US Copyright Group — Lawsuits, DDoS, and Bomb Threats 365
Andorin writes "The US law firm of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, otherwise known as the US Copyright Group, filed suit at the end of August against another 2,177 individuals for allegedly downloading and sharing the slasher film Cornered! (In total the USCG has now filed suit against over 16,200 individuals.) In retaliation, Operation Payback, the Anonymous-led project responsible for DDoSing websites of the RIAA and MPAA, targeted the US Copyright Group's website with a DDoS, temporarily bringing it down for a few hours. The group behind the attacks say they'll continue 'until they stop being angry.' Additionally, the local police department evacuated the office of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver after a bomb threat was emailed to the firm. The building was searched, but no bomb was found."
Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:5, Funny)
And you believed him? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then why weren't any of the "threats" ever followed up by the local cops or FBI?
No, McBride was just attempting to paint anyone who opposed him as criminally violent.
With the resources of SCO at his disposal, they should have been able to identify ONE person who made a threat via email and parade that person in front of the media.
Instead, there is nothing.
I am... (Score:4, Insightful)
When the government doesn't protect individuals, the companies harassing them are supposed to face public backslash proportional to the damage they cause. IE: When they harass thousands and ruin hundreds of lives for profit, they can and should be willing to expect pretty much anything. That's what happens when government doesn't do what it is supposed to: A small step towards anarchy.
That all aside, I don't expect that Anonymous will ever do anything serious as they are mostly doing things for personal amusement.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are recent works that would have fallen under the original 14 year copyright terms
That's not as relevant as you'd like to believe. We cannot choose to follow an outdated law in lieu of the newer, more onerous one and still be considered "law abiding". If the law is going to be broken, why follow an arbitrary restriction?
That's not even getting into the greater point, which is that copyright is a favor, a boon granted to creators which they can leverage for some profit, and in exchange the public domain is enriched. Perpetual extension of copyright essentially eliminates the public's gain in that social contract. As there's simply no moral requirement to adhere to a bargain that's completely one-sided, there's nothing wrong with telling the publishers/jailors of our common culture the bargain is invalid and reverting to the natural state of information exchange. In fact, the only ethical course of action at this point is to refuse to obey the law. Because the legislators are all in the back pockets of the copyright industry, the only hope for change is in forcing a collapse of the system. Meekly obeying the law and hoping legislators someday decide the change the law isn't going to work.
Re:I am... (Score:4, Informative)
To prove that the problem is the stated one. Otherwise it's just an excuse to get what you want.
No, it's just a sensible reaction to a broken law to balance out all the times when it wasn't broken.
Not completely. The public still gains from the works that are produced with the expectation of copyright.
Not when the work is priced such that there is no significant net value to the public, just the creators and middlemen/parasites. Given the extremely low cost of entertainment these days (e.g. slashdot is more entertaining than most movies for many) that is more likely than not.
You could refuse to buy or support any copyrighted work and put your support behind works with open source licenses. It would have the same effect of collapsing the system.
No, he said refuse to obey unethical laws. Nothing to do with collapsing the system. Quite apart from the entire artificial scarcity silliness.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should have included what the copyright date of that film is because I've never heard of it.
Re:I am... (Score:4, Informative)
There's plenty of people who think pot is horribly dangerous, and there's many of those people who more or less make it their life's work to spread terror about how bad marijuana is to the public at large.
Yes, and most of those people think so, because someone in government decided it should be a class A drug instead of a potential wood pulp replacement, and spread the message "POT IS BAD*".
Before then, it was just another plant in the forest, used as a painkilling medicine by shamans and witch doctors for millennia. Or something like that.
When you think about it pretty much ALL our beliefs are shaped by either Government or Religion. That doesn't make the majority "right", it just makes them "more listened to".
* Of course, drugs in this context do not include Alcohol or Nicotene, two of the most dangerous and addicting substances known to man. But we tax those, so its okay.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not justifying the actions of those who made the bomb threat or who are behind the DDoS attacks, but if US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms. They think they can do as they wish just because they're lawyers, etc, but they're discovering that the public doesn't like a bully, plain and simple.
I'd be very much surprised if a measurable fraction of "the public" has ever heard of the US Copyright Group -
or the bomb threat.
