New Testingstan

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:51 am**

Never go into ARSE, it might just have the highest concentration of stupid posts on teo.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:56 am**

Aaron wrote:Never go into ARSE, it might just have the highest concentration of stupid posts on teo.

I know this, I really do.

It was like the Siren, forcing me to follow it's call. Then once it had trapped me, I had to keep reading, just to see how bad it got.

it got BAD. BAD I TELL YOU!

There were (ostensible) adults who could not even figure out the most basic social rules. The ones you can even learn without ever leaving your bedroom by simply watching television. It doesn't even have to be good television. Sitcoms cover this shit!

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:09 am**

ARSE was always a laugh for me. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH A WOMAN! MY SELF ESTEEM! Bitches, I have a deformed hand, and am jobless, and am sickly, yet I asked out a MILF. PS I'm a virgin too. Holla!

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:20 am**

Knubble tov wrote:ARSE was always a laugh for me. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH A WOMAN! MY SELF ESTEEM! Bitches, I have a deformed hand, and am jobless, and am sickly, yet I asked out a MILF. PS I'm a virgin too. Holla!

The sad part is that he probably thinks that the only thing holding him back is his deformed hand.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:34 am**

Aaron wrote:Never go into ARSE, it might just have the highest concentration of stupid posts on teo.

Except for maybe...the Senate.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:38 am**

Knubble tov wrote:ARSE was always a laugh for me. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH A WOMAN! MY SELF ESTEEM! Bitches, I have a deformed hand, and am jobless, and am sickly, yet I asked out a MILF. PS I'm a virgin too. Holla!

Clearly it didn't go well if you're still a virgin.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:49 am**

Evidence there is no god #17280676

Simon Jester has a functioning internet connection.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:12 am**

The whole "sovereignty violated" thing makes it seem like the FBI sent a bunch of agents to snatch the guy without anyone in the British government knowing about it. Instead of, y'know, a British court OKing the request.

Kinda hard to violate a nation's sovereignty when that nation's own court (or some part of it, at least) agreed with the request. So apparently said court felt there was some justification to extradite that guy, otherwise they would have, y'know, just denied it.

EDIT: And the Home Secretary still has to approve it. Or maybe he did or didn't, I can't recall any followup articles. So it's not like the case is a done deal or anything.

But I guess such minor things as the actual facts get in the way of hysterical cries of the Evil US abducting poor British citizens over copyright. It's not like the USMC is poised to invade if the request is ultimately denied or anything.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:18 am**

Oh yeah, that kinda addresses the "but free speech" thing as well. I'm sure [insert facist country] would like to extradite and try US citizens for "breaking their laws" by posting critical things about their government. But that country would have to convince a US court and the State Department (or whatever the process is for extradition of US citizens) to go along with it.

Which isn't likely to happen.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:23 am**

RogueIce wrote:The whole "sovereignty violated" thing makes it seem like the FBI sent a bunch of agents to snatch the guy without anyone in the British government knowing about it. Instead of, y'know, a British court OKing the request.

Kinda hard to violate a nation's sovereignty when that nation's own court (or some part of it, at least) agreed with the request. So apparently said court felt there was some justification to extradite that guy, otherwise they would have, y'know, just denied it.

EDIT: And the Home Secretary still has to approve it. Or maybe he did or didn't, I can't recall any followup articles. So it's not like the case is a done deal or anything.

But I guess such minor things as the actual facts get in the way of hysterical cries of the Evil US abducting poor British citizens over copyright. It's not like the USMC is poised to invade if the request is ultimately denied or anything.

whether or not the us has jurisdiction is pretty sketchy

the main reason they were able to get megaupload is because they owned actual servers that were physically located in the US

not just that some of the money might have crossed US borders somehow

the part that's fucked up is wanting to arrest someone overseas for a crime that's not even a crime in their own country

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:29 am**

Don't be hysterical zod it is all totally above board

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:37 am**

Zod wrote: whether or not the us has jurisdiction is pretty sketchy

Wholeheartedly agree, but the British courts seemed to agree and i'd love more information on why that was the case.

the main reason they were able to get megaupload is because they owned actual servers that were physically located in the US

not just that some of the money might have crossed US borders somehow

the part that's fucked up is wanting to arrest someone overseas for a crime that's not even a crime in their own country[/quote]

The money plays a huge part too, nobody would have given dick about Megaupload or this kid in Britain if there wasn't money involved. It's a weaker case without the physical server presence I will give you that, but it's the only thing that fits given the information presented. Harm against the copyright holders would be something for a lawsuit in a civil court.

Although you can tell who doesn't pay for music or movies on SDN judging by the reaction to threads like that.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:37 am**

starku wrote:Don't be hysterical zod ~~it is all totally above~~ or you will be waterboarded.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:50 am**

Darth Fanboy wrote:Evidence there is no god #17280676

Simon Jester has a functioning internet connection.

No shit. I loved his whole, lets quibble about the details of what is libel, rather than address the actual point that the legal system does address the whole "prove a negative" thing. And that the point in contention was the fact of the statement (and, admittedly, the harm it caused) - not whether it was true or not.

God I hate all the knee jerk shit on SDN.

