Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Companies Who Support Censoring the Internet

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the list-you-don't-want-to-be-on dept.

Censorship 299

RichiH writes "From Techdirt: 'A group of companies sent a letter to to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton (with cc's to VP Joe Biden, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. John Conyers, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley), supporting the continued seizure of domain names they don't like, as well as the new COICA censorship bill, despite the serious Constitutional questions raised about how such seizures violate due process and free speech principles.' A full list of companies who you might want to avoid buying from is included, as well."

cancel ×

299 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wall Street rules (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935898)

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935948)

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?

Lol, at the bottom of the /. page right now:

Everywhere I look I see NEGATIVITY and ASPHALT ...

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935994)

Heh, well, the positive thing would be widespread resistance, but it's just not there. It's easy for me to boycott because I'm broke.

Re:Wall Street rules (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936570)

No. The positive thing would be a sudden deluge of nigger jokes posted on every street corner, every wall, every billboard, every internet forum. Then the world will finally be desensitized to the word "nigger", helping to end real racism. People will pull the stick out of their asses and learn to laugh at things that are not politically correct, and it's okay, because they will laugh at ALL of them including their own group. Course, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton won't have anything to bitch about, they'll be out of a job, but so what?

Re:Wall Street rules (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936068)

How about instead of snark, you contact your senators and representative, and vote for liberals (that's liberals, not Democrats) whenever possible? There are people in government trying to block this, you know. Hell, it'd already be law if not for Senator Wyden.

People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

Re:Wall Street rules (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936146)

...vote for liberals...

I'll have to conscript one. There are no liberals volunteering to serve. A lot of posers, but nothing realistic. And anybody who actually wants the job is probably unfit. It's better to reign in their authority no matter who we vote for. They have way too much power.

Re:Wall Street rules (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936286)

I think you mean libertarians. You know, the guys who actually give a damn about adhering to constitutionality and civil liberties, even when it doesn't directly suit the individuals personal gain in any way.

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936304)

How about instead of snark, you contact your senators and representative, and vote for liberals (that's liberals, not Democrats) whenever possible? There are people in government trying to block this, you know. Hell, it'd already be law if not for Senator Wyden.

My senators and representatives? What am I, Comcast?

There may be the odd politician that will throw us a bone, but given the current electoral vetting process you can be damn sure that most of them never even make it onto the ballot. I do vote, but when it comes down to it Democrats and Republicans are just two heads of the same hydra.

Re:Wall Street rules (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936332)

People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

Excuse me?

Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.

Fix the system not the people.

Re:Wall Street rules (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936366)

Excuse me?

Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.

Fix the system not the people.

See, you're confused. You say you don't want to "enable the government by voting". That's wrong on two counts:

1) The government is just a system. It doesn't need "enabling". It just is.
2) The plutocrats and corrupt politicians that you really have a problem with don't need your vote. They win by default when you don't vote. It is by not voting that you "enable" them.

Be an apathetic coward wallowing in self-pity if you like, you have that right, but don't delude yourself into believing that it isn't that very act that is causing the problem.

Re:Wall Street rules (3, Insightful)

Worthless_Comments (987427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936394)

You think your vote actually counts? Heh. Tell it to Diebold.

Re:Wall Street rules (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936506)

That's Premier Election Solutions, Inc, you insensitive clod!

Re:Wall Street rules (4, Insightful)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936454)

People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

People who realize that voting doesn't matter are a tiny minority of the population. We are outnumbered 100 to 1 by the ignorant masses who buy into the phony conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, and don't even know what the actually important issues are (i.e. the ones where both parties always stand together against the public interest).

Re:Wall Street rules (4, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936116)

Yeah. Awesome - I'll just make sure that I move out of Oregon so that I'm in on way supporting Nike, Adidas, or Columbia Sportswear (WTF?) through state business breaks of any kind. And discontinue my access to the internet, so I'm not supporting those companies And then I'll be sure not to watch a significant chunk of movies, from the film companies below. Or video games, since about 50% of games seem to come from Activision.

