MPAA, Microsoft Testify Piracy Funds Terrorism 858
GuyMannDude writes "[Yesterday's] Oversight Hearing on "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism" featured the MPAA and Microsoft testifying that software and movie DVD counterfeiting is an acute problem, with criminal gangs operating factories in Russia, Malaysia and other countries that have weak copyright laws. They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror." There's another article about the hearing at Infoworld.
they are getting desparate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Interesting)
+5 Funny for Microsoft and the MPAA!
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Funny)
After all, anybody who preaches free health care must be "un-American." (Lately I've been thinking being unAmerican isn't all bad...)
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:3, Interesting)
So far everyone's just looked a bit embarrassed when it's been pointed out that that bank accounts all over the world
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:4, Interesting)
Snopes [snopes.com] had an interesting article on this. Can't link directly to it, but it's in the Rumors of War subsection, do a search for "shorted".
I'll cut and paste a small section:
On 10 September, another uneventful news day, American Airlines' option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected -- only United and American were shorted in this fashion. Accelerated investments speculating a downturn in the value of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch (two New York investment firms severely damaged by the World Trade Center attack) were also observed. The Chicago Board Options Exchange is investigating each of these trades and at this time is declining to offer comment on its progress. The volume traded and the one-sidedness of the trades, however, make it clear that those who had knowledge of the details of the attacks (which airlines would be involved and that the World Trade Center was a target) were behind them and stood to profit mightily from them.
convenient bandwagon (Score:5, Insightful)
If the current big evil was pollution, I'm sure they'd be coming up with some way to say that piracy was causing pollution... surely all those poorly run pirate factories are big polluters, right?
I would guess that a lot of the anti-civil-liberties laws that got shoved through recently were not created recently. I bet they were just waiting around for a good enough excuse that the public would accept it.
Re:convenient bandwagon (Score:5, Interesting)
So does this mean that Oil use funds terrorism??
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because they are legal. Prohibition is what creates gang warfare.
Remember, the most powerful gang warfare we ever had was during alcohol prohibition. Because more people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana, it created a lot more funding for Al Capone and his insidious cronies.
As long as things people want to do are illegal but still have high demand, they will fund the black market.
Legalize it.
The Merits of Drug Prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, just because prohibition causes problems is not necessarily an argument against prohibition; it is simply part of the cost-benefit analysis. Alcohol prohibition worked to some extent, it cut alcohol consumption in half. However, the general public decided that the costs of prohibition outweighed the benefits of reducing alcohol use.
When it comes to pot, all the scientific evidence shows that it is less harmful than alcohol; it isn't possible to overdose (unlike alcohol "poisoning"), there are no serious diseases proven to be caused by it (unlike cirrhosis of the liver), and it is not nearly as addictive (read up on delirium tremens, then find any description of pot addiction). Since pot is even less harmful than alcohol, there is even less reason to accept the cost of prohibiting it, as compared to alcohol.
Now with other drugs, like heroin, the benefits of reducing consumption may outweigh the costs of enforcement. Unfortunately, governments rarely bother to even admit the costs of prohibition, preferring to blame everything on the drug. The result is that people are forced to choose the more dangerous mind-altering substance, Alcohol. They must risk arrest in order to make the more responsible and intelligent choice of using pot, the least harmful mind-altering drug.
And do you know why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hlack market economies create violence. All of them. They have no real choice. The reason is simple: no recourse to the law.
What do you do if you buy a bottle rum at a liqour store and find out it's nothing but water? You call the police and have that jackass arrested for selling bogus merchandice.
What do you do if you buy some weed from a dealer and it turns out to be catnip and oregano? Call the cops? Last person I heard about that did that was arrested. No. You either live with the fact that you got ripped off or you shoot the sonofabitch.
Because the sale, puirchase and distribution of pot, or any other illegal drug, requires that the manufacturers/growers, distributors, sellers and end consumers all operate outside the law. This leaves them only one recourse when things go bad. This also leaves them no choice in how to deal with conflicts of any kind.
If legalized and sold through normal sales channels, drugstores (hey, that's a catchy name) drug-related violence will drop like a stone. If you can call the cops because that jackass at the corner pharmacy cuts his stock of Vantage Ultra Gold Columbian with catnip then you don't have to shoot him for it. If he knows that he can call the coips because you passed a bad check he knows he dowsn't have to shoot you for trying not to pay.
It's like the liqour business durring prohibition, or the porn industry when it was illegal to make blue movies, or like prostitution is right now. When you make something that people want illegal, you create a lawless subculture that is infested with violence.
Recent conviction on cigerette smuggling and terro (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, don't trivialize a claim. For example, the recent convictions [cnn.com] on cigerette smuggling used to fund terrorism. The smuggling was done right here in the old U.S. of A. So it is plausible that other avenues of crime are being used, including sales of drugs.
What I am trying to say is be skeptical, but don't dismiss outright.
Re:Recent conviction on cigerette smuggling and te (Score:4, Insightful)
after all, it seems that companies are so fucking terrified by copyright violation that they resort to stupidity, such as calling other countries' copyright laws 'weak' when in fact american copyright law is simply too strong. So if the companies are to be believed, anyone who buys bootleg copies of something is a terrorist, and is therefore funding piracy out of russia, china, and so forth as stated by many a post. And you know what? if companies are terrified of this inappropriately-labelled "piracy", then I'll speak out in its favor. I for one am sick of companies, especially ones that screw the little guy both during production and at the cash register, getting away with it. Now these alleged 'pirates' need to figure out a way to make the companies either simply die to be replaced with more ethical versions, or to change their ways...seems pretty hopeless actually.
Re:Recent conviction on cigerette smuggling and te (Score:5, Insightful)
Minds certainly should remain open, but if the claimant provides no facts to support the claim and instead depends on an appeal to a pre-existing emotion for validation (in this case justified outrage over the results of terrorism) then the claim trivializes itself.
Don't we see similar "appeals to outrage" here on
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Funny)
MASTURBATION PROVIDES AID TO TERRORISTS
It's the definition of terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately they have some creedence, since it's become de rigeur for politically motivated paramilitaries to tax or even run their own contraband operations to fund themselves -- FARC in Columbia, the IRA, Serbian paramilitaries, various Afghan groups, the defacto governments in the Southeast Asian highlands, Syria has heavy drug connections in the Bekaa valley and so on.
And of course lets not forget US heroin operations in Laos and Cambodia, coke smuggling in central America. I've also seen first hand hash stamped "support afghani resistance" during the height of the Soviet invasion.
agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's more dangerous than we thought"... What a bunch a shit...
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Insightful)
If these commercials were to show the truth, they would show a car full of stoners laughing as they wallk out of Krispy Kreme with 10 boxes of donuts... Harmless? =D
Re:they are getting desparate (Score:5, Funny)
The munchies stimulate the economy -- particularly in the service sector which, with the corps shipping all manufacturing off to overseas sweatshops, is exctly what puts money in the pockets of real Americans!
The Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah and Osama Bin Laden is sittin in a cave in Afghanistan with a buncha cds and a burner!
Surely the government must realize that any amount of legislation won't stop piracy, as it is a worldwide problem. U.S. laws won't stop foreign pirates (like the famous 0s4m4) from selling pirated software to other foreigners (Iraq, North Korea, you know...)
Therefore, we must make piracy uneconomical. The reason it is lucrative in the first place is that people don't want to pay MS $100 for a copy of Windows. Our only chance of survival is to make sure they don't even want to pay 41 q43d4 $1 for a copy of Windows. How do we do this? Simple!
I demand that the Federal Government divert huge amounts of money to fund KaZaA and immediately cease all lawsuits against P2P applications to save us from terrorists! After all, we must think of the children. Clearly the RIAA supports this, as made clear by their recent testimonial.
Sure it funds terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder how long until...? (Score:4, Funny)
On a lighter note, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could convince Dubya that spam funds terrorism? That'll be just about the only way to get his government to tackle that issue and I'm willing to bet that here's a more than a hint of truth to it too.
Sheesh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
supporting terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:supporting terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
The same goes for video games. Nintendo says that they lose over $600 million a year to terrorists [komotv.com]. "Pirated goods have proven to be a popular funding arm for terrorists, and Nintendo recently found out they were being used by Hezbollah, a high-profile terrorist group."
No more Britney for me! (Score:4, Funny)
new PSA (Score:5, Funny)
"I helped kill a cop by downloading Windows from Kazaa."
Another kid: "When I bought a bootleg of Harry Potter, I didn't know I was helping millions of terrorists"
Re:new PSA (Score:5, Funny)
-----------
Younger businessman: So I'm supposed to believe that pirating software funds terrorism?
Older businessman: That's right.
Younger businessman: Why's that?
OB: Because it's true.
YB: Because it's true?
OB: Because it's true.
YB: Hm... so it's true.
I'm just not sure which way I want to fund terror (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm just not sure which way I want to fund terr (Score:5, Interesting)
Where Do Terrorists Get Their Money? (Real format embedded) [adbusters.org]
If you can't view Real format video directly in your browser, here is a complete URL that you can cut 'n' paste into the "Open Location" menu item of Real Player, or use "Open With":
http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/movies/spotlight/Thi nkTank3/real_high.rpm [adbusters.org]
Thanks go to Adbusters.org.
--
Simon
how about the truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scaremoungering (Score:4, Interesting)
Next, they will be saying that filesharing funds terrorism too.
so? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it works for little Bush, why not for little Bill?
There's really nothing unusual going on there. Just the usual stupidity and simple-mindedness.
Bullshiiiiiiitttttt (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of like hardcore Vegans raising money for a campaign by holding a sausage sizzle.
Complete bullshit.
--
Simon
Re:Taliban (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't like the scare tactics and I'd like to see proof of the cash flow, it should be neither surprising nor controversial that illegal activity feeds on itself to society's detriment.
Re:Taliban (Score:4, Interesting)
I was also under the impression that the major piracy houses in places like Malaysia were actually semi-legitimate companies - that they operated openly, since it's not illegal there. They might very well still have ties to organized crime, which might in turn have ties to various terrorist groups, but it's not any different than a Mafia boss owning a nice resturaunt.
Re:Bullshiiiiiiitttttt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bullshiiiiiiitttttt (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bullshiiiiiiitttttt (Score:5, Informative)
Uh.. The Taliban had very strict laws against opium production. In fact, poppy cultivation has increased by 95% [bbc.co.uk] in Afganistan since the Taliban were removed. While I have no sympathy for the Taliban (certainly a brutally repressive regime), U.S. claims that they used opium production to finance terrorism seem specious to say the least. If there were terrorist groups making money by growing opium in Afganistan, they were most probably doing so without Taliban approval.
Alcohol (Score:3, Interesting)
I love todays propaganda, it's so transparent (Score:5, Insightful)
Nan
Re:I love todays propaganda, it's so transparent (Score:5, Interesting)
Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, praised the hearing for highlighting the "disastrous connection" between copyright piracy and organized crime. "I can't help but sit here and wonder ... if parents fully understand the ramifications of what it is to steal a movie or pirate a song," he said. "If more American parents understood the connection between the pirating of
intellectual property and organized crime, I think then there'd be a much more effective public relations response in our own country to better appreciate the disastrous ramifications."
Intended implication being "If your kids illegally download music, they will grow up to be Mafia shills or even terrorists!!"
The truly scary thing is that some people will actually believe this!! One has to pity their kids. :(
Loophole (Score:4, Funny)
The bandwagon's looking a little rickety... (Score:3, Funny)
Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a plan to me.
Re:Guess what? Religion funds Terrorism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny your statement sort of does that. Are you promoting terrorism against people who have faith?
The Problem (Score:4, Funny)
All children will be confiscated and raised in state-run facilities in a standard ISO Certified Environment. Care takers will work in pairs and those pairs rotated on a regular basis. Any hint of subversion (IE: Mentioning any form of religion, attempting to molest or otherwise mishandle the children, etc) will be reported and punished appropriately. Secret police agents will be rotated into the caretaker list from time to time to insure that caretakers are reporting suspecious behavior on the part of their co-workers. Any form of religion will not be mentioned and critical thinking skill development will be encouraged.
Forcing the interbreeding of the diverse races will also be a long term goal of the regime. At some point the state would probably find it necessary to require citizens to breed across racial lines, until everyone is a single ISO Certified color of Tan. Personally I think this is the only way to resolve the Israel/Palestinian problem too, but I have yet to find a way to a position to force the issue in those populations.
News Flash: (Score:5, Funny)
Breathing supports terrorism. Scientists have just discovered that if you breath oxygen, you are in fact taking away necessary, life giving resources, namely oxygen from those who fight the terrorists.
The public is now being asked to refrain from breathing so that the counter-terrorists do not run out of oxygen (although is was also recommended that if you are around any terrorist you should try to use as much oxygen as possible, because we believe that terrorists also use oxygen to live).
Okay... (Score:3, Informative)
When most people say "what, do you want to support the terrorists?" they're joking.
I think these two monopolists have just showed their true selves as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone who can say something so ridiculous is a joke themselves.
Where's the money? (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont know about the economics of international IP piracy, but I imagine that the piracy is more prevalent in areas where there is not enough money to pay for legitimate software. In this case, there still won't be enough money brought in to make a dent in the terrorists' pocketbooks.
To make big money, you have to sell things to people with money. This means the west (especially western Europe and the U.S.) The best way to get lots of money from the west is to sell them oil, drugs, or Pr0n.
This is why (Score:4, Interesting)
They've claimed silly things in the past to aid themselves
They've screwed over other companies to aid themselves
They've screwed over their own users to aid themselves
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
In this post 9/11 world... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was so pissed the first time I saw the commercial with the teenagers saying "I helped terrorists because I bought a dime bag" (or whatever). 9/11 was a *terrible* event, yes, but to try to make people think they're partly responsible because they commit some petty crime? Total BS.
Microsoft funds terrorism.... (Score:5, Interesting)
In case you don't have time to read the story, MS admitted to giving Benevolence International, the Muslim charity that funnled money to al-qaeda, around $20,000. You can buy a lot of box cutters with that money.
MS had better not throw stones in their glass house. And if you're going to start giving money to charities, it's a good idea to research them and make sure they are legit. Say what you will but MS is SUPER guilty of not doing research on this "charity".
Re:Microsoft funds terrorism.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Microsoft funds terrorism.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It may seem strange, but some countries have suffered terrorism long before 9/11. And yeah, it would have been funded by drugs, protection rackets and maybe even piracy. This article really is nothing new, as stuff like this has been going on for decades, bombs and guns dont come cheap.
Terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Upon thought & inspection, this sounds more like they're throwing more fodder on the fire which is quickly razing the USA's foreign policy & relations.
shame funds terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
But not oil companies, oh no.
Just keep it coming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just keep it coming... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like: police action? enduring freedom? liberation? conflict resolution?
Double speak has been perfected to a point that would make George Orwell blush.
no no, it funds tourism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:no no, it funds tourism (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Seems like a good solution for everyone. Microsoft and the MPAA, I implore you to end terrorism! Only you can do it!
supporting terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft promotes terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, can Microsoft truthfully claim that they are not terrorists? They use force in getting OEMs to only distribute machines with Microsoft tax. They threaten companies who have decided to support Linux or other operating systems. They strive to demoralize and intimidate everything and everyone. They use Microsoft as a political weapon and have changed laws with their money. Microsoft has fit the definition of terrorism perfectly.
Microsoft is a terrorist organization and they know it. I would not be suprised to see Osama Bin Laden hiding out at the Gates getaway.
Drugs are bad, mmkay? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think terrorism is a good thing, but I'm getting sick of all the reports:
"Sometimes, _________ is used to fund terrorism, so _________ is evil."
Drugs are bad because buying them funds terrorism. Yep, that's right. Even when it's homegrown. :P
I know that all those media conglomerates are the true source of funding for these things. So I'm going to buy my movies from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends from now on.
I'm sure I could find just as sketchy of a connection between the media companies and terrorism as they can find between [insert comman activity here] and terrorism.
Federation Against Copyright Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
More hysteria for soccer moms everywhere. I've seen mainstream media pick up on this meme too. As the wise George Castanza once said: "Remember Jerry, It's not a lie if you believe it".
BSA (Score:3, Funny)
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Microsoft & MPAA stated that pirating is rampant and bad.
They did *NOT* state that pirating=terrorism. That statement was made only by the Justice Department (which is not necessarily better, IMHO, but significantly different to the slant that the article lends).
From the article:
John Malcolm, a Justice Department official who oversees the computer crime division, warned the panel about the connections between copyright piracy and terrorism.
"Organized crime syndicates are frequently engaged in many types of illicit enterprises, including supporting terrorist activities," Malcolm said. "All components of the Justice Department...will do everything within their power to make sure that intellectual property piracy does not become a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror."
Ever Notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
All Together Now, With Feeling (Score:5, Interesting)
This is nothing more than a power grab. Plain and simple. That's the only explaination.
You want to know who's funding Osama bin Laden? Osama himself is. That wacky guy has almost $300 million dollars, and it's all his. He's bankrolling his own operation. We've already proven that his buddies have also been funding him, too. Hardcore militant Arabs are all about one thing: sticking to their guns and ousting technology in favor of hardline Muslim rule. That means oppressing women, forcing their will on people, and keeping things in the stone age. The only two uses they have for technology is A) Keeping Osama alive (he's on kidney dialasys) and B) using it against us to further his agenda.
Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA are only concerned about two things: losing money, and keeping control over their respective industries.
I have only two words for them: Fuck 'em.
Uh, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad Day (Score:5, Funny)
What DOESN'T fund terror? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like the really awful adds they have been running in the states where they talk about drug money funding terrorists.
What this means is that the US "War on drugs" fund s terrorism, as it is the current laws that artificially inflate the prices of narcotics to the point where it is highly profitable to sell them. You would think the US would have learned this lesson during Prohibition when the banning of alcohol pushed usage through the roof and funded the growth of organized crime.
Artificial scarcity has created the whole drug economy. Remove that factor and it will no longer have the huge profit margin. Remove the profit margin and incentive to produce and distribute will be reduced, as well as the money available to be spent on weapons, bribes, and other criminal/terrorist groups.
Will it end drug traffic? No. Will it make it a heck of a lot harder for the organized groups involved to pay for weapons, transport, and bribes? Yes. You have to ask yourself which is more dangerous. People screwing themselves over of their own free will as they already do, or large well funded, armed, influencial groups that are activly working to increase their sales and protect their profit.
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, the user searches on an industry or activity, and -ideally in six steps or less- it's put into a chain of other industries or activities, leading back to terrorism.
I'm only half-joking; this would make an interesting project, and I hope it would get the point across: that terrorism must not be allowed to significantly impact our lives. Because that really is how they win, by dominating us through fear.
war on terror = the new communism (Score:4, Interesting)
Pick something that people hate and use the hatred of as a vechicle to drive all kinds of crap under the nose of joe public
"Uh huh, we'd like clean air too buddy, but you know it's them damn terrorists"
"Drilling for oil in the rain forest, before we sell it to the corporate burger guys to raise cattle in inhumane conditions, we'd love to stop it too but you know it's them damn terrorists"
"we'd love to stop bugging your phone but you know
repeat until the next election, kiss baby, smile, wave at camera.
I am taking suggestions, on what will take over from Terrorism, open source anyone?
The only logical conclusion... (Score:5, Funny)
This sets a dangerour precedent.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this not good?. For quite a few reasons. Many in the free software and open source community face various uphill battles when trying to use or get others to use non-commercial, specifically, non-m$ products. Linking piracy of IP to terrorism starts sending the message that anyone interested in not buying software could be deemed a non-patriotic (think France and the Florida Freedom Fries and Liberty dressing if you don't follow me) and someone helping anyone that doesn't necessairly fall in line with the accepted point of view of what's legal and what isn't, is gonna soon be in trouble.
I'm all for supporting the software industry and making money selling software. However, the price barrier for purchasing software in other countries is sometimes so high, that the only alternative is to get a pirated copy. This monolithic view of buy our software at the price we set, period!, can only play well in economies that can support the cost. If m$ would instead take this as maybe their customers outside of wealthy countries cannot afford $199 for a version of XP and we will then adjust accordingly and fairly, then I think there would actually be less piracy. However, Bill did not become the worlds richest man being fair.
That said, when a proven monopoly, who got off scott free, links these circumstances to terrorism, it basically opens the door for the U.S. govt to now start not only being the morality police of the world, but the information police. This is not far fetched. When a company pushes the way m$ has for Palladium, Digital Restrication Management, and product activation, closed 'standards', they basically start controlling how you can and cannot access information. As time rolls on this will become more and more critical as more and more of the world hits the net and connects with other. This is textbook civics/government high school class stuff.
These issues are well documented through many writers on many sites. The connection of information, freedom to own what you buy (not a license to use it), intellectual property, and the linking of piracy to terrorism makes for a dim future for everyone who does not want to, cannot follow along (land of the free?) or cannot afford ot license every idea and process under the sun. The America for the individual will be fine as long as you play within the boundries set by the few like Valenti, Gates, Ashcroft (remember how he said the latest m$ court 'ruling' was a victory for the consumer??) - their vision of morality and what constitutes fairness.
Frankly, this persuades me more and more to let friends and family know that their use of products that these companies crank out, will restrict their freedom more and more as time rolls on. As technologies like Palladium and DRM mature and are used more widely throughout the world, these issues will be harder, if not impossible to dodge and the way the net and our machines work now, will not exist. It is up to everyone who sees this to do their part, however small. Support the FSF, Non-M$ anything, your local/fav Linux distro, contribute some code or time to a os/gpl/free project, or purchase hardware from alternate non-M$ only hardware manufacturer (are there any?). Along with our voices, our dollars will be the most significant in making sure that we will have a choice in the future.
Think about who is talking here. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that Jack Valenti.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
And my fave,
"I sleep each night a little better, a little more confidently, because Lyndon Johnson is my president. "
That's an old one, but sort of illustrates the point. Jack Valenti is a ridiculous dinosaur from the Johnson administration, and he still thinks like a military guy from that era. He's not an idiot, but he is massively self-deluding, and you can count on him to not concede anything he doesn't absolutely have to. Like many old-school execs, Valenti will never totally grasp the fact that scarcity of media is history. He'd rather fight than adapt. Which is a shame - as these types of organizations (MPAA studios, etc.) essentially have a first-shot opportunity when situations like P2P arise, through startup capital and established contracts.
It's rhetoric. He does it to get a rise out of people. It's the Bigger Hammer approach. You can try and yell louder, or you can ignore him.
The Gummi Bears Go To Washington (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair... (Score:5, Informative)
For now, at least, the corporations are not exactly synonymous with the government.... even if they do pull the strings.
This is true. Here's proof. (Score:5, Funny)
In the early 1980s, I tried a similar tactic with my parents. I was hooked on video games, and attempted to explain that if I didn't get an Atari 2600, they'd be funding terrorism.
I also explained the lack of quarters for the Aladdin's Castle in the mall was probably funding terrorism. When I wanted a TRS-80 Model I Level II computer and my parents refused, I urged them to rethink their stance. "Not buying the computer probably means you're funding terrorism."
My dad looked at me, told me to go to my room and not come out for a while. From behind my bedroom door, I yelled out that by grounding me, they were supporting the Soviets in Afghanistan. By not purchasing the Mattel 'Big Trak' remote control car I coveted, they were essentially supporting the Argentinians in the Falkland Island dispute. But they held firm.
When, many years later, my parents refused to fund the purchase of my first automoble (a little Buick Opel), I wondered whether or not their recalcitrance wasn't actually helping Manuel Noreiga in Panama. I explained that by refusing to do what I asked was probably assisting rogue regimes across the globe.
And now, take a look around. The North Koreans are threatening to rain missiles down on America's cities. Sadaam Hussein is sitting in his bunker with some sweet tea, watching Tony Blair struggle for his political life. General Idi Amin Dada is still exiled in Saudi Arabia, but I'm betting he's got a funding pipeline that comes directly from all those times my parents refused to give me five dollar bills so that I could go to Aladdin's Castle and get the five extra tokens when you stuck a five dollar bill in the cash machine.
The rise of rogue regimes is the direct results of doing things I didn't want done. Microsoft is absolutely right.
Chilling quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Read that again - federal felony for
Impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional pirates are businessmen. (Also see: professional drug dealers). If they invest money in anything, they want to see some sort of return on it - giving the money to terrorist groups is about as financially effective as setting it in a pile and lighting it on fire. Why would anyone trying to maximise their profits give their money to people who can't make it into more money, when sound investment opportunities are right there for the taking?
Having terrorists blow things up and wreck the economy is also not exactly something that someone who wants to make good investments would probably be very interested in. So, now you have two great reasons not to give your money to these people. So, seriously, NO ONE is doing this, and the entire concept is bullshit.
Here's the catch... (Score:5, Funny)
The black market in software and pirated DVDs only exists because there is a profit to be made by selling those pirated items.
If you make it possible to obtain those items without paying for them (i.e. P2P networks), then there's no profit to be made by selling individual discs!
Thus: Napster, Kazaa, and Gnutella are fighting the war on terror!
i wish i had ARTICLE mod points (Score:5, Informative)
The slashdot submissions clearly says that microsoft and the MPAA are both testifying that piracy supports terrorism.
"[Yesterday's] Oversight Hearing on "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism" featured the MPAA and Microsoft testifying that software and movie DVD counterfeiting is an acute problem, with criminal gangs operating factories in Russia, Malaysia and other countries that have weak copyright laws. They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror."
BULLSHIT
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/lamagna031303.pd
Here is the exact testimony of the microsoft lawyer. Terrorism is not mentioned a single time.
Microsoft's only contention here is that the majority of large scale piracy is done by very well funded operations with links to organized crime, primarily backed by and operating in countries with less strict or non-existant IP laws. It then goes on to say that much of the profit (and its nearly ALL profit) of these operations goes to funding other activity within those crime organizations, some of which is violent crime. There is PROOF of this cited in the comments. The only part of it that is conjecture is the estimated revenue and job losses due to piracy, the arguments against which are well known and do not need to be repeated here.
Nowhere in the microsoft testimony, nor in the ZDNET article is there any link between MS testimony and terrorism _at all_. Nowhere is MS claiming that piracy causes terrorism. Nowhere is there anything to indicate that MS and the MPAA are best friends in crushing your inner child.
This website might as well change its name to "microsoft_enquierer" or "microsoftdailysun" or some similar such tabloid name.
Oh wait! we already have theregister (which nearly every MS related article on slashdot invariably links to as an authoritative or credible source of "journalism")
If slashdot is going to try and act as a political or any other kind of entity, stick to the facts, clearly differentiate conjecture from reality, and at least make a half hearted attempt at being accurate.
Re:Oh Wait!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
since Bush let them off the hook.....
Re:Oh No!!! (Score:5, Funny)
If you can download it for free, that would undercut the piracy market which is funding terrorist.
Put your wares online for America!
Re:Oh No!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The only rational way to argue that piracy funds terrorism is that organized pirates sell pirated copies and transfer the funds to terrorist organizations in order to buy weapons, supplies, Swiss-Army Knives, Freedom Fries and other terroristy things like that.
If all piracy takes place on P2P networks, there's no cash, and thus no profit for Al-Qaida or Iraq.
There are real activities that fund terrorism, such as the illegal sale of oil from sanctioned countries and diamond and gold mining. Trading the latest Britney Spears track, the latest Hollywood movie DVD rip, or the latest Microsoft OS ISO rip is so far removed from terrorism that it's laughable to try to associate them. This is an ad hominem attack of the most blatant kind.
Re:Oh No!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Heh funny as that comment is, there's a good point to be made here. The MPAA should not call online trading piracy if they're going to associate it with terrorism that way.
Or should we just sling it right back at them?
"The MPAA funds terrorism by making movies available."
We can laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We can laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Care to share an example?
Further, regimes like that have always existed - and everyone knows they use the flimsiest of excuses to justify their dirty work. Welcome to the real world. At least the US is trying to clean up one of the worst offenders.
It has been 1 1/2 year since 9/11 and the Bush administration still has no exact definition of the word "terrorist".
Try Webster's Unabridged:
"a person who uses or favors terrorizing methods"
I hope that cleared things up for you.
(BTW, don't get me wrong, I have issues with the 'war on terror'. For instance, when will 'terror' surrender or sign an armistice? This could be the modern version of the 100 Years War, which can't be a good thing. Our 'temporary' loss of civil liberties could turn out to be as 'temporary' as income tax.)
Re:We can laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, your suggestion that America is right to attack Iraq is ludicrous. There are only two types of people dying in Iraq: children who die because we have imposed harsh restrictions on the nation of Iraq, and criminals who die for violating the laws of Iraq. How is this any different from America? Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone. The primary difference, you might say, is that some of those criminals in Iraq are merely political dissidents who oppose the Iraqi regime.
This thinking is flawed in two regards. First, America itself has begun to jail political dissidents as part of their war on terrorism. I can think of no better example than of the three men who were arrested for donating money to help Iraqi citizens. Members of our government have repeatedly claimed that financial contributions are protected as political speech, and yet the same rights have been denied to critics of our government. We jail dissidents while Iraq kills them. Obviously, we are morally superior to Iraq, no? Obviously he's a horrible despot who slaughters his citizens by the hundreds. Yet, from the perspective of nations like France or Britain, we are the morally depraved for we kill our common criminals. By the hundreds, we kill them. Should we expect the British or French to wage war against America to stop us from immorally killing our own citizens?
Of course, you may counter by reminding us of the Kurds, whom Saddam willfully exterminated. However, America has comitted a similar atrocity against its own people. You may suggest that that was long ago, and that it no longer matters; that we no longer butcher our citizens. This is true, but only because we instead murder the citizens of other nations. How can we claim, then, to be any better?
Despite your concerns about the loss of our civil liberties, you nonetheless advocate war with Iraq. I promise you that, once Iraq has been bombed and Saddam killed/deposed, that the loss of our liberties will continue, but at an increased rate, for the invasion of Iraq would further strengthen the resolve of the many anti-American rebels who remain in this world.
Re:We can laugh... (Score:5, Informative)
Your most cogent point is the last one you made... a war will simply continue the cycle of hate that has prospered in these times. In fact, my main concern is that no comprehensive plan and, more importantly in today's world, no long-term money has been committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we drop that ball, so to speak, we're going to just create more hate and more terrorists.
Sujal
Re:We can laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The current article (P2P pirates funding networks) is an example of how effectively the people in power can mask their own agendas. Everyone knows that file sharing is more an "el cheapo" way of getting software/multi media/pr0n etc. It is also an effective way for mirroring legitimate content (say, GNU/Linux iso images). However, do you think the news networks would address that issue?
The real terrorists are the ones that benefit a lot when there is a conflict in the world. And, that my friend are the military hawks, and not some cheap bastards trading files 'cuz they can't afford buying that stuff.
S
Re:We can laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you agree with what they're doing, they're freedom fighters...
If you don't agree with them, they're terrorists,
If you're not quite sure yet, then they're guerillas.
Re:Oh No!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
NEWS FLASH!
All black market activities fund terrorism in one way or another. That is how the black market works. Alcohol sales funded terrorism in the US during prohibition. Cocaine, stolen art, fake Levi jeans, ivory, all contribute to terrorism.
If we had a black market in Barbie dolls the money would be used to fund terrorism.
x "is used to fund terrorism" isn't really an effective argument for more controls over x. It is a better argument for making x freely available so that there will be no black market for it.
Obviously the MPAA and MS wouldn't go for the idea but they are the ones creating the black market with their licensing requirements. If they really cared about avoiding the funding of terrorism they would let whoever wanted to copy their stuff copy it freely.
Anyhow, why are they spending their energy harassing p2p users when they have the real hardcore criminal gangs to go after? Could it be because the average p2p user don't have bombs?
Re:The Ghost of Senator McCarthy (Score:4, Insightful)
You nailed it. I get the feeling a new McCarthyism is creeping into American society, and if it is allowed to continue, people will be ostracized for not believing anything the Nazional Republikan regime in Washington wants them to. There is a hidden agenda among these people to destroy freedom, to co-opt individual rights in favor of the corporation, and to create what amounts to an American empire in the world. It is this arrogant, corrupting agenda that the rest of the world opposes, and this proclamation by MS and the MPAA is another example of the absurd lengths they will go to get their way on what matters most to them-- the almighty dollar. In their eyes:
When will it end?