Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Businesses Media The Internet Yahoo!

More DMCA Censorship at Yahoo! 141

Posted by Zonk
from the do-they-call-it-censorship!-there dept.
Thomas Hawk writes "Once again a Yahoo! user has found themselves on the short end of the DMCA stick. Video blogger Loren Feldman recently found that his video mocking (read parody) the Village People and blogger Shel Israel was removed from the Yahoo! service after Scorpio Music served Yahoo! with a DMCA takedown notice. The video in question contained a very brief fair use parody snippet of the Village People song YMCA as performed by a puppet. What's more, Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More DMCA Censorship at Yahoo!

Comments Filter:
  • by PaintyThePirate (682047) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:30AM (#22985682) Homepage
    Oddly enough, my friend had a video removed from Youtube last month of four Robosapien RS Medias dancing to a Village People song.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ILuvRamen (1026668)
      well then that settles it. The most logical explanation is that the village people have nothing better to do than troll the internet, looking for YMCA uses references while they're riding the ever shrinking residual income off that stupid song. I bet they wear their outfits while they do it lmao.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:41AM (#22985984)
      WOW! Yahoo is acting as if Microsoft already owns them! ;)
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jack455 (748443)
      For anyone who believes in any kind of copyright at all that is exactly what should be protected against. Seriously, though, it doesn't sound like fair use (aside from being non-commercial). It's not a true parody IMO (and probably the courts) and not any kind of review or statement and certainly of no benefit to society (nor was the original song).
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Paradise Pete (33184)
        For anyone who believes in any kind of copyright at all that is exactly what should be protected against.

        That recording was made 30 years ago. The kind of copyright I believe in doesn't last that long. And certainly not for free. If Disney, for instance, wants to have an eternal copyright on its library, because it's so valuable, why do they get that for free? Charge a higher and higher fee as the work ages. That way most works enter the public domain within a reasonable amount of time. How does the publi

        • by mcpkaaos (449561)

          How does the public benefit in any way that the YMCA recording is still a monopoly?
          It reduces the chance of accidentally hearing it?
  • Whaa? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sylos (1073710) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:31AM (#22985688)
    people still use Yahoo?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    With that kind of attitude on Yahoo's part, no wonder Microsoft is so eager to mate with them.
    • With that kind of attitude on Yahoo's part, no wonder Microsoft is so eager to mate with them.

      Yes, and the offspring of that unholy union will most likely be ... an IP lawyer.
  • by whoever57 (658626) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:41AM (#22985740) Journal
    Finally, Yahoo reveals that the way to delete a Yahoo ID is to commit serial copyright violations!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They'll delete it from public view, but quite probably they'll still retain the data.
    • Nah, it was just an empty threat.
    • I had less trouble closing my bank account than my MySpace account.
    • I actually had a run in with Yahoo a few years ago regarding my Yahoo ID. When they first launched Yahoo Groups way back in 1998 or so (I think it was called Yahoo Clubs at the time), I was explaining the concept to a co-worker over lunch. I said jokingly, "You can create a club for anything you want and invite people to it. So if you are into smoking crack and want to discuss it with other people, you start the Smoking Crack Club and invite your friends." After lunch I went and created the Smoking Crack cl
  • Put put out a video telling every one how yahoo sucks, then close your yahoo account.
  • by WK2 (1072560) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:43AM (#22985752) Homepage
    Preparing for Microsoft takeover?
  • wuh - uh - uh - uh - under...

    WHY

    .

    It's an old 50s song or something. But appropriate. I do not even know who the "artists" are.

    They -- yahoo -- wonder why their business has not done so well. Well, here is one hint: don't harass, intrude upon, or intimidate people for stupid reasons. Other corporations have slowly been learning that lesson, harshly and expensively.

