Stop Online Plagiarism Act

... stop annoying me with ur dumb laws

I’m fucking against the SOPA :: and the PIPA … and the Santa Maria. I just blacked out my whole glorious fake robot site to prove it {and for fear of defying Wikipedia}. According to The Times of New York :: the protests and bellyaching are working … and the stupid old men of the stupid old man Congress {which is like a series of intestinal tubes} are caving.

“A freshman senator, Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising Republican star, was first out of the starting gate Wednesday morning with his announcement that he would no longer back antipiracy legislation he had co-sponsored.”

Hurrah! Maybe Lamar Smith {R – Hollywood} will be next …

“By Wednesday afternoon, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah and one of the Senate bill’s original co-sponsors, called it “simply not ready for prime time” and withdrew his support.”

… close enough.

We {read mostly me} did it!!

But winning isn’t enough.

Some victories call for poetries :: and fucking boom! … I’ve created some.


SOPA Upon Crispin … a fucking poem

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.


Maybe it sounds like it’s a poem about sticking your {+7 stamina} longsword into some sniveling Frenchman at Agincourt :: but it’s not … it’s about SOPA. The part about cheap manhoods is a commentary on Facebook :: and sometimes fancy people call Wednesday “Saint Crispin’s day” … so that’s what that’s all about.

I would know :: because I just wrote it … so show me some fucking respect. Genius in the house bitches … damn.

Mark Shurtleff :: Attorney General of MLM {and Utah} … is more in the pro-SOPA camp. It’s not that he doesn’t love shamelessly tweeting about executions to bring himself attention :: or hysterically expressing his blog outrage at “yellow journalists” outing the depths of his despicable corruption … it’s just that he’s available for purchase and some dicks who hate the Internets have big politician buying budgets.

Says Shitloaf in a Jan 7th Salt Lake Tribune op-ed

“It will take a strong, sustained effort to stop Internet thieves and profiteers…”

Wait :: that’s what I’ve been saying … and I thought you were my mortal enemy in this? Oh that’s right :: you’re talking about music pirates … not the industrialization of the complete destruction of vulnerable lives.

Mark Shurtleff won’t answer The Tribune’s questions about accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Jeremy Johnson and his self-styled “Mormon Mafia” cabal of doom … but I guess he can still print op-eds whenever he wants. Maybe he’ll get back to them later about the other thing.

Says The Tribune :: seven days after allowing Mr. NoComment to comment on matters unrelated …

“Actually, Shurtleff didn’t write that. And other lines in his op-ed didn’t come from him either. They were plagiarized from a news release and columns written by supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

Opponents of the legislation first identified the lifted passages and noted the irony of a law enforcement officer fighting the misappropriation of others’ work by misappropriating others’ words.”

The mistake {and the irony} was noticed :: not by the editors of The Salt Lake Tribune BEFORE they printed the regurgitations of the MPAA under the color of the State :: but after the fact by the freaks at TorrentFreak … to whom I offer a golf clap {the mild applause … not the Tiger Woods based gonorrhea}.

But the irony is even freakier than the TorrentFreaks know :: if one happens to have been exposed to The Full Shurtleff {god help us!} :: bring it daddy …

“The sites prey on unsuspecting consumers by cloaking themselves with an air of legitimacy. They mimic legal retail sites in an effort to fool unwary customers who are taken in by the appearance of the websites themselves. The sites look legitimate, often have sophisticated graphics, carry advertising from legitimate companies that have no idea their ads have been placed there and accept credit cards and other major forms of payment in exchange for their illegal products.”

Oh yes … the fucking ironies.

Says plagiarist Shurtleff to the now kicking themselves Tribune …

“Could some quotes be put around those certain issues? Yeah. Is it plagiarism? No,” Shurtleff said. “People are reciting words all the time.”

People are reciting words all the time :: like in community theatre :: or in elementary school reenactments of The Gettysburg Address :: or when elected officials are parroting special interest groups without disclosure … just to name a few totally innocuous examples of the importance of being recitative.

He doesn’t buy concerns that enforcement of the bill could infringe on free speech.

“Your free speech ends when you are ripping somebody off,” he said.

Actually :: your free speech doesn’t end you retrograde dipshit … it’s the ripping people off that is supposed to end. But that would require actual enforcement instead of lip-service enforcement :: a feature of governance not featured in all 50 states …

Yeah so anywayz :: I’m against the SOPA / PIPA … and I wrote all the poetries in this post. Could I have put some quotes around certain “issues”? Sure maybe :: but fuck it … I think it’s called free speech …

… or something.

>> bleep bloop

110 thoughts on “Stop Online Plagiarism Act”

  1. That poem brought a tear to my eye, although oddly, it was actually someone else’s tear. Nonetheless, that was some truly inspired wordage, metal man.

    1. @Winston Breems III, Hey dad, I totally agree. I guess I got my poetry appreciation genes from your side of the family.

      Anywayz. This is hilarious! Could some quotes be put around? Ehh…I guess…if I felt like it…they’re words – people use ’em…


      Captain Shitloaf, the Attorney General of MLM. What a douche!

      Oh, and your blackout picture was the best one I saw.

      Peter out.

      Oh. P.S.

      I miss you dad. I’m in Texas. We have cake. Come visit sometime.

  2. Wow, ran across this UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE article about the government seizing a blogger’s domain WITHOUT real probable cause, keeping it for a year, getting a court order to gag the owner from even talking about it…and then he finally got it back.

    If the government can do THIS now, SOPA would be a nightmare:

    1. @Eye Opener, It’s crazy-talk to say it. Obviously it’s that the whole story got carefully orchestrated then fabricated by Anti-SOPA/PIPA loons, because the MPAA people told me

      “But these websites’ actions rest on the false premise that the legislation would actually target them. Popular websites like Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook would not remotely qualify as the foreign rogue sites targeted by the bills.”

      Maybe it can make more sense for the MPAA-People if we do a movie about it with the Lethal Commission type car-crashes and fruit-basket jumping. Then mr. Dodd won’t Yell about tinsel-town so much any more.

      1. @Jack, I hate it where they pass law that would strip away freedoms, rights, due process … but then tell you that it would NEVER be used against YOU.


        It’s like Obama’s signing statement when he signed NDAA over the holiday and Moot Romney’s vocal support of it in the debate (which is going to bite him in the ass in the remainder of the primary or in the General).

        I don’t think we should enact laws under the GUISE that there will always be “good” people in power and it would never be abused. What a bill of goods.

  3. Well, except for the poem’s lack of gender-inclusive language (which I quite understand, as it would have messed up the meter), I’d say it’s a right fine piece of work. Somebody put that thing to music. Just don’t go to Wimberley, Texas for the production.

  4. It’s always fun when that speech gets referenced. They did it in Buffy, and the 4th Doctor referenced it at least once.

    So far I’ve called two of my congress-persons and tweeted all three of them. I tried calling the third one, but their voice mail box was full.

    I should probably call all of them again just to make sure they get the message.

    I mean, it’s not nagging or spamming or anything negative. If Shirt-off-guy-whatever-his-name-is gets to define everything as “free speech” then I can too.

    I’ll just keep calling congress-persons telling them that I have a BS in Computer Science and why I believe SOPA and PIPA are Really Bad Ideas:

    I.e. I don’t believe they will achieve the stated goal of stopping or even mitigating or even putting a tiny dent in piracy.

    I also don’t believe SOPA or PIPA will truly “kill” the Internet.

    Instead, if either passes in their current forms, I believe it will cause a permanent splintering of the Internet.

    There would be the CORPORATE NET and the–I-dunno–FRINGE NET. The CORPORATE NET would be totally legal and totally expensive and totally reliable with 100% uptime. It would still have all kinds of cons running on it (of course) but only the big $$$ cons endorsed by Oprah and her ilk.

    All the other cons, and every legitimate person and small business that can’t afford CORPORATE NET would have to play over on the FRINGE NET. The FRINGE NET would be plagued with lots of downtime. Everyone that can’t afford a spot on the CORPORATE NET (like all those indie artists who let you buy their mp3s for $0.99) would sooner or later wind up relegated there. Sometimes different nodes wouldn’t be able to connect with other nodes. Sometimes a site would go dark and never come back because the folks hosting the servers got raided for the horrible crime of saying something that some stakeholder over on the CORPORATE NET didn’t like.

    At this point, I would again like to mention that I’ve always hated cyberpunk novels, and that I’d really like to not see SOPA or PIPA come to pass. They won’t fix anything. They’ll just give us more problems.

    Furry cows moo and decompress.

  5. Here is the canned response from Sen. Feinstein from the Not-So-Great State Of California:

    The “PROTECT IP Act” (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are “dedicated to infringing activities.” These are websites that have “no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating” copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.

    The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.

    America’s copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California’s thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.

    I understand you have concerns about the “PROTECT IP Act.” While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others. I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.

    On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the “PROTECT IP Act” for consideration by the full Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation. As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives.

    Once again, thank you for sharing your views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

    1. @RT,

      Canned response from Mark Kirk of Illinois:

      Thank you for contacting me about the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), S. 968, and its House of Representatives companion, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I appreciate your input and want to let you know my view on this important issue.

      I stand with those who stand for freedom in opposing PIPA in its current form. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right granted to each and every American, and the Internet has become the primary tool with which we utilize this right. The Internet empowers Americans to learn, create, innovate, and express their views. While we should protect American intellectual property, consumer safety and human rights, we should do so in a manner that specifically targets criminal activity. The extreme measures taken in PIPA not only stifle First Amendment rights but also hamper innovation on the Internet.

      S. 968, as currently written, allows for abuse of our Constitutional rights, giving the Attorney General sweeping powers to block domain names of websites they deem “dedicated to infringing activities”. Under current law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires service providers to block access to only infringing material, but S. 968 would block access to entire websites that may carry a page containing infringing material generated by a third-party user. In my view, this is an unacceptable violation of our First Amendment rights. I also worry this type of censorship will be used as a model for foreign repressive regimes to censor the web within their own countries.

      S. 968 also places too great a burden on small Internet startups, as the bill would provide a private right of action to copyright owners. Since the bill would force the takedown of an entire site, not just the specific infringing page, it would hold user-generated websites liable for any content posted. This fear of liability and resulting uncertainty will cripple innovation on the Internet, one of our greatest economic engines.

      I am also concerned about the bill’s provisions that would undermine the security of the entire Internet. Network engineers and cybersecurity experts warn the technical implementation of the Domain Name System blocking requirement cannot function with the new security protocols, also known as DNSSEC, currently being implemented across the worldwide web.

      While I support the underlying goals of the bill to crack down on online intellectual property theft, I believe PIPA in its current form is unacceptable. It will have widespread unintended consequences that will stifle freedom of speech and Internet innovation across the globe. This bill places far too much regulation on the Internet and will impact more than just those foreign “rogue” websites for which it is intended. I cannot support a bill that recklessly tampers with the Internet and our inalienable rights as citizens of a free nation.

      Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at (312) 886-3506 or online at if you have any questions or concerns before Congress or the federal government. It is an honor to serve you in the Senate.

      1. @Lanna,

        Oh, that is nice. I ain’t got shit from my reps.

        Now, I need to find out if any of them are pro-life and make sure I vote against them next time around.

        1. @Glad I Was Broke,

          Yeah, Kirk only has a 45% NARAL rating, so next election I’ll have to decide between the freedom to run my mouth and the freedom to control my own hooha.

    2. It should be noted that virtually ALL of the so-called legislators who now “APPEAR” to oppose those bills are mumbling exactly this…

      “I oppose the bill…in its current form”

      “I oppose the bill…in its current form”

      “I oppose the bill…in its current form”

      “I oppose the bill…in its current form”

      “I oppose the bill…in its current form”

      In other words…

      Now, they intend to wait for another opportunity to sneak something through in the future, when the public is preoccupied with something else.

      When will Americans STOP voting for legislators that decide ON THEIR OWN what THEY think Americans should be allowed to do or not do?

      The American voter is like the psychologically damaged, ABUSED SPOUSE: they keep coming back for more!

  6. Look at the IP Sleight-of-Hand that got done while nobody was looking:

    “the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Ginsburg, determined that Congress can pretty much do whatever it is that they want with respect to copyrights. Removing works from the public domain and restoring copyright protection is said to be a power granted to the Congress under the Constitution, and there are no legitimate First Amendment concerns.”

    Supreme Court OKs Public Domain Works Being Copyrighted

    It’s a fun thing to think about in combination with SOPA/PIPA.

