A Pirate Bay spokesperson told TorrentFreak that this measure is going to do very little to stop people from accessing their site, as there are many ways to circumvent it. “This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”
Prior to the passing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, privately run airport security required visitors to pass through a metal detector and to x-ray luggage/bags they carried with them. The ticket counter agents were required to ask passengers if their luggage had been out of their immediate control since being packed and if they had been asked to carry anything onto the aircraft by someone unknown to them.
You're either entirely ignorant of the decades of airport security that preceded the implementation of the TSA or you are purposely being dishonest with a false dilemma of "all or none". You still lose. Care to try again?
I'll give you that no harm is done to innocent travelers and you'll still have to explain why we're spending $8,000,000,000 per year on an agency that does not fulfill its purpose. You cannot deny this; they themselves have admitted in their own top ten list that they've never caught one terrorist trying to board a plane.
If you want to go the route of claiming they provide additional benefits beyond the scope of their mission then you'll still have to explain why they are off task and off their mission and why are we paying it to do something it was not created for.
I'll give you all the cards you want and you'll still be holding a losing hand.
"Maybe so, but corrupt police don't just pick random citizens to trump up charges. Most people who are arrested did something to be in that predicament in the first place."
"Three years ago a notice was published in the Federal Register re the TPP and requesting comments, pro and con, from EVERY member of the public. It is hard to reconcile the continuing mantra "We have no opportunity for input" when at the very start a request for input was published."
Honestly this document is so bland and so lacking in detail that to claim there is sufficient information for the public to comment on is flimsy at best. The most info it provides are the topics that may be covered; the best anyone who is not privileged enough to actually have a seat at the table can do is make guesses about the details that will be discussed and try to comment on that, which is a farce of public involvement.
"Now, it seems that so many are focused on "secrecy" associated with its negotiation. This is not at all unusual while substantive discussions are taking place. Lest this be misunderstood, there is the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth". I believe it applies here. Once negotiations are substantially complete, a draft will certainly be published for public comment before the agreement is signed."
By invoking the tiresome phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" you seem to be saying that less input is better, because more input would make for a poorer outcome without actually providing supporting evidence for why greater input on international trade agreements/treaties would result in a worse outcome than lesser input. I could just as easily invoke the antonym phrase "many hands make for lighter work" as the justification for claiming that secrecy is unnecessary. It's nonsense. What I will say is that due to the vast number of citizens across signing nations affected by such agreements, it makes sense that the number of participants from public interest groups should at least equal if not outnumber the private corporations involved. Also if the sum of affected entities (corporations, the public) cannot come to an agreement, did it occur to anyone that perhaps the best course of action would be to not enter into an international treaty at this time?
Also publishing a public draft of treaty after the negotiations are complete is also useless. The best outcome from that scenario is another grassroots uprising like we saw with SOPA & PIPA that pressures the government to back down at the last second. The stakes are really too high for the public to be content with being allowed to comment after all the real work has been done.
"I do agree that what appears to be preferred access is a legitimate complaint. What I have to ask, though, is if there is anything preventing other groups from likewise meeting with the TPP negotiatiors? Frankly, I do not know the answer. I hope the answer is yes. I understand that a public presentation intended to solicit public input is to be held at the Australia Round of negotiations in March. Hopefully, those who feel left out of the process will attend and present their views and concerns."
What exactly is the use in meeting with TPP negotiators if the negotiations themselves are secret? Any negotiator who wanted to keep their seat at the table would be mad to disclose any pertinent, useful information. Also including the public at one time in Australia? If they're going to allow it once, why not have public inclusion at every negotiation? It makes it pretty clear that any such "inclusion" is probably another farce so everyone can pat themselves on the back and say they got "public" input.
"A final point. It is not reported if this is an executive agreement, or one authorized under authority conferred by Congress. I understand that Congress has held hearings concerning the negotiations, which suggests to me that this is not an executive agreement. Importantly, congressional participation does not mean that the resulting document will be a treaty, and courts have upheld agreements in which Congress participated under conditions other than its treaty powers."
Hopefully the executive branch doesn't try and whip out this "executive agreement" nonsense again; as the TPP clearly covers IP laws & issues and therefore falls under the authority of congress, no matter how much the president, the corporations, and their shills wish it were otherwise.
Your flippant attitude to my serious inquiry tells me all I need to know about you. I worry for your wife, any female relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances in your life.
You set a fine example for those that would rally under the flag of copyright.
Are you seriously making a comparison between copyright infringement and sexual assault? Are you really seriously honestly saying copying a set of bits over the internet in violation of the laws of various nations is on the same level morally and criminally as violently sexually violating someone against their wishes?
The subtext of your statement is that you honestly believe that copyright infringement is so heinous that copyright infringers should be treated the same as those who sexually violate other people;
or
you're believe that rape is so insignificant and unworthy of attention that it sits on the same moral and criminal shelf as copyright infringement.
It's unfortunate that Bob Goodlatte is opposed to protecting free speech and is choosing to align himself with oppressive dictatorships. We'll have to see how that works out for him.
Ultimately even if GoDaddy's domains are increasing, they're trading sustainable, stable accounts for new ones which may or may not be around in a year or so.
Blocks will be bypassed; the end result will be more attention paid to TPB.
