I think it's interesting that not only does the Entertainment Industry want to penalize suspected pirate sites by having their results completely removed, BUT by asking for the following:
prioritise websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognized scheme
... they are asking that the rankings of their own companies be automatically improved. Essentially, they are demanding free, or at least subsidized, advertising from Google.
If Google agrees to these terms, they'll pretty much be signing their own death warrant. When a site starts to censor and/or manipulate the information that they give, people will begin moving to other sites that don't do so.
Another search engine will pop up (headquartered in a country outside of the US and other ACTA puppet nations) that won't censor their results.
Newt was eventually vindicated against all of the issues brought up by the newscaster... by only showing a newscaster talking about charges (without fully stating that Newt was later found innocent) - this should be considered misleading and/or libelous. I'm no fan of Newt's, but I would have to agree that this charge is unfair and sneaky.
Not necessarily, mate. Switzerland is fast becoming the next Australia and/or New Zealand. Just look at how completely the Swiss are willing to give up banking information on Americans... they should no longer be considered the "neutral" country where one can go to for protections. If BANKING in Switzerland is so open to American authorities, then it would be stupid to think that HOSTING would be safe.
You're right, it does result in their loss of sales due to "piracy". It also results in LESS money going to these companies' investigation departments -- by purchasing from these companies, you are effectively giving them the money to come after you and put you in jail.
As an American, I ask the rest of the world the following favor:
PLEASE filter out ALL US traffic. Not only is this a smart business practice for YOU, but our government will NEVER realize what boneheads they are until they see the real effects of their actions.
One of my neighbors owned a gift shop on a busy street... one day, seven police cars came by to arrest her. Apparently, one of their "undercovers" found counterfeit material being sold in her shop (i.e., TWO coach sunglasses). The store owner said that she had no idea that they weren't real, she merely bought stuff in bulk from her wholesaler. After jail and extensive fines, she closed down her shop. This was two years ago, and to date, this store is still empty.
In light of all that is going on, not only would I not blame any company for not wanting to do business with a US citizen, but I would have to advise them not to - for their best interests. Businesses should relocate to other countries, should have domains that do not end in "com", "net", or "org", and should filter out any traffic coming from the US.
The MPAA and RIAA are often moaning and groaning about the loss of American jobs and profits.
It seems to me as if it's the ANTI-PIRACY movement doing the most damage to American jobs, creativity, freedoms, and profits.
In the US, I think that all of Dotcom's prior convictions would still stand (unless he received them as a minor). His prior convictions (while not being valid to the case) would affect the Juries' or the Judges' view of him negatively. Dotcom's attorneys could however, ask that information not be brought up because it is prejudicial. Nevertheless, Dotcom's conduct during his time at MegaUpload would still be up for discussion, and may still be prejudicial.
Also in the US, the "due process" portion of this investigation was satisfied when judges signed the criminal warrants. "Due process" would also include allowing the admins the right to a trial and the opportunity to face their accusers.
What about the UK law criminalizing encryption of hard drives? If you don't give your password to authorities, you get an automatic two-year jail sentence. The US has a tremendous number of issues, however we are at least somewhat protected by a fifth amendment (the right to silence in case of self-incrimination).
I'm not exactly sure that you need to fit the dictionary definition of the term "money laundering" for it to count as something you can be criminally charged with.
The US government considers ANYTHING gained by conducting illegal business forfeit... Any money (or items) gained from illegal transactions or used to commit illegal transactions can be seized (and kept) by the government. For example, I've seen a prostitution case where the madam was charged with "money laundering" (amongst other things), and all of her assets were seized.
It may just be that "money laundering" may not refer to monies that the US government considers "up for grabs".
In the US, the criminal proceedings are usually always brought first. Civil litigants wait until all criminal proceedings are completed before moving forward with any civil charges (I think this is so that neither is influenced by the other).
For the government, it was ALWAYS in their best interests to move forward with a criminal suit (vs a civil suit). If you lose a criminal suit, your assets can be permanently seized by the government (something the government just LOVES to do). Civil suits would take too long to do this, and then there are appeals processes in place.
This is an ad hominem attack whereby the person making the argument is attacked, and the argument itself is not attacked.
While I can't say I disagree with your assessment of Mike, I would have to say you would be MUCH more persuasive if you stuck with the actual merits of the issue at hand.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by jailbait.
Re:
Court precedent protects jailbreaking (for now), however, it is still illegal to be in possession of "jailbreaking" tools, even if you don't use them.
