Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
I mean Andrew Lee did drive away all of the communities that were on freenode.
US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
51–60 of 108 posts
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but again, that will never take off. "Install this plugin to access our website" is a non-starter for most people.
It doesn't seem different from "install this app" to access our services though? And clearly, this model has proliferated with fluidity.
Installing apps is easy, built into the phone. And comes from a curated store run by a US company.
Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider articles and research that the public paid for and suddenly don't have access to, to be piracy, then sure. To be clear, people have given their life for this cause.
I feel like you're trying to argue that piracy is ethical, which is different than something not being piracy.
The words we use are important, because public opinion tends to matter quite a bit with these things, and public opinion is shaped immensely by words and their connotations (remember death panels?). If sci-hub is said to aid in the pirating of papers, it is doomed. If instead its purpose is said to be to make publicly-funded research accessible to the public for the benefit of all, then there's at least a slightly better chance of its surviving.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I mean Andrew Lee did drive away all of the communities that were on freenode.
Depends on if you look at it based on a narrative that the former-staff wanted people to hear, or if you base it on the truth [1][2]. Specifically, this person states that I was in a position to "abuse my power" at freenode, such would mean that the statements he and others made in the past saying I had nothing to do with freenode until I "came in with lawyers" untrue, no? It's probably not worth spending cycles to research, but I'll leave these links if you're interested.
That said, a person simply can't defeat the cryptographically secured names of Handshake, so even if I was the boogie man, unless I have found the One Piece of Quantum CPU and harnessed its chakra[3], I'd be hard-pressed in fulfilling the boogie man role. ;)
[1] https://old.freenode.net/static/files/on-freenode.pdf
[2] https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/
[3] intentionally put chakra and not haki here to make that more playful.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which it is, surely? Don't get me wrong, sites like it are on my most-visited list on every device, but they are for pirating papers, no?
If you consider articles and research that the public paid for and suddenly don't have access to, to be piracy, then sure. To be clear, people have given their life for this cause.
> people have given their life for this cause
I'm aware of one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't so much "give his life for the cause" as tragically commit suicide because he couldn't see a way out of legal pressure put on him (which other people have had put on them and didn't commit suicide over; depression is a terrible disease).
Is there someone else you're referring to that I haven't heard of?
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#56I always had this question and perhaps someone here can shine some light.
It is my understanding that under US copyright law if you own a trademark you have some grounds to sue someone else that may be using/squatting "your" domain in order to acquire it.
What would happen, though, if the owner of the domain does not live in the US, does not operate in the US, nor has any other thing to do there aside from owning a .com domain?
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#57I always had this question and perhaps someone here can shine some light. It is my understanding that under US copyright law if you own a trademark you have some grounds to sue someone else that may be using/squatting "your" domain in order to acquire it. What would happen, though, if the owner of the domain does not live in the US, does not operate in the US, nor has any other thing to do there aside from owning a .…
ICANN has a process [1] by which they can take the domain away from you, doesn't matter where you live.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Re...
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#58I always had this question and perhaps someone here can shine some light. It is my understanding that under US copyright law if you own a trademark you have some grounds to sue someone else that may be using/squatting "your" domain in order to acquire it. What would happen, though, if the owner of the domain does not live in the US, does not operate in the US, nor has any other thing to do there aside from owning a .…
I'm not a us citizen. But as far as I see, money talks in courts. So if one cannot afford a good lawyer, or at least does not have a valuable domain to defend using a borrowed money, that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem different from "install this app" to access our services though? And clearly, this model has proliferated with fluidity.
Installing apps is easy, built into the phone. And comes from a curated store run by a US company. Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.
...Only because we (software engineers, developers, etc...) have completely failed in managing to make our field more communicable to users, and have gone down the path of complicating the hell out of things instead of nailing down the primitives and onboarding to the field.
I'm not even talking any wishy washy inclusiveness mumbo jumbo either. I'm talking over complicating the boot chain, over complicating memory management/models/toolchains.
Browsers are a living nightmare of complexity, and I am continuously amazed at the number of programmers who have no clue about the gory details of networking.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#60This is why we need decentralized DNS. Sure you can subscribe to ICANNs list, or create your own TLDs, or pin domains to something ICANN doesn't agree with because fuck governments trying to control domains and TLDs.