S
SeaMaiden
Am I the only person here who still remembers recording radio shows and editing out the music I wanted? Reel-to-reel? Cassette tapes? Whatever happened to Fair Use laws?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Major Internet Service Provider to institute so-called 6 strickes plan year's end
- Thread starter headband 707
- Start date
this might intrest some of you.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yo...own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04?pagenumber=1
Your Right to Resell Your Own Stuff Could Become Illegal
(MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.
At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.
Enlarge Image
A Supreme Court case could limit the resale of goods made overseas but sold in America.
Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.
Put simply, though Apple Inc. /quotes/zigman/68270/quotes/nls/aapl AAPL -2.16% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.
That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.
“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”
Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.
It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter’s artwork.
There are implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities, including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay Inc. /quotes/zigman/76117/quotes/nls/ebay EBAY -1.91% and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.
“It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can’t be bought or sold here,” said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.
The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.
He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.
Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yo...own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04?pagenumber=1
Your Right to Resell Your Own Stuff Could Become Illegal
(MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.
At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.
Enlarge Image
A Supreme Court case could limit the resale of goods made overseas but sold in America.
Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.
Put simply, though Apple Inc. /quotes/zigman/68270/quotes/nls/aapl AAPL -2.16% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.
That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.
“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”
Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.
It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter’s artwork.
There are implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities, including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay Inc. /quotes/zigman/76117/quotes/nls/ebay EBAY -1.91% and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.
“It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can’t be bought or sold here,” said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.
The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.
He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.
Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.
Did you ever record a movie from TV onto VHS and keep it?
How about copy an LP/CD on to a cassette, or borrow an LP/CD and do the same, or get a friend who owns an LP/CD to do the same?
I'd feel more sympathy for the argument about taking money from the backroom music industry people , if the bigwigs were not taking such a huge slice leaving less to "Trickle down" to the writer, engineers etc-just like in every other business, --the bosses are robbing the workers-the pay gap has doubled**.
I don't download music BTW. I like to have the proper CD.
I do however copy them, in The UK we are permitted to make a backup(although the US government and industry wankers are trying to change that). I make a copy and play the copy to keep my original in good condition. The copy goes in the jewel case and the original goes into a disc box.
I remember Lars Ulrich hypocritically whining about Napster, when you just know that he had a collection of bootlegs and LPs copied onto tape, like every other metal kid did.
"Home taping is killing the music industry", remember those stickers... And here we are 20 years later, we still have amusic industry, and the corporate leeches who have gobbled all the labels up have another bogeyman.
EDIT
** The pay gap(between executive pay and typical pay) in the UK has doubled in the last decade. it has increased 20fold since the 1960s. In the 60s, the boss made 10 pounds for every1 pound the cleaner made, now he makes 200 pounds for every pound the cleaner makes. String the fuckers up and flick matches at em.
Last edited:
Good post, Harry. For anyone that knows anything about the way the music industry works, RIAA's bullshit is enough to make you gag. I can't think of any other industry that preys as heavily on the people that actually make the product, and then they try and mask their ridiculous "rules" under the guise of protecting the artists. Bullshit. It's kind of like software, in my view. I can certainly understand the originators not wanting you to put it up on a file-sharing site, but there is no way in hell that I am going to buy separate copies for each of my machines.
H
Homer J Pimpin
Movie files are information..........information should be free....If you can find it on the internet,then it should be free....It sickens me to my core to see some of you defending Hollywood I think perhaps you're just playing devils advocate....The only one here making any sense is gingerale and of course as is allways the case here.....He's getting bullshit for it........Gingerale is 100 % spot on saying that you're a bunch of hypocrites...you are and thats all there is to it.......no slick talking your way around it your arguements are weak sauce....copyrite infringement as a criminal offence makes me laugh the fuck out loud........Every movie or song ever made is copyrite infringement..It's all the same plot line or chord progression as has been done before maybe presented in a new box.....with a new name......Thats what art is..it is delivering old ideas in a new spotlight.....so basicly anyone who has ever copywritten anything has been a victim of infringement........every time a musican plays a "a chord he is infringing on the copy rites of anyone who has copywritten a song with that a chord in it.......Do you get me....The only reason that hollywood and certain rock bands want this kind of police state activity is because file sharing freely means a little less profit on the bottom line......In other words it's GREED.........bY SUPPORTING THIS MOVEMENT YOU ARE SUPPORTING GREED.........and are hypocrites of the lowest order........I will not even entertain the notion of responding to any more of your ridiculous arguements.....It's fairly obvious which side I'm on and aint a one of you here could ever make me see your side of it because I do see your side of it allready and spit in it's face.......
