Government Seizing Domain Names

[yakdung 2,926]

Not good. Control the Internet next step. Our tax dollars funded the Internet and now it appears private industry is behind having it controlled. Sad times we live in.

 

http://hotair.com/ar...cted-of-piracy/

http://americaswatch...g-domain-names/

http://www.foxnews.c...-online-piracy/

http://thehill.com/b...s-domain-names-

 

 

Obama Big Sis you suck,

Yakdung

Edited November 27, 2010 by yakdung

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

It's really bad, 76 this week, mostly without seizure warrants either. They're using ICE and DHS to shut down websites. The MPAA and RIAA, along with pharmaceutical companies like Schering-Plough and Merck, as well as ISPs like Comcast are pushing HARD for government control of the internet.

 

What is also terrible is that 95 of the congressmen who supported net neutrality and opposed this kind of stuff lost re-election earlier this month.

 

Before Tuesday’s midterm elections, 95 House and Senate candidates took a pledge called the Net Neutrality Protector’s Pledge, which consisted of a promise to stand “against any attempt by big corporations to control the Internet and eliminate the Internet’s level playing field … to protect Net Neutrality for the entire Internet – wired and wireless — and make sure big corporations aren’t allowed to take control of free speech online.”

 

http://www.geekosystem.com/net-neutrality-congressional-candidates-lost/

Edited November 27, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov

[Bean.223 365]

It's really bad, 76 this week, mostly without seizure warrants either. They're using ICE and DHS to shut down websites. The MPAA and RIAA, along with pharmaceutical companies like Schering-Plough and Merck, as well as ISPs like Comcast are pushing HARD for government control of the internet.

 

What is also terrible is that 95 of the congressmen who supported net neutrality and opposed this kind of stuff lost re-election earlier this month.

 

Before Tuesday’s midterm elections, 95 House and Senate candidates took a pledge called the Net Neutrality Protector’s Pledge, which consisted of a promise to stand “against any attempt by big corporations to control the Internet and eliminate the Internet’s level playing field … to protect Net Neutrality for the entire Internet – wired and wireless — and make sure big corporations aren’t allowed to take control of free speech online.”

 

http://www.geekosystem.com/net-neutrality-congressional-candidates-lost/

 

Net Neutrality was just going to make things more complicated. It just wasn't the answer. It did good things but just like the Health Bill it was a thousand pages of nonsense. Here is some pros and cons of NN, but this is just the tip of the Iceberg.

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Pros-and-Cons-of-Net-Neutrality-in-Two-Lists-3460

Edited November 27, 2010 by Bean.223

[L5K 162]

Anything BUT net neutrality is far more scary. Companies want control of the internet to squash out competition. Politicians want control of the internet to squash out competition. I don't know about you guys, but I'm just a man. They don't like net neutrality because it is good for the average person, which means it's bad for them. You know what I say? Fuck 'em.

 

Sites like this one would be gone. Do you think a place like this could afford to have a company like Comcast put this site on ANY of the plans except for the top tier unlimited plans that are going to cost consumers out the ass?

 

And in response to your link Bean, net neutrality is nothing but FORCED deregulation of the internet. Essentially keeping the internet functioning as it always has. It is one single regulation placed on companies that prevents them from regulating the internet. It is much more ideal to have one regulation preventing them from gouging private users, denying access arbitrarily, gouging money out of anyone wishing to be able to have others access their material, and effectively filtering and censoring any unfavorable material they don't like. All of which promotes freedom of information, speech and free exchange of ideas, all of which aids in the success of a capitalistic society.

 

Companies are saying they don't want the government to regulate the internet because in fact, they want to regulate it themselves for their own monetary gain.

[Bean.223 365]

Anything BUT net neutrality is far more scary. Companies want control of the internet to squash out competition. Politicians want control of the internet to squash out competition. I don't know about you guys, but I'm just a man. They don't like net neutrality because it is good for the average person, which means it's bad for them. You know what I say? Fuck 'em.

