My thoughts on Akin and Rape.

Unless you have been socially disconnected (which if you are reading this is a very unlikely scenario), you have heard of Republican Todd Akin's comments on Rape. If you have not, then you should first hear them here.



He has publicly apologized for his statement, but obviously he believes them. He co-sponsored a bill with Rep. Paul Ryan that would make abortion (in ANY circumstance) and several forms of birth control pills illegal. This "personhood" bill would give fetuses full status as human beings under the fourteenth amendment of the United States.



Democrats and other Republicans have asked Akin to step down (including Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney), which he refuses to do. I do not know if he can be forced to step down, but many Republicans are telling him he should.



Of course he should. You do not make a statement like that, whether you believe it or not, and after the MASSIVE public backlash stay in the race. You are just begging to lose the race. He stays in for one reason, and one reason only, pride.



But, what about his statement? Is he right? Is he wrong? Well, the vast majority says he is wrong. Of course he is. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that his statement is even remotely true. In fact, quite the opposite. He believes it, but that isn't the point.



Why is he even calling out different types of rape? Rape is rape. Period. End of Story. If a woman says no and a man forces himself on her, it is Rape. Nothing else in this situation matters. This is, I think, one of the most contentious parts of his statement. The GOP is trying to distinguish "forcable" rape from other types because it makes it easier for them to pass laws outlawing abortion.



This brings us to the real meat of the argument. Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. I stand in a unique position in this argument, and I know I am not alone, but few tend to think of the middle ground. Pro-Life people, like the GOP, are literally trying to ram their opinions down your throat. The far left Pro-Choice are saying that you can do what you want. It is YOUR body.



I am Pro-Choice. That said, I am very deeply against abortion, and consider it reprehensible. Now many will look at that statement and say, "You can't be both."



Uhhh, yes I can. I am against abortion. I think it is reprehensible, and wrong. That said, it is not my decision. It is not my place to make that decision for you, or for anyone else. I am against it, but it is your body. It is YOUR CHOICE. I think the real crime is when your freedoms, rights and liberties are taken away from you.



Pro-Lifers will argue about the child's (or fetus's) rights, but this leads to a whole new set of problems. The thing with many Pro-Lifers, is that they are so concerned with the life of the unborn child, they tend to forget about everyone else's life. Especially in the case of a victim of rape, you have a woman (or girl, as some cases of rape are with underage females) who did not plan for a child, did not want a child, and this situation was forced on her. How can you tell this person that you must now raise a child you did not want because some guy decided he wanted to get funky?



On top of that, I have dicovered that in 31 States in the United states, the father in this situation (I will call him the 'rapist') can actually bring the mother (I will call her the 'victim') to court to gain custody or visitation rights to the child. REALLY? Now, not only are you telling this victim that she must have the child, but you are also tying her to the rapist for 18 years, where she must allow the rapist access to the child she never wanted in the first place. Forcing her to associate with the man who forced himself on her against her wishes. How is this in any way right? How is this in any way Just?



There is only one answer to that question: It is NOT.

The Legalization of Mara Jew Wanna

Ahhh, the legalisation of Marijuana (yes, I do know how to properly pronounce the name). After seeing a post on facebook by Cheech and Chong calling for the legalisation of marijuana, I thought about why it should, or should not and considered the ramifications of the legalisation.

I'll start with my conclusion on legalising Marijuana: I think that it is not the right choice. Now for my reasoning.

While many see this as an issue on the negative effects of marijuana, the reality is there is no concrete evidence that smoking pot is any more dangerous than drinking or smoking cigarettes. In fact, it is the opposite - many studies have shown that smoking pot is actually safer than either of the other substances. So why do I say no?

The reasons are threefold:

Legalising marijuana will create several companies that will produce the substance, which is to be sold in stores. These companies may employ several thousand people, but compared to the tens of thousands of marijuana pushers out there, this will actually result in a net loss of income for many. These pushers will, with the loss of revenue due to the fact that you can get pot at your local 7-11 will be forced to push other, more deadly substances to remain solvent. This will increase crime and death (both through crime and through overdosing on these more dangerous substances).

