Major Internet Service Provider to institute so-called 6 strickes plan year's end

[headband 707]

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/

Yup Yup Yup enemy of the state and all the fun shit that will go with it boys and girls .. They say this shit isn't getting fucked up I say it is!!
Did you know that Obummer also passes a law that he can KILL without a trial if he JUST thinks your fucking around!!!! How do you like that for control over ppl so-called leadership wow? Now if that is not fucked up I don't know what is..
The DNS Server is a real problem or atleast it has been for me on my computer .. It has stopped me from getting to many sites already i.e. webehigh.com I believe they have shut them down.The more I look the more gets shut down and by who and what gives them this authority? OH yeah BTW my McAfee antivirus always turns OFF when I hit the ICMAG site hummm I wonder who is turning it OFF?? lol headband 707

 

[headband 707]

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.

Yeah I saw this if this is not an act of a desparate Gov looking for cash then I don't know what is.. It's shit like this that makes me SICK! How dare they bring rules like this to the table!!!It's shit like this that make ppl like me more and more radical about how truly bad our Gov is being to it's ppl headband 707

 

[OrganicOzarks]

VPN.

 

[1ManGrow]

most rock bands make there big money by going on tour...

the only people getting rich off of the CDs/mp3s are the exec ,record label,publicist,manager and so on..

I still see the rock stars making millions of dollars even with piracy...

Hollywood still breaks records at the box office all the time..

The actors and Hollywood are still making millions...

I think it comes down to greed..

 

[Stonefree69]

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Majo...kes_plan_by_year’s_end/21926/0/38/38/Y/M.htmlThe nation’s major internet service providers by year’s end will institute a so-called six-strikes plan, the “Copyright Alert System” initiative backed by the Obama administration and pushed by Hollywood and the major record labels to disrupt and possibly terminate internet access for online copyright scofflaws.

Mentioning Hollywierd, RIAA and music industry brings memories about copying DVDs and CDs for personal use. Like wanting to arrest a teenage daughter for burning and playing Back Street Boys in her car from a CD she bought. They basically tried to cripple the pc capabilities to play anything. If they had their way maybe they'd install those Nickelodeons you have to go out and watch except call them Dollarodeons w/a one time use fee.

 

[bombadil.360]

most bands get around 1 dollar per sold cd. some artists can get higher of course, lets say, 4 or 5 dollars per cd, but not much higher. only very few artists get that high.

today, recording an album, is cheap is terms of equipment. having good enough knowledge to record a nice sounding album is a bit harder but many talented people out there today.

pressing the actual cd and printing out the booklet is about 2-5 dollars more.

then you pay dstribution, and comission for retail.

how much is a cd nowdays anyway?

live performance is where the money is at; provided you are good enough to keep enough people going to see you live in vaious locations.

 

[iampolluted]

the more well known acts may be upwards of a $1, but others get from $0.30-0.50 a cd.

 

[headband 707]

the more well known acts may be upwards of a $1, but others get from $0.30-0.50 a cd.

lol I have not listened to above ground artists for about 10 years now,, They could charge whatever they wanted and I still wouldn't buy it lol..Really don't like the mainstream music/scene BLAH....
headband 707

 

[Grass Lands]

and the noose gets a little tighter...and so it should when it comes to thieves....

 

[Stonefree69]

and the noose gets a little tighter...and so it should when it comes to thieves....

As much as I hate thieves, I hate sue happy crooks and ambulance chasers too, and they're not much different. It's not all thieves for profit they're after, not by a long shot. It's $$$$$.


Oh lookee just found this in the news: Op-ed: Why on-disc downloadable content isn't the crime it's made out to be That's actually making me laugh. Just look up RIAA too.