FREE INFORMATION FOR A FREE WORLD
WE ARE LEGION..............
FREE INFORMATION FOR A FREE WORLD
WE ARE LEGION..............
iampolluted
Active member
to everyone who is relating the experience of making tapes, or copies, or taping a tv show or movie, that is all legal. unless, of course, you borrowed the lp, tape, vhs, dvd, and made a copy. the person who gave the the lp, tape, vhs, or dvd is guilty of sharing the music without permission.
what harry does, (making copies of originals) is completely legal. selling, hosting, or sharing those copies is not legal. you can make 100's of copies, as long as you do not distribute them. i download shit all the time. mostly it's stuff i've purchased before, and have since lost or given away. some of it isn't tho, and i don't feel bad at all about doing it.
to think you're taking money from an artist by downloading music is an almost bullshit premise. i say almost because the rates @ which musicians are paid per cd is usually less than a dollar. popular musicians may get that $1 per cd, but most get less than 30 cents. guess who gets the rest? you're right, the record label. NIN and many others have basically said a big fuck you to the labels and started their own labels to keep more profits, and to control their music the way they see fit.....like putting up a new album for fans to download for free!
http://www.investinganswers.com/per...who-really-profits-your-itunes-downloads-3818
what harry does, (making copies of originals) is completely legal. selling, hosting, or sharing those copies is not legal. you can make 100's of copies, as long as you do not distribute them. i download shit all the time. mostly it's stuff i've purchased before, and have since lost or given away. some of it isn't tho, and i don't feel bad at all about doing it.
to think you're taking money from an artist by downloading music is an almost bullshit premise. i say almost because the rates @ which musicians are paid per cd is usually less than a dollar. popular musicians may get that $1 per cd, but most get less than 30 cents. guess who gets the rest? you're right, the record label. NIN and many others have basically said a big fuck you to the labels and started their own labels to keep more profits, and to control their music the way they see fit.....like putting up a new album for fans to download for free!
http://www.investinganswers.com/per...who-really-profits-your-itunes-downloads-3818
Personally, I think people have always shared music. Back before the Gramophone, when anyone who could afford it had a piano in the home, do you think people didn't copy out sheet music by hand...
Frankly, they are never going to put the Genie back in the bottle, and this law won't make a difference to the determined downloader ToR will bypass it, but there will always be enough people like myself, who like having the CD/LP and the little booklet to keep music executives in Coke and "High-class" hookers for many years to come.
People point to record shops closing down, but that is just a reflection of the change in peoples shopping habits and it affects the whole retail sector. Shit, nowadays, if I need something, I look on Ebay first, Google it second, and head into town only as a last resort.
Frankly, they are never going to put the Genie back in the bottle, and this law won't make a difference to the determined downloader ToR will bypass it, but there will always be enough people like myself, who like having the CD/LP and the little booklet to keep music executives in Coke and "High-class" hookers for many years to come.
People point to record shops closing down, but that is just a reflection of the change in peoples shopping habits and it affects the whole retail sector. Shit, nowadays, if I need something, I look on Ebay first, Google it second, and head into town only as a last resort.
Impossible!
Theft equals the unlawful removal of goods or services without permission. By making a copy, you are not denying anyone of their lawful property or time. Therefore copyright infringement is just that, copyright infringement, not theft.
To be guilty of copyright infringement you must first deny the owner of a profit that they otherwise would have made should you not have taken the action. If this was made law, then they would also have to charge sony etc. with conspiracy. These manufacturers make the machinery that is designed exclusively to record programs from the tv, music from the radio etc. Can you actually see them trying to put these companies out of business? Removing all dvrs from the shelves?
In short, all you would have to do is claim that you weren't stealing from them, you were performing a favour for them. You were advertising their work on their behalf in order to try to increase awareness of the product in the market place. This in turn does not detract from their profits, but increases them
Unless you were charging for the product and making profits in their place, it would be extremely difficult to challenge that in court.
Theft equals the unlawful removal of goods or services without permission. By making a copy, you are not denying anyone of their lawful property or time. Therefore copyright infringement is just that, copyright infringement, not theft.