Google New
Re: (Score:2)
Re:On backlash... (Score:2)
There is one form of backlash that is completely legal, and is beyond the reach of any copyright law, no matter how draconian. It's called, "Don't buy, don't steal." Consumers could quite literally bring these companies to their knees - legally. The only thing these little skirmishes are going to accomplish is justification for more laws, and even more excuses for government to continue expanding its encroachment into our daily lives.
I think we know exactly where all this is headed.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group." Then you can bet every agency will want "in" on the action; busting a bunch of (misguided) geeks is a lot safer than going after heavily armed drug dealers and much easier than tracking down serial killers.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want the agencies in charge of these things to not go after people who make bomb threats? It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase. I would like to see said agencies going after people making bomb threats to make sure they don't start to make real bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
If my original post gave the impression that I thought a bomb threat was OK I'd like to clear that up right now: Bomb threats are unacceptable and should never be tolerated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you act like a terrorist or terrorist organization then you should be treated as one. "
Ok, then let's apply that logic. Arrest the RIAA and MPAA. After all, they exist to terrorize everyone from grandmothers to independent artists. I say that threatening hundreds of thousands of people with loss of their livelihood is more terrorism than any bomb threat.
But keep your double standard. We need them for "society" to work.
Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Filing a law suit is a legal way to claim what you believe is rightfully yours.
Or Barratry. There are convicts that engage in barratry as a hobby because they're bored and need an outlet for their destructive urges.
The manner in which the RIAA and the MPAA easily falls under the headings of blackmail or terrorism.
They are certainly not proper tort cases.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is funny, how...?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, the copyright lobby is quite infamous for using threat of costly lawsuits to blackmail people, both innocent and guilty, into paying protection money to said lobby. Does it really surprise anyone that such tactics would eventually lead to a violent response? You can't make mockery of law yet expect it to still protect yourself.
The lawyers finally stepped over the invisible l
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are forgetting that these worthless corporate tools are complying with the law. Naturally the law will be on their side, so it does make sense. If you think the law doesn't make sense, then consider new politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Whah! I want my Mommy!
The Feds are at the door because I have been playing with C4!"
Here again, the geek presents himself as a misunderstood and persecuted minority --- but in a very strange juxtaposition with the drug deal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So if 999 people participate in a DDoS attack, and one (whose sympathies are assumed to lie in the same place) sends a bomb threat, it's OK to treat all 1000 as if they were involved with the bomb threat?
Great if you want a police state (want to shut down a protest group? Plant an agent provocateur). Not so good otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
And rightly so. They certainly fit the definition.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it.
Disagree. I think a bomb threat is no big deal either. And it accomplished the goal (costs the assholes.... oops I mean the lawyers one day of nonproductivity). Now if they used an actual bomb... then yes they crossed the line.
Re: (Score:2)
See my comment above [slashdot.org] to see what I think about the thin line between bomb threats and real bombs. To quote myself: "It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase."
Sorry for being redundant, but I really am worried about "pranks" like these.
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic we should stop allowing private ownership of knives. It only takes one nutcase to cross that thin line between butchering a cow and stabbing a human.
Or we could just accept the fact that 0.001% of humans are nutters and will do stupid stuff regardless, so there's no point punishing the other 99.999% of sane persons who use various tools responsibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this argument can extend to any piece of equipment and any action, because every tool can be used for good and evil and any action can have positive and negative outcomes. Scissors and bombs alike can be used for good stuff and for terrorists attacks. I guess the amount of regulation you put around something depends on the probability that it can be used for bad purposes.
Scissors - Really useful tools that for them your 0.001% statistics is probably correct, and maybe even an overestimation, thus we a
Re: (Score:2)
I meant more commonly used more malicious purposes than scissors, not more commonly used for malicious purposes vs. useful/good purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm actually generally interested in that now- I know explosives are obviously used for demolitions and mining and construction and whatnot; but the military gets through an awfully large amount of ordinance during a conflict, and there are an awful lot of conflicts going on at any given time. I wonder what the ratio of violent:non-violent consumption is?
A Google-quest for tomorrow, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Knives have been regulated - and some types banned - for something like 200 years. Knife Laws [ebladestore.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is a "bomb threat" a tool?
"Bomb threat" isn't a tool; it's a coercion on others by instilling fear, and any form of coercion is an aggression.
Having a knife is fine. Threatening to stab someone, even if you don't end up doing it, isn't. This is and should be illegal.
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. A bomb threat is a remote way of pulling the fire alarm. The intent in the majority of bomb threats is to clear the building. Rarely is someone levying an actual threat, and even more rare is there an actual bomb. Pulling a fire alarm isn't coercion by instilling fear. It's triggering a set response to get a desired physical action. I don't exit buildings from fire alarms because of fear. I do it because it's the process you go through while the alarm is checked out. The same is true of bomb threats. "There's been a bomb threat, please leave the building while we check it out." It is a DOS.
There WAS an actual bomb involved ... (Score:4, Funny)
They just failed to find a copy of the bomb^Wmovie [imdb.com] that they accused people of downloading. This bomb (title: "Cornered!") was a direct-to-dvd turkey that was already shown on TV in Hungary [imdb.com]. It's not nearly as highly rated as the 1945 film Cornered [imdb.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out.
I beg to differ [wikipedia.org]. This is just off the top of my head (Since I'm Israeli, I remember this incident). I'm sure there were other incidents throughout history, usually when a terrorist group wanted to perform an act that would be publicized, but with minimal damage to human lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, ETA [wikipedia.org] almost always warns about their bombs, yet they blow them up anyway. The bombing of Hipercor (a supermarket) killed 21 persons although they've warned ahead of time (they said the police failed to evacuate, the police says they only warned them a few minutes before it exploded).
Re: (Score:2)
It is sometime frustrating when having to deal with American and Western-Europeans (sorry for the generalization to come), that you realize they really do not understand what it is to deal with terrorism. In the late-1990's when there was a series of terrorist attacks in Israel, people were afraid to leave their home, they didn't go on buses (because there were many suicide attacks on buses) and many did not go out except for work. I had a girlfriend (yes, yes this is /.) that nearly had a panic attack when
Re: (Score:2)
The UK lived under threat from bombs from the IRA during the 80s all the time. Unlike Israel, the chance of one actually going off and killing you were very small. I only know of a couple of people hit by IRA bombs, and none fatally. Calling a bomb threats in the States, which has had incredibly few successful bombings considering the number of religious nuts out there, is different to the very real threat faced by people in a place like Israel.
A prank call to the police accusing somebody of adultery is not
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, trying to kill someone shouldn't be illegal as long as they fail?
They are trying to harm people by instilling fear, and that should be punished, regardless of outcome of those actions. Intent is the basis of the law.
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, doing things like this makes 'Anonymous' look bad, and by association, then makes what they are supporting look bad and hands ammunition to the MafiAA and bully groups whose perspective is "fuck the consumer, down with consumer rights."
On the other hand, simply protesting verbally and writing letters, even writing letters to congresscritters, seems to do only two things: jack and shit.
And on the gripping hand...
Re: (Score:2)
+5 just for the Motie reference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They do far more harm than that. They make opposing current copyright laws look bad in the eyes of the average citizen. To get any real change you must have a majority of the citizenry on your side. Then real political pressure can be applied in a legit ma
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Far more than you credit inwardly think "finally, about time" while denouncing it to their peers...
Such is human nature. Have fun trying to figure out how many people think that! Even if you could, I'd put good money down that it's a far greater number than you expect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've made polls. I've purposefully manipulated polls. I've read the teabagger platform. I claim bullshit on 70% of the country agreeing with their platform. Now, if you were to ask "do you believe in responsible government" and 70% agreed, then released a press release stating that 70% of Americans agree with teabaggers, then you'd be both 100% factua
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, you may just be from the UK, where you have the options to state that acts of the government's definition of terror are wrong or to risk up to 7 years in prison [legislation.gov.uk].
Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.
Re: (Score:2)
A person commits an offence if-- (a)he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b)at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he--
(i)intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii)is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.
I'm glad I don't live in th UK (or EU in general). If I did I'd probably be arrested multiple times over for my anti-government/ pro-"killing tyrants like mussolini is acceptable" statements.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fighting terrorism with terrorism only seems fair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb? There is no justifying it.
There fixed that for you.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly.
A prank phone call is now violence?
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
If I say to you that I will "kick the shit out of you", is it violence? I was just threatening, not really hitting you. Of course, it depends on context and intent, but you catch my drift.
BTW, using FTFY implies that you know what I mean better than I do, which is quite arrogant and this is why I refrained from using it in my original post.
