "illegal." So it gets shut down. So, by your reasoning, that's not censorship, because it's illegal.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 21st, 2011 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      "only mentioning it in the last paragraph is telling"

      Hmmm... I missed commenting over the weekend thanks to other commitments but I do wonder at this.

      Only mentioning it in the last paragraph is telling because... what? Because I decided not to dwell on a particular subject in multiple paragraphs? Because there were other things I wanted to comment upon? Because I ended up rushing the last couple of paragraphs because the bar I was writing the post in started to fill up with my friends at the beginning of happy hour and I didn't want to have to proof read any more text?

      I notice that you ignore the wide range of other points made over the week to focus on some random "theme" you've read into the posts.

      Funny how some people around here - especially those who can't be bothered to log in - see conspiracies among those who actually agree with Mike on some points. Well, you'd rather dismiss agreement as "kool aid drinking", so it's obviously a waste of time trying to discuss this further...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

    It's nice to see not only that such blatant lies are addressed, but also a mini masterclass in the various ways in which such things can be intelligently and effectively debunked.

    I still hold that the last example had too much rhetoric to count as either "intelligent" or "effective". Come on, a hateful diatribe about how hateful Fox News is? That's not about to change anyone's mind. We need logic and facts, not propaganda.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 10:16am

      Re:

      If you're looking for logic and facts, and not propaganda, you're not going to find it on Techdirt. TD is Propaganda Central. All dissenting views are strongly discouraged and ridiculed. It's a shame, because Mike talks about important issues. The potential for this site to be great is thwarted by its leader's militant one-sidedness. Too bad Mike's mind is so incredibly closed, or else, this site might actually be more than a hole in the wall where pirates hang out.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 10:22am

        Re: Re:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20data.html?_r=4

        The Justice Department, which in the last few months has gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court, says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed. But others involved in the case say that what the government is trying to avoid is public embarrassment over evidence that Mr. Montgomery bamboozled federal officials.

        “The Justice Department is trying to cover this up,” Mr. Flynn said. “If this unravels, all of the evidence, all of the phony terror alerts and all the embarrassment comes up publicly, too. The government knew this technology was bogus, but these guys got paid millions for it.”

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 6:20pm

        Re: Re:

        All dissenting views are strongly discouraged and ridiculed.

        That's simply untrue. Lots of folks engage here regularly with those with dissenting views, and we keep our comments wide open for exactly that reason. If we didn't want dissenting viewpoints, we'd moderate the comments.

        However, if your views are repeatedly ridiculous and deserving of ridicule, then don't be surprised if you get ridiculed. But, it doesn't seem to stop those folks from coming back, so I don't see how that's discouraging anything.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 7:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          translation: We accept all comments, especially people who agree with our overall ideas and just don't agree with minor points along the way.

          However, if your reviews are ridiculous by my standards, because I don't agree with you, I will belittle you, I will call you out, I will tell you to grow up, and I will refuse to actually address any issue that is brought up. I won't call it being discouraging, but perhaps disparaging.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2011 @ 12:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 21st, 2011 @ 4:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            However, if your reviews are ridiculous by my standards, because I don't agree with you, I will belittle you, I will call you out, I will tell you to grow up, and I will refuse to actually address any issue that is brought up. I won't call it being discouraging, but perhaps disparaging.

            Not at all. I will -- as I have done repeatedly -- explain my position carefully, back it up in great detail over and over again. If you then continue to insist that up is down and black is white, I may start belittling you, because at that point you deserve it.

            I have plenty of patience and information to back up my positions for those with an open mind interested in learning. I have little patience for people who have no intention of understanding basic concepts.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Feb 20th, 2011 @ 4:34pm

      Re:

      "We need logic and facts, not propaganda."

      Care to contribute?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

    ... a few stark reminders that such things tend to have a lot of unintended consequences.

     

    According to a Friday afternoon article in Information Week, an ICE spokesperson has confirmed the mooo.com takedown.

    “ICE Confirms Inadvertent Web Site Seizures” (Feb 18, 2011)

    Authorities are reviewing what happened to prevent a similar misstep in the future.

