# US Completely Censors 70 Sites



## Rydian (Nov 27, 2010)

The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them.[/p]



			
				Partial Site List said:
			
		

> 2009jerseys.com
> 51607.com
> amoyhy.com
> b2corder.com
> ...






Source

FUCK, they've already started.  Go to one of the sites and see the notice for yourself.

Watch out, GBAtemp.  This seems to focus on counterfeit goods in the concrete sense of the term, but that's likely so their first use of this power has a concrete reason behind it, I doubt they'll stick to just counterfeiting sites for long.


----------



## Infinite Zero (Nov 27, 2010)

They're acting so fast!


----------



## xist (Nov 27, 2010)

Given a torrent search engine has been stomped upon i'd imagine pretty much everyone is fair game for this ridiculousness....


----------



## Son of Science (Nov 27, 2010)

OMG, NO! 

Not cheapscarfshop!


----------



## Fear Zoa (Nov 27, 2010)

Its official .....we're as bad as china  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




there goes the internet.....I hardly knew ye.....oh wait...I'll just use tor...


----------



## The Pi (Nov 27, 2010)

Bring on the ubernet!!!


----------



## Law (Nov 27, 2010)

Fear Zoa said:
			
		

> Its official .....we're as bad as china



Not really. It looks like most of those sites were run by scammers selling counterfeit goods. They won't be as bad as china until they block every website that could potentially be used to say something bad about the government.

edit: and thinking about it, there are probably more than a few consumer protection laws that could have had these sites taken down easily anyway.


----------



## Satangel (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm pretty amazed of the fact that the US does these kinds of things, I only expected China to do this.
Not a good evolution in my book.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 27, 2010)

arnt almost all of these spam web sites? and also selling knockoff items?

I 2009jerseys.com is
they spam a sports forum I go too like every 5 mins


----------



## RupeeClock (Nov 27, 2010)

Still GBAtemp is a UK based site to my knowledge, but didn't the US recently pass a bill that gives them some scary power over websites outside of the country?


----------



## _Chaz_ (Nov 27, 2010)




----------



## Law (Nov 27, 2010)

RupeeClock said:
			
		

> Still GBAtemp is a UK based site to my knowledge, but didn't the US recently pass a bill that gives them some scary power over websites outside of the country?



I don't think it applies for websites outside of America, but even if it did it wouldn't matter anyway because Labour forced a similar law through in Britain before they got kicked out.


----------



## jgblahblahblah (Nov 27, 2010)

I wonder when they're gonna start taking down "counterfeit rom sites"


----------



## RupeeClock (Nov 27, 2010)

jgblahblahblah said:
			
		

> I wonder when they're gonna start taking down "counterfeit rom sites"


Roms, videos, music, text or any kind of commercial goods converted to data can't possibly be counterfeit.
It's not until that data is printed into a duplicate (low quality) medium that it becomes counterfeit.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Nov 27, 2010)

Son of Science said:
			
		

> OMG, NO!
> 
> Not cheapscarfshop!



actually discountscarvesonsale.com is by far the best place to get scarves...well it was anyways


----------



## Rydian (Nov 27, 2010)

Law said:
			
		

> RupeeClock said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It does apply for outside domains, but in that case they'll just make it inaccessible from within the US (not cut it off at the source like they did for these).


----------



## Sephxus (Nov 27, 2010)

Spam sites.  This is actually a good thing.


----------



## Fear Zoa (Nov 27, 2010)

So I looked at the full list.....and whats with all the scarf websites.....does ICE hate scarfs?
those evil internet censoring scarf hating communist, Nazi.......bad people....


----------



## Knyaz Vladimir (Nov 27, 2010)

No!!! I loved that torrent site! HOW DARE THEY!!!

Wait... I'm not even in the States... WHAT THE [censored because I felt like it.]!? This is too creepy. I'm so pissed off, they don't even have jurisdiction here!

EDIT: The war is on.


----------



## tajio (Nov 27, 2010)

Man what a shitty landing page design >=[


----------



## Another World (Nov 27, 2010)

this violates my 1st amendment right. this won't last, it can't. unless they want to rewrite the constitution.

-another world


----------



## Advi (Nov 27, 2010)

it's for the sale of counterfeit goods, not the distribution of pirated materials.

seems to me that at least for the most part, this was in good intention.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Nov 27, 2010)

Another World said:
			
		

> this violates my 1st amendment right. this won't last, it can't. unless they want to rewrite the constitution.
> 
> -another world


That's not entirely impossible.
They have the power to do it, and will given the opportunity.