To be guilty of copyright infringement you must first deny the owner of a profit that they otherwise would have made should you not have taken the action. If this was made law, then they would also have to charge sony etc. with conspiracy. These manufacturers make the machinery that is designed exclusively to record programs from the tv, music from the radio etc. Can you actually see them trying to put these companies out of business? Removing all dvrs from the shelves?
In short, all you would have to do is claim that you weren't stealing from them, you were performing a favour for them. You were advertising their work on their behalf in order to try to increase awareness of the product in the market place. This in turn does not detract from their profits, but increases them
Unless you were charging for the product and making profits in their place, it would be extremely difficult to challenge that in court.Grant Holt
Member
Stealing is stealing. I'm sure the people ripping off people's plants this time of year justify it some how.
T
thesloppy
That's a tough comparison to make. If I take your plants, or any of your physical property, you don't have it any more. If I take your 'intellectual property' you don't lose it, I just gain it. I would never argue that it's morally neutral or victimless, but copyright infringement is not the same as physical theft.
Is it stealing when I buy a used DVD or video game? Nobody who originally worked to produce said DVD is going to get any piece of the secondhand sales, whether I buy a used DVD or a bootleg DVD, or download it off the internet, so where exactly does the theft enter into it, and which party is guilty? If I use a copyrighted picture of Mickey Mouse to make a homemade birthday card for my nephew, am I still the equivalent of a thief, taking physical property from someone?
Ever do some personal accounting/writing/crafting at work? Surprise! You're probably guilty of intellectual property theft, as anything you produce at work, using worksite materials, belongs to your work, according to most employment contracts (in this country, at least). The article linked to in this first post? Possible copyright infringement for reproducing someone else's work. Ditto for the first post in this thread. Copying and pasting any information from the internet is a possible copyright violation, and usually a direct violation of the written terms of use of the website from which the content originated. Most the avatars used on the site, and in this thread (and certainly my own)are possibly violating copyright law.
It's a slippery slope, and the intellectual property/copyright laws are so far-reaching and ill-defined that most of us are breaking/bending them, multiple times every day, without even realizing it. Likewise, the considerations for fair use seem to be shrinking every day, and what's considered fair today may be stolen property tomorrow. The RIAA and MPAA are just the only organizations rabid enough to chase the laws currently, but beware that copyright/intellectual property laws could just as well be used to put you up against the wall next, for crimes you don't even realize you're committing at this very moment.
iampolluted
Active member
stealing the hard work of an artist so that the label can make 90% profit, is wrong. me nabbing an album and taking $0.30 from the artist is almost negligible, when i spend $60+ going to their shows. you're damn right i'll steal it from the label because they didn't do shit but put a stamp on it, and then reap the rewards of the artists hard work. granted they can put the cd in more stores, but that doesn't mean it'll sell. if it wasn't for sharing, i wouldn't have ever even heard of 1/2 the bands i listen to, go to see, or buy the merchandise i do now.
think about bands that don't get radio play. where does their money come from? it's usually not from cd sales, but from touring and merchandise sales at those events. take iron maiden for example, in the u.s. they have NEVER gotten radio play, thus their niche is greatly reduced here, as well as their marketability. if it wasn't for the fans sharing their love of the band, they wouldn't have sold 85 million records worldwide without tv or radio support. it's the over 2000 shows worldwide, and word of mouth that has kept them at the top of the metal scene since 1978. same could be said for metallica, and many others that didn't/don't get commercial airplay.
think about bands that don't get radio play. where does their money come from? it's usually not from cd sales, but from touring and merchandise sales at those events. take iron maiden for example, in the u.s. they have NEVER gotten radio play, thus their niche is greatly reduced here, as well as their marketability. if it wasn't for the fans sharing their love of the band, they wouldn't have sold 85 million records worldwide without tv or radio support. it's the over 2000 shows worldwide, and word of mouth that has kept them at the top of the metal scene since 1978. same could be said for metallica, and many others that didn't/don't get commercial airplay.