I think it's interesting that not only does the Entertainment Industry want to penalize suspected pirate sites by having their results completely removed, BUT by asking for the following:
prioritise websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognized scheme
... they are asking that the rankings of their own companies be automatically improved. Essentially, they are demanding free, or at least subsidized, advertising from Google.
Lovely.
If Google agrees to these terms, they'll pretty much be signing their own death warrant. When a site starts to censor and/or manipulate the information that they give, people will begin moving to other sites that don't do so.
Another search engine will pop up (headquartered in a country outside of the US and other ACTA puppet nations) that won't censor their results.
I'm not sure I agree with you on this one...
Newt was eventually vindicated against all of the issues brought up by the newscaster... by only showing a newscaster talking about charges (without fully stating that Newt was later found innocent) - this should be considered misleading and/or libelous. I'm no fan of Newt's, but I would have to agree that this charge is unfair and sneaky.
Re: Re:
Huh?
How is this a lie?
SOPA, as written, did allow an easy method for corporations to take down websites without traditional due process.
What the hell are they lying about?
Re: Re: Serious question
Not necessarily, mate. Switzerland is fast becoming the next Australia and/or New Zealand. Just look at how completely the Swiss are willing to give up banking information on Americans... they should no longer be considered the "neutral" country where one can go to for protections. If BANKING in Switzerland is so open to American authorities, then it would be stupid to think that HOSTING would be safe.
Re: Re:
You're right, it does result in their loss of sales due to "piracy". It also results in LESS money going to these companies' investigation departments -- by purchasing from these companies, you are effectively giving them the money to come after you and put you in jail.
As an American, I ask the rest of the world the following favor:
PLEASE filter out ALL US traffic. Not only is this a smart business practice for YOU, but our government will NEVER realize what boneheads they are until they see the real effects of their actions.
One of my neighbors owned a gift shop on a busy street... one day, seven police cars came by to arrest her. Apparently, one of their "undercovers" found counterfeit material being sold in her shop (i.e., TWO coach sunglasses). The store owner said that she had no idea that they weren't real, she merely bought stuff in bulk from her wholesaler. After jail and extensive fines, she closed down her shop. This was two years ago, and to date, this store is still empty.
In light of all that is going on, not only would I not blame any company for not wanting to do business with a US citizen, but I would have to advise them not to - for their best interests. Businesses should relocate to other countries, should have domains that do not end in "com", "net", or "org", and should filter out any traffic coming from the US.
The MPAA and RIAA are often moaning and groaning about the loss of American jobs and profits.
It seems to me as if it's the ANTI-PIRACY movement doing the most damage to American jobs, creativity, freedoms, and profits.
Re: Dotcom
In the US, I think that all of Dotcom's prior convictions would still stand (unless he received them as a minor). His prior convictions (while not being valid to the case) would affect the Juries' or the Judges' view of him negatively. Dotcom's attorneys could however, ask that information not be brought up because it is prejudicial. Nevertheless, Dotcom's conduct during his time at MegaUpload would still be up for discussion, and may still be prejudicial.
Also in the US, the "due process" portion of this investigation was satisfied when judges signed the criminal warrants. "Due process" would also include allowing the admins the right to a trial and the opportunity to face their accusers.
Re: Re: Re:DOH
What about the UK law criminalizing encryption of hard drives? If you don't give your password to authorities, you get an automatic two-year jail sentence. The US has a tremendous number of issues, however we are at least somewhat protected by a fifth amendment (the right to silence in case of self-incrimination).
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not exactly sure that you need to fit the dictionary definition of the term "money laundering" for it to count as something you can be criminally charged with.
The US government considers ANYTHING gained by conducting illegal business forfeit... Any money (or items) gained from illegal transactions or used to commit illegal transactions can be seized (and kept) by the government. For example, I've seen a prostitution case where the madam was charged with "money laundering" (amongst other things), and all of her assets were seized.
It may just be that "money laundering" may not refer to monies that the US government considers "up for grabs".
Re: Re: Re:
In the US, the criminal proceedings are usually always brought first. Civil litigants wait until all criminal proceedings are completed before moving forward with any civil charges (I think this is so that neither is influenced by the other).
For the government, it was ALWAYS in their best interests to move forward with a criminal suit (vs a civil suit). If you lose a criminal suit, your assets can be permanently seized by the government (something the government just LOVES to do). Civil suits would take too long to do this, and then there are appeals processes in place.
Re:
This is an ad hominem attack whereby the person making the argument is attacked, and the argument itself is not attacked.
While I can't say I disagree with your assessment of Mike, I would have to say you would be MUCH more persuasive if you stuck with the actual merits of the issue at hand.