Marijuana will also become heavily regulated. The initial pot that stores will sell will most likely be of poor quality, and while the free market may force quality upgrade, with all things corporate, quantity will supersede quality. In addition, the government will most likely tax the heck out of it, causing pot to raise in price. In addition, it will cause unforeseen effects, as "being high" will be treated as "being drunk" and enforcement will be writing a lot of citations for this.

Lastly, it will signal a large cultural change that is too dynamic to happen at once. There will be protests from anti-drug organisations and supporters and it will certainly change the political landscape.

However, all of these factors arguing against the legalisation of pot, also argue for the decriminalisation of possession of small amounts. The US War on Drugs isn't really serving anyone when they persecute people for having a joint in their pocket. That person now has a permanent criminal record, and his future is now in jeopardy. This culminates in a type of class warfare, where "pot smokers" are relegated to lower classes because of the difficulty in finding work with a criminal record, and thus breeding more poverty and crime.

So, while I argue that the legalisation of marijuana is a poor idea, I do support the decriminalisation of marijuana. The amount of money local law enforcement can make through citations will help support better policing, which can then be used to find and catch the pushers of the more dangerous drugs, and it will prevent many promising people from getting permanent records that will lead to their exclusion from employment. It will still hold drug pushers and growers criminally responsible, and it will not really change the political landscape as much.

In addition, doing so will lower crime rates and reduce prison populations. It will keep relatively innocent people out of the crime/jail cycle, and reduce overall crime. Maybe not by a massive amount, but it will be significant enough to be noticed. I don't think we are ready to make legal what is illegal, we need to do this in small steps, and look foreward to see where we need to stop. Legalising pot may not be the right idea, but what we are doing now isn't the right idea either.

Cyber-Security Act Stopped?

The new Cyber-Security bill has been rejected due to a lack of votes. Today, the US Senate failed to get the required 60 votes to bring the new Cyber-Security bill it needed for cloture.

So what does this mean? Well first of all, it is a win for the internet. For a while, anyways, we have managed to stave off a poor piece of unneeded legislation, but complacency is the enemy of progress. If we think the war is over, we have already lost. Parts of this legislation will undoubtedly show up again, either as their own pieces of legislation, or as parts of other bills. It has been done before as SOPA/PIPA pieces were being tried as their own bills.

The Internet Defense League has arisen from the ashes of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and this bill. It is a collection of Internet-savvy companies and people who want to see the internet kept the open and free thing that it is (yes, I am a member). It includes companies such as Cheezburger, Techdirt, Mozilla, Open Media.ca, Imgur, Reddit, and Grooveshark.

Individuals can join as well as companies (this is how I joined).

How is this going to help. By creating pressure on lawmakers, we can work together to keep the internet free, and can even be a force of good, shaming those who would resort to 'cyber-security attacks'. People have a right to be free, and not to be spied on by our governments.

Canada has a harder climb than the US does, with the C-30 bill, but we can still put much pressure on our government (Stephen Harper at the time of this writing) to turn down our own Cyber-Security bill in Canada.

That, and politicians need to show that new legislation is needed, and that our current laws don't already cover things (which they do). We don't NEED the cyber-security legislation. It is just another excuse to take away our rights and freedoms. In Canada, we are guaranteed our right to Privacy by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Law Enforcement officials need a court-issued warrant to be allowed to circumvent that. There is NO reason the police should have the ability to circumvent that without a court order. If there is suspicion of wrong-doing, then a warrant can be issued. If there isn't, then the police have NO RIGHT to invade our privacy.

These legislations are not for the children, or for business. It is slow steps taking us from a democratic society based on freedom and justice to an Orwellian nightmare where we live under the constant supervision of "Big Brother". If things continue the way they are, 1984 will become a reality, not just fiction.

Can someone explain to me how that is "for the children?"

Violence and Gun Control

For any American readers, I would like to remind you that I am a Canadian.