 

[Grant Holt]

stealing is stealing

just get on spotify

 

[Harry Gypsna]

stealing is stealing

just get on spotify

But it isn't stealing... to have stolen something, you need to have permanently deprived someone of their property. If I cut your chain and steal your bike-that is stealing, if I take a photo of your bike it is photography.
There is no physical property involved.. You could download a million copies of Agadoo, and the record company still have Agadoo in their possession available to sell, downloading is not equivalent to shoplifting a CD.
Again, I don't download music, but my 60 year old dad does, I also know several people who like myself, like to have the genuine CD/LP and the little booklet or any special things that come with it, but they will download something new to see if they want to buy it or not, if they like it, they buy the CD/LP, if not, they delete the download.
When I was a kid, I stayed with my Gran all summer during the holidays, and on the estate my family is from, the community centre would have a video club twice weekly for the children who were off school, 50 pence to get in, no profit made, the money covered the hire of the video and a can of pop and a bag of crisps for each child... It got stopped because some arsehole grassed to the F.A.C.T. and the community group was threatened with mega fines. Who exactly was being hurt by these mums trying to keep the estate kids occupied and keep them from getting into trouble. It isn't like all of the childrens parents would have otherwise rented every single video the club showed and so the film companies were not losing out on any money. In fact the film companies lost out on money after shutting the club down as the videos were no longer being rented for the club.

 

[Grant Holt]

But it isn't stealing... to have stolen something, you need to have permanently deprived someone of their property. If I cut your chain and steal your bike-that is stealing, if I take a photo of your bike it is photography.
There is no physical property involved.. You could download a million copies of Agadoo, and the record company still have Agadoo in their possession available to sell, downloading is not equivalent to shoplifting a CD.
Again, I don't download music, but my 60 year old dad does, I also know several people who like myself, like to have the genuine CD/LP and the little booklet or any special things that come with it, but they will download something new to see if they want to buy it or not, if they like it, they buy the CD/LP, if not, they delete the download.
When I was a kid, I stayed with my Gran all summer during the holidays, and on the estate my family is from, the community centre would have a video club twice weekly for the children who were off school, 50 pence to get in, no profit made, the money covered the hire of the video and a can of pop and a bag of crisps for each child... It got stopped because some arsehole grassed to the F.A.C.T. and the community group was threatened with mega fines. Who exactly was being hurt by these mums trying to keep the estate kids occupied and keep them from getting into trouble. It isn't like all of the childrens parents would have otherwise rented every single video the club showed and so the film companies were not losing out on any money. In fact the film companies lost out on money after shutting the club down as the videos were no longer being rented for the club.

you took a copy and didn't pay for it.

that's stealing


software, music, movies, books don't come out of thin air. That's peoples lively hood and I think they deserve to get paid for their work.

Why should you enjoy the fruits of their labor for free? Do you work for free?

 

[Harry Gypsna]

Do you work for free?

Actually sometimes yes I do there are several elderly folk who cant afford to pay me to cut their grass/hedges and weed their flower beds, but I do it for them..
Anyway lets just agree to differ

 

[Grant Holt]

Copying information *is* taking from the original content producer.

By your logic, if Intel spends 2 years working on designing a new CPU, and AMD hacks their systems and copies their design, that’s fine because it was just information, and Intel still has their copy.

What you fail to take into account is that the information itself is the value of the CPU. A CPU is less than $10 per-unit in materials and fabrication. The rest of the cost is the design. You’re caught up in the physical realm while ignoring the fact that it is the configuration of the elements (the design) that has value. The same for music. If you took all the samples of a Lady Gaga or U2 song and played them all at once, it would just be noise. Its the way that the noises are laid out that give the content value, not the bits. And the person who created that design should be paid.