 

Sites like this one would be gone. Do you think a place like this could afford to have a company like Comcast put this site on ANY of the plans except for the top tier unlimited plans that are going to cost consumers out the ass?

 

And in response to your link Bean, net neutrality is nothing but FORCED deregulation of the internet. Essentially keeping the internet functioning as it always has. It is one single regulation placed on companies that prevents them from regulating the internet. It is much more ideal to have one regulation preventing them from gouging private users, denying access arbitrarily, gouging money out of anyone wishing to be able to have others access their material, and effectively filtering and censoring any unfavorable material they don't like. All of which promotes freedom of information, speech and free exchange of ideas, all of which aids in the success of a capitalistic society.

 

Companies are saying they don't want the government to regulate the internet because in fact, they want to regulate it themselves for their own monetary gain.

 

I'm confused, are you for or against NN??? Not to confuse, I am against it. My main sticking point is the fear that FCC will have greater power over your 1st amendment rights.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Bean.223

[Paulyski 2,227]

Fools.

 

You really didn't think fascism was just for the other guy did you?

Little by little...

 

"National security"

"Nine-Eleven"

"Terrorists"

 

Be scared.

Scare them into bondage.

Silence dissent.

Crush subversives.

 

You want anything in this country, you gotta take it.

They must make it harder for you to take it.

They want it all.

 

But just wait...

He with the gold makes the rules...

He with the gun, takes the gold...

 

You know what's coming, but you just don't want to admit it.

 

Hopefully when the time comes, we'll have the 3%.

But the other 97% will be trained to betray the 3 with enticements of extra crumbs & table scraps.

[yakdung 2,926]

Fools.

 

You really didn't think fascism was just for the other guy did you?

Little by little...

 

"National security"

"Nine-Eleven"

"Terrorists"

 

Be scared.

Scare them into bondage.

Silence dissent.

Crush subversives.

 

You want anything in this country, you gotta take it.

They must make it harder for you to take it.

They want it all.

 

But just wait...

He with the gold makes the rules...

He with the gun, takes the gold...

 

You know what's coming, but you just don't want to admit it.

 

Hopefully when the time comes, we'll have the 3%.

But the other 97% will be trained to betray the 3 with enticements of extra crumbs & table scraps.

 

These assholes are on the move in the lame duck session of congress. A little bit of revenge due to voter outrage I'll bet and the TSA BS. 2012 can't come fast enough for me. This isn't about rouge websites this is just random BS by the Zero and his thugs. Piratebay is still up and running...

 

Yakdung

Edited November 27, 2010 by yakdung

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

This is not a partisan issue at all. It's an issue with gigantic, greedy corporations deciding to "lock down" the internet once and for all and make the money they feel they deserve.

 

In a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, John Boehner (R-OH) said that the government should stay out of the net neutrality debate and let the free market work it out. He indirectly noted how Comcast is already working with the private sector to "find better ways to manage traffic."

 

Yeah, "let the free market work it out" because I'm sure closed doors meetings with Comcast, Merck, and RIAA execs will be full of great things for us "little guys"

 

Kiss downloading goodbye, of course, but much more than that. That high school sports montage on Youtube with the cheesy Godsmack song in the background? Yeah...better hope that 17 year old's paying royalties to the record company. Or he can forget going to college, he'll paying off a $350,000 judgement for the next couple decades.

 

That is, of course, if you can view Youtube at all, considering that requires the Youtube package which is currently unavailable in your region due to contract negotiation issues between internet providers. Besides, it's kind of expensive anyway, and with the wife wanting the Social Media package for Facebook and Skype, and you wanting the sports package for ESPN and YES, and the kids wanting the Gaming Package, the bill would be just too high for that anyway.

 

Think it's fantasy? It's not. Just look at your cable bill. They charge you for basic, and then HBO, SHO, MAX, etc. are all separate packages. Pay extra or you don't see it. Simple as that. Look at how FOX has been off the air on Cablevision for a while now due to contract issues. A lot of people here were pissed because FOX owns right to the World Series, Phillies were in it for the first time in decades, but all the people in Philly with Cablevision couldn't watch the game because FOX was off the air.