----------



## Son of Science (Nov 27, 2010)

Another World said:
			
		

> this violates my 1st amendment right. this won't last, it can't. unless they want to rewrite the constitution.
> 
> -another world


Exactly.  If I wanna buy cheap scarves, then I should be able to.


----------



## Knyaz Vladimir (Nov 27, 2010)

Another World said:
			
		

> this violates my 1st amendment right. this won't last, it can't. unless they want to rewrite the constitution.
> 
> -another world
> 
> ...



Except for that torrent site which we are not allowed to name. And that wasn't even a client!


----------



## Fear Zoa (Nov 27, 2010)

Advi said:
			
		

> it's for the sale of counterfeit goods, not the distribution of pirated materials.
> 
> seems to me that at least for the most part, this was in good intention.



But.....but....the goverment here never has good intentions.....they just more power over us


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 27, 2010)

Son of Science said:
			
		

> Another World said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you buy it from dx or on the streets here like everybody else


----------



## RoMee (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm kinda happy about this one
2009jerseys.com

they spam everywhere, with their fake jersey..


----------



## TM2-Megatron (Nov 27, 2010)

That the blocked sites are mostly crap and spam (for the moment) is less important than the fact they _can_ do this, and there is apparently little standing in their way when they want to.  They don't even need a crime to have been committed, per se; merely a complaint.  And the fact they can block it for everyone, even outside the US, is even worse.  Unfortunately, the average US citizen won't stand up against this until it's far too late (if at all), and the blocking has progressed onto sites which break no laws, but contain views of information the American Government deem "unacceptable" (e.g. Wikileaks).


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm not gonna take that slippery slope and say that they'll extend these censorship laws to have power over any website they wish to block from citizens, or civil liberties, or any other liberties. However, if in that slim chance it might happen, then I'd be forced to flee a country that ran away from its own ideals. That's a huge _if_, though.

Spam sites? Cool, that's a good thing. But just like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase, the government is breaking Constitutional law, and that should just never happen. The law must be booted, burned, and forgotten.


----------



## RupeeClock (Nov 27, 2010)

TM2-Megatron said:
			
		

> That the blocked sites are mostly crap and spam (for the moment) is less important than the fact they _can_ do this, and there is apparently little standing in their way when they want to.  They don't even need a crime to have been committed, per se; merely a complaint.  And the fact they can block it for everyone, even outside the US, is even worse.  Unfortunately, the average US citizen won't stand up against this until it's far too late (if at all), and the blocking has progressed onto sites which break no laws, but contain views of information the American Government deem "unacceptable" (e.g. Wikileaks).


You're right, this is potentially as bad as the Chinese Censorship, who will censor any site critical of Chinese government.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Nov 27, 2010)

The two warez sites i use are up


----------



## DeadLocked (Nov 27, 2010)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> Son of Science said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1 to this.
I can't believe they did this. This is just outrageous.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






EDIT: My neck and lower chin is going to be cold because of this.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Nov 27, 2010)

Oh wait it just looks like scam sites are blocked.


----------



## Pliskron (Nov 27, 2010)

Democratic Obama administration is acting like fascists. make me long for the days of the more mildly fascist Bush administration. Who would have ever thought liberals were so anti freedom?


----------



## TM2-Megatron (Nov 27, 2010)

Pliskron said:
			
		

> Democratic Obama administration is acting like fascists. make me long for the days of the more mildly fascist Bush administration. Who would have ever thought liberals were so anti freedom?



Democrats ? Liberal.  At least not based on most of the rest of the western world's definition of "liberal".


----------



## narutofan777 (Nov 27, 2010)

ughh...i'm pissed...just don't know what else is gonna happen..


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Nov 27, 2010)

TM2-Megatron said:
			
		

> *Politicians* ?* Truth Tellers*.




fix'd


----------



## jgblahblahblah (Nov 28, 2010)

Well this might be a possible solution,  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  but I haven't tested it yet.
http://dns.telecomix.org/


----------



## monkat (Nov 28, 2010)

At first I thought, "Hey, who cares? It doesn't affect me, and in facts help people avoid getting scammed!"

But then I was reminded of this poem from (I believe Nazi Germany)



Spoiler



They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.



Also - when the entire country is so far in debt, is this really our first priority? We are paying people multiple times what I make to do this?

What. The. Fuck?


----------



## Knyaz Vladimir (Nov 28, 2010)

monkat said:
			
		

> At first I thought, "Hey, who cares? It doesn't affect me, and in facts help people avoid getting scammed!"
> 
> But then I was reminded of this poem from (I believe Nazi Germany)
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's a pretty wellknown poem. It's quite good.

