Amusingly, criminals grasp what large corporations can't: Long-term profits > short-term profits.

My Logitech Illuminated Keyboard is wonderful, but it has a few keys that have mysteriously stopped working. Google has thoroughly failed me in diagnosing the issue, and because of how the keyboard is built, I can't take it apart or take any keys off without risking damage.

It has made me rather unhappy with Logitech. My next keyboard might be a different brand.

Yes, just like browsing through Linx is stealing.

Or browsing with NoScript.

Or browsing without Flash or Javascript.

Or getting up and making a sandwich during the commercial break.

I think there's a good reason you posted this as AC.

Only on Slashdot does ad hominem earn +5 insightful.

If Google (or any private entity) really has this much power over the Internet, I have concerns much greater than whether or not to block ads.

Erm, the person who posted the message is not as important as the message's content. In fact, the identity of the poster is almost completely irrelevant.

> It's not like running thousands of Tor nodes could help you spy on Tor users or anything, right?

Actually, it really wouldn't. Snooping on the traffic that runs through your exit node doesn't help you identify its source, as all you'll see is the IP address of the relay node that delivered the traffic to you. You would have to control every node in a chain, or at least a great deal of them, in order to begin to have a chance of identifying a Tor user, and since each chain of nodes is randomized for each connection, I highly doubt any organization in the world could pull this off.

Tom Petty's 2002 album, The Last DJ, is partially a stab at the greed and evil of the recording industry. Particularly, the tracks The Last DJ, Money Becomes King, Joe, and Can't Stop The Sun.

Ever since they stopped filing mass lawsuits against music sharers, public hatred for the RIAA has dropped a bit. Yes, they're still doing evil things behind the scenes, like pushing for "three strikes" and supporting ACTA, but those acts aren't publicized as well as the mass lawsuits were.

By contrast, the MPAA is constantly in the news about the latest evil thing it's been doing. The same goes for similar organizations like the BSA, IFPI, and AFACT.

I think the RIAA is yearning for the days when they were the most hated copyright organization, even if they don't consciously realize it. This is one of their attempts to get back in the game and earn some well-deserved public enmity.

You're right. Let's allow big corporations to do whatever they want, and let the free market decide. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. Sure, we'll end up with one massive carrier with absolutely horrid service and no competition, but it came about because of the free market, so that makes it okay, right?

Remind me again which part of "promoting the general welfare" that falls under.

Correction: Those are the laws the sites are alleged to have violated. No court has yet ruled that Rojadirecta broke any laws.

Anyway, I would contest your implied assertion that linking is copyright infringement. Rojadirecta does not host copyrighted content, it links to sites that may do so.

> So we shouldn't have any laws then because they *might* be unjust or because law enforcement could potentially overstep their authority?

We shouldn't have unjust laws. We should have measures in place to prevent and punish abuse of power by the government.

> This site broke the law.

Which law?

> They got shut down.

No, they didn't. The site isn't hosted in the US, and is legal in the country in which it's hosted. The US domain registrars revoked their .com and .org domains.

> They happened to have a forum. If you have a church in a meth lab you can't claim freedom of religion when the building is seized.

Feel free to tell us which law Rojadirecta breaks when they link to other sites. Then feel free to tell us why US laws should apply to a Spanish website.

Welp, there's another reason to hate the DMCA. Thanks for that.

Rojadirecta does not host copyrighted content. It links to other sites that may do so. If you believe that linking to sites that may host copyrighted material is illegal, then you can introduce some support for this position. Otherwise, this is most definitely a First Amendment issue because the government denied Rojadirecta an avenue for expressing itself.

> This perp did a crime

Feel free to tell us which US law Rojadirecta breaks when it links to other sites.