Approves.

effin A

My favorite is the animal abusers at the PRCA. Tough cowboys can't take a little video exposure. Way to "cowboy up".

even the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, which apparently has donned a black hat on such matters. Link (new window)

GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Beat me to it.

However, he's probably not up there because the site in question (new window) isn't exactly as credible with its sources.

From the Takedown Hall of Fame:
Ryo Chonan vs. Anderson Silva (new window)

James Randi recently made his burial wishes known, in that he wishes to be cremated and have his ashes thrown in Uri Gellers face.

I can only aspire to that level of furious old cootery.

jake_lex 2009-11-01 11:27:28 AM

The thing is that most of these takedown orders were junk, of course, but when you're running some small blog site, and a corporation that can afford very expensive lawyers sends you a scary letter threatening a lawsuit, what are you going to do? Risk losing everything you have if it doesn't turn out well?


It's like a SLAPP where a corporation files a frivolous suit to shut up the little guy even when they know the suit will get tossed. it costs money to mount a legal defense.

In some cases, though, there may be a question of fair use, so maybe it's not as frivolous.

I'm a little skeptical of this site, especially since they can't seem to tell the difference between censorship and "Don't quote our stuff out of context so that you can twist it to suit your political needs."

GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Do you know of Glenn Beck demanding a take-down? Or -- do you have any idea of what TFA was about?

katfairy: I'm a little skeptical of this site, especially since they can't seem to tell the difference between censorship and "Don't quote our stuff out of context so that you can twist it to suit your political needs."

It does seem like they are overly sensitive, doesn't it? Most of the news report issues seem to be the news agencies just wanting the political ones to leave them out of the mud flinging.

GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Probably because he has no alibi for that fateful night

stazz: GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Do you know of Glenn Beck demanding a take-down? Or -- do you have any idea of what TFA was about?

Are you serious? http://tiny.cc/qxWSm (new window)

FTA: "We wanted to document this censorship for all to see."

OK, that the article's title put the word in quotations - "censorship" - is a good sign.

A private copyright owner attempting to defend that copyright is not the same thing as censorship. Censorship, like propaganda, is specifically and exclusively a government action.

I don't fully understand the intricacies of copyright law, Fair Use, etc., nor do I care to delve into the finer points of the cases mentioned in the article, but people need to stop throwing the word "censorship" around so carelessly. It's especially egregious coming from an organization that espouses defense of Free Speech.

Blurring the wide defining lines between private copyright holders asserting their property rights and politicians silencing unpopular or inconvenient art, journalism, political satire, etc. is a very, very dangerous thing.

A network defending its copyright is no more 'censorship' than Teen Beat magazine refusing to sell advertising space to tobacco companies.

zedster: you may be looking at some legal definition, but by the common use it is censorship.

I use the term in the context of political philosophy, not dictionary definitions. You have to consult a number of definitions, as well as historical contexts, in order to properly define a political concept, not just the nearest reference tome.

Dictionary definitions change over time, and even include completely improper words like "irregardless".

When you're dealing with a (supposed) "nation of laws, not of men", then legal and political definitions need to be rock-solid to prevent misinterpretations or misapplications which could result in injustice. When you're dealing with legal and political issues within the context of Free Speech, it's even more critical to discern between the "conventional" use of words and strict legal definitions of them. If you've ever been party to a lawsuit, you know that you have to be very careful in the language you use. Otherwise, these words become "open to interpretation", and you no longer have a nation of law, but a nation of men, whimsically defining words for their political convenience.

Given that Free Speech is the most fundamental right we have (save for life itself), it has to be treated with this kind of semantic delicacy. We can't toss around words like "censorship" and "propaganda" so carelessly, else they become acceptable to the people, then widely practiced. If you can't spot the difference between censorship and defense of copyright, you can't fight legitimate censorship, or identify propaganda when you see it.

stazz: GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Do you know of Glenn Beck demanding a take-down? Or -- do you have any idea of what TFA was about?

Why not look at the link provided prior to immediately assuming that he isn't both trying to stifle a website and that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

/and yes, I'm very touchy about Free Speech issues

RadicalMiddle: stazz: GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Do you know of Glenn Beck demanding a take-down? Or -- do you have any idea of what TFA was about?