"WE ARE THE FATTYNERDS!!!! Anyone who disagrees with us is the untermensche, and should be used as soylent green! Any attempt to restrain us from behaving exactly as we wish is the creeping spread of fascism, but god forbid the government doesn't step in to keep us from being picked on by, you know, normal people. Oh, and it's totally OK to celebrate the death of a man who was poaching some kind of crab or something, but HOW DARE THE US GOVERNMENT ATTACK PEOPLE ADVOCATING ITS OVERTHROW!*"

* I am not in favor of extrajudicial attacks on anyone (or even in the death penalty, actually), but the hypocrisy of SDN on the issue is just hilarious.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Although you can tell who doesn't pay for music or movies on SDN judging by the reaction to threads like that.

That's my thought, too.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:55 am**

Darth Fanboy wrote: The money plays a huge part too, nobody would have given dick about Megaupload or this kid in Britain if there wasn't money involved. It's a weaker case without the physical server presence I will give you that, but it's the only thing that fits given the information presented. Harm against the copyright holders would be something for a lawsuit in a civil court.

Although you can tell who doesn't pay for music or movies on SDN judging by the reaction to threads like that.

i'm sure the government would never kowtow to special interest media groups

'Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,'

oh wait

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:18 am**

Darth Fanboy wrote:Wholeheartedly agree, but the British courts seemed to agree and i'd love more information on why that was the case.

authoritarian govt exercises powers

why is it so????

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:19 am**

Zod wrote:whether or not the us has jurisdiction is pretty sketchy

You could say that, but apparently the British court felt the US does have some kind of jurisdiction. Unless you try to claim a court in London is in cohoots with the USG and Hollywood.

One would assume the court considered questions of jurisdiction before issuing its ruling. And they clearly felt differently.

Zod wrote:the part that's fucked up is wanting to arrest someone overseas for a crime that's not even a crime in their own country

Well lets say somebody hacks the DOJ website from some country that, for whatever reason, doesn't have that as a crime*. Would the US be so wildly out of line to want to prosecute them over it?

You can certainly make the argument that copyright infringment really isn't worth the effort and expense of an extradition and I wouldn't really argue with that, unless there were millions of dollars involved. Kinda like how in the US, states won't foot the bill to extradite even if someone with a warrant is taken into custody in another state if the crime is fairly minor.

*Ignoring that said country is rather unlikely to have an extradition agreement with US anyway so it'd probably be a moot point.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:30 am**

RogueIce wrote: Well lets say somebody hacks the DOJ website from some country that, for whatever reason, doesn't have that as a crime*. Would the US be so wildly out of line to want to prosecute them over it?

You can certainly make the argument that copyright infringment really isn't worth the effort and expense of an extradition and I wouldn't really argue with that, unless there were millions of dollars involved. Kinda like how in the US, states won't foot the bill to extradite even if someone with a warrant is taken into custody in another state if the crime is fairly minor.

*Ignoring that said country is rather unlikely to have an extradition agreement with US anyway so it'd probably be a moot point.

So how many Russian and Chinese nationals have been extradited over copyright infringement? Where the problem is several orders of magnitude greater?

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:32 am**

russia and china's got nukes

realpolitick!!1

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:32 am**

by the way: all of mp3 was surely a billion times worse than what this guy is being charged with

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:40 am**

starku wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote:Wholeheartedly agree, but the British courts seemed to agree and i'd love more information on why that was the case.
authoritarian govt exercises powers

why is it so????

Found another article and posted it over there.

Basically the judge shot down the "google does it too defense" by saying that while search engines allow general searches on any topic, in this case the content being searched for was limited to copyrighted content. The judge allowed the extradition since the illegal act committed was considered illegal in both nations. (So there goes the whole "what he was doing was legal argument").

Now the only thing left that doesn't have any sort of explanation (not that the explanations are always valid), is why the UK would extradite rather than try him at home.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:46 am**

Zod wrote:by the way: all of mp3 was surely a billion times worse than what this guy is being charged with

Actually, if you take the egregious $1.65 trillion dollar lawsuit filed against them, and divide it by the $230,000 O'Dwyer made, you get 7,173,913 times worse.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:02 am**

dear fucking lord that deaf thread

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:17 am**

Zod wrote:So how many Russian and Chinese nationals have been extradited over copyright infringement? Where the problem is several orders of magnitude greater?

Because the Russian and Chinese governments most likely wouldn't approve an extradition request even if one were filed? And I'm assuming the DOJ would know that so they won't bother?

My point is and has been that British sovereignty has not been violated because it was a British court that decided in favor of extradition to the US, not a bunch of FBI agents kidnapping him in the middle of the night or something. That's all. I'm not trying to argue that this is a perfectly reasoned response to the issue of copyright infringment and Internet piracy.

Is that a minor point to make? Yep, sure is. But it's borne out of my general annoyance over the tendency of the Internet (not just SDN and, apparently, NT as well) to see a situation where, instead of simply being upset over the actual situation and the actual facts (with which one can have plenty of legitimate grievance), just has to go that one extra step to ensure "MAXIMUM OUTRAGE!!!!" by inventing shit that does not, in fact, fit the facts of the situation. Such as how the US is somehow violating British sovereignty by filing an extradition request through the proper legal channels of the UK, and a court in the UK approving it. Yeah, their sovereignty was violated, for sure.

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:22 am**

Personally I'mma use that stuff against anyone who says Julian Assange is reasonable for being scared of extradition to the US from Sweden, while staying in the goddamn UK.

New Testingstan

Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN