I’ll share the contents of this email below. These are simply my opinions and by no means what I demand should be imposed on all Canadians.

1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?

As a composer, a DJ, and a user of the internet, I strongly believe that copyright laws are antiquated and do not serve the best interests of musicians nor consumers. The world is a very different place today than it was even just 20 years ago, and it’s very important that the law stays current with modern times. Actions that were deemed illegal decades ago are now commonplace, bolster Canadian culture and economy,  and are indicative of the evolution of human interpersonal communication. For example, in the past music enthusiasts were limited to their vocabularies when trying to convey their appreciation and enthusiasm for music culture, but today it is trivial and preferable to share a copy of a song as it is a more direct and meaningful means of conversation. What better way could there be to convey the depth of Stompin’ Tom Connors’ voice than to share a copy of “Good Old Hockey Game”?

As a composer I create original music entirely conceptualized and arranged by myself, but I opt to sometimes use samples that are recorded from commercial works. I seek no monetary compensation for my original music, yet I live in fear of publishing my work because of the copyright laws associated with those samples. Regardless of my fear I’ve been publishing my music for free for 16 years.

As a DJ I mix songs together in real time, using talent and skills I’ve refined for years as well as music and technology I bought from local neighbourhood shops, but I live in fear of publishing my work for free because of the copyright laws associated with those songs. Regardless of my fear I’ve been publishing my mixes for free for 7 years.

As a music enthusiast I own hundreds of albums on a variety of media. My friends are also music enthusiasts and it is natural for us to use the convenient communication tools of the internet to share copies of those songs. There are countless examples of us enjoying those shared songs and subsequently buying an album or attending a show, as well as examples of us not enjoying the songs and avoiding a purchase. I live in fear of sharing these songs for non-commercial purposes because of the copyright laws associated with those songs, but I deem this behaviour preferable to taking a chance on an unfamiliar album because Canadian copyright law permits stores to refuse to give refunds for unsatisfactory albums or movies. Canadian copyright law is so complex and cryptic that I don’t even know whether I have the right to copy my audio cassettes to CDs or MP3s so that I can listen to them outside of my home.

Canadian copyright law is completely out of touch with the behaviours that ordinary Canadians practise. Modernized laws must acknowledge and concede that this non-commercial, non-infringing behaviour is natural, and is the intended purpose of communication over the internet. As it stands today, Canadian copyright law enforces punitive action upon citizens who choose to communicate in this common and natural fashion, when in fact the intent behind these actions is genuine – it is not malicious, there is no ulterior motive, and a shared song or story does not equal one lost sale.

Canada is in danger of stifling innovation and falling significantly behind more progressive countries if it insists upon punishing citizens for multimedia communication. Canada has one of (if not the very) highest adoption rates of the internet per capita, and as such should be the frontrunner by a wide margin in accommodating and nurturing this enthusiasm for sharing our culture with the world. It is irresponsible for our government to continue to punish its citizens who now grow up speaking the language of multimedia just as fluently as French or English.  The indisputable fact is that current and future generations of citizens will continue to share media over the internet whether or not it is deemed lawful, so our laws should be modernized to protect and not criminalize the average Canadian.

The spirit of Canadian copyright law is sound – protect artists, their financiers, and their fans - but the letter of the law as it is written today has no relevance to modern society. Canadian copyright law asserts that most Canadian citizens malicious criminals requiring rehabilitation, when in fact we are the most dedicated commercial consumers and advertisers of Canadian and global culture. Is it the desire of my democratically-elected government to convey to the world that we are an overwhelmingly immoral, greedy society?

2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?

Speaking as a proud lifelong Canadian, in my mind the single most valuable Canadian ideal is sharing. We are one of the most multicultural and adaptive societies on Earth, we are wont to approach strangers with open arms rather than firearms, we are renowned for our international peacekeeping and diplomatic efforts, and we are celebrated for our unique and elegant abilities of expression. Canada has a rich history of culture, music, and storytelling, and we are very proud to repeat these stories and songs to our global neighbours. Thanks to the proliferation of internet adoption in Canada this ability is easier than ever before, for musicians, broadcasters, and even individuals. The ability for an individual voice to be propagated as far and wide as that of a major broadcaster is a triumph of ingenuity and has enabled the entire world to hear the stories and songs of citizens, ordinary and extraordinary, from all walks of life. This is the single most effective means of advertising on a global scale at minimum cost, and is directly responsible for the success of countless artists who would otherwise be obscure and limited to much smaller geographies. I can think of nothing more Canadian than the word-of-mouth promotion of our neighbours’ creative expressions.