    Gee, I hope /. doesn't get a takedown notice for my having sort of quoted some old song that somebody might actually hold a copyright

    • by downundarob (184525) on Monday April 07, 2008 @03:06AM (#22986102)
      Yours is probably a rhetorical question, and you would know how to find out but..
      Del Shannon originally penned (and had a hit with it) in 1961

      Lawrence Welk 1962.
      the Small Faces in 1967
      Elvis Presley in 1970,
      the Beach Boys were known to have played it live.
      Charlie Kulis 1975
      Bonnie Raitt 1977

      Just to name a few
  • by Simonetta (207550) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:54AM (#22985796)
    Since Yahoo! is in the delicate stage of being bought out by Microsoft, they're trying to avoid any lawsuits that could cause the buying price to be pulled lower. This is probably the reason that they are acting like consummate assholes. Normally the yahoos couldn't care less about pissant grandstanding through dubious legal stunts, but...this is a delicate moment in the take-over process.

        Maybe Microsoft is behind this in order to use a barrage of picayune lawsuits as a justification for lowering their bid offer. Goodness knows, Microsoft's staff of eager-beaver Ivy League lawyers do live for this kind of thing.
    • by mrvan (973822) on Monday April 07, 2008 @04:43AM (#22986460)
      What I don't get is this: I thought the principle behind the DMCA was that Yahoo, on being served a notice, would take down the possibly illicit material, and that the poster could get it back on by identifying himself and taking legal responsibility.

      It seemed to me (not an American, not a lawyer) like a good system: the host is responsible in the first instance and takes material down without judging about the illegality (which the host can't), unless the poster takes responsibility and claims it is not illegal (fair use, own work, whatever), and it can be settled in court.

      Apparently, it doesn't work that way...? Or does the poster not have the guts to stand up for his right? Or does yahoo go further than required by the DMCA?
      • by houghi (78078)
        It is a lousy system. It is guilty untill proven inocent and the burden is on part of the defence. Let them go to court. Let them pay the wages and then let the court decide wether it must be taken down or not.

        If then de acused thinks he is in his right, he can say so and the legal battle can begin.

        What will hapen is that most won't even bother to fiel a suit and/or courts decide they can't be botherd with such trivial things.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sancho (17056) *

          It is guilty untill proven inocent and the burden is on part of the defence.

          I don't know what the best solution is, but requiring that every case like this go through a lengthy civil trial is just going to swamp our already overloaded judicial system. It would be like a DOS on justice, and that's really not something we want. Legitimate civil cases would be backlogged, some criminal cases would be backlogged (meaning a lot of people would be held awaiting trial for longer), and frankly, it would just be a mess.

          At the same time, I don't like the fact that any idiot can claim owne

        • It is guilty untill proven inocent and the burden is on part of the defence

          No, it's Yahoo! saying, "I don't have a dog in this fight". If the person assumes all legal responisibilty, I believe Yahoo! puts it back up. But why should Yahoo! continue to (possibly) aid in infringment? Where's their win?

      • by russotto (537200)

        Apparently, it doesn't work that way...? Or does the poster not have the guts to stand up for his right? Or does yahoo go further than required by the DMCA?


        DMCA counter-notification is basically saying to a lawyer "Go ahead and sue me, asshole". And to make it worse, as soon as they do sue, they get to have the material taken down again, until the court case is finished (years later). There's no upside to it.
        • by neomunk (913773)
          No upside, except that fat harassment suit you can hit them with when it's all said and done. Oh, an the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you finally slay the giant that's trying to swat you.
          • by russotto (537200)
            You can't successfully sue based on a DMCA notice, unless the entity sending the notice perjured itself about one specific thing -- whether or not they actually represented the copyright owner that they claimed to represent. And you don't slay the giant. If you win the case, several years down the line, you just get the right to put your stuff back up. If you lose, you have to pay the giant damages. Either way, you're paying a lot in lawyers fees. So is the giant, but what's a lot to you is pennies for
      • by WK2 (1072560)
        I agree that it is a neat idea on paper, but it has not worked out in practice. It is too easily abused, and there is nothing large corporations like better than abuse. If this part of the DMCA act were to have a chance of being a good law, it would require that content producers send their takedown notice to whoever posted something first, and have a legally mandated period to await response (perhaps 72 hours), and only then be allowed to send their letter upstream. As it is, producers send batches of take
  • D-M-C-A (Score:5, Funny)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:55AM (#22985802) Homepage Journal
    Young man, there's no need to feel down.
    I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.
    I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town
    There's no need to be unhappy.