    1. @Jack,

      I preferred Ars’ article on that, which was more concise and didn’t have any the-Bilderbergers-are-controlling-our-minds statements like “in order to facilitate some ill conceived plan to join the world community.” ‘Cause, you know, the United States occupies a different planet from the rest of “the world.”

      1. @Lanna, I’m always hoping it’s somebody controlling my mind, really.

        It’s not me being I’m anti-Prokofiev, but one good outcome might be that the KinderConcert kids will get to listen to something else than Peter & The Wolf which I saw in the ARS-article:

        “The lead plaintiff in the case, Lawrence Golan, told the high court that it will not longer be able to perform Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony and Peter and the Wolf, or Shostakovich’s Symphony 14, Cello Concerto because of licensing fees.”

            1. @Lanna, Or wait til copyright term expires…unless Gene’s Perpetual-1 copyright term-extension scare tactics comes about us.

              I’m OK with a bit of fear-mongering around these issues myself for thinking about potential worst case scenarios.

        1. @Jack,

          Wait, if Cassidy is outside the U.S. or EU, it’s probably OK for her to play that. Prokofiev died in 1953, so in life + 50 countries like Canada it fell into public domain in 2003. So the illegal part is when we watch it from inside the U.S. or EU. Evidently I am a copyright pirate now, from watching Cassidy’s performance. I gotta say, it wasn’t worth it.

          Why is infinity – 1 so scary, anyway? I don’t understand that part. Won’t it just force people to create new works if they can’t afford to play the old stuff? The length of the copyright term doesn’t seem to be a free speech or civil rights issue to me, unlike the crap in SOPA/PIPA. To me, it seems like a pain in the ass, not a imposition on my rights.

            1. @Jack,

              OK, McGowan reviewed the free speech arguments against copyright and explained why they weren’t any good. And then Horowitz explained that copyright is actually an element of free speech, because people would feel discouraged from expressing themselves if they knew their free expression could be ganked. Are there any new free speech arguments against copyright or life+70 copyright terms that McGowan didn’t dismiss?

            2. @Jack, It’s all so much reading, and then more reading makes more reading and then I have to think rather than put out my knee-jerk gut-reaction videos like:

              But, now I have to read Julie Hilden’s Analysis and especially about Breyer’s dissent. And start thinking about:

              “Interestingly, though, despite Breyer’s recognition that creators and the innovations they bring are the very key to the Copyright and Patent Clause, he still contends that the foreign works at issue in Golan cannot be pulled out of the U.S. public domain via statute, in order to fulfill obligations to foreign creators.

              Indeed, Breyer makes clear that, in his view, this cannot be done even to remedy the wrong the U.S. perpetrated when it failed to honor its promise to treat those works as copyrighted in the U.S. Thus, in this context at least, Breyer ends up not being pro-creator after all, despite his pro-creator interpretation of the Clause’s preface.

              That seeming inconsistency can be better understood in conjunction with the fact that Breyer encourages a “utilitarian” understanding of the Copyright Clause, as opposed to a “natural rights” one. Taking a utilitarian perspective, Breyer reasons that Congress may determine, in a given case, that copyright’s ability to spur individual effort outweighs the costs—including the First Amendment costs—of the copyright grant, but that the Supreme Court may also determine that the reverse is true.”

              Which to me is an idea for thinking about when thinking thru SOPA/PIPA

          1. @Lanna, Thankfully, I saw your comment on my blog about price of Encyclopedia pages, so probably I should go work on that as a nice distraction.

      2. @Lanna, I’m working to grab my International Law degree by reading this document so I can with all-confidence determine if Gene’s scary story about future-fx of this ruling can continue to scare me.

      3. @Lanna, After seeing much of what’s on the SD site, I think maybe it’s time I’m willing to go down the rabbit hole which means to me less about what the final decisions are, but more about how the decisions are being made.

        1. @Jack,

          The Bleep movie told me to go down the rabbit hole, but now everyone is saying the Bleep movie is no good, so I’m going to stay outside the rabbit holes from now on.

          1. @Lanna, The Bleep movie didn’t get the real proof. SD’s “sick machine” is replete with undeniable proof.

            On other hand, Copyright Infringement As Compelled Speech is interesting/appealing to me, but I think still leaves Golan &

            little Cassidy mucking out of luck in the dust (p. 32-34), but in a way I understand better.

            Also seems to constrain putative maximalist agenda by defining copyright as speech act which by definition expects response, but also seems would disallow economic leveraging of speech act just for sake of $$.

            p. 28

            “By asserting his copyright, the author seeks to be treated as a person and not a mere puppet, and so insists he not be compelled to speak. By the same token, his work is, as copyright subject matter, addressed to

            persons, and not mere puppets, and so contemplates the response of its audience.”

            later re: Fair Use/Transformative use:

            “Such use must remain outside the purview of the author’s copyright to the extent that they are but responses that the author’s work as speech necessarily contemplates. Fair use or fair dealing for the purpose of criticism is

            a paradigmatic example of the way in which copyright law inserts the work into the network of utterances and responses of which it is part.”

            Also addresses idea of Search Engines as “theft” since they aren’t using the authors work *as a work*.

            I’ve decided to go make this mandatory reading for SOPA/PIPA endorsers.

  7. It appears that public manipulation is being kicked into overdrive. The government shut down the file storage site, “Megaupload” today.

    Interesting timing, since that website had been under their scrutiny for TWO YEARS.

    Sites like that do have legitimate uses, just like any online backup service. Of course, they are emphasizing those users who exchanged copyrighted material with it, and ignoring any other utility.

    One thing that they are not mentioning is that the site promptly removed any offending content at the request of copyright holders. If an infringing file was reported, it was removed. That is exactly what the law requires, and how all sites respond to such matters.

    “the Motion Picture Association of America, which has campaigned for a crackdown on piracy, estimated that the vast majority of content being shared on Megaupload was in violation of copyright laws.”

    So the government will seize assets and arrest people at the behest of a private organization based on *estimation?*

    Are we becoming China?

    No doubt, even more propaganda is in the pipeline.

    1. @Joe,

      Here’s a riddle for you.

      Who has built his career on Sean Stephenson and Harlan Kilstein style lies about his credentials?

      Who lied about donating money to a nonprofit, a la Naomi Dunford?