In regards to creative works standing the test of time, the fact of the matter is that the internet renders everything permanent. The purpose of the internet is to provide an open publishing medium to all mankind without restriction or persecution. At its most fundamental level, the internet is no more than a commonly agreed-upon set of computer communications protocols that enable computers all over the world to publish and receive data and files. In essence, the internet is mankind’s sixth sense, and Canada’s current copyright laws punish citizens who do not voluntarily blind themselves.

Canadians have had no trouble embracing the internet in practise and in spirit, and this is proven by the millions of websites, businesses, and creative works we have collectively created and shared. Copyright law threatens to restrict publishing materials for non-commercial, social purposes, and to punish individuals who are merely leveraging the most efficient and descriptive form of communication at their immediate disposal. If copyright holders are the only party permitted to publish then classic creative works will disappear to make room for more profitable modern ones, regardless of the classic works’ cultural relevance or appeal.

To summarize, the ideals of the internet are at odds with those of copyright law as it stands today. The internet is an open publishing medium, whereas copyright law restricts publishing to copyright holders (which are usually large, non-Canadian corporations, and rarely the artists themselves). The single most important factor in ensuring creative endeavours (creating, publishing, and enjoying) will stand the test of time is to align the ideals of copyright with those of the internet. Copyright law should recognize that non-commercial, non-infringing behaviour of ordinary citizens (such as peer-to-peer sharing) is lawful and protected behaviour, endorsed by Canadian government, regardless of the laws governing these actions in other countries.

The long-lived future of Canadian culture is in no way restricted by the short term profits garnered by multinational corporations, fuelled by our country’s artistic assets.

3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

Throughout our history, innovations in technology have enabled Canadians in creating, modifying, and sharing creative works in traditional and new forms of media. Art is no longer a static, monolithic entity, but has evolved into a living and polymorphic opportunity. Advanced technologies have become more accessible and less expensive, and Canadians lead the world in its proficiency with these tools to collaboratively tell the Great Canadian Story and contrast it with those of other nations. We do so by creating our own artistic works, by sharing them with the world, and more recently, by creating derivative works based upon the art of others.

Examples of derivative works are samples (references to another artist’s work within one’s own creations), mixes (sequences of artistic works with meaningful transitions from each to the next), remixes (personal interpretations of others’ artistic works), and mashups (juxtaposition of elements from multiple artistic works to create something original). Derivative interpretations are common in music, film, literature, and visual arts, and even these disparate media can be intertwined into something unique. There are commercial and non-commercial applications for these creative endeavours, and the best inspiration for these projects is the revocation of punitive actions upon authors of non-commercial derivative works, coupled with a fair system to compensate the original artists and copyright holders in cases where derivative works cultivate commercial gain.

Punishing those who create, share, and publish derivative artistic works for non-commercial purposes will impose irreparable damage to the proliferation and innovation of Canadian culture. The inexplicable coupling of culture and commerce is the greatest mistake Canada can make if its goal is to cultivate a foundation of story and song. These ideals work together very well but they remain symbiotic while they are separate.

4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

Creative management agencies such as record labels are becoming less relevant as self-publishing over the internet becomes prevalent. Copyright law must be made easily digestible and applicable by individuals and groups who opt to self-publish. Removing this veil of complexity will encourage a glut of artistic hobbyists to monetize their hobbies, decentralizing the means of distribution and providing choice to Canadian artists who may or may not wish to hand over all rights to their creative assets to industry middlemen such as CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) member organizations or similar non-Canadian agencies.

If Canadian copyright laws favour the artists themselves they will be free to spend more time creating the content they excel at, and less time wrestling with the legal intricacies of an industry rife with preying and abuse by representative agencies like those forming the CRIA.  The industries of culture start with artists and end with consumers, so positive reciprocity between these vital groups and the government should be the first priority of Canada’s reformed copyright laws.

Web-based, government-funded resources would be very helpful to aspiring Canadian artists who are unsure of what their next step should be, and for Canadian citizens who do not understand their fair-use rights. The copyright.econsultation.ca website is the best effort I’ve seen yet, so on behalf of all Canadians I thank my government for what will hopefully be the first of many such forums for two-way discussion!