Re: (Score:2)
No saying you will "kick the shit out of [me]" is not violence. It's threatening or intimidating if done correctly, and if you are physically bigger than me and actually standing in front of me, poking me in the chest, then it will be all the more so. However I live in a fairly law abiding society and whilst there are people around I probably won't believe you will go through with the threat. Though as you say, it depends on context and intent.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe you are confusing a bomb threat with an actual bombing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are.
A bomb threat with no bomb is the real life equivalent of a DDoS. You've made them so busy responding to something fake that theres a denial of service on their in person business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you have not been somewhere that matters when a DDoS is in full effect. I've seen equipment get fried (usually equipment that's not too healthy to start with, but still) and have firsthand felt the stresses involved. A bomb threat? Call in the professionals and run the hell away.
DDoS? Nope, you get to stick through it responding to all the insensitive assholes bitching all the while doing your best (which is never enough against a real DDoS, thus failing)
Huzza for those responsible. (Score:2)
Re:Huzza for those responsible. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuh-uh.
Pranks, yeah. Making their lives miserable through perfectly legal means, yeah, I can smile at it (e.g. when Mr. Ralsky got a taste of his own spammy medicine a few years back... those were good times).
OTOH, breaking the law is only good for those willing to challenge an unjust law. Notice that the US Civil Rights Movement didn't resort to breaking other laws to make a point - they only broke the unjust ones. Most importantly, they were willing to take the punishment for it, in order to point out to the world at large just how unjust those laws were. That's the whole point of civil disobedience.
While, yeah, I have zero love for a law firm that engages in the RIAA/MPAA's tactics, the best way to make one's point is to do so w/o breaking other, more important laws.
What this would accomplish (at least if done large-scale or over time) is to provide fodder to make existing laws even more draconian, and to allow government(s) to step in and regulate the Internet even more, which none of us want.
Re: (Score:2)
The Civil Rights Movement did break some "just" rules however, like those limiting demonstrations to only "free speech zones" and/or off public streets.
Re: (Score:2)
...BOOMMmmm
Hmmmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"I wouldn't be surprised if individuals who work for these firms will start to be publically identified and their private lives targetted."
That's exactly what needs to happen, copyright and corporations have shown themselves to want nothing more then a monopoly, and turn customers and citizens of the world into serfs where the rent everything in perpetuity. WHere ownership rights on the customer end are being rescinded and quite frankly copyright will always be abused it goes against our rights to own what we purchase outright and modify it as we see fit.
I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings. We've seen how free market ideology works in the real world where there are no scruples and money makes the rules and if you don't have money your voice doesn't matter. We're already in an era of corporate dictatorship of policy to such an insidious degree.
Why exactly would you want more of it? Right now the economy, government and law is so twisted by the structures of power that be, we need constant resistance and less ideological infighting of right vs left, left and right simply doesn't matter, these are distractions from the main issues - the removal of our liberties and rights as human beings view the market mechanism. We're seeing how money and markets can be transform a society into a society of serfs, any system can be gamed, transformed and abused, how so many people can't see this is disturbing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How most people can't see this is quite a mystery unless you are willing to entertain the idea that people are not naturally this blind and must be trained to be this way [cantrip.org]. Then you realize this is the main reason for having a government-run public school system [johntaylorgatto.com]. The mystery then disappears but a sense of relief is not forth
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you realize this is the main reason for having a government-run public school system.
Sometimes I wonder how this trash gets modded up. Pretty much all modern countries have public schools because otherwise kids wouldn't get any school at all. See the whole third world as an example, lack of education is a huge blocker for prosperity. The reason we have teacher's degrees and curriculum is because otherwise we'd have no quality control and no assurances that kids would get out of school knowing even the minimum about the world they ought to. Why is creationism so prevalent in the US as opposed to everywhere else? Because you can pull your kids out of school and teach them whatever you like. And not how reproduction works and what a condom is for. Can homeschooling or private schools be better than public schools? Yes. Can they be worse? Absolutely. At a minimum, you have to deal with a lot of other kids that aren't like you and don't think like you. By far the most narrow-minded and with the most twisted world views I've met have been American and home schooled. Granted, so have some of the brightest but it seems to bring out both kinds of extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually spent some time reading your links. Then I talked to my wife (who is a school teacher) about it, and she simply replied that all of this is well known. She said the question isn't what is happening but how to deal with it. Children do need to learn something about conformity since that is going to be important to them as adults in society, unless you think we can have a world full of unibombers and be OK. There is value in questioning the system, hell I've been doing it my whole life and ne
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings.
