The name "Lisae Boucher" was the name I used when I was still a member of Second Life. My friends call me Lisa.
I'm a young female student who lives together with another girl somewhere in Amsterdam. Yes, the L-word applies to us.
I have to admit, I'm not interested in this movie. Still, I decided to donate some of my hard-earned money to support this initiative. While "give away and pray" isn't a very good business plan, I just hope the donation will encourage them to continue making movies for free. And I hope they will consider my donation as an investment in their next movie, instead as a reward for the current one.
Because, honestly? I don't like this movie. :-) But I love to support this kind of initiative.
It wasn't his own laptop. His son owns it. And his son seems to be a more computer-savvy student, who probably knows a trick or two to keep his data protected.
Or, because he encrypted the data on the CD and the decrypting software is only available on this laptop. Either the prosecutor has no clue about ITC or he's smart enough not to leave unencrypted data on a device that could be stolen.
This is a great publisher's stunt! I really wonder if this author did this behind the publisher's back, since this publisher gives away other ebooks for free. This blog entry and the whole situation just draws attention to the whole discussion about free online content and is giving both the publisher and author quite a bit of extra publicity.
If I may ask, how many TechDirt visitors have gone to Amazon to buy this book already?
I never heard of South Butt before! Do they have a website where I can order some of their clothes? Do they accept international orders? Now I've heard of South Butt, I definitely want to buy something from them. :-)
Maybe the owner of the account finally replied to his emails. It could be that he complained to Google about this misconduct by this Judge on behalf of some bank who failed to keep it's secrets a secret. Just imagine what could happen if the owner starts to file for damages simply because this bank "forced" his account to be closed! He was never responsible for this error and should never suffer from the irresponsibilities of this bank!
Still, it amazes me that the recipient never published this data in any way, nor did he ever draw attention to himself. Or maybe he finally did, to Google and this bank, threatening some legal actions against these two for violating his privacy, first amendment rights and whatever more. Losing 1300 account records is bad, losing a lot more in damages for some civil case would really be worse. I think this bank already has more than enough damage to it's reputation and therefor wants to stop it.
I wonder what's worse for the music industry, the illegal copying of their music or those record labels who just refuse to take any actions against artists who seem to enjoy certain recreational drugs. When these artists are talking about powdering their noses, they're really inserting certain powders in their noses!
Lily Allen might be an okay artist and the same can be said about Amy Winehouse. Michael Jackson was a Great Artist, yet he went down due to a lot of drug abuse. And I wonder why they're even using that poison.
Now, it could be that these artists choose for this themselves. But it's more likely that people related to those record labels are actually making it easier for these artists to become addicted. Why? Because it's easier to control someone when they are addicted! They're prepared to do anything just to satisfy their own addiction and record labels know this. I'm not going to suggest that record labels are turning artists into addicts on purpose. But I do know that addictions are very good for their business plans.
How does this relate to this story? Well, it's the double morale, of course. Certain artists are addicted to illegal drugs but are very open about this. Other artists are often visible in public, completely drunk or stoned, yet everyone considers them to be the perfect role models for our youth. And while Lily Allen did do something dubious by violating Techdirt's copyright to make her own point in protecting her own copyright, I think it's far worse when she displays herself again in public, drunk and half-naked, being photographed in a transparent dress with no underwear, for example. I have no problems with nudity so if that's what she wants to do, fine. But some people take offense of such behavior, especially in locations where such behavior is inappropriate. If you want to be nude, do like me and go to a nudist resort. If you're going to party, put on some underwear. And when you're protecting copyright, don't ignore someone else's copyrights!
I wonder if newspapers would still be as "successful" as they are now if search engines would just stop indexing their sites and instead start to focus on other sites that welcome those search engines.
Of course, any newspaper with online content that blocks the major search engine soon ends up having no useful online content anymore.
News has no value. It's just something that happens and anyone can report about it. It's the way how you present news and the number of people who visit your writings that make news more valuable.
In the Netherlands, the police can take away items used by criminals to commit their criminal acts. These items will not be returned to their owner but are stored by the police until a judge determines that these items are permanently confiscated.
