Really?
This is just getting silly!
From the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom:
I disputed their claim with YouTube’s system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: ‘All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.’ So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish’s exclusive intellectual property.”
An urgent message from OpenMedia:
This is big. Powerful lobbyists, working with their allies in government, have put forward what amounts to an unavoidable choke point for your Internet use: two bills aimed at Internet users, and a government decision about the future of Internet access.
If we don’t stop this set-up, you’ll have to deal with bigger bills, widespread warrantless surveillance, and restricted choice.
By signing an OpenMedia.ca petition, you helped push back against new Internet restrictions and Big Telecom price-gouging. But these new challenges require more resources than ever to fight. Will you donate today so we can defend your rights? Your donation will empower the fight for an open and affordable Internet.
These three imminent threats will create an Internet choke point for Canadians, and they’re unfolding right now:
With your help, we can put together an airtight, multifaceted plan that will turn government heads. Here’s what we’ll do with your support:
This approach works. Two MPs have broken ranks4 already; now, we just need to nudge a few more over the fence. But we can’t do it without you.
Please stand with us by chipping in now. Anything helps.
With hope,
Steve and Lindsey, on behalf of your OpenMedia.ca Team
P.S. We created a media sensation this week and your petition signature helped start it all! Your team here at OpenMedia.ca has been run off our feet with media requests! Please chip in so we can keep up the pressure. We’ll report back on our progress to everyone that contributes.
Footnotes
[1] The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has written that the online spying bills could “undercut the future of freedom, innovation and privacy”
[2] Big Media is pushing for C-11 to include the power for courts to issue injunctions ordering ISPs to block access to websites. Many proposed amendments also include rules that mean accused (i.e. not necessarily convicted) “repeat infringers” could have their Internet connections terminated. The “enabler provision” may also be expanded in such a way that could be used to target legitimate websites that host user generated content. Those websites—including YouTube—could be penalized for hosting content that Big Media controls.
[3] Montreal Gazette: Spectrum auction called a threat to new entrants
[4] Conservative supporters, including some conservative MPs, have denounced the online spying bills.
| Support OpenMedia.ca |
| OpenMedia.ca is a non-profit organization that relies on donations from people like you to operate. Our small but dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way to make your voice heard. Please donate today. |
One of my favourite thinking games is taking words and looking at all the different layers of meanings in them – along with why certain of their meanings form the dominant interpretation at any given time.
Hours of fun – and anyone can play!
For example, I absolutely love the word ‘authority’: it means quite literally, that we – as a culture – accept that ‘power’ flows exclusively from Thor. Au Thor-ity. Coming from Thor. (This is particularly amusing when coupled with the term ‘divine’ – as in, ‘divine authority’. If someone claims their god has ‘divine authority’, whether they are aware of it or not, they are literally saying that their god derives all of its power from Thor…which is fascinating when monotheists who deny the very existence of Thor do it. Yes, it does not take a lot to amuse me…)
One thing I find very annoying are the ‘grand declarations’ of ‘war on …’ – especially ones that do not really have proper meaning. For example, ‘The War on Terror’ is a nonsense-statement.
‘Terror’ is a feeling – a state of mind. To wage a war on it would mean trying to make people feel better, perhaps by medicating them into a state of non-fear. It certainly does not mean waging a physical war, with soldiers and guns.
Declaring war on terrorist organizations would make more sense…
Now, how about ‘The War on Drugs’?
Again, the jingoism of the slogan is non-sensical, at best. ‘Drugs’ are not something that is capable of fighting back, it is just stuff. Inanimate objects. It makes even less sense to claim to wage a war against inanimate objects than it does to wage a war against a state of mind. It does, however. bring up the image of one ’tilting at windmills’…
Except, of course, that the term ‘War on Drugs’ does not mean a war on drugs as such: it means a war on the organizations that handle certain drugs currently prohibited by the government.
Ok – so we have deciphered what the ‘Drugs’ in the statement means: organizations which are involved in the production and distribution of substances classified as ‘illegal’ by the US government. (Yes, I am intentionally not addressing why these laws are ‘illegal’!) So, what does the word ‘War’ mean?
This is, by far, the more interesting part of the phrase.
What, indeed, is meant by the word ‘War’?!?!?!?
Typically, ‘wars’ are fought by armies – not police forces. Yet, the ‘War on Drugs’ is being fought by non-military police officers. That is curious, to say the least. (Some would claim it is illegal – but that is a differen discussion.)
It would, of course, explain why the various police forces across the USA are becoming increasingly militarized: sometimes, it seems that cops are more military-like than the military itself! This would, indeed, be a more-or-less necessary outcome if the police were, indeed, waging ‘a war’… at least, according to my understanding of the ‘conventional’ meaning of the word ‘war’.
So, let us look at whom the ‘war’ is being waged against: the ‘drug gangs’. Are these, in any way, shape, or form ‘an army’?
A good case could be made that ‘drug gangs’ are, indeed, ‘armies’. If my memory serves me right (I have lost all of my bookmarks again, so I am not including links – please, check up on me!), according to international laws, ‘an army’ is defined as an organization must have:
Drug gangs most definitely satisfy this definition. Their chain-of-command is very well defined. And, all gang-members do wear specific ‘colours’, or symbols, which identify them clearly and unambiguously as members of that particular gang. Many gangs go a step further than most conventional armies – they not only wear their gang insignia, they have them tattooed into their very skin, so no disguise is possible!