The thing is, I understand the concerns of these companies. I understand that they want to be able to attack forgeries piracy, wherever they may originate (and note, by "piracy", I mean the guys who make and sell copies of digital and other content and sell it for a profit as their own; not some kid in his basement playing an illegitimate copy of a game that he downloaded).

I just don't understand why so many are entertaining the idea - neigh, supporting it - of violating so many rights in such clear and offensive ways. Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process? In fact, yanking the domains should be a lengthy formal process; not a whim.

Also . . . ICE? Immigration? WTF?

Also . . . isn't it great that DHS/Homeland Security is now involved in EVERYTHING? The fate of the entire country is at stake! Code orange must now be raised to terrorism code red, because this guy has a dozen fake Rolexes! Oh noes!

Oh well. I still have netflix, starbucks, minivans, teh baby jebus, and nascar -- and as an American, that's all I need to be content and shut my mouth and look the other way.

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936496)

Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process?

Because any judgments stemming from such lawsuits would be unlikely to even pay their legal bills, let alone recoup the financial losses. They're in a no win situation - sue and loose money, or don't sue and lose money. Just yanking domains is a much simpler alternative.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do sympathize. I'd like to think I wouldn't compromise my own principles if put in that situation, but with millions of dollars on the line things tend to get a bit tense.

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

stumblingblock (409645) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936630)

Every time you open your wallet, it is a political act. Think about every transaction individually, with any prejudices you may rightfully have. No one situation will change the world, but cumulatively, an effect will be made. Just ask a marketing guy.

Boycott (2)

cez (539085) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936388)

not worthless! Vote with your wallet. I know I'm personally never going to Xerox anything ever again or any derivative thereof... that will show them!

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936504)

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

Wrong. The diversified investment portfolios only give money to the current shareholders and the "financial advisors" (read as: investment salesmen). When you buy stock, you don't buy it from the company, but from the previous stockholder (unless it happens to be from a current company associate). The companies whose stock is public, ALREADY got their money from their Initial Public Offerings.

Boycotts do affect companies, as you don't affect their initial invetment, but their cashflow. Boycott a company long enough (and with enough people), and then they'll start worrying. By the way, with negative publicity, their stock values will decrease, and the stock the current owners are already holding will see their investment in jeopardy. The trick is to have your boycott reach enough people.

Alternate suggestion: Publish the negative stuff on twitter (I am not a lawyer, so be careful with libel lawsuits).

Re:Wall Street rules (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936670)

By the way, with negative publicity, their stock values will decrease...

Dream on [decormyeyes.com] :-)

The list (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34935912)

Nike - Beaverton, OR
Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
NBC Universal - New York, NY
Viacom - New York, NY
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
Activision - Santa Monica, CA
Adidas Group - Portland, OR
Xerox - Norwalk, CT
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
Coty Inc. - New York, NY
EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
Chanel USA - New York, NY
True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
National Basketball Association - New York, NY
National Football League - New York, NY
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
Timberland - Stratham, NH
Major League Baseball - New York, NY
Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
Burberry Limited - New York, NY
Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR

Re:The list (4, Insightful)

Fishead (658061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935978)

Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA

LoL, yeah, I could see how Monster Cable's business model could be threatened by free (as in bird) and open communication.

Re:The list (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936220)

You have something against overpriced, over-hyped, cables?

Monster, explain again how your super high fidelity cables are going to improve my HDMI connection, or even the analog audio of my (quieter than most but still) relatively noisy automobile environment. I keep forgetting what advantages your cables provide in such situations.

Re:The list (5, Funny)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936356)

The bits get stuck if the copper does not point the right way. Low quality cables also cause bits to degrade which means that they will obviously not sound the same as the near perfect bits that have passed though Monster cables.

Nine out of ten Monster customers confirm that good cables sound better than cheap cables.