5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

It is imperative that the Canadian government understands the function and purpose of the internet. The internet is not bound by the restrictions of geography or physical space, and it enables and encourages effortless duplication of digital content. Canada’s current copyright laws do not acknowledge these fundamental differentiators between the physical world and the internet. As such, internet-specific innovation is stifled unfairly.

Notable Canadian copyright champions such as Michael Geist and Cory Doctorow have authored many essays on how so-called “piracy” is in reality the greatest boon to the advertisement of Canadian culture, and repeatedly state the irrefutable fact that the “most egregious pirates” happen to belong to the same demographics that purchase the most cultural products. Canada must revise its laws to recognize that uninhibited sharing of copyrighted media for non-commercial purposes is permissible and endorsed by the Canadian government. Purchase of Canadian art, and of foreign art from Canadian businesses, will flourish when Canadians are free to express and share their enthusiasm for these valuable resources unabated.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Copyright Consultations Canada – have your say!

There are many parallels to be naturally drawn from this verdict. The Pirate Bay has always proclaimed, civilly and mockingly based on the audience, that their website simply links to content and does not host any on its own. The similarities to other search engines like Google and Bing are more than obvious as it is trivial to use those web services to locate legal and illegal software hosted on third-party sites, just like The Pirate Bay.

The precedents set by this verdict, and particularly those emphasized by the refusal for retrial, are rather serious for TPB’s native Sweden. For one, public opinion of its government and national police force faltered considerably years ago after a raid on one of TPB’s many global web hosts, with the populace accusing its representatives of catering wholeheartedly to foreign pressures. More substantially, there is reasonable doubt concerning where the line is drawn regarding hyperlinking, quoting, and fair use of copyrighted materials (I linked to the BBC above – am I a Swedish criminal, then?). The strongest precedent of all is the claim that peer-to-peer sharing is detrimental to the music industry, ignoring the facts that the nations and specific demographics of the most enthusiastic music pirates are the very same that fuel that industry with the most sales.

The Pirate Bay still presents its corpus of responses to legal threats, based on the professional advice of its legal counsel whom, intimately familiar with Swedish law, were quite certain that the website’s actions fell comfortably within both the letter and spirit of national jurisprudence. It is rarely a valid excuse to proclaim ignorance of the law, but considering the website’s thorough research and powerful assertions that its services were legal, it seems legal compliance may be a moving target.

The cards are still being reshuffled, but the announced sale of the The Pirate Bay will undoubtedly spell the end of its claims that “0 torrents has been removed, and 0 torrents will ever be removed.”

The future of The Pirate Bay is looking grim, but peer-to-peer sharing is far from over. Hundreds, if not thousands of equivalent sites exist today. Sites like ShareReactor, Audiogalaxy, Suprnova, PizzaTorrent, and now The Pirate Bay, all rose through the ranks to become recognized as popular destinations before disbanding due to public pressure, and over the years the next replacement popped up even more quickly than the last. The decades-long endeavour of sharing digital files will not die with this one web site.

Meanwhile, in response to The Pirate Bay verdict, Sweden’s Pirate Party won its first seat in the European parliament as well as over 7% of Sweden’s votes, while similar parties have organized in America, Germany, Finland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, and other countries.

The role of The Pirate Bay may not conclude, even in its death. Its playfully outspoken founders may in fact connect with a wider audience as martyrs than they could have hoped to reach as webmasters.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Well blow me down

The police also claimed all receipts for purchases of this device in the last 2 years.

Precrime. It’s plausible to use these products for exclusively legitimate, legal purposes. The article doesn’t specify whether the shop owner was charged, but it’s petty and troubling that the police find it necessary to track the people who own these devices.

I’m reminded of Sony, a Japanese member of the RIAA. Sony is a music publisher who manufactures CD burners and blank CDs, and then sues the people who buy all these products.

I’m quite dissuaded from supporting the UK with my tourism. Between all the stories I hear about video cameras and police I just don’t get the feeling anyone is welcome there.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Conspiracy to commit homebrew

Though the IFPI would have us believe otherwise, The Pirate Bay isn’t the only other proprietor of this namespace. The trusty Wayback Machine shows a seemingly independent blog hosted at this domain in April of this year. This is odd since domains are rarely leased for shorter periods than one year.