Last night (July 19th, 2012) a terrible tragedy happened in Aurora, Colorado. Twelve (as of the time of this post) people have died, and fifty nine more injured after a lone gunman opened fire in a theater showing a midnight screening of Batman: Dark Knight Rises.

James Eagen Holmes entered the theater, clad in S.W.A.T.-style body armor, wearing a gas mask and released a canister of gas (I do not know what kind, but presume it is simply a smoke-screen type gas). He then opened fire.

He was captured by police with little incident.

So how does one become armed to the teeth, with body armor, smoke-screens and all that? Quite simply, bad laws.

The United States of America is a nation built on many principles, including their "Right to Bear Arms." Now, I do not deny people the right to own a firearm, but there needs to be better laws in place.

We need to prevent incidents like this, like the columbine massacre, like the Virginia Tech Massacre, or many others. Stricter gun laws are definitely a place to start. Now I am not saying that people can't own guns, but guns need to be less accessable to just anyone. Teacing responsible gun ownership is good, but the United States has too many incidents with firearms for things to keep going on as they are.

The US needs better laws surrounding the ownership of a gun, and more controls for people who own guns. These incidents need to be curbed, as each successive generation is becoming more and more desensitized to violence.

But.... Olympics?

So, yeah, one of the craziest things I have read in a while (about a week). So evidently the London 2012 Olympics is running a censorship campaign relating to istelf. You see, it wants to stop all negative comments, derogatory terms, false claims, misleading comments, or otherwise objectable content from leading people to their website.

It's in their Terms of Use.

5. Linking policy

a. Links to the Site. You may create your own link to the Site, provided that your link is in a text-only format. You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association between an organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012, and agree that no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner. The use of our logo or any other Olympic or London 2012 Mark(s) as a link to the Site is not permitted. View our guidelines on Use of the Games' Marks.

Umm, yeah. Someone let them know that's NOT how free speech works. Under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we can say what we want about the Olympics, they can't really stop us.

So, can they stop us from linking to their site? No, they can't. You see, hyperlinking is like telling someone where to find a place. I am in person allowed to say "Hey Steve, don't go to The Company Over There at 1234 Main St. They are real douchetards!!!!!"

I can do the same on the internet. "Hey people of the internet, don't go to the London 2012 Olympic Site over here. They are real douchtards!!!!"

Higgs Boson and God

Today, science did not take a step foreward, it leaped!

As the famous astronaut Neil Armstrong once said "One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind!" Of course, Neil was talking about the first man to set foot on the moon. The first man to walk on a terrestrial body that was not Earth. It truly was a giant leap for mankind.

But today, man just made an even larger leap. Today, we confirmed the existance of a new Boson particle. This particle acts and looks, and interacts just like the thoerized Higgs Boson Particle. While they stopped JUST short of confirming that it was the Higgs Boson, it is certain that it is.

So certain, that most have already accepted it as fact, and even those that haven't accepted it as fact, most realize that we just need to make sure, one last time.

So what's the big deal? Well, the Higgs Boson particle explains how the "Big Bang" actually formed the universe. It explains how planets, stars, nebulae, and other things are formed. It explains how the universe exists, and how it formed. It proves that it was the Higgs Boson that created the Earth and the heavens. It almost completely disproves the existance of a creator entity.

Yeah, that's right. Proof. Not that theists accept anything as crazy as 'proof', 'evidence' or 'facts', but still. This is why the particle was nicknamed the "God Particle", not that that name is appropriate.

Mankinds knowledge and understanding of the universe have taken a leap foreward so far, it outshines things like a Man on the Moon, or even the sequencing of DNA. A discovery almost as important as the discovery of Photons, or the Atom.

One of the greatest scientific discoveries of this generation.

ACTA

Starting in 2007, ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, started to be negotiated in secret by the UK, US, Canada, European Union, and a handful of other countries.

After information on ACTA started to leak, and with the success of the SOPA/PIPA protests, the people of Europe took to the streets in protest. All five European Committees that were assigned to look at ACTA recommended not ratifying it.

As of July 4th, 2012, the Agreement was turned down by the European Union, effectively destroying any real credibility that the agreement had.