So, what does the police do with these confiscated items? Well, some items are just destroyed. But if the item itself is legal, then they're sold again to civilians. For example, though the site at http://www.domeinenrz.nl/ which, as you've guessed, is written in Dutch so most of you need a translator to visit it. ;-)
The "Dienst Domeinen" in the Netherlands is responsible for selling these items through all kinds of auctions. Basically, anyone can visit such an auction and place a bid on any item they're selling. Thus, it would be perfectly legal for Tim Kuik to visit such an auction and thus buy stuff that previously belonged to a hacker.
Right now, you can buy an Aston-Martin if you want to. About four years old and only used for 32.118 KM. Then again, they also sell plenty of laptops, so if you need one... Go visit the Netherlands and buy one at the next auction! ;-)
I wonder... Techdirt also offers a paid subscription. I know, I have one. ;-) But how many subscriptions does this site already have, and how much does the average visitor pay for their membership? Are they all cheapskates like me, who pay the minimum, just to have the funny icon next to my name?
But Techdirt does show how to make paid subscriptions work. All visitors get the same information, but paid members are given a feeling they're more special than others. You hear that, guys? I'm more special! I've paid! :-)
The Dutch word "Bank" can be translated to a few things. Of course, it could be that financial institute. But it can also be a couch. So a shop in the Netherlands that sells couches would probably want a domain name with the word "bank" in it. It's also the name of a more or less flat layer of sand or earth or even a type of clouds.
You can't fix stupid, but you sure as hell can fire stupid, replacing it with smart! Users who get their system infected should be held responsible for this mess they've caused! First time? Educate them. Second time? Warn them! Third them, give them the boot!!!
Make your employees responsible for their own stupidity.
We already have a World-Wide currency. It's called "Gold" and is a favorite currency all over this World. Other currencies are often related with the price of gold. This is called the "Gold Standard". However, most countries have stopped more or less recently to uphold this Gold Standard.
I think quite a few people might want to return to this Gold standard instead, linking their other currencies to the value of gold. Such a system did exist and thus it could be re-introduced.
Yes, and no! For a criminal court, an insult is just free speech. You won't get convicted over it. However, persons can still decide to sue the person who insulted them and demand damages. This is a bit similar to the O.J. Simpson trial. O.J. was cleared in a criminal court, yet found guilty and forced to pay in a Civil court.
Look at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18508 for example. It's more about profanity but it does say that insults can be considered criminal, if they were meant to be hurtful. (It's called "Fighting words".) The case "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire" confirms that insults can be punishable by law, though.
So technically, the person insulting Liskula Cohen could be tried by the Criminal system for breaking the peace with her insults, which were used as fighting words. And she could be tried in Civil Court for defamation and damages to the reputation of Liskula Cohen.
Another case at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//commentary.aspx?id=2213 shows that insulting someone doesn't automatically make it criminal. "Criminal Libel" barely exists anymore because the law that supports it is a bit outdated. It's still there, though. But insults can still result in civil cases and the case the article links to mentions that the case failed in Criminal court but it was settled before it got in Civil court, resulting in the insulting party being forced to pay damages and costs.
Don't overestimate the things Free Speech will allow you to say.
The RIAA actually can't sue either. They first have to find the identity of the persons whom they want to sue, but no one gets convicted anonimously, because people have the right to defend themselves in court.
The case wasn't about if "Skank" is too offensive or not. The case was that someone made a remark that this model took as a serious offense. And I do think people have a right to know who is insulting them. You can't sue an anonymous person so to take further steps, you need to know who did the insulting.
I can imagine the judge to force Google to provide the identity of the person who did the insults so another judge can decide if the remarks are defamatory or not.
Free speech doesn't allow people to freely insult others without further consequences. Free speech is mostly so people can tell their opinions freely to others without any fear. But insults aren't opinions and that makes a big difference.
RSS
Twitter
Donated, just to support this initiative. (as Lisae Boucher)
I have to admit, I'm not interested in this movie. Still, I decided to donate some of my hard-earned money to support this initiative. While "give away and pray" isn't a very good business plan, I just hope the donation will encourage them to continue making movies for free. And I hope they will consider my donation as an investment in their next movie, instead as a reward for the current one.
Because, honestly? I don't like this movie. :-) But I love to support this kind of initiative.
(as Lisae Boucher)
It wasn't his own laptop. His son owns it. And his son seems to be a more computer-savvy student, who probably knows a trick or two to keep his data protected.