This acquiry was significant for a few reasons. First and foremost, it’s obviously an attempt to tweak the noses of John Law. Second, the domain was acquired legally and fairly and was only possible because the IFPI organisation allowed their lease to lapse, returning the domain to the public market. Third, The Pirate Bay makes it well known, as illustrated in the screenshot below, that the site is under new ownership and that if you’ve arrived at the site looking for the IFPI organisation you should click the clearly labelled warning.

The commandeering of this domain has caused some headaches and embarrassment for the IFPI. For instance, for some untold reason, they’d opted to accept emails to both their ifpi.org and ifpi.com addresses, and of course, as is their right, The Pirate Bay has opted to activate a catchall email address which presents to them all emails sent to any @ifpi.com address. Truth be told, if this situation has caused any other confusion or inconvenience the IFPI has been too gentlemanly to complain about it publicly.

However, this hasn’t stopped them from crying foul to the World Intellectual Property Organisation – an appointed collective of global representatives whose job is to debate and encourage worldwide creativity and respect of copyrights. It is quizzical, then, that WIPO would show such disdain for their own field by overriding the American ICANN, the body in charge of the world’s domain names, by awarding the IFPI.com domain to the IFPI organisation, even though American law states that domain names cannot be copyrighted:

Can I copyright my domain name?
Copyright law does not protect domain names. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit organization that has assumed the responsibility for domain name system management, administers the assignation of domain names through accredited registers.

P2Pnet reports that the notice of appeal, granting The Pirate Bay 10 days to contest the ruling, was tardy in its delivery. I certainly hope they’ll contest this to bring the decision and the entire WIPO under further public scrutiny.

Until then, the IFPI and WIPO have given us much to ponder. For instance, the concepts of fair use and legal entitlement. These organisations argue that the law doesn’t always represent the best interests of the truly entitled party, and if not, can be overruled. As I’ve discussed in the past, American law is often proven to submit to 800-pound gorillas even in the face of overwhelming entitlement, prior art, and the stifling of local business versus foreign interests.

Will The Pirate Bay lose steam thanks to this debacle? Nah. Quite the opposite, I’d wager. I can’t imagine such salty dogs not foreseeing such a rocky shore. Nay, they’ll doubtless sing many a shanty about the one that got away; about the time big media let its true colours show and finally proclaimed in plain language what we’ve all known them to be whispering under their collective breath – do as we say, not as we do.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

What’s legally yours is rightfully ours

However, after several years of operation, Fido enacted a “Government Licensing Fee”, or some such, of about $30 per year. This gave way to a monthly fee of about $6.95 per month. Naturally, these fees were charged on top of the ordinary monthly fee, yet Fido had the nerve to omit this amount from all advertising.

I read a Toronto Star article a few years ago discussing the controversy surrounding this suspicious government licensing fee that had appeared on nearly all of Toronto’s cell carriers as of late. The most noteworthy points were that the government enforced no such fee, not all carriers asked for it, and it was highly suspicious that the fee appeared almost simultaneously on the major carriers’ invoices, never advertising any increase in subscription price. Also noteworthy was mention of a class action lawsuit that dissolved after the carriers each assigned new names to this fee, removing the implication that it was required by law, but not omitting or reducing the fee.

It’s been years since I read that article. Fido has changed hands and is now owned by Rogers – a lumbering brontosaur of a Canadian media company with a reputation of harbouring very helpful sales staff and useless support reps. I quickly got fed up with the new Fido, endured the remainder of my contract (which was requisite in order to buy a replacement phone – an ordeal I discuss here and here), and ditched them with many harsh words.

I left Fido for Virgin Mobile. I approached Virgin with much skepticism as their low prices and many included features seemed too good to be true. Most suspicious of all was the exclusion of any fees above and beyond the advertised price. Lo and behold, to my astonishment, the service is all it claims to be and more.

After several months of cellular bliss I’d almost forgotten about the other carriers altogether. A Toronto Star article reminded me of the plight of my brethren. The topic of a class action suit is on the table again – a move that is sure to make a couple of lawyers rich on behalf of the majority of Canada’s cellular subscribership.

I’m not satisfied. Not only is this story similar to the one I read years ago, it’s by the same Star columnist! If the requisite parties are aware of the problem, where’s the solution?