Why not look at the link provided prior to immediately assuming that he isn't both trying to stifle a website and that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

What, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? I hadn't heard. That's pretty bad. I'm going to tell everybody I know.

Lernaeus: A private copyright owner attempting to defend that copyright is not the same thing as censorship. Censorship, like propaganda, is specifically and exclusively a government action.

I think this fits under censorship. Private corporations are using the government to silence research, criticism and competition. Fun fact: over 1/3rd of DMCA takedowns are invalid and over half are businesses targeting their competitors [Citation]

These takedowns carry the force of law and are to be executed before being evaluated by a judge or jury. This isn't a website operator deleting a comment from a user they don't like, this is a corporation who will use the government to force their competitors to pay money for saying something they didn't like.

The initiating party may be a private corporation, but the government is very much involved. It's censorship.

Lernaeus: /and yes, I'm very touchy about Free Speech issues

Can't understand why, you obviously prioritize typing WAY above reading. The article, and the subject EFF site, are very clear in their labeling of DMCA as government censorship.

You were put in your place once - and clearly also have no respect for truth or logic. That zedster had to POST the definition is ridiculous -- That you DISREGARD that DATA is unsane.

The DMCA is unconstitutional, but will never be ruled as such, because of corporate power. It serves the needs of Individual persons or companies too easily. In fact, it levels the field for individuals, who can now oppress corporations with harassment trivial DMCA protests.

This whole Glenn Beck thing was cute at first, what with you falsely accusing him of a crime and all but now it's just a sad pathetic group of arsehats in a circle jerk crying bitter tears over the fact that somebody they don't like is more popular than they are.

It's basically a conspiracy against the Jews

randomjsa: This whole Glenn Beck thing was cute at first, what with you falsely accusing him of a crime and all but now it's just a sad pathetic group of arsehats in a circle jerk crying bitter tears over the fact that somebody they don't like is more popular than they are.

Like you guys after the election?

MightyPez: stazz: GWSuperfan: Where is Glenn Beck on the list?

Do you know of Glenn Beck demanding a take-down? Or -- do you have any idea of what TFA was about?

Are you serious? http://tiny.cc/qxWSm (new window)

And - Glenn Beck demanded this content be removed from the intertubes? Yes, I'd heard the outrageous claims. I doubt I would waste my time denying them, so I'm not surprised Beck feels the same way.

/ BTW: I heard a rumor that GWSuperFan raped & murdered his own mother in 1937. As of yet, he hasn't denied it.

randomjsa: This whole Glenn Beck thing was cute at first, what with you falsely accusing him of a crime and all but now it's just a sad pathetic group of arsehats in a circle jerk crying bitter tears over the fact that somebody they don't like is more popular than they are.

You're completely right. All of this is so immature. For one, I don't believe the allegations that
Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Of course, all of this would go away if he would clear
things up for the American people on his show. Then we can get away from the malicious lies about
Glenn Beck's alleged 1990 rape and murder of a young girl.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: The initiating party may be a private corporation, but the government is very much involved. It's censorship.

Censorship is specifically initiated by the government, such as telling a news network that it can't show footage of caskets returning from a battlefield. Upholding a law because of a suit initiated by a private entity may involve the government, but it's fundamentally different.

The difference is as vast as, say, a land owner suing a developer for building on its property - i.e. a dispute between two private parties arbitrated by a court in accordance with a law which applies to all private entities equally - and the government using eminent domain to steal private property away from its owner.

Sadsaque: The DMCA is unconstitutional, but will never be ruled as such, because of corporate power. It serves the needs of Individual persons or companies too easily. In fact, it levels the field for individuals, who can now oppress corporations with harassment trivial DMCA protests.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with that statement -- that's the kind of argument that intellectual property abolitionists use.

I'm not arguing the merits of the DMCA here, only the loose use of the word "censorship" to describe something which is clearly not censorship.

