The indictment can be found here, the corresponding DoJ press release here. And someone listed up a few key points over at reddit.
>> ^entr0py:

I thought sites like MegaUpload play by the same rules as YouTube. That is, users upload the files freely without human review, and so there's inevitably a lot of copyright violations. And, in exchange, the site immediately caves to any DMCA takedown request without reviewing it's merits.
How is their business model any different than YouTube?

Your video, Anonymous takes down FBI, DOJ, RIAA, MPAA, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^grinter:

I'm not sure what to think about RT, but I'm pretty sure that a CNN anchor wouldn't have understood the term "donkey punch".


I'm pretty sure they all practice them at their cocaine fueled corporate orgies.

The DNS control mechanism of implementing SOPA and/or PIPA policies needs to get some more full explanation to Joe Public. Everything that the Content groups, the MPAAs and RIAAs etc. have done has been fatally flawed in that it can at best delay casual piracy, and usually even that is circumvented almost instantaneously. From what I can see, policing DNS would do no better than their other historical efforts in that regard.

This guy mentions that you can still type in an IP address and get to an infringing site. Maybe I am wrong or don't understand the full situation, but I would go a step further and say that this practice would simply result in US-based DNS servers being immediately replaced by DNS providers in other nations that fail to tow the SOPA/PIPA line. Joe User would get a quick walkthrough of changing his DNS provider through router or software settings, everybody would scramble for a brief period of time, and then the "sanctions" could be fairly safely ignored.

When the *AA's realize that the legislation they purchased with massive "campaign contributions" has no teeth, they would probably push (as in, push more dollars into the hands of lobbyists) for legal penalties to infringing sites beyond being de-listed from (US-based) DNS. If *that* were to actually happen also, it would simply chase ALL internet hosting outside of the US. The US could threaten trade sanctions or whatever against countries that turn a blind eye to infringing, but there would be so much of it going on that everyone could just balk at it and we'd be blowing a whole lot of hot air with jack behind it.

I think that the mainstream media needs a somebody with the balls to stand up and say that the cat is out of the bag on "protecting" Intellectual Property. For better or worse, it just isn't going to happen. The first group that accepts that and moves towards some new model is going to be way ahead of the curve in comparison to these dinosaurs that are trying to stitch a broken balloon together with needle and thread.

>> ^radx:

Remember who was behind MegaUpload: Kim Schmitz aka Kimble. I support file sharing, but that guy got rich by selling stolen content and customer data. Look up all the shit he pulled in Germany.
Good fucking riddance, I'd say.


Maybe that guy is a bastard that doesn't mean that we have to destroy the whole idea of the internet. This is an attack on the many not the few and the most talented of the many are fighting back.

If I had to choose between the FBI and Anonymous I could give plenty of reasons why the entire FBI should be disbanded.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Why do I have to watch Russian news to get the truth about what's happening in the US ?


Meanwhile russians are asking themselves why they have to watch US news to get the truth about what's happening in Russia.

You should both be watching the BBC.

One final word on this. Everybody downloads. Everybody.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/everybody-pirates-riaa-homeland-security-caught-downloading-torrents/65670?tag=nl.e539

>> ^marinara:

they don't have to censor millions of pages. they just have to censor google search results


I'm sure that if the MPAA / RIAA types had free rein (even more than now, I mean) they would do exactly that. But what would actually result if that were actually to happen? OK, Google might wither and die, or at least the search portion of Google.

And then? In no time at all, the next Google would appear. PirateBay, isoHunt, RapidShare, whatever. Stop one, everybody moves to the next. Eliminating any or all of those would have exactly the same long-term reduction in piracy as Napster's demise did -- which is to say, no effect at all. Bit-by-bit policing/censoring the internet is just literally impossible.

I think that content creators need to wrap around the fact that the internet has fundamentally changed how people think about concepts like intellectual property, copyright, etc. Cat's out of the bag, the milk has been spilled, Pandora's box is open. Whoever comes up with the best business method that simply accepts that as unavoidable fact, good bad or indifferent, can make real steps towards finding the way forward.

I would tend to support any law that makes Justin Bieber disappear. Fortunately, I hate JB less than the RIAA and their evil cohorts/minions. Petition here.

I have so many issues with this video, I don't think I'll be able to recall all of them to write down. I'll preface all of this by saying that I'm an avid poker player and during my senior year of college ('04-'05) & the year after I graduated, online poker was my sole source of income. I now make trips to AC from NYC when my hectic work/social schedule allows.