The other 10% confirm that bits are happier travelling through Monster cables and they are therefore more ethically acceptable.

Please note that if you are reading this over anything other than an audiophile quality ethernet cable you will not be able to understand it properly and will therefore think its all nonsense. Please try a better quality cable to understand properly.

Re:The list (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936556)

zing

Re:The list (1)

Illogical Spock (1058270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936424)

The communication will be more free and open if you use Monster Cables, because we use gold connectors and state-of-the-art components to allow your communication pass without interference or any noise. This is why the cable costs 250 times more that other one.

Re:The list (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936470)

I've heard Monster is lobbying to ban coathangers and alligator clips.

Re:The list (1)

Stormscape (998750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935988)

Cancelled my World of Warcraft account because of this. Finally free!

Re:The list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936042)

If you are going to copy someone, at least remove the modicum of creativity that grants them a copyright.

Here, in alphabetical order:

Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Activision - Santa Monica, CA
Adidas Group - Portland, OR
Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
Burberry Limited - New York, NY
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Chanel USA - New York, NY
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR
Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
Coty Inc. - New York, NY
Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
Major League Baseball - New York, NY
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
National Basketball Association - New York, NY
National Football League - New York, NY
NBC Universal - New York, NY
Nike - Beaverton, OR
Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
Timberland - Stratham, NH
Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
Viacom - New York, NY
Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
Xerox - Norwalk, CT

Odd List (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936190)

What an odd group. Wonder what the common thread is? How is it that these companies cmae together to sign this letter?

Re:Odd List (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936224)

Wonder what the common thread is?

Lawyers, guns, and money...

Re:Odd List (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936230)

Wonder what the common thread is?

Lawyers, guns, and money...

Then the hookers can't be far behind!

Re:Odd List (4, Insightful)

trentblase (717954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936234)

What an odd group. Wonder what the common thread is? How is it that these companies cmae together to sign this letter?

It looks like a list of companies that have a lot tied up in their trademarks. Monster Cable is always suing other people over the Monster name. Xerox has always been on the verge of having it's name genericized. Fashion houses have almost their entire value in their brands. At least the tech companies can fall back on their patents to defend their turf.

Re:Odd List (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936590)

"Fashion houses have almost their entire value in their brands". Have to disagree with this one and say they have ALL their value in their brand. My wife sews her own clothes, and it is perfectly legal for her to make exact duplicates of designer dresses, and even sell them - just as long as she doesn't try to pass them off as the real thing. They can legally be completely identical, except for the label.

Common thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936588)

They're United Scum.

Time to simply boycott anything that gives profits to US companies and US-styled multinationals (Sony).

Easy if one doesn't live in the US :D

Re:The list (1)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936436)

So this is the list of companies that never will receive my money again. Not that it would be hard, I have hardly ever bought anything from any of these in the past.

Re:The list (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936550)

This is why nerd boycotts never work. It's like a Mormon boycotting Budweiser, or a hippie threatening to boycott the Ivory soap company. Not exactly great tactics. The only companies that would take you seriously are the ones you'll never have an excuse to boycott.

Re:The list (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936558)

Are you sure about that?

Viacom == CBS, Comedy Central (Colbert/Daily Show), BET, The CW, MTV, Showtime, many radio stations, last.cm, CNET, download.com, gameFAQs, GameSpot, Metacritic, techrepublic, tv.com, ZDNet, Simon & Schuster, Westinghouse, etc.

NBC Universal == General Electric, Comcast, NBC, USA network, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Weather Channel, AT&T, Hulu, Vivendi, MCA, SyFy, Universal Music, Biography channel, National Geographic channel, A&E, Tivo, many radio/tv stations, etc.

Not to mention the many other subsidiaries of the companies and branches listed above. And that's just two companies. Chances are good that you'll buy something (or many things) in the next year that benefit Nike or Adidas or Activision, but are under brands and subsidiaries that we aren't familiar with.