    Young man, there's a lawyer I know.
    I said, young man, who can get you some dough.
    You can sit back, and I'm sure you will find
    Many ways to ruin others good time.

    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

    You can get yourself mean, you can have a good deal,
    You can get folks to settle for whatever you feel...

    Young man, are you listening to me?
    I said, young man, what do you want to be?
    I said, young man, you can make real your dreams.
    But you've got to know this one thing!

    No man does it all by himself.
    I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf,
    And just look there, to the D.M.C.A.
    I'm sure our legal team can help you today.

    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

    They have everything that you need to enjoy,
    You can hang out with all the lawyer boys ...

    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

    You can get yourself mean, you can have a good deal,
    You can folks to settle for whatever you feel ...

    Young man, I was once in your shoes.
    I said, I was down and out with the blues.
    I felt no man cared if my band were alive.
    I felt the whole world was so jive ...

    That's when a lawyer came up to me,
    And said, young man, sign this release.
    There is a law called the D.M.C.A.
    They can start you back on your way.

    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

    They have everything that you need to enjoy,
    You can hang out with all RIAA boys ...

    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A
    Young man, young man there's no need to feel down
    Young man, young man pick yourself off the ground

    It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A
    Young man, young man are you listening to me?
    Young man, young man what do you wanna be?

    you'll find it at the Y-M-C-A
    no man, young man does it all by himself
    young man, young man put your pride on the shelf

    then just go to the Y-M-C-A
    young man, young man I was once in your shoes
    young man, young man I said, I was down and out with the blues.

    My comment has too few characters per line and I'm really hoping that this brings up the average - though I don't know that it will be enough. Apparently not on the first try- though I did bring up the average an entire character. Let's see if this was sufficient. Wow - it did go up another word but still too few. This could take a while. And of course the entire joke is ruined now. But I've got a stubborn streak in me that just kicked into full gear. Holy cow- 26.2 characters per line is not enough. I'm gonna have a novella down here to go with my funny (or not funny - we'll see) lyrics. Or maybe I'll just go down in flames as off topic for this section. Oh the suspense. 28.4 is not enough. For crying out loud. I like Slashdot, I really do, but this is annoying. If there are going to be ads in the comments then I ought to be able to at least post song lyrics - or should I say parodies of song lyrics. And while I hate to play this card, if that's not possible for the hoi polloi, well it'd be a nice bonus for the um you know - paying customers. I mean I don't think that is asking too much. Time to check again. Oh really - 32.6 is too few? There has to be something more to it than that. I've posted lots of comments that were shorter than that. The one I'm looking at right now above mine isn't that long. There must be something else in the formula there. But I'm not giving up. I'm going to keep at it until this thing gets past. On the bright side, no fear of seeing "Slow Down Cowboy!" now is there? I'm an eternal optimist. And I really feel like I'll be making the world a better place once this goes live
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft welcomes you to Microhoo! del.icio.us, flickr, and mail!

    Please download this proprietary nsakey.exe file to verify if you are general loser to our advantage. Silverlight required to proceed with the download.
    • by neomunk (913773)
      nsakey. Heh. I thought everyone had forgotten about that little source leak. Damn, that was about a decade ago wasn't it?

  • While it might be seen as lame for Yahoo to just capitulate like this, there's no doubt good reasons for them to do it - I assume being on the wrong end of a DMCA suit in the US can be expensive both in terms of lawyer fees and potential fines (?? assuming they can get sued for damages).

    If the video creator is sure its not infringing they can just put it up themselves on another service and then they can go head-to-head with Scorpio Music.