H
Homer J Pimpin
not to get off track but metallica gets alot of raido airplay since like 2000 granted in 87 they got none......Maiden started getting a little bit of raido airplay around 89-90 with "can I play with madness" from seventh son of a sevent son cd....And I would bet my balls that Bruce is a pirate and believes in free sharing........The artist never gets the proceeds from free sharing but they also get raped and molested on their share of the proceeds from legit sales...I don't think anyone here will argue that the artist should benifit over the corporation.I believe whole heartedly in supporting an artists work that you enjoy...We do this by as said above going to concerts and buying merch.or by going to the movies and most of us do from time to time and pay those ridiculous prices of admission.Also when we buy mags to read articles about actors/actress's we like...they get paid to do those interviews or to be quoted....The artists have allready been paid for their work before it hits the net.......The corporations haveallready made their money in most cases before it hits the internet....by sharing files I believe it is a victimless crime.....the only institution that is the victim is GREED. But it's the same laws that say smoking weed is wrong and leads to criminal behaviour that says John Smith found a link to a movie he liked so now he is a theif......With laws and language on contracts it's allways black or white.......with real life most people find that they survive best in the grey areas.
ijim
Member
We should make independence day. National skip copyrights day. Where no one buys a movie, CD, song, book, artwork or any other copyrighted article for the day. It will cost producers hundreds of millions of dollars. And hopefully make people aware that these people are making hundreds of millions off of us. Living in the past.
Impossible!
Theft equals the unlawful removal of goods or services without permission. By making a copy, you are not denying anyone of their lawful property or time. Therefore copyright infringement is just that, copyright infringement, not theft.
To be guilty of copyright infringement you must first deny the owner of a profit that they otherwise would have made should you not have taken the action. If this was made law, then they would also have to charge sony etc. with conspiracy. These manufacturers make the machinery that is designed exclusively to record programs from the tv, music from the radio etc. Can you actually see them trying to put these companies out of business? Removing all dvrs from the shelves?
In short, all you would have to do is claim that you weren't stealing from them, you were performing a favour for them. You were advertising their work on their behalf in order to try to increase awareness of the product in the market place. This in turn does not detract from their profits, but increases them
This is TRUE and Gingerale was right again lol... These are copy right infringment laws.
In other words I can download your material I just can't go out and try to make money off of this material.
If for example this is an e-book then yes by all means have some type of protection in place but do not pull this law out of your hat to control the masses imvho this is bullshit headband 707
i say boondogle, that shit will last for about 2 days before someone cracks it. i'll switch to a chinese provider LOL
ripping off movies and tunes on-line will stop when it becomes just more convenient for the cost to go to the legit site, and pay your 50 cents for THE tune you want then stash it in the cloud, AND, going to illegal file share sites becomes too much of a pain in the ass to save 50 cents. so, maybe this stuff serves to move it in that direction. you're never going to stop the nerd who refuses to submit or who wants to save 50 cents on principle, but if you can stop the teenagers you're ok.
the cost savings to the entertainment companies must be incredible. no presses, no shipping, no one taking orders, just promo and the servers serving it up, automatic real-time billing and payment. the whole financial structure of the industry changed, distribution is nothing, also the mixing and effects resources available to people on the computer. you can even just throw your shit on youtube, wow.
i don't worry about the artists. they had a pretty easy cruise through the 20th century, pay money for an LP with 2 good tracks and 8 of crap. i like downloading singles. i hear artists make the money nowadays touring. i like the idea of more live music. only not as loud as i used to
ripping off movies and tunes on-line will stop when it becomes just more convenient for the cost to go to the legit site, and pay your 50 cents for THE tune you want then stash it in the cloud, AND, going to illegal file share sites becomes too much of a pain in the ass to save 50 cents. so, maybe this stuff serves to move it in that direction. you're never going to stop the nerd who refuses to submit or who wants to save 50 cents on principle, but if you can stop the teenagers you're ok.
the cost savings to the entertainment companies must be incredible. no presses, no shipping, no one taking orders, just promo and the servers serving it up, automatic real-time billing and payment. the whole financial structure of the industry changed, distribution is nothing, also the mixing and effects resources available to people on the computer. you can even just throw your shit on youtube, wow.
i don't worry about the artists. they had a pretty easy cruise through the 20th century, pay money for an LP with 2 good tracks and 8 of crap. i like downloading singles. i hear artists make the money nowadays touring. i like the idea of more live music. only not as loud as i used to
iampolluted
Active member
i agree with ya 100% on everything....i did have "including metallica (before ...and justice for all)", but i erased it lol. contrary to popular belief, not everyone had mtv is the 80's. the town i grew up in didn't get it until '90ish, and it was fucking expensive for the extra channels. and radio....shit unless it was country or bon jovi, we didn't get to hear it. we had to rely on friends to expand the musical collection.