     . . .

    "During the course of a joint DHS and DOJ law enforcement operation targeting 10 Web sites providing explicit child pornographic content, a higher level domain name and linked sites were inadvertently seized for a period of time," an ICE spokepserson said in an e-mailed statement. "Those sites were restored as soon as possible to normal functionality."

     . . .

    The article has more.

    That helps to settle concerns about whether it really happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 2:17pm

      Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

      Settle concerns? Hardly. It shows that ICE doesn't even know what it is they're grabbing, and will only back down if there's significant uproar about it.

      You want to "prevent a similar messtep in the future", how about following due process...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 3:05pm

        Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

        You want to "prevent a similar messtep in the future", how about following due process...

        You   —yeah, you!—   are not going to get due process.

        It's the flip side of “Everything's fucked up”

         . . . . Which is not to say that the Obama era has meant an end to law enforcement. On the contrary: In the past few years, the administration has allocated massive amounts of federal resources to catching wrongdoers — of a certain type. . . .

        . . . . The math makes sense only because the politics are so obvious. You want to win elections, you bang on the jailable class. You build prisons and fill them with people for selling dime bags and stealing CD players. But for stealing a billion dollars? For fraud that puts a million people into foreclosure? Pass. It's not a crime. Prison is too harsh. Get them to say they're sorry, and move on. Oh, wait — let's not even make them say they're sorry. . . .

        It's a two-tiered system now: People who are above the law. And scum who don't even deserve a trial. Don't even deserve any kind of hearing. Don't even deserve someone telling them what they did wrong. All you need to know is that they're bad and poor and jailable and wrong.

        That's you.

         

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 9:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

          Amusing story, except that the majority of the prison population in most states would be democratic voters. So locking them all up would be sort of meaningless.

          Now, if they can send a few of those Republican financer types to the slammer, that might help.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 10:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

            "except that the majority of the prison population in most states would be democratic voters."

            Not that I agree with him, IMO, to the extent that I might, what he's saying isn't a republican vs democrat issue.

            It's more of an issue of how big corporations and their leaders can scam the public out of tons of money and never see jail (ie: limited liability, if the corporation is fined the corporation/stock holders pay and not those who conducted the crime, etc...) yet if some poor person steals a CD, they go to jail.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:40pm

        Re: Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

        It also shows what a bunch of ICEholes they are.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

      Re: ICE confirms mooo.com takedown

      Well, just so long as they can label anyone a child molester and then realize they made a mistake it should be all good, right? Oh and by the way, you're all child molesters.

      Sorry! My bad!

      BUT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Feb 19th, 2011 @ 3:34pm

    is it just me, or is this comment thread unusually incoherent?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:27pm

      Just you... Happy drunks vs angry drunks?

      With the advent of the my favorites, and most insightful and funniest posts on weekends the comments have become quite incoherent. I suspect but am unable to confirm that this is a consequence of most people being off work on weekends and therefore being more relaxed (either naturally or chemically induced).

      I also see a growing tendency by those that dislike TD but can not seem to get enough of it to become much more aggressive and mean spirited on weekends.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    candide08 (profile), Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:29pm

    Can't have it both ways

    So the GOP says that videogames supposedly incite rape, yet Ms. Palins "crosshairs" website, and the hyperbolic rhetoric of the right, do not incite violence or shootings?

    Seems to me that these observations are very selective and self-serving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 19th, 2011 @ 4:45pm

    About the TSA claims I would like to point out that copyright in the U.S. needs to show creative intent to be granted and courts have used that to justify why a phone books and list of facts are not subject to copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2011 @ 6:39am

    @Kevin - "personal responsibility" What a concept!! Everyone seems to know their rights but no one talks about their responsibilities.

    Here's a new book I just read that asks everyone to know their 'responsibility' when it comes to good government. Remember, its the duty of a patriot to protect his country from it's government (I think T. Paine).

    Great read for what's happening now in Wisconsin & across America. I recommend it. Remember, it's We the People...
    www.booksbyoliver.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This