    Whether its in Yahoo's interests to keep it up is probably a painful
  • What's the BFD here? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:03AM (#22985832) Journal

    It is terrible that it seems that anybody in the world can send a DMCA notice, valid or not, to Yahoo and get them to censor user content. Personally I think Yahoo has a higher obligation to the users who use their sites.
    Yahoo doesn't have a higher obligation to there users and I don't recall the DMCA requiring content hosters to vet takedown notices.

    You really think Yahoo (or any other large webhost/portal) is going to spend the money to have people sitting around all day checking the validity of every single DMCA takedown notice they receive?

    Yahoo did what they were supposed to do under the law.
    Now it's your turn to file a counter-notice [chillingeffects.org]
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because that's not the American Way(TM). The American Way is to stomp your feet, whine like a little bitch, then blame the company who is following the law. Sure, he could have filed counter-notice and follow the law himself, but why do that when you can have a tirade and piss on a company you don't like?
       
      • by neomunk (913773)
        Because America is the least friendly country to corporations in the world, or something, and any shitty laws they buy, well we're just a bunch of little whiney bitches if we think the law intrudes on our pussy "freedoms" or "rights". Yeah, we're a bunch of fags that don't respect our proper place under our superiors, we should be taught a lesson.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:44AM (#22986008)
      They probably should since they could then bill the offending parties for the resources spent investigating their frequently bogus notices. Sure you'd have to do some manuvering to setup a MS technical support style system. But set up as a credit card hold that will be refunded should the apperatus involved find the content indeed infringing, Yahoo could probably make money on it. In the mean time jackasses like Prince, KISS, Madonna, and apparently the Village People would be diminished and in fact paying to improve everyone else's service experience. The beauty of a setup like this is that it's in Yahoo's interest to set an extremely high barrier, and maximize the number of credit card charges.

      Then in the instances where they have to go to court, their countersuit remedy should ask that the supposedly infringed work in the public domain in the event they prevail. One company engaging in that sort of brinksmanship winning one time would make all the other paper people better corporate citizens.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Damn and I ran out of modpoints because that's the most insightful thing I've heard al day. Make money off the fuckers who are trying to use the law to protect their ever diminishing income streams

        As for counter notices. I can see where Yahoo sits on this. It's not in their interest to waste money chasing up the many thousands of these shitty notices they get each day. They just rip out the "offending" content and let the two ends of the deal battle it out.

        The problem with the system is that the Recordi
  • by RedWizzard (192002) on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:06AM (#22985852)
    File a counter [chillingeffects.org] notice [chillingeffects.org]. You've got rights. Exercise them.
    • by Temporal (96070)
      Indeed, Yahoo is just doing what they are required to do by law, and filing a counter notice is the correct response. Complaining to Slashdot... not so much.
      • by interiot (50685)
        Yep. The law wasn't written to put Yahoo (or any other company) in the position of being final arbiters of what's fair use and what isn't. That's what the penalty of perjury is for, and the fact that the step after the counternotice is for the original person to file a lawsuit and have a judge make a ruling.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sancho (17056) *
        To be fair, Yahoo has gone above and beyond on this one. Their only requirement under the law is to remove the allegedly offending work. According to the summary, they have additionally threatened to remove this person's account.

        In this, I feel that Yahoo is acting in a manner which is not in their customer's interest. Whoever made that threat probably thinks that the extra time required to deal with DMCA notices justifies removing the accounts of people who are likely to be repeat offenders. Unfortunat
        • by Temporal (96070)
          Under the DMCA, to qualify as a safe harbor, you must have a policy for terminating repeat offenders. Yahoo has not gone "above and beyond" here; they are doing exactly what is required under the law.
          • by Sancho (17056) *
            It's pretty vague in the law about how much one must offend to be considered a repeat offender, and the policy itself is left to the ISP. It sounds like Yahoo was being particularly strict here.
  • Why didnt he file a DMCA counter notice? Fair use is still protected.
  • by Bromskloss (750445) <auxiliary DOT ad ... privacy AT gmail> on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:11AM (#22985874)
    They should publish every such request at their front page for everyone to see and for the shame of those requesting the takedown. One box with latest news, one box with latest takedowns.
    • by arivanov (12034)
      They cannot. AFAIK there was a recent decision that takedowns are subject to copyright as well.