Micheal Geist has a great article on this.

Now, if only we can get the TPP stopped this way. Let our governments know that secretive backroom deals are not the way the public will accept things.

The Vanbuskirk's last stop

In May, I posted about Detective David VanBuskirk.

Since then, well, he was sentenced to jail, now has a criminal record, and has lost his job as a police officer. You would think that with all the media shakeup over this event, one that caused the Police Chief, Gary Smith, to resign, and caused the acting police chief Al Frederick and Police Board Chairman Mayor Eddie Francis to state that there needs to be a change in police culture.


What does that mean. Really? I mean, I work at a place that employs 350 others. If one of them does wrong, and tries to weasel their way out of it, I don't think my workplace needs a "Change of Culture." So does the police?


Well, if it were one or two isolated incidents, I would say no, there does not need to be a change. But there are more than just one or two incidents.


So why does the culture need to be changed. Its not that there are a few bad apples in the bunch, and this is a case of that. But the fact that the bad apples have set procedures that allow them to be bad apples without repercussions. This, by default, tells officers that if you have a bad day, or make a mistake, that it's ok, and you'll be protected no matter what.


THAT is the culture that needs to change. That is what we need to focus on. The police are there to serve the public, no the other way around. They need to be held accountable for their actions. But in all of this, we have to remember this. They cannot just be held accountable for their negative actions, but their positive ones too.


If an officer does the right thing, saves a life, stops a criminal, diffuses a situation. Especially when he or she does so without resorting to violence, they need to be recognized and commended. When they do fail and make mistakes or poor judgement, they need to be held accountable, but even then, we have to remember that these are the people who have to make hard decisions in the most stressfull circumstances we have. They should be givin the benefit of the doubt.


If it is found that they abused their authority, as in the VanBuskirk case, however, an example needs to be set. To let the police know that they are not above the law.


No one is.

When is enough enough?

Evidently, enough is now finally enough.

For those who don't know what I am talking about, I am referring to the saga that is Charles Carreon and Matt Inman.

It all started about a year ago, when Matt Inman, owner of The Oatmeal discovered several of his comics were posted on the site Funnyjunk without his permission. He wrote a nasty blog post basically accusing them of being thieves.

Things went back and forth a bit, but then things settled down.

A year later, a lawyer, Charles Carreon, representing Funnyjunk sent The Oatmeal a, well, letter. Note that Inman has his own rebuttals in that letter.

Well, Inman did what he said he was going to do. He started his Bearlove campaign on Indiegogo.com, and quickly raised over 200,000 dollars to be donated to the World Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer society.

But, no, Charles Carreon would not let that be. Instead, he went on a rampage, started litigation against Matt Inman and The Oatmeal. But it wasn't only that, also included in the lawsuit are Indiegogo.com, The World Wildlife Foundation, the American Cancer Society and Does (as yet unnamed defendants). Mr. Carreon, and his wife, continued to communicate with the public, which went to the defense on Inman.

Carreon and his wife basically accused the people defending Inman of being "Nazi Scumbags" and equated Inman to Hitler and the Antichrist.

Of course, they aren't completely in the wrong. Many of the things people did against Charles and his wife were wrong and terrible, and even Inman told his readers to stop harrassing them.

"Stop harassing Carreon. Be lawful and civil in your interactions with him."

 Of course, the Carreons would have none of that, and included cyberbullying and cybervandalism to the charges against Inman.

As tensions rose, and the popularity of the case grew, Carreon seemed to ignore common sense and continued, threatening to sue everyone who supported Inman. Charles Carreon's insistance on continuing, even after he had literally dug himself into a hole so deep his reputation may never climb out of it, has caused Techdirt's Mike Masnick to coin the term the "Carreon Effect". Which is when someone who has dug themselves into a hole (ie the "Streisand Effect"), to continuously keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.

Finally though, it appears that Charles Carreon saw the writing on the wall, and has dismissed the lawsuit, though he does have the option to re-file. Considering his past actions, it would not surprise me if he re-filed the suit. Still, for now it seems the hubbub has died down.