Can I expect to be reimbursed for the 5-odd years I had to pay this fee? Why is this massive scam taking nearly a decade to resolve? If impersonating a police officer is a jailable offense why is it legal to impersonate the government in demanding fraudulent fees?

Where’s the justice? In someone’s pocket?

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Access THIS system

Really, I’m just curious. I’ll take it down if it is.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

What’s in a number?

Brian Salcedo and Adam Botbyl, ages 23 and 22, have been sentenced 9 years for breaking into a Lowe’s grocery store WiFi network and snooping for credit card information with a custom-modified version of a commercial transaction auditing tool, tcpcredit.

This sentence is ridiculous. 9 years for friggin network intrusion? True it’s not a first offense conviction, but this poor 23 year old kid’s life is ruined – not by his actions but by his “justice” system.

He connected to a publicly accessible WiFi network! He tuned his stereo into KLOW public access radio – all Lowe’s, all the time. The manager of the store should get 9 years in jail for putting thousands of customers’ private data at stake! But no, it’s not grandma’s fault she cooled her pie on the window, it’s the dog’s fault for smelling and eating it.

Do you know how easy it is to get credit card information? Dumpster diving behind the store would yield more numbers in 5 minutes than 24-hours of WiFi packet capture. This is a crime of curiosity. This is REAL hacking – modifying publicly accessible resources to see how functionality can be extended. This kid should go directly to college, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Oh no, a kid knows the TCP stack. That’s a classified protocol only used on private intranets. Obviously he is a TERRORIST conspiring with Gary fucking McKinnon to reveal the government’s secret plot to bury free energy at Lowes superstores. Lock him up for a third of his life and throw away the key – his unquenchable thirst for computer science will be worse than 40 Nagasakis in a dairy case.

The Michigan justice system is run by old men who are amazed at the lifelike puppets wiggling inside their televisions.

Freedom downtime.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Swatting bugs with SCUDs

I read a poignant response by law professor Michael Geist on a CRIA (Canadian RIAA) study identifying the demographics of the the worst offenders of music piracy. Geist notes that the group that pirates the most music (18-24) also purchases the second-largest quantity (after 13-17 year-olds). He subsequently postulates that music “piracy” is in fact an effective, free marketing tool – send a song to a friend and she is that much more likely to buy it.

Of course, there are technological differences between music and game piracy:
- Music is downgraded in quality to make it more easily downloadable, while games are usually duplicated bit-for-bit.
- You can download any song from an album but you can’t download any level of a game.

Then again, thanks to copy protection measures, pirated products are far more versatile than storebought originals:
- You can make as many copies on whatever format you wish.
- You don’t need to keep the original medium in the drive.

And due to the marketplace, games are particularly attractive targets for piracy:
- Software refunds are rare, so if an intense level not featured in the demo runs slowly on your PC you’re not out $60.
- Game demos often use the same copy protection as the final version to thwart crackers.
- Game prices are initially inflated.

That last point is one that is very important to me. I admit I downloaded a cracked copy of Half Life 2 after hearing many tumultuous tales of woe about Steam. Half the reason I play single-player games is because my internet connection is unstable, so the hassle of remote authentication before each session wasn’t worth $70 (Canadian) to me. I adored the game and played it over and over, feeling a little twinge of guilt about my crime. I bought the game when the price came down, as I’ve done with Dungeon Siege and its sequel, Unreal 2, NHL 2006, and countless other titles.

I often wait months to play (or pay for) anticipated titles until the second-hand price is palatable. Is it so wrong to pay a lower price later on, “retroactively”? I want to vote with my pocketbook on what I feel is a fair price, at the risk of breaking the law in the interim.

And even when I buy games nowadays I usually don’t get the sense of value that I used to. My old Wing Commander box came with a clever manual designed like a space-naval (ships, not bellybuttons) magazine as well as huge detailed blueprint posters of allied starships. The old Infocom text adventure Wishbringer came with a glow-in-the-dark rock, a creepy tattered envelope (the protagonist is a postal worker) containing a letter from one of the game characters, and a rudamentary map. Half Life 2 came with 6 CDs in paper sleeves and a quick reference card, and my friend’s Civ 4 manual is a PDF (I hear only a limited number of first edition copies had no printed manual, but more compete packages cost the same).

I think pirates would feel worse about their crimes if they felt better about their legal purchases. Prices have barely changed in 15 years even though boxes are smaller and media are lighter and cheaper to duplicate. Boxed bonuses and even printed manuals are almost extinct. Publishers punish their paying customers more than thieves with crippling copy protection.