      Who took a couple pages out of the Jeremy Johnson book to bring in 61,000 euros using auto-dialer software and stolen credit card numbers, tried to flee the country to avoid prosecution, and used charitable giving to present a respectable public persona?

      Who, like Joe Vitale, is a fat fuck obsessed with luxury cars?

      Who made an
      Anik Singal
      -type self-financed, self-starring movie?

      Who, like Don Lapre, had interconnected, unregistered companies – including failing Internet enterprises and one called “the money making machine” – and posted a vague suicide threat on his website?

      Who was temporarily taken down by an internet personality with a funny name, just like Perry Belcher?

      Who’s sitting in a cell, like James Arthur Ray?

      Click here for the answer.

      1. @Lanna, Focusing on that to justify massive, far-reaching global laws to control and dominate the masses is a recipe for
        abuse and such onerous laws have been known to have nasty, unintended consequences. This is something readers of this blog are quite familiar with.

        It’s like performing surgery with a sword instead of a scalpel.

        What controlling, fear-mongering movement once turned a seemingly rational society into brutal extremists?

        Click here for the answer.

        1. @Joe, @Joe, Salon article seems like red-herring.

          1. It’s seems to be money-laundering case where part of the unlawful activity was copyright infringement.

          SOP to freeze assets during prosecution of money laundering.

          2. Article-Author states:

          “The file-sharing site Megaupload, but also seized and shut down that site, and also seized or froze millions of dollars of its assets — all based on the unproved accusations, set forth in an indictment, that the site deliberately aided copyright infringement.”

          Guh? Maybe he forgot to read the indictment he gave to us not to also mention he can’t possibly know all the evidence right now.

      2. @Lanna, Remember what mr. Reese said:

        “Remember, folks, it’s not about lying, it’s about stretching the truth!”

        Which he told people to be harmless enough for him to go do things on page 20

  8. What? Nothing about the trampling of Due Process and the rise of “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”? Hey, if it works for the IRS, why not expand it? Or are things so bad that they don’t teach the Constitution at law school any more (let’s hope that’s not the case, but you never know!)?

  9. CNN makes funny way to disclose Time Warner relationship to CNN and support of SOPA in Lamar Smith’s special article for the CNN-readers:
    Why we need a law against online piracy

    At the END of article, look we have:

    “Editor’s note: Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is among the industry supporters of the legislation.”

    1. @Jack,

      That is hilarious! is a rogue site. Tell Monster Cable to shut ’em down! Judging by the “502 Bad Gateway” error I got, maybe Monster Cable has already worked their magic through their SOPA/PIPA alternate-reality time-vortex.

      It looks like technically the Alamo image is a violation of the Creative Commons licensing, not a copyright violation:

      Both the Alamo and courthouse photographers say they would’ve granted permission at no cost as long as they got attribution. See how easy it is, Lamar? You ask and nice people give, as long as you give them credit.

  10. Here is a repost of one of my favorite and one of the longest comments on this blog. From @injunsamurai.

    It is not is this particular context but still seems like it fits here. Here is the link to the post:

    You sound genuine, so I’ll try to give a genuine answer as best I can, mind you, I’m far from an expert in this particular field…

    “The Spirit versus the Letter of the Law”

    To grasp anything, it helps to grasp at the root: “What is a judge and how do they become a judge?”

    In all matters legal, there are always two issues – ‘The Spirit of the Law’ and ‘The Letter of the Law’.

    It’s a little hard to grasp at first, but it works like this: The Spirit of the Law is always ‘moral repudiation’ – which means: “to expose and subject false or pretentious moralities to standardized penalties”

    In other words – The entire judicial system seeks to serve as judge and juror over our collective morality.

    That’s the Spirit of the Law – To enforce and uphold a Moral Society…

    The Letter of the Law is the actual finite tests, measures and definitions. (The stuff that gets written down.)

    So here’s where it gets tricky (because this statement is subject to argument): There is no standard objective definition for Morality, Morality itself is created through ‘Shared Acceptance of Actions or Ideals’ …

    So for example, The United States is currently ‘illegally’ engaged in a conflict in Afghanistan, it’s illegal, it totally violates the letter of the law, but when pressed for a vote last month, 82% of Congress agreed to illegally continue the conflict indefinitely…

    So what that means, in a very real way: “Anything is legal as long as enough people to agree to it.”

    So while the Spirit of the law is about standardizing morality, in practical terms: “Might Makes Right.”

    That’s where the discussion begins, because ‘Right’ and ‘Moral’ are two different things… This is the root discusion of law.

    Make Sense? The Letter of the Law is designed to uphold and concertize the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law is designed to represent ‘A Moral Standard not based on might (power).’

    Therein lies the threefold problem, “Who decides what the limits of morality tolerate? Where do the spirit of the law and the letter of the law meet? And if in the end, might makes right, what does the law even matter?”

    Now, my background is in legislation – where we seek to make, adapt, and modify the letter of law…

    But in the field, the real world, the letter of the law must be constantly changing, so we need we need judges to interpret it’s spirit…

    So the whole system is set up like a pyramid with nine people at the very top, society at the very bottom, and lawyers in the middle. These nine judges at the top, are called the ‘Supreme Court’ and they can effectively create law through a thing called ‘Precedent’ – in other words, they interpret the letter of and spirit of the law, and then their decisions become ‘reference’ for later cases…

    Cool right?

    So these nine Supreme Judges got there because they are believed and expected to have ‘High Moral Standards’ so as a society, they are in many ways, our collective moral compass. We grant them some authority to judge the limits of morality.

    A side note here is this: After 1871 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment, our judicial system ceased to be a ‘Constitutional System’ – technically and practically, the Constitution is entirely moot in the courtroom… Most judges don’t even know that, but the United States no longer functions as a Constitutional Republic, it is in fact, a Corporation.

    That’s a whole other topic, but it’s important to understand – NOMATTER what anyone says to the contrary courts now have adjudicative autonomy…

    That means – very literally – Judges can decide whatever the fuck they want regardless of the letter or spirit of the law.

    In other words: (and people will argue against this truth) – The Letter of the Laws is meaningless. It all comes down to the Judges.

    Knowing that, you begin to see the news in different ways, because it explains why Judges all over the country all allowed to behave with total disregard for the constitutional rights.

    This is why the appeal process exists, the court system is arranged hierarchically, with every level having more authority then the previous one… ie. Each level is expected to be a more accurate and powerful measure of Morality… Local level judges are expected to have regionally biased moral standards.