 

Not to mention, the internet leaves room for all sorts of wonderful corporate exploitation, for example Comcast could just block you from visiting other provider's websites, so you can't even look up who/where else you could buy internet service from. After all, if say, Verizon can control what you see, why would they let you go look at deals on cable service on Comcast's website and vice versa?

 

And as far as music, they're ruthless. For example, Time Warner holds a copyright on "Happy Birthday", and it's technically illegal to sing it in public without a performance license.

 

These assholes are on the move in the lame duck session of congress.

 

The bill is still alive, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) managed to kill the bill in committee until next session and at least avoid the lame duck rubber stamp, but it will be back next year. (where it will likely do very well unfortunately)

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

This isn't about rouge websites this is just random BS by the Zero and his thugs. Piratebay is still up and running...

 

 

Pirate Bay is from Sweden.

 

However, the RIAA has their sights set on them too. Their three founders were sentenced to a year in prison and fined $6.3m USD yesterday for "facilitating copyright infringement"

 

http://www.ology.com/music/more-music-piracy-punishment-founders-pirate-bay-going-jail

 

Francis Moore, CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry represented the music industry at the hearing, and gladly applauded the sentences doled out to the Swedish music pirates:

 

“Today’s judgement confirms the illegality of The Pirate Bay and the seriousness of the crimes of those involved,” she said. "We now look to governments and ISPs to take note of this judgment, do the responsible thing and take the necessary steps to get The Pirate Bay shut down."

Edited November 27, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov

[Bean.223 365]

So what this all comes to is being able to download torrents correct???

 

Problem with this bill is the extra power it gives the FCC to "police" the Internet. Net Neutrality sure sounds like a great bill huh??? Just from the name it sounds great, and the ole, "WE'LL MAKE THE BIG CORPORATIONS PAY MAN!" parlance gets goin....but I'm telling you guys, your drive to make the evil Capitalists Pigs pay is going to come at a price.

 

IF the FCC is going to be regulating many things on the Internet what is to stop a corrupt Administrations (whomever that is) from using the FCC to censor online Political websites that do not agree with them???

 

And as far as letting the Market Decide....if Comecast did that shit to me, I'd be out...then again I'm not a thief...

 

NOW THIS LAST ONE....THAT CAN VERY EASILY BE BUSH...OR PALIN....OR KERRY EXPLORER...

Edited November 28, 2010 by Bean.223

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

And as far as letting the Market Decide....if Come cast did that shit to me, I'd be out...

 

That's all well and good. Idealistically, yes, when Comcast screws you, you switch providers to _______. Only problem is, virtually every single provider wants to charge for internet like they do for TV, they're all working together to score corporate control of the internet, and rest assured if any company did pop up that would charge otherwise, they would surely squash it. Not to mention many regions only have access to 1-2 providers anyway. And we all know how great of a system it is when you only have 2 choices that both suck

 

Not to mention, if say, Youtube or Google or Yahoo etc. had contracts with Verizon and Comcast, if Bean's Cable Co. opened up to provide "free internet like the old days" you think they'd even be able to score contracts for that content? It would be millions, if not even available at all because the previous contracts are exclusive. Once again look no further than sports, you can't just go broadcasting a baseball game, only certain channel(s) have the rights to that and it's all either gigantic amounts of money or exclusive.

 

Problem with this bill is the extra power it gives the FCC to "police" the Internet. Net Neutrality sure sounds like a great bill huh??? Just from the name it sounds great, and the ole, "WE'LL MAKE THE BIG CORPORATIONS PAY MAN!" parlance gets goin....but I'm telling you guys, your drive to make the evil Capitalists Pigs pay is going to come at a price.