(as Lisae Boucher)
Or, because he encrypted the data on the CD and the decrypting software is only available on this laptop. Either the prosecutor has no clue about ITC or he's smart enough not to leave unencrypted data on a device that could be stolen.
This is real smart! (as Lisae Boucher)
This is a great publisher's stunt! I really wonder if this author did this behind the publisher's back, since this publisher gives away other ebooks for free. This blog entry and the whole situation just draws attention to the whole discussion about free online content and is giving both the publisher and author quite a bit of extra publicity.
If I may ask, how many TechDirt visitors have gone to Amazon to buy this book already?
Thanks! (as Lisae Boucher)
I never heard of South Butt before! Do they have a website where I can order some of their clothes? Do they accept international orders? Now I've heard of South Butt, I definitely want to buy something from them. :-)
Maybe... (as Lisae Boucher)
Maybe the owner of the account finally replied to his emails. It could be that he complained to Google about this misconduct by this Judge on behalf of some bank who failed to keep it's secrets a secret. Just imagine what could happen if the owner starts to file for damages simply because this bank "forced" his account to be closed! He was never responsible for this error and should never suffer from the irresponsibilities of this bank!
Still, it amazes me that the recipient never published this data in any way, nor did he ever draw attention to himself. Or maybe he finally did, to Google and this bank, threatening some legal actions against these two for violating his privacy, first amendment rights and whatever more. Losing 1300 account records is bad, losing a lot more in damages for some civil case would really be worse. I think this bank already has more than enough damage to it's reputation and therefor wants to stop it.
Recreational Drugs... (as Lisae Boucher)
I wonder what's worse for the music industry, the illegal copying of their music or those record labels who just refuse to take any actions against artists who seem to enjoy certain recreational drugs. When these artists are talking about powdering their noses, they're really inserting certain powders in their noses!
Lily Allen might be an okay artist and the same can be said about Amy Winehouse. Michael Jackson was a Great Artist, yet he went down due to a lot of drug abuse. And I wonder why they're even using that poison.
Now, it could be that these artists choose for this themselves. But it's more likely that people related to those record labels are actually making it easier for these artists to become addicted. Why? Because it's easier to control someone when they are addicted! They're prepared to do anything just to satisfy their own addiction and record labels know this. I'm not going to suggest that record labels are turning artists into addicts on purpose. But I do know that addictions are very good for their business plans.
How does this relate to this story? Well, it's the double morale, of course. Certain artists are addicted to illegal drugs but are very open about this. Other artists are often visible in public, completely drunk or stoned, yet everyone considers them to be the perfect role models for our youth. And while Lily Allen did do something dubious by violating Techdirt's copyright to make her own point in protecting her own copyright, I think it's far worse when she displays herself again in public, drunk and half-naked, being photographed in a transparent dress with no underwear, for example. I have no problems with nudity so if that's what she wants to do, fine. But some people take offense of such behavior, especially in locations where such behavior is inappropriate. If you want to be nude, do like me and go to a nudist resort. If you're going to party, put on some underwear. And when you're protecting copyright, don't ignore someone else's copyrights!
(as Lisae Boucher)
I wonder if newspapers would still be as "successful" as they are now if search engines would just stop indexing their sites and instead start to focus on other sites that welcome those search engines.
Of course, any newspaper with online content that blocks the major search engine soon ends up having no useful online content anymore.
News has no value. It's just something that happens and anyone can report about it. It's the way how you present news and the number of people who visit your writings that make news more valuable.
Explaining how you can get a laptop from a hacker. (as Lisae Boucher)
In the Netherlands, the police can take away items used by criminals to commit their criminal acts. These items will not be returned to their owner but are stored by the police until a judge determines that these items are permanently confiscated.
So, what does the police do with these confiscated items? Well, some items are just destroyed. But if the item itself is legal, then they're sold again to civilians. For example, though the site at http://www.domeinenrz.nl/ which, as you've guessed, is written in Dutch so most of you need a translator to visit it. ;-)
The "Dienst Domeinen" in the Netherlands is responsible for selling these items through all kinds of auctions. Basically, anyone can visit such an auction and place a bid on any item they're selling. Thus, it would be perfectly legal for Tim Kuik to visit such an auction and thus buy stuff that previously belonged to a hacker.