    Okay, slow down, first: Since the United States is no longer a Constitutional Republic, we are in fact, no longer citizens. We actually, according to the letter of the law HAVE NO RIGHTS whatsoever.

    None, Zero, Zip, Nada… You have no rights at all.

    We are in fact, technically, literally, and functionally: ‘Chattel’ valued at $1 million dollars per unit at the time of birth. In high level legislation, we aren’t even referred to as people, we are referred to as Human Capital, (human capital not human beings).

    The United States is a Corporation whose chief asset is Human Capital.

    This being the case, we are subject to International Trade Law rather than Constitutional Law.

    To verify this, search on: “Title 28, 3002(15)(3)” <– which is essentially the articles of incorporation for the United States, which spell out explicitly that without exception all Federal, Judicial, and Executive functions of Government are Corporate in nature rather than Constitutional.

    (while this largely includes Legislation, there is a sovereign non-corporate aspect of the Legislative Arm)

    So what does this have to do with James Malinchak, Lackey, Scumbag and Malice?

    Chattel versus Chattel.

    As you can see, the system itself is rife with the potential for corruption, and Trade Law reigns supreme.

    So the only real offense is “Material Infringement on Trade” – – –

    ie. Don’t piss off the chattel so bad that the milk they produce spoils.

    Long Ago we discovered: “Chattel must believe that they are autonomous if they are to maintain productivity. A system of publicly accessible law made available to them affords a sense of equality, and objective self governance.” (ie. The illusion of a system ‘by the people for the people’ must be maintained through the appearance of the courts)

    In other words: It doesn’t have to be fair, but if people think it’s a least somewhat fair, they’ll keep working.

    So, back to James and the Spirit of the Law…

    I’ve been victorious in court 24 out of 25 times over the last 15 years totaling hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars worth of judgments (literally) and I can tell you this: Going to Court is about winning. It isn’t about law, it’s about winning.

    That’s a harsh statement, but it’s the truth. In the real courtroom, you have to prove just one thing: “You are the preferred chattel.”

    Once you prove that, then you use the letter of the law to support the judge’s decision in your favor, thus mitigating your opponent’s rights to appeal.

    For clarity: ‘Chattel’ basically means – “Physical Property other than Land” –

    I know this flies in the face of what you’ve been taught, but to understand how law works, you need to get the basics straight: “You are not a person, you have no rights, the United States no longer functions as a Constitutional Republic, it is a corporation and from the time of birth, you, everything you produce, and everything you think you own is the full and legal property of that corporation.”

    Sort of sucks, but that’s just the way it actually is. Our constitutional rights, and even the laws themselves are just hear to keep us productive… Don’t ever be confused into thinking that ‘Constitutional Law’ rules the courtroom. (Just ask yourself, “When did ‘anal rape’ stop being ‘cruel and unusual’ and become standard punishment for all crimes?”)

    Okay: With perspective in tow, let’s look at the question at hand: “Public Figure versus Private Figure versus Limited Purpose Public Figure” & “Actual Malice versus Common Law Malice”

    What is the spirit of the law in this matter? (if you know that, you’re positioned to win)…

    The actual spirit of the law in this matter is this: “A public figure’s status as public figure is relative to their ability to manipulate media. High Control = Public Figure, Moderate Control = Limited Purpose Public Figure, Low to No Control = Private Figure.”

    The more control they have, the less protection they are given (remember, don’t fuck with the chattel, and MOST IMPORTANTLY don’t fuck with the chattel’s right to defend themselves against other chattel) <– If the chattel feel helpless, they will not work productively.

    So a public figure is a person who has access to channels of exposure. They are not protected, because that would upset the rest of the chattel’s right to defend themselves against that person’s control over the media. In other words, a public figure is expected to defend themselves against the rest of the chattel…

    A private figure is just more chattel, and we need to protect the chattel from eating each other, so a private figure is ‘corporate property’ and protected.

    A public figure has gained enough control over media auspices to threaten large numbers of chattel, so the system itself is designed to encourages the chattel to tear public figures apart.

    This protects the chattel, protects productivity, maintains a status quo, and in the end, protects the system itself.

    That’s the spirit of the law in this matter.

    No run the ‘LASIK Guy’ through the same mental test… He bought a little advertising, made a few commercials, and is trying to do some business. If someone starts to defame him, does he have enough control over the media to defend himself?

    Most often, a small time Chiropractor, Optometrist, Hearing Care Professional, they all make commercials and run ads, but they have no substantial access to unpaid media sources local or otherwise. That’s what a judge has to look at, “Which decision best supports the most chattel?”

    Chattel want to feel like the courts protect them, so most decisions are made to support that. The actual letter of the law somewhat moot, but it must be upheld to some degree in order to keep the chattel confident and productive…

    In this case, the letter of the law differentiates between “Actual Malice” and “Common Law Malice” like this: “Actual Malice is simply ‘Knowingly propagating a falsehood, or reckless disregard for veracity’ <–that's where the satire and parody laws come into affect (but remember, even those laws comes back to keeping the chattel productive) – "Common Law Malice: is simply spite or ill-will with the intention to cause harm and exhibiting recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not.”

    Now, that is a great statement of legal definition right there that sums up this whole issue: “recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not”

    Salty can never be found guilty of Malice, because he is diligent in his belief that the people he tries to harm deserve it. So by definition, it’s not malicious.

    That’s the real beauty of the whole system, despite it’s shortcomings, it is designed to hold people accountable for their actions.

    I know this was a lot, perhaps more than you were looking for, but when you understand the spirit of the law, you can answer almost any legal question without any actual knowledge of law, then you just find the laws and cases that support the spirit of the issue…

    The Spirit of the Law is basically always: “Don’t fuck with the Chattel”

    Now here’s the spinner: Judges are Chattel too, just liek the rest of us. When you get the implications of that, then you’ll see why the LASIK doctor is probably protected while a guy like James is fair game…

    The LASIK doctor (barring obvious negligence) may have just helped the Judge’s wife see better, while a guy like James just ripped off the Judge’s kid.

    The Judge is just honorable chattel in a robe, and he / she got there by knowing the spirit of the law: “Don’t fuck with the Chattel.”

    End Note: The one time I lost in court, my client suffered a $58 million dollar setback… And we lost, because we deserved to loose. Our failure as counsel came in failing to convince our client that their position was wrong before it ever came to judgment. At the end of the case, it was clear that the needs and wants of the Chattel were supported over the desires of our client.