It is extremely difficult to actually boycott a corporation these days. Hell, if you decided to boycott Proctor & Gamble, you'd probably never be able to buy a single thing for the rest of your life.

Re:The list (by state) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936626)

Likewise with my sibling post, here is a list by state:

AZ PING - Phoenix, AZ

CA Activision - Santa Monica, CA
CA Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
CA Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
CA Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
CA Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
CA Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
CA Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
CA Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
CA Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
CA The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
CA True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
CA Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
CA Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
CA Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA

CT Xerox - Norwalk, CT

GA The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA

IL Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
IL Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL

MA Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA

NH Timberland - Stratham, NH

NY Burberry Limited - New York, NY
NY Chanel USA - New York, NY
NY Coty Inc. - New York, NY
NY D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
NY Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
NY Major League Baseball - New York, NY
NY National Basketball Association - New York, NY
NY National Football League - New York, NY
NY NBC Universal - New York, NY
NY Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
NY Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
NY Viacom - New York, NY

OH EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH

OR Adidas Group - Portland, OR
OR Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR
OR Nike - Beaverton, OR

TN Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
TN Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN

TX Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
TX Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
TX Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX

VA Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA

Xerox? (5, Insightful)

phiz187 (533366) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935938)

Really Xerox? After all of the legal drama you've gone through, as publishers tried to hold YOU contributorily responsible for copyright infringement committed by your users?!

Re:Xerox? (4, Interesting)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936038)

Kudos for picking that one out. I notice that there's very little tech in this list. In fact, the overly large representation from sports-related companies has me wondering what's up with them. I know counterfeit sports apparel is a bit of a pain for them, but I didn't know that it was that bad.

Maybe Xerox is looking at finally taking on Apple and Microsoft over that whole GUI thing?

Re:Xerox? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936184)

The volume of counterfeit golf clubs coming from Asia is huge.

Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Nike - Beaverton, OR
PING - Phoenix, AZ

Re:Xerox? (3, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936208)

Looks like a bunch of "name brands"... the kind of thing a frugal shopper should avoid. You've heard of those brands because they pay a lot for you to hear about them.

Most of them make quality products, but some of them I have avoided specifically because I would like "unbranded" items. Just a quirk or mine, I guess.

Notice you don't see price "equalizers" on the list, like Google, Amazon, web travel sites, or heh, that famous "Kirkland" brand...

Re:Xerox? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936594)

Amazon is already on my list for banning Wikileaks. Much more significant than what ICE does.

I personally believe that a war on counterfeit, branded items should be a higher priority (see all counterfeit CISCO gear). Nothing to do with censorship here. But if you sell CISCO gear, it is suppose to be from CISCO not from some Chinese knockoff. The reasons are plain and simple,

  1. the company bears the blunt of complaints - if counterfeit stuff is broken, then the company image suffers, not the knockoff creator's
  2. customers pay thieves for products that have no warranty, no backing of any kind.
  3. counterfeit products may result in injury or worse - see counterfeit toothpaste laced with antifreeze that killed dozens of people, or the melamine milk in China

This is what ICE is *suppose* to do. They are suppose to confiscate counterfeit goods and work to shut down these operations.

What ICE should NOT be doing is censoring the internet! Copied bits are not counterfeit goods, unless someone is selling them as the originals.

Re:Xerox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936218)

Kudos for picking that one out. I notice that there's very little tech in this list. In fact, the overly large representation from sports-related companies has me wondering what's up with them. I know counterfeit sports apparel is a bit of a pain for them, but I didn't know that it was that bad.

Maybe Xerox is looking at finally taking on Apple and Microsoft over that whole GUI thing?

Just remember one of the primary participants in this charade is non other than MSNBC

Re:Xerox? (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936338)

Sports affilate groups (NBA, NFL, MLB, etc..) have much to lose if they lose their licensing monopolies. EG, they can currently charge Comcast/NBC for the "Priviledge" of airing the superbowl, and have sole copyright over the entire "Performance" of *all* games played under their banners, regardless of which agency is doing the filming. Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games? The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded, etc?

[sarcasm]A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats, and dare I say it... FAIR USE (as in, the REAL deal) clips of game events to be proliferated without their having their fingers in the pie! I mean, Somebody MIGHT get to see a world record touchdown FOR FREE! [/sarcasm]

This same mentality is also applicable against the people who save up for the Season Pass tickets, get good seats on game day, and decide to bring the camcorder. Their camcorder footage is the property of [NBA/NFL/MLB/etc], and NOT them, and totally illegal as far as same is concerned. The fear that such footage might end up on YouTube, for free, makes their sphincters tighten.

THAT is why they support internet censorship.

Re:Xerox? (2, Interesting)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936354)

It's worth noting that while Nike supports stronger anti-counterfeiting laws (natch), they wrote Senator Wyden asking him not to break the internet. [techdirt.com] From the letter:

"The Internet is too important to our economy and to advancing American values to be inappropriately regulated and censored under the guise of protecting IP"

Re:Xerox? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936482)

They're heavy in big media (which most certainly includes sports leagues) for obvious reasons. They also appear to have representation in products that are easily knocked off (ie, the label is all the shitty product is worth). Sports apparel is definitely a category where the label is what you're paying for. But there are many others listed that fall in that bin that aren't sports related - Tiffany, Chanel, etc.

Re:Xerox? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936498)

The sports companies are there for a very good reason: illegal streaming of live games and content. And they totally deserve it. Buying a yearly subscription for the NFL, NBA and MLB easily costs more than many cable subscriptions. They won't have success in taking the streams down (many are out of the US or P2P-based), but they can still threaten to stop providing money for their bought-off politicians and beaurocrats.

Re:Xerox? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936232)

The oppressed becoming the oppressor? Somebody has to suffer.

D'Addario (4, Insightful)

JohnHorton (1672390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935958)

Until I read this, I used D'Addario strings on my guitar. Now that I see their name on that list, I will never use them again. Thankfully, I don't make use of any of the products of those other companies. That being said, there is no way to "vote with your wallet" anymore, because the corporations control everything, and shy of living an agrarian life in the middle of nowhere, your money will end up in their hands. Even if people on the whole turned against them, buying only locally made products, etc, the corporations would just lobby to have their way, and get it.

Re:D'Addario (3, Informative)

grainofsand (548591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935970)

Agreed. Try Ernie Ball - I have been using them for years and love them.

Re:D'Addario (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936054)

Good strings. I'll only buy those for my electric from now on. Ernie even interacts on his own internet board.

Re:D'Addario (2)

grainofsand (548591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936112)

Uhm - that's amazing customer service given that he has been dead since 2004.

But still - great strings and a good company to deal with.

   

Re:D'Addario (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936216)

That makes me sad. Well, I saw someone from the company interact on the board and honestly defend the strings in a search I did a while back. No glittering generalities, just that they make the best strings to their specifications and don't overcharge for it.

Re:D'Addario (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936168)

Ernie even interacts on his own internet board.

Sadly, he passed away in 2004.

Re:D'Addario (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936270)

I'd give you +1 for decency if I could.

Re:D'Addario (1)

Kernel Krumpit (1912708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936130)

Ernie Ball it is then - bye bye D'Addario (also after decades of use) - for all our band members and their string playing peers. thank you.

Re:D'Addario (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936282)

If you can get them, try the gold plated strings. They cost more, but they sound good and proportionately, last a lot longer than they cost more.

Re:D'Addario (1)

JohnHorton (1672390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936352)

I'll definitely have to try them.

Re:D'Addario (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936272)

Me too. I use(d) D'Addario strings. Now I have a reason to hate them.

I'm really glad my employer wasn't on that list. There are way too many Oregon companies there.