Blame the government, guys. It's your problem.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Nov 28, 2010)

xist said:
			
		

> Given a torrent search engine has been stomped upon i'd imagine pretty much everyone is fair game for this ridiculousness....



Yeah, cause you know, those piles of spam some of us get from those kinds of domains aren't annoying /sarcasm

Good that they are doing this, they are eliminating all these spam sites with counterfeit products that are doing illegal business, which generally stems from China. I wonder if Blizzard will get them to do it to all the WoW gold related sites, that would be a smart business move, pretty much shutting down every sites business for good.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 28, 2010)

I don't mind they hunting down these website, but I don't like the way they hunt down these websites.


----------



## Foie (Nov 28, 2010)

Yay for Hope and Change!


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 28, 2010)

Scary shit!
This is like the internet censorship in China. The fact that the US can do this and block the sites for everyone on earth is freaky. At least in China it only affects those who live in China. This affects everyone. US citizens need to do something about this. Protest to the government or something.


----------



## geoflcl (Nov 28, 2010)

Gosh, they sure are getting down to business, aren't they?

Yes, a lot of these sites seem to be shady, rogue sites. However, doing this without a forewarning seems really... well, oppressive. These sites are being shut down without notice, even baffling the hosts. 

I find the most scandalous (if I ever use that word again, slap me) part of this to be the fact that they're doing this to sites outside of the US, too. Sure, a lot of these sites may be wrong, but if they're foreign, is that any of the US's business?

Censorship, patdowns, invasions of privacy. The US is really making people mad lately, aren't they?

Offtopique:


Spoiler



"Wait... Why did you take down my site!?"

"Because ICANN."


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 28, 2010)

or rather throw out the obama admin and replace it with someone with brains (and who would repeal these laws) besides companies making games are Japanese orgin WHY THE HECK ARE WE PROTECTING THEM ANYWAYS?


----------



## Maz7006 (Nov 28, 2010)

glad this shit will never ever happen here.


----------



## Warrior522 (Nov 28, 2010)

Dear US Government,

*WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU THINKING?!?* 

WE'RE ALMOST LITERALLY DROWNING IN DEBT, CRIMINALS ARE BUSY DUMPING TOP-SECRET DOCUMENTS OUT INTO THE PUBLIC'S HALF-BLIND EYE, AND YOU'RE OFF BLOCKING *SPAM SITES?!?*


----------



## monkat (Nov 28, 2010)

chrisrlink said:
			
		

> or rather throw out the obama admin and replace it with someone with brains (and who would repeal these laws) besides companies making games are Japanese orgin WHY THE HECK ARE WE PROTECTING THEM ANYWAYS?



If you're going to go about calling people stupid, make sure that you're at least somewhere close to coherent. I have no idea, and I'm sure you don't either, who the head of this movement is, and stapling Obama's face to it doesn't help any more than it did during the Bush administration.

Also are you making the case that we shouldn't disallow the piracy of Japanese-developed games because they are from Japan? I won't go into international copyright laws (which do protect them), but we live in a global economy - if they do bad, we do bad. Moreover, Nintendo of America (or what have you) naturally has American employees. Preventing piracy is designed to aid the economy - employees get paid.


----------



## HBK (Nov 28, 2010)

Maz7006 said:
			
		

> glad this shit will never ever happen here.



Yeah, but those websites are blocked globally, so they affect us indirectly.


----------



## Fishaman P (Nov 28, 2010)

I thought that didn't go through in Congress.


----------



## Maz7006 (Nov 28, 2010)

HBK said:
			
		

> Maz7006 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



as long as they don't force this homeland security on local pages here then im all good to go; which is my main concern

then again there's no reason to hate - at least they're cleansing the internet from scams and such


----------



## Pliskron (Nov 28, 2010)

You loose freedom when you have corporations like Disney writing the laws that govern the people. The laws are supposed to come from the people through our elected representatives. These laws don't just protect copy write material they are meant to stifle economic activity and mainly benefit the bills writers. For example it's illegal to sing happy birthday because it's still copyrighted because Disney changed that law a few years back. Just watch the Obama administration for what comes next. More and more so called liberals are turning corporatist and away from individual freedom.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 28, 2010)

I was about to be upset till I realized must of these websites were just scams/spam/crap. I would be more upset if they were editing sites like shoptemp or gbatemp


----------



## fgghjjkll (Nov 28, 2010)

Fishaman P said:
			
		

> I thought that didn't go through in Congress.
> That's what i thought too.. I mean, i signed the demandprogress.org petition and i was glad i got this email not so long ago..
> 
> QUOTENolan -- big news! Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as "a bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet and pledged to "do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate."
> ...