    And although we lost, it made me feel good about the judicial system because it reaffirmed my belief that the courts do work and do in fact support the needs of us chattel.

    In a far reaching timeline, eventually, the courts may even help us to get actual constitutional human rights once again. I mean, White Males had them for over a hundred years before they sold them, someday, we may all get them…

    To go one step further in you self education, there is phenomenal article, written by a very well informed lunatic:

    Mind you, I didn’t write that article (the one I linked to), and I neither endorse the author, his ideology, nor his products, but as food for thought, it’s well worth reading and highly accessible to the lay reader…

    TL/DR: It’s only malicious if you think they don’t deserve it… If they deserve it, defamation is encouraged and protected.

    1. @RT,

      One of the best comments on this blog. Definitely belongs in the Salty Droid “Best Of” Collection.

  11. Now would be as good a time as any to share this important, yet very personal, message with everyone here:

  12. Amid SOPA debate, SCOTUS gives Congress broad copyright power

    “It’s more than a little ironic that on a day the Center’s site was protesting Congress’s perceived encroachment on free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that rejected CIS’s argument in a case challenging Congress’s power to restrict what’s in the public domain. Even worse for opponents of Congress’s anti-piracy legislation, the Court’s opinion in Golan v. Holder expressly endorses Congressional authority to determine the scope of copyright protection. If some version of SOPA or PIPA is enacted, in other words, it will be tough to overturn in the courts.”

    For people who aren’t thinking this affects SOPA/PIPA…read again:

    “the Court’s opinion in Golan v. Holder expressly endorses Congressional authority to determine the scope of copyright protection.”

    1. @Jack, Later:

      “I asked if that’s bad news for opponents of the proposed anti-piracy legislation. Falzone’s answer: “One of the lessons of Golan is, ‘Don’t wait.’ You have to stop the legislation before it gets passed. You have to stop it in its tracks before it gets to the courts.”

        1. @Jack,

          I really didn’t plan on spending an hour listening to legal arguments today…since I’m much too busy and important for such things. But thanks for including the link. It was quite an eye-opening hour for me too.

  13. SOPA/PIPA: Clay Shirky TED Talk: The easy part is almost over…Get Ready. Because more is coming.

    Video: (I made a Transcription from 12’10” – end of video posted beneath it):!

    “Here’s the hard thing. Get Ready. Because more is coming.

    SOPA is simply a reversion of COICA which was proposed last year which did not pass. And all of this goes back to the failure of the DMCA to disallow sharing as a technical means. And the DMCA goes back to the Audio Home Recording Act which horrified those industries, because the whole business of actually suggesting that somebody is actually breaking the law and gathering evidence and proving it…that turns out to be really inconvenient. “We’d prefer not to do that”, says the content
    industries. And what they want is not to not to have to do that.

    They don’t want legal distinctions between legal and illegal sharing. They just want the sharing to go away.

    PIPA and SOPA are not oddities, they’re not anomolies, they’re not events. They’re the next turn of this particular screw which has been going on 20 years now. And if we defeat these, as I hope we do, more is coming.

    Because until we convince Congress that the way to deal with copyright violation is the way that copyright violation was dealt with with Napster, with YouTube, which is to have a trial with all the presentations of evidence and the hashing out of facts and the assessment of remedies that goes on in democratic societies, that’s the way to handle this.

    In the meantime, the hard thing to do is to be ready. Because that’s the real message of PIPA and SOPA. Time-Warner has called and they want us all back on the couch…just consuming, not producing, not sharing, and we should say no.”

  14. Chris Dodd threatens politicians:

    “Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake,” Dodd told Fox News. “Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

  15. Those degenerate Hollywood and music industry scumbags just love THEIR 1st amendment rights.

    Yours? Not so much.

    Their right to expression matters because they Speak Truth To Power.

    You? You have nothing of importance to express. You’re not talented and beautiful and rich. You’re far too insignificant to Speak Truth To Power.

    To Speak Truth To Power, you need to be a SOMEONE.

    It also helps if you have, like, some really cool oversized sunglasses that you wear all the time.

    Look, I don’t have time to explain all of this to you. You really need to just shut the fuck up and fork over your $12 for yet another crap feature film remake of a 1970’s sitcom, that’s what you need to do.

  16. If Hollywood discovered that it was possible to copy a song using a soup spoon, they’d lobby the government to have us all eating our soup with forks.

  17. Hate to tell you this but the democrats are the ones pushing web censorship (and your hero obama is worse than bush)…you need to be supporting Ron Paul:
    “MPAA head Chris Dodd is the former Democratic powerhouse (the same guy who blocked all financial reform). Dodd and Lieberman – another Democrat – have admitted that they want to emulate Chinese style censorship.

    Moreover, Raw Story notes:

    Democrats are now the core pillars of support for the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), which has not otherwise engendered a strict partisan divide among lawmakers.

    Far and away, the top beneficiary in the Senate from interest groups that support PIPA is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who’s taken in just short of a million dollars from those groups, according to data from She’s also the most recent Senator to co-sponsor PIPA, adding her name to the list on Dec. 12. The runner-up is Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who’s taken $777,383 from PIPA-supporting interest groups, and has co-sponsored the bill since May 2011.

    In fact, a list of the top 20 beneficiaries of special interest money in favor of PIPA reads like a list of the Senate’s most influential Democrats: Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) in third; Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in fourth; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in fifth; Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the bill’s primary sponsor, in sixth; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in seventh; Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in eighth; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) in ninth; and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) in tenth.

    The list goes on like that until Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who places 15th with $274,600 in special interest money promoting PIPA. He has not yet announced an official position on the bill. The only other Republican on the list of the top 20 PIPA beneficiaries in the Senate is Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), in 19th place with $212,312. Corker is one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

    In total, only two Democrats changed their minds on PIPA during Wednesday’s blackouts: Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). The other 11 to walk away were all Republicans, who seem more open to Silicon Valley’s warnings against onerous, job-killing regulations.

    That may be due to the total sum donated to Democrats on the top 20 list: groups supporting PIPA have given over $7,319,983 to the 18 Democrats on the top 20 list, according to a Raw Story analysis. By contrast, those same Democrats have only taken in $807,502 from groups opposing the legislation.