You are confusing explicit support with apathy and ignorance. I know an argument could be made that they are equivalent, but the truth is the people who care AND are willing to act is such a small percentage that the organized actors (corporations and law firms) are the only ones who are effective at advancing their agenda.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So what. If you work for an a$$hole company, you need to be willing to live with the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, it sounds like Anonymous is trying to beat the thugs at their own game. Let's hope that th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised to see some congresscritter use this as an example to introduce legislation that makes all of our lives just a little bit worse, by regulating the unholy shit out of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Let'em try. "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Re: (Score:2)
But the way things have been going for a while, the likelihood of an insurrection has been increasing in recent years. While this isn't really that scale, if the authorities aren't mindful all the anger by various groups could very easily solidify into some form of rebellion.
Ultimately, it would primarily be the fault of the politicians that stir up fear and an
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. We're nowhere near an insurrection.
Revolution only occurs when the vast majority of people have their lives destroyed by the government. As long as there is a large middle class, Revolution will never occur. People need to have nothing left to lose before they are willing to risk their lives. And seriously, if you're on slashdot, that means you almost certainly have a home, a job (or someone who pays your bills), a computer, electricity, food, shelter, etc... you have a lot to lose, and most
Re: (Score:2)
+1, Interesting. But the purpose of a bomb threat is to disrupt, to nag them silly. Nutters get cues from everything and amplify them, so it's been too late since a noticeable number first chanted FUCK THE *AA.
On the other hand, the ones calling the shots are surely responsible for the legal harassment and its financial/emotional/misc consequences, so why not give them a taste or two of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Rather than just clicking a few mouse buttons, or VoIPing a prank call, one may suddenly heave his lard ass out of his swivel chair, pick up a baseball bat, drive all the way to a lawyers office, sneak past security, and batter one of them to death. I mean, it's a pretty thin line huh?
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more to it (Score:5, Informative)
This only happened after Aiplex Software was contracted to DDoS attack file sharing web sites:
http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/an-interview-with-anonymous/ [pandasecurity.com]
Anonymous Symbol (Score:2)
Anonymous surely need it's own symbol by now.
It was bad of me, but I did chuckle when I heard of this.
All this for a loser film? (Score:2)
You'd think it was a blockbuster release like LOTR or something.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151911/ [imdb.com]
Cornered, a 2-star rated slasher with a no name cast.
Actually on second thought, they might be making more money on the settlements than on theater sales.
Re:All this for a loser film? (Score:5, Informative)
Recently a lawyer in the UK was also targeted by the 4chan group.
What's notable is that he was in the same business as the law firm in this article - sending out compliance letters for alleged copyright infringement. As this article [arstechnica.com] notes, lately the UK lawyer had only been getting business from porn movie producers; all his mainstream clients had stopped hiring him because they no longer saw a net benefit in suing their fans.
This might explain why the law firm was threatening people over a c-movie: the 'real' movie studios in the US might no longer want to work with people like them.
The law firm he ended up with was ACS Law, run by middle-aged lawyer Andrew Crossley. ACS Law had, after a process of attrition, become one of the only UK firms to engage in such work. Unfortunately for Crossley, mainstream film studios had decided that suing file-sharers brought little apart from negative publicity, and so Crossley was left defending a heap of pornography, some video games, and a few musical tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
ACS Law is also now subject to a £500,000 fine under the Data Protections Act as when they brought their site back online after a DDOS they also made a file with their victims' personal details readable which was subsequently downloaded by hackers.
Phillip.
Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What legitimate grievances? The RIAA, MPAA, and other groups have generally not been suing people who didn't, in fact, commit copyright infringement. In the few trials that have reached the verdict stage, the defendants have been found liable. The issues are about the level of damages, the cost of litigation, and whether the litigation strategy even makes sense. What's not an issue is that the defendants who were found liable broke the law.
I can see two major grievances.
The first is that the copyright system is being extended specifically to prevent anything from being placed into the public domain. Originally, in the US, the term of a copyright was 14 years, after which the work would enter the public domain. Today, the term of a copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. What this means is that copyright terms have increased by roughly one order of magnitude.
