RIAA, MPAA Recruit MasterCard As Internet Police 421
An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, MasterCard felt the wrath of Anonymous Operation Payback-style DDoS attacks after refusing to process payments that were intended to fund WikiLeaks, the website which began leaking confidential US diplomatic cables last month. Now, the company is preparing to head down another controversial path by pledging to deny transactions which support websites that host pirated movies, music, games, or other copyrighted content. MasterCard lobbyists have also been in talks with entertainment industry trade groups, including the RIAA and the MPAA, and have made it clear that the company will support the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), sources close to the talks have said."
Re:So the question is... (Score:5, Informative)
What does this really mean?
It means that the banks are deciding what's illegal now. The government either doesn't have the authority (not this country) or a real reason to shut them down, so now the banks are doing it for them. Justice is served?
Re:most of the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams (Score:5, Informative)
For all that (rather tortured) explanation, one simple fact remains: knowledge does not always imply guilt.
People can have friends who experienced the field firsthand (he could be a teen), or they be a researcher in that field (he could be working for the Business Software Alliance), or they could simply be (inaccurately) extrapolating from what he's heard.
Re:Money = Speech (Score:4, Informative)
> So let me get this right, money equals speech,
> Yet another distinction between serfs and lords in the information age.
Nope.
Cut the hyperbolic crap. Even the Wikipedia article that you linked to refutes that (emphasis mine):
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law.
They didn't rule that "money equals speech". They ruled that "spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech". There's a difference, a big one in fact.