1 - You think US casinos didn't want in on online gambling from jump street? Wrong. This is a HUGE industry. Casinos aren't the RIAA; they're willing to adapt to new sources of revenue & have wanted in since online gambling started started gaining traction in the US. I don't know what happened recently with Caesar's, but I assure you that casinos have been lobbying for a long time to get a piece of the action. There have been stories for at least the last 7 years about US casinos wanting to operate online gambling sites.

2 - I'm pretty sure that online gambling is not actually illegal. What's illegal is running an online gambling site. Very important distinction. What's also illegal is US financial institutions transferring money to gambling sites. None of this has any bearing on the players. If you can manage to get money to a site, you haven't broken any laws, the bank or credit card company has. This too is a very important distinction from "online gambling is illegal." Online gambling isn't illegal. Operating an online gambling site in the US is illegal. A bank giving money to an offshore site is illegal (this law was only passed ~4 years ago). But gambling online is not illegal.

3 - Are TYT really arguing that gambling should be legal everywhere and that antigambling legislature is a purely moral issue? This is sort of ridiculous. It's just good sense. I believe poker rooms should be legalized nationwide, but I don't agree that all gambling should be. Providing every member of the population the opportunity to play the slots after a hard day of work is a very, very bad idea. Not because the bible says it's wrong, but just from an economic standpoint. They seem to be arguing that the gov't disallowing online gambling is depriving people of their rights, as if gambling isn't illegal almost everywhere in the US. Very weak & (IMO) misguided argument here.

4 - One thing they're right about, though they didn't get into it at all, is that this is going to be VERY bad for some people. Some folks who make their living doing this will have anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up on these sites. I guarantee that freezing their accounts has ruined a number of people's lives. I would have liked some more on this topic. (Though I understand I'm probably not in the majority here)

5 - Can you get the fucking aspect ratio right on Cenk's camera? Is it really so hard to center-cut a 16:9 shot? Or is Cenk just trying to make himself look skinny? Speaking of which, why isn't this whole spot 16:9? It's 2011. How long are SD aspect ratios going to be around?

That's all I remember, and I don't want to rewatch this video and get worked up all over again. Bad reporting IMO. I feel like I say that about TYT very often.

>> ^ipfreely:

Mel Guzman could have purchased it from a pawn shop, flea market or by any other legitimate means, for all we know. Yet some of you here and on youtube are passing judgement on this person. And I "love" how the speaker makes a snarky remark about having an unemployment form.
How many of you have not had to fill out an unemployment form?
Maybe this person couldn't afford the latest machine because he's, I don't know... unemployed? Maybe he didn't know how to reformat the drives on this machine? Since all the anecdotal information tells us is that Mel got the computer recently and just turned it on.
And before you people jump on my ass... lets read upon the law of Possession of Stolen Goods.
If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Innocent possession is not a crime.. If Mel was the original thief, why would he still have the computer? Wouldn't a thief sell it quickly as possible to make money... Not hold on to it for 2 years then use it himself?
So it's okay to virtually lynch Mel Guzman... Vigilante Justice in a form of a Hacker Hipster is acceptable in Videosift world?
Videosift is liberal minded, yet there are 98 of you who just assume Mel Guzman stole this computer. You fuckers don't believe in due process before passing judgment?
And yes, it is true it's not the court of law. Yet this video has been viewed by over half of million people... What if one of these people were someone who wanted to hire Mel Guzman. Now because of some smug smart-ass douche bag, Mel Guzman will continued to be unemployed.
You know what would be true justice... If the authorities finds mp3's downloaded from Limewire and RIAA sue the speaker, because we all know Mel does not have the password to install any applications on this machine.
You bunch of phony liberal fuckers. I consider myself a center-right, yet even I know this is wrong.
Merry Fucking Christmas and Happy New Years Assholes.

>> ^ipfreely:

Mel Guzman could have purchased it from a pawn shop, flea market or by any other legitimate means, for all we know. Yet some of you here and on youtube are passing judgement on this person. And I "love" how the speaker makes a snarky remark about having an unemployment form.
How many of you have not had to fill out an unemployment form?
Maybe this person couldn't afford the latest machine because he's, I don't know... unemployed? Maybe he didn't know how to reformat the drives on this machine? Since all the anecdotal information tells us is that Mel got the computer recently and just turned it on.
And before you people jump on my ass... lets read upon the law of Possession of Stolen Goods.
If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Innocent possession is not a crime.. If Mel was the original thief, why would he still have the computer? Wouldn't a thief sell it quickly as possible to make money... Not hold on to it for 2 years then use it himself?
So it's okay to virtually lynch Mel Guzman... Vigilante Justice in a form of a Hacker Hipster is acceptable in Videosift world?
Videosift is liberal minded, yet there are 98 of you who just assume Mel Guzman stole this computer. You fuckers don't believe in due process before passing judgment?
And yes, it is true it's not the court of law. Yet this video has been viewed by over half of million people... What if one of these people were someone who wanted to hire Mel Guzman. Now because of some smug smart-ass douche bag, Mel Guzman will continued to be unemployed.
You know what would be true justice... If the authorities finds mp3's downloaded from Limewire and RIAA sue the speaker, because we all know Mel does not have the password to install any applications on this machine.
You bunch of phony liberal fuckers. I consider myself a center-right, yet even I know this is wrong.
Merry Fucking Christmas and Happy New Years Assholes.