To combat rampant movie piracy in China, publishers have begun selling “light” versions of DVDs (with no extras) for about 20% of their former cost. Games have started doing something similar with various collectors editions, but an extra-expensive alternative won’t coerce many to buy the regular priced version any faster. If physically owning a game was more meaningful to the consumer, more consumers would consume!

Conversely, I just preordered and downloaded Half Life 2: Episode 1. This expansion is only $20 but it’s about the same price per entertainment hour as the boxed copy of the original. I can’t really feel cheated before playing the game (especially considering the 10% preorder discount) but I simply don’t understand why they price isn’t lower. There’s no box, discs, manuals, or shipping.

PC games will evolve somewhere along the chain or die. The industry needs better packaged products and\or cheaper digital distribution, and more respect for its paying customers. I can’t really supply solutions, only symptoms. I hope the up-and-ups of PC gaming take note from larger industries that you can only pump your lifeblood so hard until an artery bursts.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

The salty sea of software

Yuh huh.

As Canadians don’t we have a certain freedom of speech? A right to parody? But more importantly…

The TTC is a public service funded in part by local tax dollars. In fact, the TTC put up posters for many months on all their subway cars and buses shaming the federals for being the only branch of government who had not opened their coffers to assist the transit’s ever-rising costs. Now that they have the money they’re spending it on lawyers?

How much of my $2.50 fare goes into lawyers’ pockets? How much of my GST? How much of my PST? How much of my income tax? How many times do I have to pay to take the TTC? And what am I paying for? What of residents of other provinces who will never ride the TTC but pay for it just the same?

Well, if it’s illegal to post the map with TTC logos then it must be okay to do everything but, right? So click this logo-deficient thumbnail to download the original map (PDF) from a free internet cache.

In case Coral cache is down, as it sometimes is, here’s a link to a page that may or may not have very pertinent information about how or how not to easily and directly download a certain alleged map. But I don’t know nuthin about nuthin so don’t go suing me.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

A Cist Rust Test (TTC Sues Artist)

Dear Bluecollardistro.com Registrant Sean Ingram,

Please be advised that FAMILYPANTS is a registered trademark of Dave Redl and is the brand of FamilyPants.com.

There is a profile on Bluecollardistro.com titled “FamilyPants” and information to contact “FamilyPants” with “FamilyPants” information.

http://www.bluecollardistro.com/reggieland/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=82

This link appears in various search engines such as Google.com. This is misleading to true potential customers of FAMILYPANTS.com. The use of this mark is not approved by the owner of the mark FAMILYPANTS nor is Bluecollardistro.com affiliated with FAMILYPANTS.

Please remove all instances of the mark, FAMILYPANTS from all parts of your web site, Bluecollardistro.com, immediately to avoid legal action.

On behalf of FamilyPants.com, we realize mistakes happen and wish you and your site continued success.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter please contact:
Dave Redl
dave@familypants.com

–
Best Wishes,

Dave Redl

The long and the short is that a Reggieland user called himself “Familypants”, and that user’s posts and profile appear on Google when daily millions search for this unhyphenated household compound word.

Recent portrait of Dave Redl

Dave Redl, get a life. But first, buy a children’s book on how the internet works.

It’s obvious this douche can use Google, so why can’t he search for “improve google results“? If he did, he’d plainly see that elements embedded in Flash cannot be catalogued for search and are wasted from a PageRank perspective. Had he or his amateur web designer delved into any such widespread public knowledge he might have thought twice about requesting his entire web presence be made in a single Flash page with no HTML text whatsoever. He might also have learned that the meta keywords tag has been all but abandoned by Google since it has been so oft abused in years past.

That’s my advice on investing in a strong Google presence. Need another freebie, Davey? Don’t complain to a domain registrant about content on a forum. That’s about 4 degrees of separation you’re neglecting. Still not enough? Look up “trademark” in the dictionary and consider the grounds upon which this concept is breached.

I think it’s safe to say that when this forum user chose the name Familypants 3 years ago he wasn’t attempting to steal the vast popularity of the media production company of the same name, nor is he trying to do so now (though, ironically, he has). Chances are he didn’t make much money posting 25 messages on an indie musician’s web forum. When he wrote his last post on the message board 1.5 years ago he probably wasn’t concerned about showing up on Google at all, never mind stealing the thunder of some unlikely homonymic third party. The argument for trakemark violation is pretty slim here, and I sincerely hope the administrators of Reggieland don’t cave into some douche’s water-squirting temper tantrum.