The VanBusKirk Stops Here

For those who haven't followed the Windsor, Ontario news, Detective David Van Buskirk is a Windsor Police Department officer who just pleaded guilty on assault charges against a Dr. Abouhassan.

Detective Van Buskirk was responding to a call from his daughter that she was being harrased by a person near Jackson Park. Her father, then proceeded to the scene where Dr. Tyceer Abouhassan was jogging. Detective Van Buskirk proceeded to question and threaten Dr. Abouhassan, and then started to physically assault the doctor, who suffered a broken nose, bruised ribs, torn eyelid, and a detatched retina, requiring emergency surgery. All of this happened, despite the fact that Van Buskirk had a description of the person who harrassed his daughter, and that description did not match Dr. Abouhassan.

So you would think the usual happened. The officer was reprimanded for disorderly conduct and charged with assault.

Nope. Not for Detective Van Buskirk. Instead, Dr. Abouhassan was arrested for assaulting a peace officer. To be honest here, no one would have questioned things. The area was never taped off, and several officers offered events that coincided with Detective Van Buskirk's version of events.

If it weren't for a security camera, a great injustice would have been done. But there was a camera. A camera that showed that Dr. Abouhassan clearly did not attack the officer, but instead was brutally and savagely attacked, and only fought back after he had already been struck several times by Detective Van Buskirk.

So what is my opinion? Well, let me start by saying that I support the Windsor Police Force. I have great respect for the WPD, and for all "boys in blue". That said, as with all professions, there are some bad apples, and some of the upstanding officers have bad days.

Apparently, Detective Van Buskirk was having a bad day. Rather, a bad month. Recently divorced, and with several other personal issues surrounding him, Detective Van Buskirk made a lapse of judgement when he attacked Dr. Abouhassan.

Fair enough. We've all had bad days. We've all made bad decisions and regreted them later, but we have to face the consequences of them. If Detective Van Buskirk was only guilty of assaulting Dr. Abouhassan, I would have said fine. Let him do some time for that, and then put him back on the force, perhaps in a lesser capacity.

But then there is the other charge. That is, the fact that not only did Detective Van Buskirk attack Dr. Abouhassan, but he then tried to cover it up, lied about the situation, and even tried to pin the blame for the encounter on the doctor. He was only caught when the video footage showed the truth. Detective Van Buskirk not only made an error in judgement, but he was going to force an innocent man to go to jail for assault for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is what makes this situation unacceptable.

Detective David Van Buskirk needs to be discharged from the Windsor Police Department. He not only has shown poor judgement on several occasions (this is not his first incident), but he has shown a willingness to conspire and plot to force innocent people to take his punishments for him. This is NOT an acceptable trait in a Police officer.

Now, of course, there is the question of the other officers involved in the charging of Dr. Abouhassan. I honestly believe that many of them simply did not know the entire situation, and went along with their fellow officer. After all, they did not know Dr. Abouhassan, but they are familiar with the Detective. However, this is for the courts to decide.

My opinion: Throw Van Buskirk behind bars, and fire him. He has abused the public's trust too far.

Will 2013 ever come?

Today I heard news that saddened and depressed me. I discovered that today, Dick Clark died at the age of 82.

Dick Clark, the host of Dick Clark's Rockin' New Years Eve has passed away of a heart attack. A sad day for everyone.

Far many, myself included, New Years Eve will not be the same without Dick Clark. He has managed to make his way into our collective unconscious, and a part of how we celebrate our New Years Eve. Now, today, he has passed away.

How can we truly celebrate New Years Eve without Mr. Clark. Maybe 2013 will never come because we won't let it. We won't let the year change as a homage to a man who captured our hearts and minds every year.

2012 forever!

-The Mad Canadian.

IDS (Internet Defense System)

Taken from the personal blog of Ben Huh:

We did well. It was almost too late, but the rallying cry was loud and clear — we would not let a back room, lobbyist-driven bill that will restrict free speech, hamper innovation, and jobs.