 

It stems down to the internet needs to free and neutral, with no one regulating it. Giving government power to regulate it will lead to abuse, giving corporations control of it will also lead to severe anal hemorrhaging. A true net neutrality bill, would be an uncompromising one that gives the FCC one simple rule - "NO ifs ands or buts, the internet is neutral" (worded in legalese, of course) "Hands off" would mean hands off for anyone, whether it's an ISP or the FCC.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov

[Bean.223 365]

And as far as letting the Market Decide....if Come cast did that shit to me, I'd be out...

 

That's all well and good. Idealistically, yes, when Comcast screws you, you switch providers to _______. Only problem is, virtually every single provider wants to charge for internet like they do for TV, they're all working together to score corporate control of the internet, and rest assured if any company did pop up that would charge otherwise, they would surely squash it. Not to mention many regions only have access to 1-2 providers anyway. And we all know how great of a system it is when you only have 2 choices that both suck

 

Not to mention, if say, Youtube or Google or Yahoo etc. had contracts with Verizon and Comcast, if Bean's Cable Co. opened up to provide "free internet like the old days" you think they'd even be able to score contracts for that content? It would be millions, if not even available at all because the previous contracts are exclusive. Once again look no further than sports, you can't just go broadcasting a baseball game, only certain channel(s) have the rights to that and it's all either gigantic amounts of money or exclusive.

 

Problem with this bill is the extra power it gives the FCC to "police" the Internet. Net Neutrality sure sounds like a great bill huh??? Just from the name it sounds great, and the ole, "WE'LL MAKE THE BIG CORPORATIONS PAY MAN!" parlance gets goin....but I'm telling you guys, your drive to make the evil Capitalists Pigs pay is going to come at a price.

 

It stems down to the internet needs to free and neutral, with no one regulating it. Giving government power to regulate it will lead to abuse, giving corporations control of it will also lead to severe anal hemorrhaging. A true net neutrality bill, would be an uncompromising one that gives the FCC one simple rule - "NO ifs ands or buts, the internet is neutral" (worded in legalese, of course) "Hands off" would mean hands off for anyone, whether it's an ISP or the FCC.

 

 

Come on man?? The government/FCC doing something simple and straight forward??? With no bi partisan corruption?? SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW......this is seriously the NEW AND IMPROVED internet Patriot Act guys!!!

 

And as to your first point, the Free Market isnt the Worker's Paradise. You cant legislate perfection.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Bean.223

[Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393]

Come on man?? The government/FCC doing something simple and straight forward??? With no bi partisan corruption?? SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW......

 

I know, I know. But birds can fly, so why can't I?

Edited November 28, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov

[antinwo 57]

this is a test, this is to test the blowback for just taking down sites and putting up the scary DHS logo to spread fear throughout the world.

 

"WE OWN THE INTERNET, WE ARE WATCHING YOU, IF YOU DO NOT OBEY WHATEVER WE SAY, YOU WILL GET TAGGED AND BAGGED!"

 

They need a warrant to shut down someone's website, 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and §§ 2323 has absolutely nothing to do with HOMELAND SECURITY when it comes to COPYRIGHT ISSUES. It is an illegal and fraudulent act.

Edited November 28, 2010 by antinwo

[ktcm7271 999]

I live 1 hour from Baltimore, 2 hours from D.C. and 2 hours from Philadelphia. Lots of choices, right? Wrong. For tv I have Comcast, Dish, or Direct tv. For internet I have Comcast, dial up, or dhl. Comcast successfully squeezed all competition out. No Embarq, FIOS, etc. It will only get worse.

[Bean.223 365]

I live 1 hour from Baltimore, 2 hours from D.C. and 2 hours from Philadelphia. Lots of choices, right? Wrong. For tv I have Comcast, Dish, or Direct tv. For internet I have Comcast, dial up, or dhl. Comcast successfully squeezed all competition out. No Embarq, FIOS, etc. It will only get worse.

 

I don't deny there might or might not be a competition problem, but that's why there are Monopoly laws. Your Fed Gov isn't enforcing those laws?? WOW BIG SURPRISE! Talk to the Mexican Army in America about that.My choices in ISP aren't much better than yours. But the Patriot Act of the Internet is not the answer.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Bean.223