    As yesterday’s strike wore on, Raw Story reached out to all the leading Democratic senators supporting PIPA, in hopes they would step up to defend the bill. Not a single one did, and none of Raw Story’s requests for comments defending PIPA received responses.


    The Obama administration said recently that it was hedging its bets on the anti-piracy bills as well ….

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press that he would move forward with a full Senate vote on PIPA in the coming weeks, once some of the text had been altered to build consensus on the legislation.””

    1. @liberty breathing its last breath,

      Since you brought it up I think we all need to give serious consideration to Ron Paul and what he stands for.

  18. Ok, so this is sort of old news now, but there’s an article on
    The Daily WTF []
    where their page went white instead of black in faux support of SOPA / PIPA. Again, I have to say: a worldwide blacklist of this kind won’t stop piracy. It probably would succeed in making piracy more illegal. But the cost would be the fragmentation of the Internet. As DNS would no longer be the One Unified way to look-up a host, individuals and organizations from all over would devise their own schemes. It’d be a damn mess. Or possibly still will.

    If you live in the U.S. and haven’t yet done so, call your Congress critter. Don’t just assume that because there’s been such a strong protest that the bills are truly dead. There’s an awful lot of big, big $$$ involved.

    Furry cows moo and decompress.

  19. The Copyright Maximalist’s Agenda (published 1993):

    The Copyright Grab at

    Re: “Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure White Paper

    “The maximalist agenda

    The eight interrelated parts of the white paper’s agenda intend to:

    1. Give copyright owners control over every use of copyrighted works in digital form by interpreting existing law as being violated whenever users make even temporary reproductions of works in the random access memory of their computers;

    2. Give copyright owners control over every transmission of works in digital form by amending the copyright statute so that digital transmissions will be regarded as distributions of copies to the public;

    3. Eliminate fair-use rights whenever a use might be licensed. (The copyright maximalists assert that there is no piece of a copyrighted work small enough that they are uninterested in charging for its use, and no use private enough that they aren’t willing to track it down and charge for it. In this vision of the future, a user who has copied even a paragraph from an electronic journal to share with a friend will be as much a criminal as the person who tampers with an electrical meter at a friend’s house in order to siphon off free electricity. If a few users have to go to jail for copyright offenses, well, that’s a small price to pay to ensure that the population learns new patterns of behavior in the digital age.);

    4. Deprive the public of the “first sale” rights it has long enjoyed in the print world (the rights that permit you to redistribute your own copy of a work after the publisher’s first sale of it to you), because the white paper treats electronic forwarding as a violation of both the reproduction and distribution rights of copyright law;

    5. Attach copyright management information to digital copies of a work, ensuring that publishers can track every use made of digital copies and trace where each copy resides on the network and what is being done with it at any time;

    6. Protect every digital copy of every work technologically (by encryption, for example) and make illegal any attempt to circumvent that protection;

    7. Force online service providers to become copyright police, charged with implementing pay-per-use rules. (These providers will be responsible not only for cutting off service to scofflaws but also for reporting copyright crime to the criminal justice authorities);

    8. Teach the new copyright rules of the road to children throughout their years at school.”

    1. “The copyright maximalists assert that there is no piece of a copyrighted work small enough that they are uninterested in charging for its use”


      Oops, that “uh” just violated the copyright of thousands of written works.

      I guess we will all have to invent our own unique, individual languages, since every word has already been used.

      Zifmplaus zzsh wusisop!

    1. @Censorship Attack Phase 2 Kicks In,

      They talk about protecting Americans’ rights to benefit from their content. But, for the individual, copyright law is already doing that as best it can. (Which isn’t all that great.)

      All these laws are for is for protecting the rights of large corporations. Corporations which, IMHO, should not have “corporate personhood” in the first place.

      Furry cows moo and decompress.

          1. @Jack,

            Generally, the person who authors the copyrightable work automatically owns the copyright.

            But what about copywriter Lanna, ghostwriter Connie and blogger Jason? Lanna’s company’s clients want the copyrights so they can post the writing on their websites. Connie’s company’s clients want the copyrights so they can license the rights to book publishers. Jason’s company wants to share his writing through Creative Commons licensing, but they have to own the copyright to give it up and use Creative Commons instead.

            The principle of work for hire is that when one person is hired by another person (natural or corporate) to create something, the hirer is considered the original “author” and automatically holds the copyright. Lanna, Connie and Jason don’t have to sign off on a copyright assignment for every little piece.

            Now, @Wyrd has implied that if we took away corporate personhood then corporations couldn’t hold copyrights, which would prevent them from stockpiling copyrights and using them to censor people. But if corporations were unable to gain copyright – either through work for hire or the more complex copyright assignment process – then what? Would Lanna’s company’s corporate clients license Lanna’s writing directly from Lanna in perpetuity? Would Connie’s client’s book publishers have to negotiate terms with Connie? Would Jason’s company no longer act as a legal barrier between Jason and his adversaries, because only natural person Jason could hold the copyright?

            Those are my concerns about copyright and corporate personhood

            1. @Lanna, Hi Lanna, Maybe when corporations are able to have a normal childhood and show they can play fair with their basketballs, then they can grow up to have a corporate personhood. For now I think they need to eat their broccoli.

  20. “new owner of the domain name, which until recently belonged to a notorious copyright troll, has used his purchase to openly mock the Motion Picture Ass. of America.”

    “ will provide shared and dedicated server hosting services to clients who expect just a little more backbone from their provider. Well, actually a lot more backbone.”

  21. Pingback: » Pause
  22. The U.S. government has gone Nazi! Guilty until proven innocent:

    “Yesterday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency seized 307 different domains SUSPECTED of violating NFL copyrights.”

    “The seizure was conducted under U.S. civil law, not criminal law. That means the affected parties need to PROVE that the internet domains were NOT engaging in illegal activity to get them back.”

    “Visitors to any of the seized domains are now greeted by a message from ICE explaining the takedown.”

    1. @JUST WOW!, And again taking the eye of the ball, so to speak, by throwing about red-herrings:

      “The sites allegedly sold fake jerseys, caps, shirts, jackets and other paraphernalia. The government said it had also seized $4.8 million worth of fake NFL goods, up from $3.72 million the same time a year ago.