Another example: a Farmer grows corn. Its a physical asset. A programmer makes a program, which is information. You’re saying that the Farmer’s labor has value, but the programmer’s doesn’t because he created an information-good rather than a physical one. You are too caught up in the exchange of mollecules that you don’t realize that its often not about the “stuff”, but rather the way the stuff is arranged that has value. And that arrangement takes effort that, if people are expecting to receive payment for, should be paid-for.

posted by Kevin on Another site

http://www.freakonomics.com

 

[gingerale]

you took a copy and didn't pay for it.

that's stealing

No, dumb ass, it's not, as has been explained to you a thousand times. Stop making shit up, and/or believing propaganda. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. The idea that you can OWN an idea, or a stream of bits on a computer, is laughably stupid and ludicrous. If I copy a song and give it to someone who otherwise never would have bought it or could have even afforded it, nobody has lost anything. Get it? In fact there is a net gain.

software, music, movies, books don't come out of thin air. That's peoples lively hood and I think they deserve to get paid for their work.

Are you arguing that people will stop producing music and movies, stop creating software, and stop writing books if the copyright law is repealed? LOL.

You sound like a prison guard arguing for the prison-industrial complex. "But people will lose jobs if this prison is closed!" Well, how many more "jobs" will be created when the red tape, regulations, paperwork, taxes, burdens, and shackles are lifted from the People? How many more amazing companies will be created by entrepreneurs who learned everything for free on the Internet, after the digital toll booths are finally burnt to the ground and people can copy and consume information freely?

Why should you enjoy the fruits of their labor for free?

Because society is approximately 1,522,923x better off for it, as I've already explained. Art and science and basically everything else will be helped tremendously when the People are no longer handcuffed by immoral copyright and patent laws.

I have a collection of hundreds of thousands of books on my computer, which I have amassed via Bittorrent and other means. I have books on so many different subjects it's ridiculous, a far more and better selection than I could expect to find in most libraries. I can (and do) just read, and read, and read, and basically am limited only by how fast I can take the information in. I didn't have to pay for a dime for any of it. That's exactly how it should be. Everyone in the world should get this same opportunity, for FREE. Why the fuck shouldn't they? We live in the digital age! Information can be effortlessly duplicated. It's just as easy and cheap to make 7 billion copies as it is to make one! Why the hell are we setting up toll booths when we need to be building express lanes??

Do you work for free?

Why should I work to buy a CD so that somebody's great-grandkids can collect royalties from it? What value are the record companies adding to the equation 30 years after the CD was produced? Why do I have to work so that they can sit on their ass waiting on a check in the mail then go play golf?

 

[Stoner4Life]

seeds and water can both be had for FREEEEEEE!!!!!!!

so the argument music thieves put forth can be applied as legitimate license to liberate some foliage from their very own gardens, and hey if you're growing good shit then expect that first liberator (not thieves in your eyes) will tell all their friends where to find that good FREEEEEEE dank.......

 

[thesloppy]

These tired thieving analogies keep getting trotted out. Note that:

A) Literally ALL of the copyright infringement cases prosecuted in this country, everybody ever arrested, and the subject of this article, and every one you've ever read are "file sharers". The "sharers" are the people making the copyrighted material available, the ones giving it away. These people aren't being accused of taking property, they're being accused of giving it away. As of yet, an individual taking copyrighted material for personal use has not been determined to be a punishable crime.

B) The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
~ United States Supreme Court, Dowling v. United States (1985)

 

[wantaknow]

they need better protection on the disc not on me!if you cant protect your own property ,thats your problem,not mine,utube copywrited someones voice,and nothings done about it but you copy a dvd and your are the enimy of the state,orwellian in nature ,hello nwo

 

[thesloppy]

stealing is stealing

just get on spotify

How much did you pay for the rights of the photo of Grant Holt you're using as your avatar? Some photographer or news agency surely owns the copyright to that photo, and derives income from that photo being used properly. That is absolutely no different than the argument at hand.....well, other than that the "stealing" in this argument is hypothetical, whereas your "stealing" of that photo is very much real. Does it still sound like stealing to you, and if so, how do you defend yourself against your very own arguments? Why is it you think the creations of a farmer and a programmer have value, but the creations of a photographer have none? Why do you think it's wrong to hypothetically copy a song, but alright to copy a photo in reality?



...or did you just not think about it very much, before passing judgment?