The nefarious possibility exists, however, that articles such as mine in fact support a ploy by a very clever Mr. Redl. A few clicks of Blogger.com’s “NEXT BLOG” navbar link are likely to reveal several pseudoblogs whose sole purpose is to hock some cheap crap in the pretense of Harold Von Bloggington touting the virtues of an amazing deal he happened by. This practise is known as viral marketing – planting the seeds of personal commercial gain in someone else’s cybergarden. Perhaps Leif Garrett’s adage “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” is the tea in the Redl kettle as he blows off steam. It’s probably worked. Golfclap for the giant douche.

Dave, if your efforts were worth people’s time then they’d be linking to your site and clicking your Google results. Apparently you are not much more popular than an 18 month-old message board post. Maybe instead of sniping at anonymous music fans you feel threatened by you ought to do a little googling of your own, get some pointers on web design, and make a site that search engines can actually see. Next, fill it with engaging content that will make people interested in whatever it is you do all day. Finally, make some FRIENDS who are willing to put links to your site on their already successful websites.

If you’re banking on success based on a pissing contest with an indie band web forum then I commend you for setting such attainable goals. But Jack Thompson you ain’t, Dave, so why don’t you leave the public self-deprecating pleas for attention to members of the Bar Association.

Dave Redl’s strategy for success

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Familypants hasn’t a leg to stand on

• Ars Technica: Google + Facebook + alcohol = trouble
  (woman removes incriminating photographs from website while searching for jobs)
  
• The Register: German court orders shutdown of Wikipedia
  (German family sues Wikipedia for posting the real name of deceased hacker son)
  
• The New York Times: Keeper of Expired Web Pages Is Sued Because Archive Was Used in Another Suit
  (company sues The Wayback Machine for ignoring omission request)

In meatspace everything decays, including history. In cyberspace bits and bytes have the capacity to stand the test of time. Are we, as private individuals, entitled to the graceful decay of the past?

Let’s address the case of the recent lawsuit by a German family challenging Wikipedia to remove the real name of recently deceased hacker\phreaker, Tron. Being a non-profit organization, and thus not having a deutschmark to spare, Wikipedia was quick to comply. However, the gesture was purely for show. Wikipedia is contributed to and edited exclusively by the general public, and the gentleman’s deleted name was replaced very shortly thereafter.

The terms required to prevent a lawsuit have been met, and the matter has not changed one iota. The name can be found on both the German and English sites (in bold, no less), as plain as the nose on my face. The real name of Tron may as well be displayed in lights on Broadway. In fact…

As long as this truth is known by someone who is aware of an internet repository of information, it will never be dulled, obscured, or forgotten.

The matter of archive.org‘s Wayback Machine being sued is equally frivolous. The terms of the lawsuit regard the service’s failure to reliably obey the webmaster’s passive request of content omission. This request was “voiced” in the form of robots.txt – a text file optionally placed in the domain root of a web server, which is optionally interpreted by automated services like search engines and archivers which may optionally choose to obey the commands in the file. No signed contracts + no obligation + no precedent == no court ruling. The archived data, unless actively requested, will remain publicly available.

Then there’s the flip side to consider – content which is forcably removed (or whose removal is demanded with force).

For example, take my favourite blog, SixthSeal. Proprietor Poh Huai Bin was recently threatened by police to remove illegal content from his web server, leaving the blog a still excellent but diluted shadow of its former glory. Thanks to internet archives, the taboo content lives on in nearly all its glory, including most of the contraversial photographs and videos. The URL for this content may as well be displayed in the corner of the TV screen during the Superbowl. In fact…

Showoffishness and smarminess aside, my point is simple. If you want it forgotten, don’t put it on the internet. With the trend of digital cameras being put into everything, the issue remains of one’s privacy being violated and shared without their consent. However, this is perhaps a topic for another day.

There are topics I’d love to discuss publicly, but I cannot afford to have them come back to bite me in the cyberbum. I urge you, my scores of loyal readers, to exercise restraint when voicing your spicier thoughts online. You never know whether a prospective employer, jealous mistress, spiteful nemesis, or mischevious child will happen upon your immortalized nuggets of incriminating gold.