      While it is completely bogus and will be repelled one day for the time publishing takedown notices is a bad idea.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Evets (629327) *
        That was a case under very specific circumstances. The takedown notice was actually filed with the copyright office before being sent. It specifically contained a "do not publish" clause within the takedown notice. And it was sent specifically to goad the recipient into publishing the takedown notice, as other very suspect takedown notices sent by that law firm had been published publicly by that particular site.

        That's not to say that the big guns wouldn't just follow suit with that strategy, but the eas
  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:19AM (#22985918)
    Again a DMCA notice... this is not the first time it happens to a user. Also non-USA citizens are subject to this crazy law, when they post material on a US based server. Or not even necessarily that it seems, do legal reverse-engineering or encryption related work in your own country, visit the USA, get arrested, it's possible, no? But leave that discussion for later.
    What actually surprises me is that there are no similar portals in e.g. the EU. All major portals and sharing sites are US based - Yahoo!, MSN, Flickr, Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, you name it, they are all in the USA, I can't think of anyone based fully in Europe. And as such they are subject to the US's draconian copyright laws.
    This again makes me wonder why none is being set up outside of the US jurisdiction. How about a facebook.de, or a youtube.nl, fully hosted in that country, and incorporated there as well. What is holding the Internet back? It is not that Europe doesn't have the IT infrastructure, on the contrary. It may be better than what's available in the USA. Same accounts for the people. I may assume there as much business sense on both sides of the pond.
    Yet all these video-sharing and other creative enterprises on the Internet seem to sprout and flourish mostly in the USA. The world is really a wonderful place.
    • by clickety6 (141178)


      USA: Language - One - English (American Style)

      Europe - Language - 346 - English, French (French), French (Swiss), German (German), German (Austrian), German (Swiss), Dutch, Flemish, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Norwegian, Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Irish, etc., etc., etc., usw, and so on...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Weedlekin (836313)
      "Also non-USA citizens are subject to this crazy law, when they post material on a US based server. "

      I fail to see how anyone could reasonably expect any country's laws not to apply to content that's in that country by virtue of being on servers that are physically located there.

      "Or not even necessarily that it seems, do legal reverse-engineering or encryption related work in your own country, visit the USA, get arrested, it's possible, no?"

      It only happens if you reverse engineer stuff that would be covered
  • hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nomadic (141991) <.nomadicworld. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday April 07, 2008 @03:06AM (#22986104) Homepage
    a very brief fair use parody snippet of the Village People song YMCA as performed by a puppet.

    Isn't "fair use" for a court to decide?
    • by aztektum (170569)
      It seems they have in many such cases clicky

      This particular instance could fall under satire as it doesn't directly poke fun at the Village People (similar to the Penny-Arcade suit over Strawberry Shortcake). However IANAL and it's still early.
  • by darkpixel2k (623900) <aaron@heyaaron.com> on Monday April 07, 2008 @03:06AM (#22986106) Homepage
    Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID

    Isn't it great having everything integrated into one easy-to-use service? Pictures, searching, games, dating services, emai--oh fuck--they just canceled everything in my entire life.

    Same goes for Google everything. If one company controls all the services you use, all it takes is one idiot at that company to make your life hell.
    • Yup, and 34 seconds later you can have a brand new account with access to all the same services. Sure, you have the hassle of changing your email address, but I think people are used to this happening already.
      • Many people store much of their email, contact lists, images / video, etc on such services - when one loses access to their account, they lose access to much, if not all, of their user content. That can be devestating for many people.

