John Meacham j...@repetae.net writes:
now, you might say we can just move hackage out of the US
This might actually make things worse. The President's office is against
hurting US industry, and wants it to be mainly used to attack foreign
sites. They will not only order takedowns, but use DNS
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:
- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music,
and street food:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Oregon (wikipedia is blacked out today)
Maybe it is only a JavaScript trick. In Firefox (with JavaScript) I see
the complete
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37, Henning Thielemann
lemm...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:
- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music,
and street food:
On 18 Jan 2012, at 21:37, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:
- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music,
and street food:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Oregon (wikipedia is blacked out today)
Maybe it is only a
Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page
On 18 Jan 2012, at 17:37, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:
- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music,
and street food:
On 18 Jan 2012, at 18:49, Andrew Butterfield wrote:
Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page
Or stop the loading before the banner comes up.
Hans
On 18 Jan 2012, at 17:37, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:
- Portland is
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Butterfield wrote:
Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page
Maybe the intention was to demonstrate that censorship (in this case
self-censorship) is mostly a problem for average users but not for
advanced users.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 13:11, Henning Thielemann
lemm...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Butterfield wrote:
Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page
Maybe the intention was to demonstrate that censorship (in this case
self-censorship)
Not to mention ebay, craigslist, etc..
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111005/10082416208/monster-cable-claims-ebay-craigslist-costco-sears-are-rogue-sites.shtml
when there is no burden of proof for someone to take down a site then
things get very complicated.
for instance this package could
On 1/18/12, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
[..]
(it really is a JavaScript trick).
In the interest of Wikipedia-style fact-citation, here's a quote from Wikipedia:
During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and
smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by
On 18 Jan 2012, at 19:32, John Meacham wrote:
Not to mention ebay, craigslist, etc..
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111005/10082416208/monster-cable-claims-ebay-craigslist-costco-sears-are-rogue-sites.shtml
when there is no burden of proof for someone to take down a site then
things
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 15:20, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
There is the Beastie Boys case, where the judge decided copyright protects
what is creatively unique.
But such judgments are rare, sadly. And for every Beastie Boys case
there's at least one The Verve case.
--
brandon s
My understanding is that blocking/redirection is to be done at the DNS
level. In which case, there *is* a ?banner hack of sorts - get the
IP by some other means.
Which is not to say we should be significantly less concerned.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 17:15, David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.comwrote:
My understanding is that blocking/redirection is to be done at the DNS
level. In which case, there *is* a ?banner hack of sorts - get the
IP by some other means.
Sadly name-based virtual hosts require a bit more work
Granted, but nothing a technical user can't handle, which was the
earlier question.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 17:15, David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.com
wrote:
My understanding is that blocking/redirection is to be
On 18 Jan 2012, at 23:11, Brandon Allbery wrote:
There is the Beastie Boys case, where the judge decided copyright protects
what is creatively unique.
But such judgments are rare, sadly. And for every Beastie Boys case there's
at least one The Verve case.
I did not know that. But it was
And such a thing can take months or years for the courts to figure
out, and unless your free site has a lawyer to fight for your side,
under SOPA/PIPA you can be down the entire time with little recourse.
For anyone hosting content lke hackage, github, etc. when you have
thousands of packages,
Actually, it is a battle between the Hollywood and Silicon Valley industries.
Hans
On 19 Jan 2012, at 00:11, John Meacham wrote:
And such a thing can take months or years for the courts to figure
out, and unless your free site has a lawyer to fight for your side,
under SOPA/PIPA you can be
However the fallout is likely to destroy both open source and resale
on the internet.
For instance, the existence of this is enough to get hackage a
takedown under SOPA.
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/conjure
now, you might say we can just move hackage out of the US, but then
any site that
Aside from being a horrible oversimplification of the matter (because
it's *never* that simple - Wikipedia is not in this movement for
commercial interest or the side of SV/HW, but because it opposes the
censoring of the internet; neither are people like Dan Kaminsky, who
are also opposing from
This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed. - The EFF
yes the act is pernicious, and may cause the wholesale relocation of
content out of the US, to friendlier places like China, perhaps!
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
21 matches
Mail list logo