This isn't some arbitrary Legislative or Executive government decision to prevent someone from speaking their mind, or punish them for expressing an opinion. The companies and individuals in question are copyright holders attempting to bar other private entities from using their intellectual property without permission; if such use falls under Fair Use, then it's proper that they should be denied recompense, but if it doesn't fall under Fair Use, then they should be compensated by those who have broken the law. This is for the courts to decide based on the merits of each case as against the law in question.

randomjsa: This whole Glenn Beck thing was cute at first, what with you falsely accusing him of a crime and all but now it's just a sad pathetic group of arsehats in a circle jerk crying bitter tears over the fact that somebody they don't like is more popular than they are.

What's funny about that is that it has the opposite effect those people think it will.

Beck won't lose fans or advertisers because of that claim alone. If anything, his fans will stand behind him more, knowing that the claim is a flaccid attempt to discredit him. Even a new viewer/listener who looks it up online will see through it, and scoff at the ridiculous means critics will use to slander him.

It's like an atheist insulting a Christian for his beliefs -- does the atheist really think the Christian is going to say "Gee, you're right; I am an idiot!", or is it more likely the Christian is going to dig his heels in more and use the insult to strengthen his claim that Christians are unfairly persecuted?

You discredit Beck by attacking the substance of his arguments and beliefs; you only strengthen his position and influence by making childish accusations.

Lernaeus: randomjsa: This whole Glenn Beck thing was cute at first, what with you falsely accusing him of a crime and all but now it's just a sad pathetic group of arsehats in a circle jerk crying bitter tears over the fact that somebody they don't like is more popular than they are.

What's funny about that is that it has the opposite effect those people think it will.

Beck won't lose fans or advertisers because of that claim alone. If anything, his fans will stand behind him more, knowing that the claim is a flaccid attempt to discredit him. Even a new viewer/listener who looks it up online will see through it, and scoff at the ridiculous means critics will use to slander him.

It's like an atheist insulting a Christian for his beliefs -- does the atheist really think the Christian is going to say "Gee, you're right; I am an idiot!", or is it more likely the Christian is going to dig his heels in more and use the insult to strengthen his claim that Christians are unfairly persecuted?

You discredit Beck by attacking the substance of his arguments and beliefs; you only strengthen his position and influence by making childish accusations.

I'm going to have to issue both of you a citation for trying to be sensible on fark. -1 internet to each of you!

RadicalMiddle: Why not look at the link provided prior to immediately assuming that he isn't both trying to stifle a website and that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

Beck has gone full retard, but the 1990 murder thing is libelous. Rush Limbaugh creating a similar site alleging that Barney Frank had forcible sex with a 12 year old boy would meet with a significant outcry, and rightly so. Speaking of which, can Frank prove that the boy that he raped was over 18?

/still hates Glenn Beck

Anyone can censor another. Take a look at the movie the Insider, CBS censored 60 Minutes on behalf of the Cigarette lobby. The DMCA is a government tool use by private industries to squelch other private entities. The Government is not censoring any one, private entities are using the courts to do so. It is an electronic SLAPP suit against the parts of the copyright laws the corporation hate, the parts that say both parties have rights to copyrighted materials when dealing with copyrights not just the copyright holders.

Lernaeus: zedster: you may be looking at some legal definition, but by the common use it is censorship.

I use the term in the context of political philosophy, not dictionary definitions. You have to consult a number of definitions, as well as historical contexts, in order to properly define a political concept, not just the nearest reference tome.

Dictionary definitions change over time, and even include completely improper words like "irregardless".

When you're dealing with a (supposed) "nation of laws, not of men", then legal and political definitions need to be rock-solid to prevent misinterpretations or misapplications which could result in injustice. When you're dealing with legal and political issues within the context of Free Speech, it's even more critical to discern between the "conventional" use of words and strict legal definitions of them. If you've ever been party to a lawsuit, you know that you have to be very careful in the language you use. Otherwise, these words become "open to interpretation", and you no longer have a nation of law, but a nation of men, whimsically defining words for their political convenience.

Given that Free Speech is the most fundamental right we have (save for life itself), it has to be treated with this kind of semantic delicacy. We can't toss around words like "censorship" and "propaganda" so carelessly, else they become acceptable to the people, then widely practiced. If you can't spot the difference between censorship and defense of copyright, you can't fight legitimate censorship, or identify propaganda when you see it.

I think we're long past being a nation of laws...

I agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, in a country and world where corporations are legally defined entities with nearly the same rights as men, who use lobbying and money to help control and define laws that effect us all, what do you honestly call it?

Our governments seem like puppets; their masters the international corporate machinery. At the highest level, there isn't likely any organization or "grand plan"; I am not saying all these corporations are colluding to take over the world. Instead, they work individually, for their own interests, most likely in an evolutionary-based fashion (whether they know it or not). We the people continue to pretend that we have a voice in these matters, but our voice is honestly very small, unless we can get some of these same corporations (composed of we the people as well) to come to "our side" (whatever it is), so that "we" can win against the "other side" (whatever it is).

Concepts of free speech, censorship, propaganda, etc - are no longer just the domain of government; they are the domain of any large institution which seeks to control the individual. Corporations, by and large, are now our government, whether we like it or not.

Whaddya gonna do, boycott 'em?

fireclown: RadicalMiddle: Why not look at the link provided prior to immediately assuming that he isn't both trying to stifle a website and that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

Beck has gone full retard, but the 1990 murder thing is libelous.


Not if you actually understand the words on the website.

fireclown: RadicalMiddle: Why not look at the link provided prior to immediately assuming that he isn't both trying to stifle a website and that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

Beck has gone full retard, but the 1990 murder thing is libelous. Rush Limbaugh creating a similar site alleging that Barney Frank had forcible sex with a 12 year old boy would meet with a significant outcry, and rightly so. Speaking of which, can Frank prove that the boy that he raped was over 18?

/still hates Glenn Beck

I thought the idea was that the charge is, in fact, libelous, in the same way that Glenn Beck makes claims against his opponents on his show, and then puts them in a position where they have to defend themselves against the charge, instead of Beck defending his statement. ("Prove you aren't working for terrorists," "Why isn't the administration calling my red phone to issue a correction?", etc.)

The only way to decry the meme is to unambiguously denounce the sort of tactics that Beck uses.

/My two cents, anyway.
//Not that I'm saying Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Attention mods, I demand that you take down this entire thread immediately. These posts are all twisting my exact words from my published works to make political points. I will sick my very expensive lawyers on you unless you delete this thread at once.

Lernaeus: The difference is as vast as, say, a land owner suing a developer for building on its property - i.e. a dispute between two private parties arbitrated by a court in accordance with a law which applies to all private entities equally - and the government using eminent domain to steal private property away from its owner.

You do a good enough job of highlighting your own failures, but I decided to take the extra step for you in this case. Your analogy is what they call a straw man: it sets up a different argument for you to defeat than the one we're having.

A closer analogy would be that the developer can evict the landowner immediately. Anyone who attempts to question this decision by the developer can then be held liable if the developer wins so the landowner will find himself without help from friends and neighbors. Eventually, when the issue comes to court (another break in the analogy because land is a tad bit more worth fighting over than data but moving on...), the developer's case is thrown out for being invalid. Oopsie, well these things happen (often). Sorry you had to spend all that money in a hotel, if you want to sell your land to us though...

At this point you're really splitting hairs. It's not censorship if jackboots aren't involved? Oh but if they're wearing loafers then it's not so bad. The government may have set up the broken system and fully enable its abuses to occur but they're not responsible for it? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

(Musical notes)

"Francis Farmer and Uri Geller
How do they connect?
Okay , I'll tell ya:
Both were wanted by the CIA
For a some big ideas and the mouth say it"

/Too obscure, even for Fark?

cr0sh: I agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, in a country and world where corporations are legally defined entities with nearly the same rights as men, who use lobbying and money to help control and define laws that effect us all, what do you honestly call it?

I agree with what you're saying, and yes, the nature of the government and corporations we have does invite a very muddled situation in which such definitions can't be easily made.

This is one of those problems whose cause is the consequence of another problem, namely the official collusion between state and industry. I believe in a complete separation of the two, for the same reasons that a separation between church and state is necessary - the concentration of political and economic (or religious) power is dangerous to freedom in a society.