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 28, 2010)

monkat said:
			
		

> At first I thought, "Hey, who cares? It doesn't affect me, and in facts help people avoid getting scammed!"
> 
> But then I was reminded of this poem from (I believe Nazi Germany)
> 
> ...




Think about it. Where does the money go when you buy counterfeit products? Usually to the Chinese counterfeiters themselves. It goes to China. It won't come back.


----------



## SubliminalSegue (Nov 28, 2010)

SoulSnatcher said:
			
		

> US citizens need to do something about this. Protest to the government or something.



Hah. Cause that worked so swimmingly in the past...


----------



## Rydian (Nov 28, 2010)

This isn't part of that other situation, which makes it even scarier as they're not even waiting for that to pass to pull this stuff.




			
				geoflcl said:
			
		

> Offtopique:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I laughed until I had to stop to breathe, I love you. XD


----------



## Wombo Combo (Nov 28, 2010)

DeadLocked said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't worry shoptemp has our scarf needs covered 
http://shoptemp.com/products/New-transitio...carf-p-189.html


----------



## shakirmoledina (Nov 29, 2010)

u cant fight the govt... they make the law and execute it, if ur really obviously safe then u wont be messed around with but usually its difficult to fight the law
get global on your issue and then the world MAY help you through it


----------



## MeritsAlone (Nov 29, 2010)

The government is something not to be messed with, they hide information crucial to survival, they take down "potential threat" sites, and they dont care that much for the people (No offence intended). Thank god i live in sweden.


----------



## jumpman17 (Nov 29, 2010)

You realize most of those sites are sites that sell pirated or fake items as the real things right? Just because you've never ordered a TV set from one of those sites only to find they are super low resolution rips from tv airings recorded on VHS from years ago and then can't get your money back because they won't respond to you, doesn't mean that tons of others less knowledgeable haven't. I say good riddance.


----------



## Fat D (Nov 29, 2010)

jumpman17 said:
			
		

> You realize most of those sites are sites that sell pirated or fake items as the real things right? Just because you've never ordered a TV set from one of those sites only to find they are super low resolution rips from tv airings recorded on VHS from years ago and then can't get your money back because they won't respond to you, doesn't mean that tons of others less knowledgeable haven't. I say good riddance.


That might be correct, however it sets a dangerous precedent - if it is okay to try cleansing the web of bootleggers, what is next? Hackers? Dissidents?


----------



## fgghjjkll (Nov 29, 2010)

Fat D said:
			
		

> jumpman17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Totally agree with Fat D.
I'm not sure if this bill has even MADE it to the senate yet, but if you think about it, the US are censoring bootleg sites to show the world what they can do, and probably will do.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Nov 30, 2010)

I also agree with Mr. Fat D. But I'm convinced that the US state has already gone above and beyond the "precedent."

The Obama administration had backed regulations that would force social networking sites to open up their messenger services to FBI surveillance. Not to mention the Google-Verizon deal in which promotion of the Android platform came at the expense of "net neutrality". I have no doubt that as the Obama administration continues to cave in to big business, even sites like GBAtemp will be threatened.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 30, 2010)

Fat D said:
			
		

> jumpman17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's quite a contradiction. I'm sure Google and Verizon would rather not have a "hey, the government can read through your naughty shit" on their phones. I doubt Google and Verizon wanted to slap that little tidbit on their phones. It sounds like the government had big business cave into them for that one. Sure, the government caves into big business a lot. It's only been like that for at least a hundred years. And hey, you think this caving in is bad? At least it's not the early 1900's where you worked for barely any money with no benefits only to get further buttscrewed by your business and government.

Saying that GBAtemp, a site that prides itself on legality and enforces strict rules regarding illegal distribution, will become target of the government is just plain silly talk and nothing more than stoking a useless fire.


----------



## Zetta_x (Nov 30, 2010)

What is the point of having cops if no one ever did anything illegal?