But it was too close for comfort. I’d like to sit back and savor this moment, but I feel like a man who almost got shiv’d in the back in broad daylight. I don’t feel at ease with the current state of the world.
Piracy still exists, and as long as big media believes it hurts their bottom line, their hundred-million-dollar lobbying machine will continue to peddle their Dark Arts — campaign dollars, ex-senators, and lobbyists — to pass more bills like this. Maybe next time, we won’t notice. Maybe next time, they’ll add it to another bill as an amendment. Maybe next time, they’ll have a sympathetic White House. There are too many ways for the anti-Internet Freedom lobby to win.

There’s the short-term task of actually passing an anti-piracy bill that doesn’t restrict free speech and encourages innovation. Without a viable way to shut down truly illegal actors with due process, the anti-piracy lobby will continue to assault Internet freedom — and we’ll be back here again. The Internet groups (not just companies, but users) need to sit down and talk to them. The OPEN Act is much better, but I stil have some major reservations.

Long-term, there is much work to do.

First, we need an early warning system against those who seek to cripple Internet freedoms.
We need to know when the slippery slope begins before we’re rushing down it. We need a good lead time in order to create effective defenses. Think of this also as a diplomatic mission: With the ability to bring the other side to the table, we can stop the war before it begins.

Second, we need to educate Congress and we need Congress to educate us.
This means understanding how the legislative and lobbying ecosystems work. We need to show Congress that trying to pass the bill restricting the Internet yet professing “I’m no nerd” makes them ignorant buffoons worth voting out. And that requires people in the hallways of Congress shaking hands, making friends, and talking about our needs.

Third, but not least, we need to build and coordinate engines of mobilization.
The fact that we caught this bill days from a vote caused many of us to bring out the big guns — the blackout. Without the last-minute support of Wikipedia and Google, I don’t know what the outcome would have been. Even so, many sites continued to focus on SOPA when PIPA was the urgent need, this was a fight where every call mattered, yet we didn’t get the message out right — and that was just one of many coordination errors. We need an easier way to deploy calls, emails and votes to candidates that support Internet Freedom and even rally mainstream celebrities to our cause. We need to start building lists for mobilization and coordinate the efforts.

If you get robbed, you install locks, and learn how to protect yourself. We almost got robbed, even though we had some of the elements I listed above. But clearly, it’s not a strong enough system. The next step is to start generating ideas and building an Internet Defense System.
 
(This post is copyright free and now in the public domain. Copy and paste the crap out of it.)

Did we win?

Now that both SOPA and PIPA are delayed, many people are declaring victory, dancing in the streets (teh Intertubes?) and the like, but did we really win?

It seems in this day and age of instant, well, everything, that there is a sense of completion here. We called the senators (well the Americans did anyways, as my blog title suggests, I am Canadian), we made our voices heard. They backed off on both SOPA and PIPA. However, the fight against this sort of legislation is far from over. For decades, the content industries have run roughshod over the internet, creating laws like the DCMA (Digital Copyright Millenium Act). The net has, however, given a few punches back. Bloodied their nose after the Net Neutrality, and gave them a kick in the butt with SOPA and PIPA, but the war is far from over.

Next time, they will approach it in a different way, and we must remain vigilant, or we risk loosing the one great innovation in our generation. The internet has created a way for people to connect in ways that our forefathers never dreamed was possible. We can communicate with people around the globe, who we have never actually met, instantaneously. But can this be maintained without destroying further innovation? Must it be regulated to protect innovators and prevent their ideas from being stolen?

This is the big question that the public needs to ask themselves. I believe that we can. The current laws are even too much in my opinion. Honestly, people can compete with pirates. You can compete with free. How? The answer is simple, and Mike Masnick from Techdirt said it best. You can compete with free by offering a better service, and by connecting with your audience.

So, by connecting with your fans (or audience) and offering a great service at a reasonable price, you can totally compete with free. However, this is a relatively new business model. The MPAA, RIAA and other content gateways don't like these models. They resist change and like their previous business models. The problem is the older models are based on scarecity. There are only a limited number of Discs available. In the digital age, that is a falsity. After all, you can make limitless copies of a file. The main issue here is that the content gateways want control. They want to control the flow of entertainment, they want to decide what to release and when.