I'm not sure anyone would hire someone who can't spell their own name.

But basically you're right unless Mel had already been proven to be the thief. And I imagine that would be hard to do once he denied it.

As has already been said this is the sort of conference where anything goes - but I'm surprised the organisers did not seek to anonymise much of the material.

Mel Guzman could have purchased it from a pawn shop, flea market or by any other legitimate means, for all we know. Yet some of you here and on youtube are passing judgement on this person. And I "love" how the speaker makes a snarky remark about having an unemployment form.

How many of you have not had to fill out an unemployment form?

Maybe this person couldn't afford the latest machine because he's, I don't know... unemployed? Maybe he didn't know how to reformat the drives on this machine? Since all the anecdotal information tells us is that Mel got the computer recently and just turned it on.

And before you people jump on my ass... lets read upon the law of Possession of Stolen Goods.

If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Innocent possession is not a crime.. If Mel was the original thief, why would he still have the computer? Wouldn't a thief sell it quickly as possible to make money... Not hold on to it for 2 years then use it himself?

So it's okay to virtually lynch Mel Guzman... Vigilante Justice in a form of a Hacker Hipster is acceptable in Videosift world?

Videosift is liberal minded, yet there are 98 of you who just assume Mel Guzman stole this computer. You fuckers don't believe in due process before passing judgment?

And yes, it is true it's not the court of law. Yet this video has been viewed by over half of million people... What if one of these people were someone who wanted to hire Mel Guzman. Now because of some smug smart-ass douche bag, Mel Guzman will continued to be unemployed.

You know what would be true justice... If the authorities finds mp3's downloaded from Limewire and RIAA sue the speaker, because we all know Mel does not have the password to install any applications on this machine.

You bunch of phony liberal fuckers. I consider myself a center-right, yet even I know this is wrong.

Merry Fucking Christmas and Happy New Years Assholes.

If the RIAA can pretend to be legal authorities, why not everyone?

I don't universally scorn Apple, but they have been systematically tarnishing their own image for the last several years. I think the "vs" ads were the last positive thing they did in that regard.

Historically, Mac's bread and butter were the creative industries and now they're stifling the creativity of their users. They're driving off their faithful user base and now they're primarily left with the "snobby douchebag" market who only buys their stuff as a status symbol.

Then there's the lawsuits. They shut down Think Secret, went after Psystar and BluWiki, and most recently they've threatened Xiph. They're behaving like the RIAA.

Speaking of which, there's the DRM. They eventually caved and went DRM-free on their music, but not video content.

They're doing all these things as the free and open mindset is taking hold. They're fighting trends which are good for consumers and they still have the audacity to act like their shit don't stink. The iPad probably wouldn't be such a huge joke if they hadn't hyped it up like the Segway.

Just a few years ago they launched the iPod. MP3 players had been around for a while and other companies even had far superior products, but they marketed the iPod well and managed to become ubiquitous. They were the epitome of "hip"; now they look out of touch. The iPad unveiling reminds me of McCain's green screen speech.

>> ^dag:

Look, there is one very big mistake that Apple has made. They are losing the culture war. VideoSift skews a bit younger than me - I think the median age is about 29 - and the dislike and mistrust of Apple seems to be pretty universal among you all. We can blame the closed nature of the iPhone OS, those douchy "Mac vs. PC" ads, or maybe just that Apple is no longer the beleaguered, scrappy underdog. For whatever reason, hearts and minds are not with Apple at the moment.
e>> ^xxovercastxx:
Yes, because selling independent games was never profitable until Apple offered to play morality police and charge you 30% for the privilege.
>> ^dag:
And for all the squealing about Jobs' choke-hold on the platform - it's good to remember that Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA. Good luck making a little game on other platforms - AND actually making dosh from it. The same kind of disruption-- upsetting the applecart of the big publishing companies-- appears to be in the works for self-published authors.