Right now, you can buy an Aston-Martin if you want to. About four years old and only used for 32.118 KM. Then again, they also sell plenty of laptops, so if you need one... Go visit the Netherlands and buy one at the next auction! ;-)
Just wondering... (as Lisae Boucher)
I wonder... Techdirt also offers a paid subscription. I know, I have one. ;-) But how many subscriptions does this site already have, and how much does the average visitor pay for their membership? Are they all cheapskates like me, who pay the minimum, just to have the funny icon next to my name?
But Techdirt does show how to make paid subscriptions work. All visitors get the same information, but paid members are given a feeling they're more special than others. You hear that, guys? I'm more special! I've paid! :-)
Re: Re: You know what this sounds like? (as Lisae Boucher)
Still, he could be friends with a professional photographer. He could even be paid by a professional to provide bad advise.
You know what this sounds like? (as Lisae Boucher)
This sounds like a Photographer who is giving bad advise to his competition, hoping they fall for it so he can better promote his own work...
Funny... (as Lisae Boucher)
The Dutch word "Bank" can be translated to a few things. Of course, it could be that financial institute. But it can also be a couch. So a shop in the Netherlands that sells couches would probably want a domain name with the word "bank" in it. It's also the name of a more or less flat layer of sand or earth or even a type of clouds.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as Lisae Boucher)
Of course, users will make mistakes. Just don't let them repeat the same mistake.
Re: Re: Re: (as Lisae Boucher)
You can't fix stupid, but you sure as hell can fire stupid, replacing it with smart! Users who get their system infected should be held responsible for this mess they've caused! First time? Educate them. Second time? Warn them! Third them, give them the boot!!!
Make your employees responsible for their own stupidity.
We already have a World-Wide currency (as Lisae Boucher)
We already have a World-Wide currency. It's called "Gold" and is a favorite currency all over this World. Other currencies are often related with the price of gold. This is called the "Gold Standard". However, most countries have stopped more or less recently to uphold this Gold Standard.
I think quite a few people might want to return to this Gold standard instead, linking their other currencies to the value of gold. Such a system did exist and thus it could be re-introduced.
Re: Re: Re: Just wondering... (as Lisae Boucher)
Yes, but then they're not anonimous, right? This case is just similar to what the RIAA did to unmask those John Doe's.
Re: Re: Just wondering... (as Lisae Boucher)
Yes, and no! For a criminal court, an insult is just free speech. You won't get convicted over it. However, persons can still decide to sue the person who insulted them and demand damages. This is a bit similar to the O.J. Simpson trial. O.J. was cleared in a criminal court, yet found guilty and forced to pay in a Civil court.
Look at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18508 for example. It's more about profanity but it does say that insults can be considered criminal, if they were meant to be hurtful. (It's called "Fighting words".) The case "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire" confirms that insults can be punishable by law, though.
So technically, the person insulting Liskula Cohen could be tried by the Criminal system for breaking the peace with her insults, which were used as fighting words. And she could be tried in Civil Court for defamation and damages to the reputation of Liskula Cohen.
Another case at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//commentary.aspx?id=2213 shows that insulting someone doesn't automatically make it criminal. "Criminal Libel" barely exists anymore because the law that supports it is a bit outdated. It's still there, though. But insults can still result in civil cases and the case the article links to mentions that the case failed in Criminal court but it was settled before it got in Civil court, resulting in the insulting party being forced to pay damages and costs.
Don't overestimate the things Free Speech will allow you to say.
Finally, http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/map/?dataSet=defamation_legislation provides a good map of countries where certain kinds of defamation are a criminal offense and how insulted parties can deal with these.
Re: Re: Just wondering... (as Lisae Boucher)
The RIAA actually can't sue either. They first have to find the identity of the persons whom they want to sue, but no one gets convicted anonimously, because people have the right to defend themselves in court.
Just wondering... (as Lisae Boucher)
The case wasn't about if "Skank" is too offensive or not. The case was that someone made a remark that this model took as a serious offense. And I do think people have a right to know who is insulting them. You can't sue an anonymous person so to take further steps, you need to know who did the insulting.
I can imagine the judge to force Google to provide the identity of the person who did the insults so another judge can decide if the remarks are defamatory or not.
Free speech doesn't allow people to freely insult others without further consequences. Free speech is mostly so people can tell their opinions freely to others without any fear. But insults aren't opinions and that makes a big difference.
But Liskula Cohen is no hero.