The internet takes that control away from them. It gives it to the artists and content creators themselves, who can choose when, and how to release their content. The gateways are finding themselves increasingly obsolete.

So they are doing everything they can to protect themselves. The problem is, they are doing it at the expense of the public, at the expense of free speech. They will do everything they can to thrive in a world that does not need them.

We won this battle, but the war continues.

Abuse of the Law?

Megaupload, a file-sharing site that has, so far, complied with the DMCA, and taken down content that has been flagged for copyright violations, has now been SHUT DOWN.

Yep, SOPA and PIPA have not passed into law, but why let that stop the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? Megaupload was shut down today. They are being charged with "participating in a racketeering conspiracy", "conspiring to commit copyright infringement", "conspiring to commit money laundering" and two counts of "criminal copyright infringement".

But, are they really at fault here or is this just another attack on a legitimate service. However, it should be noted that not all file-sharing is copyright infringing. Now, what about all those Megaupload customers who were using the site legitimately? How about all those people who were using the site to expose others to their own works. Independant artists use sites like You Tube, Megaupload and others to expose people to their works. So those people can discover them and become paying supporters of these artists.

Now these people who have legitimately used the site are left in limbo. The site has been taken down. It's gone. All these artists should get together and file a class-action lawsuit against the DOJ and ICE for loss of business.

The site is down, but they have yet to be declared guilty of anything. Shouldn't the law determine innocence or guilt before removing the site? If the site is vindicated, will Megaupload have recourse to regain funds lost due to this? If they are found not guilty, I hope the sue the ICE and DOJ for enough money to make the law-makers and decision-makers open their eyes to what Due Process is all about.

Due Process. Giving those accused of a crime the ability to defend themselves. This means they are INNOCENT until PROVEN OTHERWISE. The DoJ and ICE are treating Megaupload as GUILTY until, well - nevermind, they are GUILTY. End of Story.

Yeah, lets give these organizations even MORE power with SOPA and PIPA. No thanks.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Stop Sopa/Pipa

Just Desserts

It is not rare that one man can have great power in our world. This has been a truth since the dawn of civilization. And with great power, comes even greater corruption.

In a surprising twist, yesterday the man with power fell.

Manuel "Matty" Moroun the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, connecting the United States (in Detroit) and Canada (in Windsor) held a virtual monopoly on the border. He could charge tolls, make a mint in his duty free store, and gas pumps. He gets government handouts that he uses to fund these projects.

But, when the government gave him those handouts, there was an arrangement. He was to connect the bridge to the highways, so the truck would get off of Detroit's streets. Instead, where the ramp was that was to connect the bridge to the highways, was ....

Gas Pumps and  a Duty Free store. Yep, Matty Moroun did not fufill his end of the bargain, betting that once he had the store and pumps built, he could throw around a bit of money and make all the commotion go away.

It didn't. Things escallated, and now Matty Moroun sits in Wayne County Jail. The same cell that housed former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He sits there for Contempt of Court. For repetedly failing to meet deadlines in completing the project he said he would.

I don't feel bad for him one bit. He is 84 years old? So what. A criminal is a criminal. He had plenty of time to complete the task he was given. He didn't do it because he thought he wouldn't need to. He figured he could buy his way out of trouble.

Enjoy your cell Matty Moroun. You deserve it.

SOPA/PIPA Part 2

As opposition to the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act/H.R. 3261) and PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) continue to mount, pressure is beginning to grow. Still supporters of these legislations believe that they are needed and necessary to stop online Piracy.

Let me step back for a second. I am going to call a spade a spade now. Online Piracy is a fancy word for theft. It is theft of Intellectual Property (IP). From this point onwards, I am going to call it what it is - theft.

Now, in order to stop theft, you need three things: You need to catch a thief, you need to prove he has stolen the item(s) in question, and you need give that thief due process.