I'm not one of those people that thinks corporations are inherently good, and that there should be no laws restricting inherently harmful business practices. But I do believe that government management of industry through regulation does invite industrial participation (via lobbying), creating an artificial layer of protection for some companies that doesn't exist for others.

The solution will be a long time in the making, but returning to a situation in which industries are free to operate freely, peacefully, and profitably - limited only by laws that protect people from specifically-defined rights-violating actions - will eliminate this, and many other, issues that plague our government and economy.

And it will eventually involve the abolition of "corporate personhood", which I strongly advocate (if done under the right conditions and for the right reasons).

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Eventually, when the issue comes to court (another break in the analogy because land is a tad bit more worth fighting over than data but moving on...)

Not to musicians, authors, journalists, visual artists, film and TV producers, or anyone else who owns a trademark or copyright. Media companies are nothing but traders in intellectual property.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: At this point you're really splitting hairs. It's not censorship if jackboots aren't involved?

I'm not splitting hairs -- I'm defining a clear difference between one kind of action and another.

I'm not blind to the murkiness of corporations using the government as a club to beat their competitors over the head, but if you wish to stop that sort of behavior, then it's necessary to make these kinds of distinctions and hold fast to them. It's not enough to say what they're doing is wrong, then pass some poorly-worded, whimsically-enforced regulation to stop them -- you have to have a solution which doesn't create this kind of scenario in the first place. That means differentiating between conflicts between private property owners (which are solved peacefully in court, and any force used is in retaliation against those that initiated it, i.e. criminals), and conflicts between private property owners and the government (which specifically and exclusively involves the gov't initiating force against a private entity).

Muddle those things up, and you have a situation in which the law is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what those in power want, which could be completely opposite what the last guys in power wanted. People aren't treated fairly by such a gov't; they're treated favorably or maliciously as a matter of political whim. No one can be sure of the legal status of any issue of copyright or intellectual property -- they either remain silent and let themselves be run over, or they take a risk and hope that their legal team is crafty enough to get them out of it.

We need a system which is fair for all people, clearly defined, and blindly applied regardless of who is involved. This requires "hair-splitting" definitions; like I said, if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, you have to choose your words very carefully - the "dictionary definition" word you use could have legal implications that will sink your case in a matter of syllables.

Lernaeus: randomjsa: This whole Glenn Beck thing was cute at first, what with you falsely accusing him of a crime and all but now it's just a sad pathetic group of arsehats in a circle jerk crying bitter tears over the fact that somebody they don't like is more popular than they are.

What's funny about that is that it has the opposite effect those people think it will.

Beck won't lose fans or advertisers because of that claim alone. If anything, his fans will stand behind him more, knowing that the claim is a flaccid attempt to discredit him. Even a new viewer/listener who looks it up online will see through it, and scoff at the ridiculous means critics will use to slander him.

It's like an atheist insulting a Christian for his beliefs -- does the atheist really think the Christian is going to say "Gee, you're right; I am an idiot!", or is it more likely the Christian is going to dig his heels in more and use the insult to strengthen his claim that Christians are unfairly persecuted?

You discredit Beck by attacking the substance of his arguments and beliefs; you only strengthen his position and influence by making childish accusations.

We're not accusing him of anything. We're encouraging him to dispel these vile rumors once and for all, by making it clear publically that he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990. We just want to know where he stands on this issue.

I had my account disabled once on Fark because of that thing with the HD-DVD decryption string. Does that count? Anyway if I wanted to see the two 2008 presidential campaign ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzuIHjQYW2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA

How would I do it? Those links are still dead.

Penman: We're not accusing him of anything. We're encouraging him to dispel these vile rumors once and for all, by making it clear publically that he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990. We just want to know where he stands on this issue.

While you're at it, why not ask him to prove ghosts don't exist?

Lernaeus: While you're at it, why not ask him to prove ghosts don't exist?

Why? Are they working for the enemy?

Queen of nonsensical takedown notices:



/she's pretty much making sure nobody under 30 ever has a change to hear Frank's music.
//Congrats, Gail. You've become The Central Scrutinizer.