      Federal authorities are taking .com, .org. and .net domains under the same civil-seizure law the government invokes to seize brick-and-mortar drug houses, bank accounts, and other property tied to alleged illegal activity. The feds are able to seize the domains because Verisign, which controls the .net and .com names, and the Public Interest Registry, which runs .org, are US-based organizations. Under civil forfeiture laws, the person losing the property has to prove that the items were not used to commit crimes.”

      1. @Jack,

        With only these details…my first thought is how could the govt seize $4.8 million worth of fake NFL goods if there weren’t any fake NFL goods being sold.

        1. @jacqui, OK, Operation In Our Sites linked from ARS makes more sense of it for me now goes with what you’re saying:

          “Those selling counterfeit and pirated products, whether in a storefront or on the Web, are violating federal criminal laws. If the IPR Center receives credible information about intellectual property rights violations and our law enforcement investigation determines there has been criminal wrongdoing, we will work with the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute, convict, and punish individuals as well as seize website domain names, profits, and other property from IP thieves.

          Operation In Our Sites’ enforcement actions involve federal law enforcement investigating and developing evidence to obtain seizure warrants from federal judges. The web site domain names are then seized pursuant to the federal seizure warrants and re-directed to display a seizure notice as opposed to offering the content or goods that violate U.S. copyrights or trademarks.

          The IPR Center consists of 17 key U.S. and international agencies involved in intellectual property theft enforcement. In addition, the IPR Center works closely with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, DOJ’s Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section as well as U.S. Attorney’s offices around the country.

          Hopefully they won’t make a way to take the gov-pdf out of the public domain and track me down for it.

    2. @JUST WOW! ::

      Yeah but … there is a legit interest in protecting intellectual properties and trademarks and such. Counterfeiters and Kim Dotcoms {and their ilk} can all suck a bag of turds. Sharing is one thing … misappropriating the works of others for big fat “i-have-no-costs” profits is something totally different.

      If The Man were to sieze this site :: I would prove it wasn’t being used to commit crimes … and I’d get my fucking due process. Then they’d look super stupid and have massive regrets. Like say Mark Shurtleff got me shut down for a couple of days … that would be the best thing to ever happen to this site. But nobody wants to have a fair fight with me … so a cost accounting gets done before taking a decision that will allow me a fair chance to reply.

      The problem with these laws :: and the ones that have already passed … is much more about creating loopholes where disputing corporations or private parties have a no due process {very low cost} pathway to total censorship via the spineless companies that make up the spine of the webs.

      1. @SD,

        “The problem with these laws :: and the ones that have already passed … is much more about creating loopholes where disputing corporations or private parties have a no due process {very low cost} pathway to total censorship via the spineless companies that make up the spine of the webs.”

        Exactly – that’s the real concern, and these incidents are being used to propagandize the masses toward the acceptance of more laws that have even worse silencing potential.

        It’s not hard to find instances online where individuals and companies assert that the mere mention of their trademark on a web page is grounds for a takedown. That bastardizes trademarks into a silencing tool. I saw an online magazine review page listed on “chilling effects” after it was taken down by google for referencing a trademarked term. Unbelievable.

        Of course, such attempts can be fought in court, but outside of that time and money pit, the world is still populated with a majority of those spineless companies who aren’t remotely interested in pesky things like “due process” because it interrupts their standardized “profit process.” A certain host that is blue in color comes to mind.

  23. Now the “mainstream media” is giving the government a free assist in passing their heavy-handed censorship laws:

    “Protests erupt across Europe against web piracy treaty”

    “Tens of thousands of protesters took part in rallies across Europe on Saturday against an international anti-piracy agreement they fear will curb their freedom to download movies and music for free and encourage Internet surveillance.”

    According to that lousy “news” story, this is all about people “fearing a curb of their freedom to download movies and music for free…”

    No it isn’t of course, but when you have the Associated Press presenting it like that, you can end up with the mainstream sheep falling right in with it.

    1. @Jack,

      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.

      Put simply, though Apple has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen does 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.

      That’s retarded and absurd. Of course it’s also retarded and absurd that the decision went down in the first place. But then I haven’t familiarized myself with the case details, so maybe I’m wrong.

      Also–I don’t think Apple has copyright on the iPhone. Although it would surely hold the copyright on almost all the code of iOS and the stock apps that ship with the iPhone. And it might have copyright to the fonts, etc.

      It’s all absurd. But then a friend of mine ran across this bumper sticker today:

      ”History has shown that those who can make people believe absurdities, were most often the ones to lead people to commit atrocities.”

      It immediately reminded me of a thing Salty quoted in the article Sheeple Part 5 apparently from “Dr. Meerloo’s 1956 classic The Rape of the Mind

      “We must learn to treat the demagogue and aspirant dictator in our midst just as we should treat our external enemies in a cold war — with the weapon of ridicule. The demagogue himself is almost incapable of humor of any sort, and if we treat him with humor, he will begin to collapse. Humor is, after all, related to a sense of perspective. If we can see how things should be, we can see how askew they can get, and we can recognize distortion when we are confronted with it. Put the demagogue’s statements in perspective, and you will see how utterly distorted they are. How can we possibly take them seriously or answer them seriously?

      I think the problem here is that we’ve already let copyright and patent law get patently absurd without calling them out on their ridiculousness. It’s hard to tell when things are askew when they’ve been that way for several decades already.

      Except for the quotations, this comment is (C) 2012 by Wyrd, All Rights Reserved. If you want to reproduce this comment in whole or in part… well pretty much I’m screwed. Because I don’t the money to hire an army of lawyers to defend my rights like the big corporations do.

      Disclaimer–In case the above was binding in anyway (I can’t see how, but legal-ese is funny that way), I here-by unbind it–this comment has the same copyright as all the other comments on this site. Whatever those rules happen to be.

      Furry cows moo and decompress.

      1. @Wyrd,

        “Except for the quotations, this comment is (C) 2012 by Wyrd, All Rights Reserved. If you want to reproduce this comment in whole or in part… well pretty much I’m screwed. Because I don’t the money to hire an army of lawyers to defend my rights like the big corporations do.”

        $$$Free Speech$$$

      2. @Wyrd,

        If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Wiley, I won’t be able to resell my IKEA furniture on Craigslist?! Holy shit! This could be catastrophic!

  24. Open Media’s saying SOPA is back, but this time Internet censorship is hidden in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement that may be signed by multiple countries this week. More about the “secret SOPA” on Open Media’s site/.

Comments are closed.