        Personally, I don't use Google / Yahoo for anything important, but I know many people who do - some don't understand the risks while others simply accept the tradeoff of possibly losing access / data as the price of using such "free" services.

        Ron
        • Many people store much of their email, contact lists, images / video, etc on such services - when one loses access to their account, they lose access to much, if not all, of their user content. That can be devestating for many people.

          ...at which point they FINALLY listen to their friendly neighborhood geek and start a sane backup regimen...

          You can lead a horse to water, but it's hell getting the showercap over its ears...

  • What is the legal stance on parody?

    I know that penny-arcade had a run in with this when they did their strawberry shortcake meets alice comic.

    The only thing I could find was this: http://www.publaw.com/parody.html [publaw.com]

    Thoughts?
    Lawyers?
  • by IBBoard (1128019) on Monday April 07, 2008 @03:57AM (#22986292) Homepage
    Hang on, isn't this (the first part at least) how the DMCA supposed to work? I thought hosts/ISPs had to honour the takedown request and then investigate if a counter claim or dispute was filed so that the host can claim safe harbour [chillingeffects.org].

    Thank goodness the UK doesn't have anything quite as bad as the DMCA (yet...)

    The bit about terminating services is a bit more extreme, but seems to be some standard practice taken too far - "You've breached part of the ToS by posting breaking a law, so we'll terminate your account" but without the part where they check whether it was a copyright infringement or just another quick DMCA claim.
  • OpenID (Score:4, Insightful)

    by infestedsenses (699259) on Monday April 07, 2008 @04:08AM (#22986338) Homepage

    What's more, Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID.

    That's a slightly larger problem than it may seem at first. A Yahoo ID as at the same time an OpenID. People using that account as an OpenID are subject to the whims of Yahoo. I'm not yet sure of the implications this bears, but it will become a problem when people become more reliant on OpenID.

    • I'm not yet sure of the implications this bears, but it will become a problem when people become more reliant on OpenID.
      I've had a Yahoo! ID for probably 10 years and I've never heard of OpenID, so I suspect this isn't a huge concern for most people.
      • Yahoo! accounts haven't been OpenIDs for very long, yet. It's all just getting started and OpenID is slowly gaining traction, so my point remains that it will become (note the future tense) an issue. You can find out more here: http://openid.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]
  • Ya Know..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IHC Navistar (967161) on Monday April 07, 2008 @04:24AM (#22986388)
    Ya know, it would hilarious if someone turned this around and made a parody of the DMCA by changing the lyrics and setting it to the tune of "YMCA".

    As much of a copyright violation that it may seem to be, it would still be *VERY* Fair Use, since it would be a parody.
  • by iamacat (583406) on Monday April 07, 2008 @04:31AM (#22986416)
    DMCA takedown is basically a question from ISP to the content publisher on weather the material is distributed legally. The publisher can just tell Yahoo that the material is legal. In this case, the videos will be restored and subscriber's identity will be made known to the author of DMCA notice to settle the matter in court if necessary. The process is mutual and in fact the issuer of DMCA notice is liable for any damages resulting from the downtime.

    Unlike DMCA counter-circumvention provision this is actually a good thing. ISP is off the hook and instead the customer and the purported copyright owner get to give up their claims or duke it out in court if they choose. Genuinely infringing material can be immediately removed from public access, ensuring that say, Photoshop source code does not make it into too many hands before the court battle is settled.
  • Land of the what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Tell me again, how did you guys end up with this DMCA and when do you think you will be rid of it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Colonel Korn (1258968)
      Media is controlled by corporations, and lawmakers are largely influenced by corporations. So the corporations wanted to make the DMCA and they told the lawmakers to make it happen. Then they had the media not make a big deal about it, so there was no significant public reaction, and thus the law easily passed without most of America even noticing.

      It's scary how predominant this process is in American politics. About the only positive thing I can say is that at least it's not as bad as China, where a sin
  • I'ma delete your Yahoo ID, ya warcriminal pansy, you.

    This is what the modern world has degenerated to.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.

Working...