Yeah, crazy. So lets say John Doe goes out and steals a car. A cop catches him. He gets thrown in handcuffs and led to a holding cell. He is informed he is being charged with Grand Theft Auto. He is allowed legal representation (a lawyer), and he is allowed to defend himself against the charges. The courts take the position that John Doe is innocent, until the evidence provided by the police find him guilty. Note that John Doe still has a Driver's Licence, and can still drive. He is allowed to go free on bail or a promise to appear in court, and he is allowed time to prepare a defense in court. He can still go to work, and earn money, and he still gets to keep his own car (after all, it's his).

So, why does online theft get a COMPLETELY different look. Now let's assume that SOPA Passes, and here is our scenario:
John Doe is running a website that discusses the new popular MMO Ultimate Fantasy Warfare Online (UFWO) (I just made this up, it doesn't to my knowledge and a quick Google search exist). Now John Doe had a very active forum, a well-read blog about his character's exploits in the game, and even an area with videos of his character in action.

On his front page, he even has several of the MMO's trailers posted there, and links to the MMO's website to encourage people to sign up and play this awesome MMO. Oh, and in a back part of the site, he also has his family vacation photo's and some pictures from his last birthday party.

Now, the company that creats UFWO, SopaBuy (again, made-up name), discovers that John Doe has posted trailers and videos of their game without their permission. They go to the Attorney General. The Attorney General agrees that John Doe has infringed on SopaBuy's Intellectual Property and declares his website as a rogue site.

Now the ICE come in and sieze his domain name. The trailers are now gone. So is the Blog, the Videos of his characters, the forums, and even his birthday and vacation photo's. ALL of them are now gone. John Doe now faces charges of theft of Intellectual Property, and could see up to 5 years in jail. Oh, and since his site is down, he longer gets any advertising revenue from it.

Doesn't sound TOO bad right? That's not all though. Now Joe Blow also plays UFWO. He also has a website, but he's not that good with coding, so he just has a bunch of text and things like that. He does have a link to John Doe's website though. I play with John Doe, and you can find his website here.

Well, according to SOPA, Joe Blow is ALSO at risk here. See, Joe Blow has a hyperlink to infringing material, that means that Joe Blow is also a copyright infringer, and he could see up to 5 years in prison as well.

WHAT???

Think that's bad? How about this one - Meet Jane Doe. Now Jane Doe loves her grass elf in UFWO and has a bucket-load of screen captures of her character on her own website. In addition to that, she has links to Joe Blow and John Doe's websites. She also runs an online business from a different part of that site. She sells custom-made T-Shirts, Mugs, and Bumper Stickers. She also as a political blog where she discusses the politics of her local municipal, state, and federal governments, and their representatives. From her Political blog, you can tell she is a Lefty.

Now, Jane is also infringing on the owner's IP, so what SOPA does is - Shuts down her website, cuts off all the money she makes with her website (That's her Business!!!!). Not only that, but her Political Blog is ALSO gone. So her political opinions are, well, censored.

This is how the Freedom of Speech is impacted. Now Jane's political opinions have been suppressed, her business shut down, her funding cut off, and chances are, she hasn't even been told why yet. Heck, if she was still having her morning coffee, she may not even know that her very livlyhood has been taken away yet.

That's right. She hasn't been charged, she hasn't had her Miranda Warning, or even been told she is being charged with infringement. Since she has no job anymore, she probably can't afford a lawyer.

So in the end, we have three people, all who love a game and wanted to show that to the world, facing up to five years in prison, and one of them just lost their entire livlyhood. They don't get their websites back either, not unless they PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT. They are not assumed innocent until proven guilty, they are GUILTY and must PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE in order to get their sites back.

Yeah, sound's like a great piece of legislation there. Things are even worse for foreign websites.

Now I understand the purpose of these laws is to stop online theft. However it approaches this is a very draconian manner, and the potential for abuse is far to great. Now the lawmakers have the best of intentions (remember what the road to Hell is paved in), but can Americans really trust that the law will not be abused?

Do me a favor, and Google the following stories: "Megaupload Mega Song" and "Dajaz1.com".