Re:D'Addario Change the Channel Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936312)

That being said, there is no way to "vote with your wallet" anymore, because the corporations control everything,

There is one way to vote with your wallet that they do feel ...change the channel, if your cable or service provider has MSNBC and all of their affiliates and you are allowed to package delete do so. They will sit up and take notice real quick if all you watch on your stb (which they keep usage stats on) is the competition! I know it is dirty pool but a campaign to get the ratings to drop big time on this particular leg of Microsoft's corporate octopus might get the real media to take notice and report on the consumer abuse that they are promulgating!

Re:D'Addario (1)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936592)

Perhaps you should do some research before you judge. From the comments on the Tech Dirt article (TFA), a comment by Jim D'Addario... [techdirt.com]

I personally wouldn't allow this action to deter me from using D'Addario strings. Their interest in this document is simply trying to limit the rampant counterfeiting of their product.

By the way, you might find this article interesting [metafilter.com] ...

Re:D'Addario (1)

fucket (1256188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936672)

I read the post and it makes it even more obvious that Jim D'Addario entirely misses the fucking point.

Or with a more precise title (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935968)

The list of "The enemies of phttp://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=11/01/20/0134258#eople"

list FTFA (-1, Redundant)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935972)

* Nike - Beaverton, OR * Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA * Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN * NBC Universal - New York, NY * Viacom - New York, NY * Callaway - Carlsbad, CA * Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA * Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA * Activision - Santa Monica, CA * Adidas Group - Portland, OR * Xerox - Norwalk, CT * Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX * Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL * Coty Inc. - New York, NY * EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH * Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA * PING - Phoenix, AZ * Louis Vuitton - New York, NY * D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY * Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA * Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY * Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX * Beam Global - Deerfield, IL * Chanel USA - New York, NY * True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA * Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA * Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA * National Basketball Association - New York, NY * National Football League - New York, NY * The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA * Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX * Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY * Timberland - Stratham, NH * Major League Baseball - New York, NY * Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA * Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA * Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA * Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA * Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA * Burberry Limited - New York, NY * Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN * The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA * Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR

Re:list FTFA (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935990)

I'll miss my D'Addario guitar strings, nifty Adidas apparel and 30 Rock. The rest can rot in hell for all I care.

Badges????? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34935980)

"Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!" Brought to you by your elected representatives. Remember us the next time you vote.

The new aristocracy (5, Insightful)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34935996)

They won't stop until there is a class of people who can do whatever they please, and another class of low-lifes (us) that must be subject to their power, for their their (our) own good.

Re:The new aristocracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936020)

So they should be stopping soon right?

What is it that they will stop doing?

Re:The new aristocracy (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936334)

What is it that they will stop doing?

Being aristocratic..

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us...

Re:The new aristocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936622)

Breathing?

Since you slit their throats with a rusty knife?

Kill the CEOs

Make them FEAR

Captcha pogrom, how fitting

Re:The new aristocracy (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936178)

They're a few centuries late, then.

Re:The new aristocracy (1)

JohnHorton (1672390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936266)

They won't stop until there is a class of people who can do whatever they please, and another class of low-lifes (us) that must be subject to their power, for their their (our) own good.

Then they can stop now, as this already exists today.

Re:The new aristocracy (2)

Evil_Ether (1200695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936420)

As you title implies that's how it's always been. This is nothing new it's just a group of artificial persons (corporations) legally required to embody the worst virtues of humanity rather than a single person. A lot harder to get rid of a corporation then a despot.

Text of the Letter (4, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936002)

For those interested in reading the letter itself

We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community. While our employees live in different regions of the country, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard, they are committed to quality and innovation and they welcome competition. However, allowing others to unfairly compete by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights created by our employees cannot be tolerated. This theft diminishes our ability to keep and create jobs, and makes it far more difficult to attract the capital needed to invest in new products and services. In order to protect our free enterprise system, and the standard of living it has contributed to our nation, it is critical that we multiply our efforts to identify and punish the criminals who steal what we create and produce.

Thus, we appreciate the effort and energy behind Operation in Our Sites. The actions announced on November 29, 2010 once again demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others. We believe that the online marketplace can only work for consumers and creators if there is respect for property rights and the rule of law - and urge you to continue to act against the kinds of domains that you have targeted. Unfortunately, there are far too many sites stealing from our businesses but we believe that your efforts will drive consumers to the many legitimate online ventures and services that we have worked hard to foster and support.

We encourage you to work with your colleagues in the Administration and the Congress toward enactment of the principles central to S. 3804 - the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. The legislation crafted by Senators Leahy and Hatch was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and will undoubtedly be reintroduced this congress. The proposal expounds upon the law enforcement techniques at the heart of "Operation In Our Sites" and will ensure that rogue sites cannot evade U.S. jurisdiction by escaping offshore to foreign-based registrars, registries and country codes in order to peddle stolen American intellectual property back into the U.S. market. In addition, the Leahy-Hatch proposal provides an entirely new level of protection for U.S. rights holders by establishing the legal framework necessary to disrupt the business models of the illicit, offshore sites by starving them of the financing, advertising and access to consumers upon which they depend. The carefully balanced measure would allow American law enforcement officials and U.S. courts to deny thieves the ability to use the Internet to enter the U.S. market and undermine our businesses while reaping financial gain for themselves.

We hope that you will continue dedicating resources to Operation in Our Sites and work toward the Obama Administration's endorsement of the Leahy-Hatch legislation.

An upside (2)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936036)

Note that they specifically mention S.3804 [govtrack.us] which includes some decent legal requirements for site seizure - ironically enough, if those had been in place the actions by ICE would likely have not been allowed. The Summary [govtrack.us] notes for instance that the bill

Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.

Re:Text of the Letter (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936162)

[cite]demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others[/cite]

By judiciously assess, they of course mean act as all branches of government and law enforcement instantaneously and therefore forgo formal due processes. After all, if I see someone accused of something I'm smart enough to know when a guilty sumbitch is a guilty sumbitch. Why waste all that due process when I can just call a spade a spade and exert my own justice, right there?

Hell, we didn't need that whole formal due process bullshit for those Duke Lacrosse guys. It was obvious they were guilty right up front. Should have just locked them up and thrown away the key. All this bullshit wastin' my tax dollars when everyone under the sun knows them boys did what they were accused of! Well, I mean . . . except when all that due process found that they were not only innocent, but that the police department failed in numerous capacities and the prosecutor was guilty as hell.

Re:Text of the Letter (1)

PerformanceDude (1798324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936390)

While our employees live in different regions of the world, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard for a pitance, sometimes kill themselves in despair and they welcome competition for their labor as that might just pay them another $1 per month.

There - fixed that for you NIke...

Tiffany is on the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936004)

Well I always did like Debbie Gibson better.

Monster Cables? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936008)

Hmm. Monster Cables is on the list. I wonder why they would want to censor the internet.

Re:Monster Cables? (1)

BobZee1 (1065450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936026)

at the risk of being the one that missed your potential sarcasm, but monster has been over charging for cables forever. without our freedom of speech, how can we warn others?

Re:Monster Cables? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936406)

at the risk of being the one that missed your potential sarcasm, but monster has been over charging for cables forever. without our freedom of speech, how can we warn others?

In fact, the price is a central feature of their cables, ensuring the superb sound quality. The exactly same cables sold at lower price would not sound as good. Therefore it's not overcharging. False advertising or even fraud, sure, but not overcharging...

Simple solution? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936028)

I looked up the company names, and they are a motley crew, presumably attempting to preserve their corporate image.

Perhaps a new TLD for official corporations might be in order.

Go Ahead, Make My Tor! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936060)

If more people used Tor and ran their websites as hidden services (with the domain of .onion), this wouldn't be a problem.

DuckDuckGo has stepped forward with a Tor hidden service, most others should too.

Shocked and Appalled (1)

II Xion II (1420223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936080)

Monster Cable too!

The folly of such an honest and innovative company. ;)

BREAKING NEWS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936174)

All companies will support censoring the internet if it makes them money. Those with stockholders would argue it is their obligation to do so if it benefits their company. Full report at 11.

Activision? Really? (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936246)

"......by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights."

Isn't this their business model?

Re:Activision? Really? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936572)

since ghostbusters on the 8 bitters I honestly thought it was selling half broken last minuet bullshit, but maybe you are right

New Aristocracy (1)

snmpkid (93151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936364)

Wait I thought Dems were against this sort of thing

COICA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936384)

Can't we call it the CLOACA act instead?

New Word (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936450)

We all have to get together some time & coin a derogatory term just as offensive as the N word, but for the copy'right'. Then, we need to heavily document it's creation to ward off the trademarkers so they can't stop us from calling them it.

TFA is propagandist garbage. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936490)

Maybe there is an issue out there, but TFA is slanted like Goebbels propaganda. Anybody have a link to an evenhanded report on the matter?

Add: National Association of Realtors (5, Interesting)

Larisa (1978318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936492)

They should add the National Association of Realtors to that list. They may not have signed the letter in fact, but they apparently support censorship in principle and action. The 800-lb legal gorilla of the NAR jumped on my own back, only yesterday. I set up a site for an audio drama I recently produced -- a fun little ghost-story for geeks, which happens to lampoon the Realtors and high-tech CEOs of Silicon Valley, whom we all love to hate. My URL corresponds to the Title of that fictional story, "The Realtor and the CEO" (http://www.realtorandceo.com). They decided that they did not like my using the word realtor as part of a literary title, and are now trying to coerce me into giving up the URL, the Title of the audio drama, and any reference to realtors in the story -- which happens to require eliminating or completely rewriting a main character. Seems First Amendment rights mean nothing, if you do not have a $100,000 war chest.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors (1)

Caraig (186934) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936698)

The term 'realtor' is apparently 'srs bzns.' But a little more long-windedly, it's a term that for some reason has enormous protection on it, usually enforced by the NAR. I'm not quite sure why but they seem to be trying to make it about as privileged as 'doctor' or 'engineer.' (That's 'civil engineer,' for which there are some specific certifications you have to qualify for before you can call yourself that.) If you are somehow in real estate, you may not call yourself a 'realtor' unless you are a member of one of the handful of realtor associations or councils. It's really quite amazing when looking at it from the outside.

That being said, I think you have standing because part of 'fair use' is satire... but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, and if you want to fight it, you might want to find a lawyer who'll work pro bono. Check with the EFF, they might be able to provide some lawyers in your jurisdiction who might want to grab this case.

Viacom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34936606)

Viacom?! Shit, that means I have to stop watching The Daily Show :(

Sports (2)

DukeKottyn (1979902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936660)

Hey, no NHL though. Another reason hockey is the best sport. They let their players fight, and support free speech! (Or at least, aren't actively engaged in destroying it.)

Internet Access is a Privlage, Not a Right (3, Funny)

ryanisflyboy (202507) | more than 3 years ago | (#34936704)

You still enjoy free speech, but only on Tuesdays or Sundays while wearing your knickers standing on the toilet in your bathroom with a government trained jaguar lying in the tub. The jaguar won't have been fed in six days due to a bureaucratic mix up (turns out it is impossible to file triplicate copies of feeding form W-FU-HMBOY-5 after a Ted Stevens look-alike found the warehouse).

Don't worry, if the jaguar bites you Medicare will cover the ER expense. But only for the first 20 minutes. After that unionized monkeys trained to act like doctors will stand over your corpse throwing feces at the wall while inviting the nurses to a smoke out on Friday. It's gonna be a killer time.

While this may seem a horrible way to ensure a basic human right, the courts can find no legal means to prevent it (the feces slinging monkeys, or the free speech).*

*Please note that only certain subjects are approved on Sundays, such as: the mating calls of feral cats, ingredients found in a bag of Pop Rocks, and Tommy Wiseau.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?