The second is the inclusion of criminal elements in a specifically civi
Vigilante justice (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes a fed up community just goes extralegal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy [wikipedia.org]
They found a bomb alright but... (Score:2, Funny)
It was an Uwe Boll boxset
"Never heard of it either" (Score:2)
The Hollywood Reporter on "Cornered!": "No, we've never heard of it either". [hollywoodreporter.com]
That's bad. The Hollywood Reporter tracks almost everything Hollywood is doing, in more detail than you need unless you're in the industry. If their people haven't heard of it, it's unknown. There's one entry in THR's database: "MPAA ratings: Jan. 20, 2010", where The Hollywood Reporter listed the MPAA's rating decisions for the week. (It got an "R".) So the producers sent a copy in for rating and paid the fee.
Some DVDs are
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So just when did you get to vote for or against the DMCA? Lobby groups can push laws past you that you have no chance of stopping. Remember soap, ballot box, 2nd amendment. This has reached the 3rd option.
Re: (Score:2)
And it tends to be pretty asinine lately. We've got quite a few initiatives on the ballot for the next election, and for the most part the actual contributions by the
slight correction ... (Score:2)
With ludicrously and unreasonably high damages being claimed by copy right holders and equally ridiculous damage awards by the juries I am not surprised that it has come to bomb threats. Nor will I be surprised when they stop being just threats.
Knowing that I when I predict things they never come to pass I predict the following: there will be a real explosive/incendiary device used against one of the law firms representing the **AA within the next 5 years. Also w
Re: (Score:2)
Why -1 Troll? Bomb threats are dangerous weapons and I consider them a form of violence. They are no more appropriate here than they are in the GP's example. Remember, there are many people in the office being "attacked", not just greedy lawyers. There are assistants, secretaries, paralegals and more. Do all of them need to suffer because of their boss(es)? They are just hones people trying to make a living. Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employe
Re: (Score:2)
Because only you consider it a form of violence and nobody else does. A prank phone call is not violence, and no matter how much insisting the contrary will make it so.
The assistants and secretaries just get to goof off work for around half an hour at their employers expense. Smokers get an excuse to have another ciggie. I've been evacuated through bomb threats in London, it's no big deal.
Phillip.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Why -1 Troll?
It's begging the question. The question is phrased to make you accept, as a fact, without presenting evidence, that there are 'many abortion clinics known for doing illegal late-term abortions'. So long as there's an overriding argument that violence can be justifed if it's in self defense or support of the law, then the Troll AC is claiming that violence CAN sometimes be appropriate, AND he's advancing a claim that the abortion clinics are doing something that does make it appropriate. He uses the word "many" to imply that the actions are so common the legal system must be ignoring a violation of the law deliberately, and "known", without specifying if it's 'known' to a legal standard, or just 'known' by somebody having started a rumor without any evidence.
Abortion is also a much bigger hot-button issue than the RIAA. The chance of rational discourse drops when Abortion is brought up, and on Slashdot, the chance of people managing to discuss a local hot topic such as the RIAA was already low. (Hell, the way Slashdot is these days, the chance of rationality is too low even without it being a sensitive topic).
Re: (Score:2)
You understood his sentence as a way to excuse violence against some causes. I understood it in a different way: Slashdotters are ready to accept such acts as bomb threats when they are aimed at law-firm that "hunt down" copyright infringers, but if it was a bomb threat against something that Slashdotters usually (as a hypothetical homogeneous group) support (e.g. abortions) their opinion might have been different. Yes, his wording was a bit provocative, but since it was used to uncover the hypocracy of som
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?
Accepting that the employer's business decisions were so horrible that a bomb threat against the employer himself is morally justified, then yes, that would be OK. All the assistants and secretaries are helping their evil employer by continuing to work there, and if they had any moral fortitude they would find work somewhere else. Yes, even if they have to move their family onto the street for a couple of weeks (remember, this is a company doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat). All the corporate evil
Re: (Score:2)
No, you believe they are doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat. Since the whole issue of copyright infringement is still in hot debate all over the world, claiming that anyone not supporting your side is a bit self-centered. I personally think that what they are doing is wrong, but since it is still such a debatable issue, I accept that some people think otherwise without them being the Devil's little helpers. Or maybe that just don't care so much about the issue.
Since we are talking about copyright in
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is small difference between supporting the Nazi war machine and being a secretary in a law-firm dealing with copyright infringement lawsuits. And yes, you have won the Godwin award for this thread. Congratulations, you have a choice of a teddy bear or $10 coupons to Nazi-R-Us superstore.