While doing illegal things may have a detrimental affect to the government, it keeps a lot of things balanced out. If they keep censoring internet sites, eventually they are going to disrupt the balance and nature will kick in and make things right


----------



## haddad (Nov 30, 2010)

Its down here in canada too


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 30, 2010)

Zetta_x said:
			
		

> What is the point of having cops if no one ever did anything illegal?
> 
> While doing illegal things may have a detrimental affect to the government, it keeps a lot of things balanced out. If they keep censoring internet sites, eventually they are going to disrupt the balance and nature will kick in and make things right



If you actually read the list of sites I doubt you'd be saying "Wow, the government sure is unbalancing things by censoring such vital sites!"

And how does illegal things balance stuff? If I go stab the guy at my local Quick Check because I'm a psychopath I don't think I'm balancing out anything. Instead I'm just killing some innocent guy, screwing over my local Quick Check for a while, and dealing a huge blow to the poor guy's family. If I download a CD I'm essentially depriving the artist of cash and paying nothing for something. The artist gets nothing in return. That's not balance in any sense of the word.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Nov 30, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> Fat D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You forget that the law you speak of was written, and is still used today, in the interests of the capitalists, not the American citizen. Using the legal babble of the bourgeoisie, that same argument about providing "illegal" services and goods could just as well apply to GBAtemp and its assistance in the homebrew scene. I'm not trying to defend spam and counterfeit sites, of course. The point is such state powers are put to use against their own citizens in the interest of corporate and state--ultimately, imperialist--interests. The PATRIOT Act is a perfect example of the US state rooting out "terrorists"; these surveillance powers were extended to monitor anybody they wish, regardless of warrant or reason.

I also won't say that all anti-government "babble" is correct or productive, but I think it's presumptuous for you to tar them all with the same "fight the power fetish"-brush. The poster's concern for this "precedent" is historically justified, bound up with the Bush administration's open embrace, and the Obama administration's fig leaves to big business and the reactionary right wing.

Edit in response to your edit quoting me:

Your cynicism, however amusing and trite, only serves as a apology for the social inequity of American capitalism. True, the early 20th century had many disadvantages compared to our own age. And yet the gulf between the rich and poor widens, in the interests of a decadent bourgeoisie. I also disagree that I am "stoking a useless fire." If and when the bourgeoisie significantly attempts to expand their hegemony onto the internet, the fate of homebrew sites like that of GBAtemp will undoubtedly be threatened.


----------



## Deleted-247497 (Nov 30, 2010)

the second any site of value is blocked i will be mad, but currently they are just shutting down obvious scams and stuff like that, as long as they contain it to scams and shit with viruses im not going to say anything.

its just scary that they are able to do this.


----------



## Pliskron (Nov 30, 2010)

This is actually a comical waste of time I'm pretty sure Prada is not going to sell any more hand bags now these sites are shut down. Most troubling is that this is an arbitrary decision made by a bureaucrat with no due process. Say goodbye to freedom and hello to big brother.


----------



## Trulen (Nov 30, 2010)

o2noes.

my scaaaaarfs


----------



## Salax (Nov 30, 2010)

They're only taking the domain names, so if you really want to go somewhere that's blocked just look up the IP.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 30, 2010)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> Using the legal babble of the bourgeoisie, that same argument about providing "illegal" services and goods could just as well apply to GBAtemp and its assistance in the homebrew scene.



No, it can't. Homebrew is legal provided it doesn't use copyrighted code. Which it doesn't most of the time and if it does then we don't host it here. If there's a day that homebrew becomes illegal then I doubt that'll be what we're worrying about the most. And by that day I'll be hopping on the same train as you.

As for the Patriot Act, it's pretty controversial nowadays and probably will be in the history books, but it's not an example of big business and government going hand-in-hand. If people found out the government was using an anti-terrorist policy (well, that's what it was pitched as) to crack down on say internet pirates (since that's what we all care about) then shit would go down. Lots of it. I'm sure they rooted through tons of people downloading crap illegally but they're not gonna blow that up only to get some severe lash back. It was just a stupid example of people's fears of terrorism taking over their want for personal freedom.


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except to run unsigned code (in the case of the DS) you must use a flashcart, which utilizes copyrighted code to function. The flashcarts _themselves _are illegal.


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Another World said:
			
		

> this violates my 1st amendment right.


It absolutely does not and has nothing to do with the First Amendment.


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> If I download a CD I'm essentially depriving the artist of cash


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...-lost-sales.ars

*Thinking that software piracy = theft is factually incorrect, nobody is deprived of anything (depriving somebody of something is the bad part of theft).*

If you start to claim _"well I deprived them of something that may or may not have happened"_ you open up a whole crock pot of shit, claiming _"well I deprived him of something that may have happened"_ is the kind of answer a 12 year old gives in a debate when he says "well how do we know ANYTHING is a fact?" in order to try to steer away from being wrong.