In other words, the ‘drug gangs’ are more of an ‘army’ (under international law) than ‘terrorist organizations’, which do not wear identifying insignia and pride themselves in hiding among the civilian population. Honestly, the ‘War on Drugs’ adheres more closely to the definition of ‘war’ under international laws than ‘War on Terror’ does – yet the ‘War on Terror’ has been used, successfully, to justify (internationally) at least two extra-territorial wars that the US got involved in.
So, why is this an issue I bother thinking about?
Well, it does have some very interesting LEGAL implications….
If this is, indeed, a ‘War’ – then the ‘international rules of war’ automatically kick in!!!
It means that each and every person arrested in the USA under the ‘drug laws’ MUST be treated as a prisoner of war – and is not subject to any criminal laws!!!
Yes, please, do think about it!
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that no enterprising lawyer has not thought of this yet…
The US government cannot have their cake and eat it, too. (OK – ‘the cake is a lie’….but that does not take away from my point!)
The US government has openly declared ‘A War’ on all organizations even peripherally involved in the drug trade. These drug organizations straddle national borders. This means that the international ‘rules of war’ most definitely kicked in once US made their declaration of war!!!
Under international ‘rules of war’, if you capture ‘a soldier’ from the opposing side, even if that person had indeed brutally killed many, many people, they cannot be tried as ‘murderers’! Rather, they must be given all the privileges attached to Prisoners Of War!
To re-phrase: because the US government has openly declared ‘War on Drugs’, is it now violating the Geneva Convention every single time it applies criminal law to anyone arrested on any drug-related charges?
Please, think about it!!!
From OpenMedia.ca:
The Big Three are ripping us off and using the money to manipulate Canadians and the government.
As we’ve been saying, the Big Three cell phone companies have a plan to price-gouge Canadians by shutting out small competitors1. Now they’re unleashing a misinformation campaign to muzzle your voice.
For example,
Will you let them get away with it?
With these two acts of extreme arrogance, Rogers has demonstrated that they will go to ridiculous lengths to tighten their stranglehold on communications and raise prices.
Some say mobile is the future of the Internet and communications. We have to stop the Big Three from creating a command and control communications market with tight contracts, content controls, price-gouging overage fees, and disrespectful customer service.
The government could make a decision on this at any moment. Sign the Stop The Squeeze petition now.
With hope and determination,
Steve, on behalf of your OpenMedia.ca Team
P.S. Unlike Big Telecom, we listen to Canadians. Some of you have expressed that we should provide more details in our messages. We heard you—here’s some more detailed background information:
Now that you know the details, it’s time to act.
| Support OpenMedia.ca |
| OpenMedia.ca is a non-profit organization that relies on donations from people like you to operate. Our small but dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way to make your voice heard. Please donate today. |
Patterns.
Behavioural patterns.
Patterns of abuse.
When will some authority – any authority – acknowledge a pattern of abuse and put an end to it?
Let me paint a picture for you of a very nasty pattern of abuse of authority which has targeted a specific citizens and his associates:
Imagine being arrested for ‘trespassing’ for walking down a public street. While you are being arrested, you actually have proof with you that this is a county street – and therefore 100% it is public street, with no restrictions, so no act of trespassing is taking place.
In addition, since it is a county road and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police, even if someone were to trespass on it, these OPP officers would have no jurisdiction to arrest them for it.
But, the OPP are there in large numbers, heavily armed, and they arrest the small group of unarmed citizens anyway.
These citizens (including an army vet suffering from cancer) are handcuffed and driven off in OPP vehicles, processed and charged with trespassing.
They are forced to hire legal representation and appear in court.
Once they get to court – the group of citizens find all the charges against them have been withdrawn!
Why?
Because, as the prosecutor explains, there is no reasonable expectation that they would be found guilty…beause, well, they were on a public road where they had every right to be, and even had they been trespassing, the police officers who arrested them had no jurisdiction to do so…
Victory?
Perhaps – in this one battle.
But, what if this happens over and over and over?
If the charges are withdrawn, these citizens have no opportunity to clear their name – and recover legal costs, much less damages!
And what does it say about our law enforcement agencies, that they are willing to perpetuate this abusive pattern of ‘catch-and-release’?!?!?
This is exactly what has been happening to Gary McHale.
Now, more and more citizens are standing with him, being arrested with him – and being released when the bogus charges against them are dropped!
Please, ask yourself: should we, the people of Canada, tolerate this treatment of our citizens?
Just how badly is our system broken that such a lengthy pattern of this type of abusive of power can be established?
And exactly what can we, as citizens, do to stop this corruption?
How can we hold out authorities accountable?
Because we must – for all our sakes!
Two related stories from TorrentFreak update us on what has been happening in Sweden in the Pirate Bay saga.
First, the founders have not been permitted to appeal their case, so their conviction stands. (This should put fear into all of us, because what they were doing was legal under Swedish law – they were only charged and prosecuted because of pressure from the US movie industry.)
Second, now that their court case is concluded, they have changed their domain from .org to .se in order to prevent seisure.
If you don’t know the back story, perhaps you should ‘Steal This Film’:
If things are like this under existing laws (DMCA), imagine the situation under SOPA or SOPA-like laws!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 