The next battle is for control over the Internet. The UN is now pressuring the US to give up control of the root DNS servers, in essence yielding our control over the Internet to them. They would just love that wouldn't they? Unfortunately for them our fascists have other ideas in mind and don't fancy giving up control so easily.
The problem is, as we speak they are building a massive data center out West for the express purpose of domestic and foreign intelligence gathering by routing all U.S. data packets through there. That's right, if you or I come under suspicion by the police or FBI for some "crime" (real or imagined), our data packets could then be monitored by the NSA with a warrantless wiretap. Don't count on SSL (HTTP security protocol, which this site uses) to keep you safe. The government has more and more supercomputers at their disposal which are being increasingly dedicated to "crime fighting" purposes i.e. cracking "criminals" encryption.
Furthermore, SSL is subject to man-in-the-middle attacks, meaning your "line" could be "tapped" in the switching center, with the government inserting themselves quietly between you and ICMag, decrypting your packets and logging everything you say, and re-encrypting them as passing them along like nothing happened. Of course, that's why we have security certificates on our web browsers, right....so if someone does this, the web browser will pop up an alarm about a changed certificate? Well, who in the world thinks the U.S. Government doesn't have access to these issuing authorities (i.e. Verisign, companies which issue security certificates) and their certificates, either officially or unofficially? They already have backdoors in Cisco routers and other critical Internet infrastructure.
We're talking the same government which successfully unleashed the Stuxnet worm on Iran which wreaked havoc on their systems, destroyed half their centrifuges? Guaranteed, they do have smart geeks working for them and they do have (or will have) the capability to digitally impersonate damn near whoever they want if and when "needed", as judged by a secret court in a secret decision you are not authorized to know about. We're there, folks, it's happening as we speak:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
The problem is, as we speak they are building a massive data center out West for the express purpose of domestic and foreign intelligence gathering by routing all U.S. data packets through there. That's right, if you or I come under suspicion by the police or FBI for some "crime" (real or imagined), our data packets could then be monitored by the NSA with a warrantless wiretap. Don't count on SSL (HTTP security protocol, which this site uses) to keep you safe. The government has more and more supercomputers at their disposal which are being increasingly dedicated to "crime fighting" purposes i.e. cracking "criminals" encryption.
Furthermore, SSL is subject to man-in-the-middle attacks, meaning your "line" could be "tapped" in the switching center, with the government inserting themselves quietly between you and ICMag, decrypting your packets and logging everything you say, and re-encrypting them as passing them along like nothing happened. Of course, that's why we have security certificates on our web browsers, right....so if someone does this, the web browser will pop up an alarm about a changed certificate? Well, who in the world thinks the U.S. Government doesn't have access to these issuing authorities (i.e. Verisign, companies which issue security certificates) and their certificates, either officially or unofficially? They already have backdoors in Cisco routers and other critical Internet infrastructure.
We're talking the same government which successfully unleashed the Stuxnet worm on Iran which wreaked havoc on their systems, destroyed half their centrifuges? Guaranteed, they do have smart geeks working for them and they do have (or will have) the capability to digitally impersonate damn near whoever they want if and when "needed", as judged by a secret court in a secret decision you are not authorized to know about. We're there, folks, it's happening as we speak:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
^how long before they start sellin that info ...
how do they weed through that stuff? every idiot and their brother is typing in ak-47 and bomb and such ...
oh i get it ... it gets to like its what they feared about automated nuclear response in the case of star wars ... it detects the trend and automatically escalates it. throw in some drones with hellfires and skynet here we come!
how do they weed through that stuff? every idiot and their brother is typing in ak-47 and bomb and such ...
oh i get it ... it gets to like its what they feared about automated nuclear response in the case of star wars ... it detects the trend and automatically escalates it. throw in some drones with hellfires and skynet here we come!
Last edited:
well this guy thinks everyones info is there for the taking.he worked for the NSA.but for the right reasons,not to spy on us, or so he says.
there are people here who deal with this, what do you think of this video? truth or lie?
all i know is if you dont want info used in the courts, dont put it online.
if i havnt brought anything new to the table then disreguard this post, i thought it was at the least entertaining.
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/08/22/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html#100000001733041
there are people here who deal with this, what do you think of this video? truth or lie?
all i know is if you dont want info used in the courts, dont put it online.
if i havnt brought anything new to the table then disreguard this post, i thought it was at the least entertaining.
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/08/22/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html#100000001733041