What, am I going to sue somebody for farting because it _might have caused_ a plane to fall out of the sky and crash into my house?  Butterfly effect, it might just, so I can sue him because that would be bad!

Wait no.

*You can't sue over something THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.*


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Urza said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DSi, and only on a later firmware.


----------



## Veho (Nov 30, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> If I download a CD I'm essentially depriving the artist of cash and paying nothing for something. The artist gets nothing in return. That's not balance in any sense of the word.


Actually, according to a recent study, if you download a CD, you're more likely to buy it legally later on.


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is incorrect.

_Every_ slot-1 flashcart utilizes a built-in NoPass chip, which contains the encryption scheme reverse-engineered from a commercial cart.

Under the DMCA this is blatantly illegal.


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Urza said:
			
		

> That is incorrect.
> 
> _Every_ slot-1 flashcart utilizes a built-in NoPass chip, which contains the encryption scheme reverse-engineered from a commercial cart.
> 
> ...


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librari...-Statement.html


			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, *and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying.*


I didn't quote the entire sentence because there's no context or lack of context for the bit of it I quoted.


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librari...-Statement.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The passage I posted above regards to _intent_. While bypassing DRM is not inherently illegal, if its done with the _intent_ to manufacture and sell a product designed for pirating copyrighted works then it is in violation.


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Where is what you quoted from?


----------



## Knyaz Vladimir (Nov 30, 2010)

Well, we have a court battle of wits! Rydian vs. Urza! Wright vs. Edgeworth! Place your bets here, folks, the lawyers are not going to end this soon!


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Where is what you quoted from?


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/...onal_Violations


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Can you explain why the librarian of congress said what they did, then?


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Can you explain why the librarian of congress said what they did, then?


Once again, it's intent. The ruling was to clarify several scenarios in which bypassing copy protection would not be in violation.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Nov 30, 2010)

How would they go about proving intent?


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Urza said:
			
		

> The ruling was to clarify several scenarios in which bypassing copy protection would not be in violation.But...
> QUOTEThe DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, *and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying.*


????????


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if you're trolling at this point, or truly aren't capable of understanding what I'm posting here.

Yes, it's not about the technologies present in the scenarios. The scenarios lay out various usages which attempt to establish *intent*. The first scenario, for example, the established intent is that the work will be used under Fair Use. The fact that the content is from a DVD is irrelevant.


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Urza said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you're trolling at this point, or truly aren't capable of understanding what I'm posting here.I'm pointing out direct contradictions in text.  Last I checked a contradiction is not easy to understand.
> 
> QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 30 2010, 01:51 PM) Yes, it's not about the technologies present in the scenarios. The scenarios lay out various usages which attempt to establish *intent*. The first scenario, for example, the established intent is that the work will be used under Fair Use. The fact that the content is from a DVD is irrelevant.


This is stuff you may have thought in your mind, but didn't post, therefore I couldn't get.


----------



## RiderLeangle (Nov 30, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> If I download a CD I'm essentially depriving the artist of cash and paying nothing for something. The artist gets nothing in return.


If you want to be technical... Someone had to buy it to rip it...
And that doesn't mean you didn't support the band at all.. I mean I download all my music and yet when one band I like came around here I went to their concert and bought a shirt (And this was at a concert so it was 30...)
If I didn't have downloaded songs in the first place how would I know if I liked the band?..
Downloading something doesn't mean the owner gets nothing...


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Urza said:
			
		

> The first scenario, for example, the established intent is that the work will be used under Fair Use. The fact that the content is from a DVD is irrelevant.


This specifically.

Tch, I'm quoting either too much or too little these days.


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well it took me a few posts to realize that you either didn't read, or didn't understand the material you provided as substance for your "argument." The above is just a regurgitation from said material, and not really any new information from my brain.


----------



## Rydian (Nov 30, 2010)

Urza said:
			
		

> Well it took me a few posts to realize that you either didn't read, or didn't understand the material you provided as substance for your "argument." The above is just a regurgitation from said material, and not really any new information from my brain.


What I provided (and was focused on) was the line from the librarian of congress, which doesn't directly mention the focused intent.

The quote from chapter 12 was something you provided, not me.

But please, ad hominem more, it's fun to watch.


----------



## Urza (Nov 30, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://gbatemp.net/t266980-us-completely-c...t&p=3299152

Clearly you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and have nothing to back up anything that you say.

Go back to Gaia where nobody challenges your silliness and untruths.


----------