—

Addendum:

I just happened across this related article from the EFF – Google Cache Rule Fair Use

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Wiped from immediacy, etched in eternity

Hello, gamers? 1992 called. They want their resolution back.

1080i? High-def? And? If you consider this “next-gen” please send me your home address so that I can mail you my old $3 ATI Mach32 ISA video card.

I admit that this is a great step up for console gaming – one that’s a long time coming. The fore-thinking futurists at Sega were brilliantly overambitious in making available a VGA cable for their Dreamcast console. Ironically, this was the last generation of consoles I found paletable on SDTV (standard definition TV). To me, Xbox and PS2 may as well be played an old school lightbulb hockey arena jumbotron. They are so pixelated that I literally can hardly stand to look at them.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s what a modern PS2 game would look like on your computer monitor at native television resolution.

Katamari Damacy for PS2 – actual TV resolution

I’m a technology and video game enthusiast. I’m always on the look out (budget permitting) for the best realtime interactive multimedia experiences out there. That’s why I don’t give a feathery owl pellet about Xbox 360, save one advantage – Microsoft has taken care to design an accessible, easy-to-use DirectX programming infrastructure which will allow games developed for the console to port easily to Windows.

This is great news for us PC gamers because, instead of having our favourite developers sell out to the lowest common denominator, (e.g., Blizzard’s Starcraft: Ghost) our ever-superior platform of choice will share the limelight with Microsoft’s svelte new she-box (wasn’t that a Cindi Lauper song?). Hopefully this will mean tighter implementations of console hold-overs than the frame-chugging PC version of Halo (which, incidentally, was to be a PC game before MS gave Bungie “an offer they couldn’t refuse”).

This is master stroke by Microsoft, of course, as they they get to advertise and publish for both their gaming platforms in one fell swoop.

Outside gaming, HDTV promises untold ocular riches to moviegoers and sitcom slobberers alike – whether they like it or not. The US Congress has recently accepted the proposal by the National Association of Broadcasters to eradicate SDTV programming entirely by January 2009.

Why get Congress involved? Well, HDTV broadcasts won’t show up at all on SDTV sets without an external converter of some sort. Since Congress has deemed television an irrevocable cornerstone of American culture and consciousness, they are subsidizing the purchase of such converters to households who cannot afford the requisite month’s salary invsetment to purchase an HDTV complient set.

That’s right. There are no bigger problems in America requiring this billions-dollar investment than ensuring no child is left behind – on tomorrow’s Pokemon gossip.

But it’s great news for those of us in the middle class, right? Just plug in your snazzy new HDTV and watch all your favourite DVDs in glorious new resolution, right?

Likely, nobody’s going to buy into the new HD-DVD or Blu-Ray video disc formats until at least 2009. They don’t need HDTV sets before then, and they’ll wait for the format war to declare a victor before re-re-buying all their favourite movies. They’ve been burned too recently on the VHS vs Betamax wars that punished adopters of the superior recording technology in the 80′s. In all likelihood, by 2009 they’ll still be enjoying their current library of DVDs, right?.

In 3 years they’ll learn what PC enthusiasts have known since its inception – DVD stinks.

actual modern-day DVD resolution

Yes, this is what your DVDs really look like on your computer monitor. Blow the image up to fullscreen and it’s a blocky mosaic of pachydermic pixels. It looks pretty good on SDTV, but stick a movie in your DVD-ROM drive, watch it on your 17″ computer monitor, and imagine the fidelity on a 30″ HDTV set. That’s right, it’s time set the alarm on your pocketbook to 2009 and disable the snooze button.

HDTV is barely here, but the 300 pound gorilla is already flinging feces all over you living room.

Don’t like it? Me neither. If, like me, you live outside the US, you’re pretty much up Dawson’s Creek without a clicker since most broadcast television comes from the land down under Canada. If you are a US citizen and would like to contest the imposed 2009 deadline, file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission.

And even if those poor Americans choose to opt out of the high-def revolution, I hope they’ll take solace in the fact that they’re buying someone else’s TV with their tax dollars. Those elected officials sure know how to spread the bucks around, don’t they?

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

HDTV For You From Me

You will not copy, decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Application Software, or otherwise reduce the Application Software to a human perceivable form;

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Play this game and you will go to jail!