I love The Pirate Bay's response, as covered by TorrentFreak:
Re: Re:
Indeed. 8/10 to the AC for weaving that one in.
Re:
3/10
You hit all the right talking points but were too obvious.
Re: Searches
The problem with this rhetoric is that the body of United States federal law is currently so complex that it's impossible for the average citizen to know if they're breaking the law at any given moment and in my opinion due to this complexity it's probable that thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of US citizens violate obscure local, state, and federal laws every day, many of them obsolete but have been left in the code of law by negligent lawmakers.
Re:
2/10: No creativity went into this at all.
Are you even trying?
Re: Re: Re:
Prior to the passing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, privately run airport security required visitors to pass through a metal detector and to x-ray luggage/bags they carried with them. The ticket counter agents were required to ask passengers if their luggage had been out of their immediate control since being packed and if they had been asked to carry anything onto the aircraft by someone unknown to them.
You're either entirely ignorant of the decades of airport security that preceded the implementation of the TSA or you are purposely being dishonest with a false dilemma of "all or none". You still lose. Care to try again?
Re: Re: Re:
Unsure what point you're making or rebutting. Basically you're saying "No, you're wrong!" Care to respond with an actual point?
Re:
I'll give you that no harm is done to innocent travelers and you'll still have to explain why we're spending $8,000,000,000 per year on an agency that does not fulfill its purpose. You cannot deny this; they themselves have admitted in their own top ten list that they've never caught one terrorist trying to board a plane.
If you want to go the route of claiming they provide additional benefits beyond the scope of their mission then you'll still have to explain why they are off task and off their mission and why are we paying it to do something it was not created for.
I'll give you all the cards you want and you'll still be holding a losing hand.
(untitled comment)
Uh oh, I smell circumvention of proper democracy going on.
Re:
Indeed. Techdirt's own Tim Cushing covered this himself earlier this month.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, its sad. But there is a solution...
Victim blaming? Stay classy.
Re:
I found the document you're talking about, although it would have been helpful if you had simply linked it yourself in the first place.
Honestly this document is so bland and so lacking in detail that to claim there is sufficient information for the public to comment on is flimsy at best. The most info it provides are the topics that may be covered; the best anyone who is not privileged enough to actually have a seat at the table can do is make guesses about the details that will be discussed and try to comment on that, which is a farce of public involvement.
By invoking the tiresome phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" you seem to be saying that less input is better, because more input would make for a poorer outcome without actually providing supporting evidence for why greater input on international trade agreements/treaties would result in a worse outcome than lesser input. I could just as easily invoke the antonym phrase "many hands make for lighter work" as the justification for claiming that secrecy is unnecessary. It's nonsense. What I will say is that due to the vast number of citizens across signing nations affected by such agreements, it makes sense that the number of participants from public interest groups should at least equal if not outnumber the private corporations involved. Also if the sum of affected entities (corporations, the public) cannot come to an agreement, did it occur to anyone that perhaps the best course of action would be to not enter into an international treaty at this time?
Also publishing a public draft of treaty after the negotiations are complete is also useless. The best outcome from that scenario is another grassroots uprising like we saw with SOPA & PIPA that pressures the government to back down at the last second. The stakes are really too high for the public to be content with being allowed to comment after all the real work has been done.
What exactly is the use in meeting with TPP negotiators if the negotiations themselves are secret? Any negotiator who wanted to keep their seat at the table would be mad to disclose any pertinent, useful information. Also including the public at one time in Australia? If they're going to allow it once, why not have public inclusion at every negotiation? It makes it pretty clear that any such "inclusion" is probably another farce so everyone can pat themselves on the back and say they got "public" input.
Hopefully the executive branch doesn't try and whip out this "executive agreement" nonsense again; as the TPP clearly covers IP laws & issues and therefore falls under the authority of congress, no matter how much the president, the corporations, and their shills wish it were otherwise.
Re:
Well put.
(untitled comment)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16482624:
And these are the sort of asinine things people say when you combine entitlement culture (thanks, big content!) with rape culture.
(untitled comment)
Make Magazine has joined as well: makezine.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: I just converted
Your flippant attitude to my serious inquiry tells me all I need to know about you. I worry for your wife, any female relatives, colleagues, and acquaintances in your life.
You set a fine example for those that would rally under the flag of copyright.
Re: Re: I just converted
"... and rape all the women you want!"!?
Are you seriously making a comparison between copyright infringement and sexual assault? Are you really seriously honestly saying copying a set of bits over the internet in violation of the laws of various nations is on the same level morally and criminally as violently sexually violating someone against their wishes?
The subtext of your statement is that you honestly believe that copyright infringement is so heinous that copyright infringers should be treated the same as those who sexually violate other people;
or
you're believe that rape is so insignificant and unworthy of attention that it sits on the same moral and criminal shelf as copyright infringement.
Which is it Average_joe?
Re:
It's unfortunate that Bob Goodlatte is opposed to protecting free speech and is choosing to align himself with oppressive dictatorships. We'll have to see how that works out for him.
(untitled comment)
Oh, first world problems, they're so adorable.
(untitled comment)
Ultimately even if GoDaddy's domains are increasing, they're trading sustainable, stable accounts for new ones which may or may not be around in a year or so.