Shireroth

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:18 pm**

Fine. So tell Liam you've removed INSS, and if he acknowledges that but doesn't put you back up, you'll have a reason to get mad.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:25 pm**

That's what I've been telling you. He already knows, or should know, as I agreed to the takedown notice in the same thread he removed the KZFO feed in.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:44 pm**

Okay then. Hopefully he's just busy and hasn't been able to re-add you yet. Next time I see Liam, I'll ask him what he's going to do. If he says he won't reinstate it, then I'll get suitably enraged.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:49 am**

I'm speaking for myself here, but I am (for those who don't know), a member of the INS Board and an administrator of MNN.

There are three key issues here, and it is worth not blurring the lines between them, as they are largely distinct albeit connected.

1. MWG and KZFO were delisted for admitting violation of the Terms of Service required. Normally a blind eye can be turned to these violations, working on the basis of no action unless a complaint is raised, but in this case by publishing the details of the violations on their own blog, it placed MNN in a difficult position. To get relisted, all that is required is an amendment or deletion of the posts in question to make them ToS-compliant.

2. Copyright for the INS sketch show lies with Will Tomsett. He is a British Citizen and therefore his Intellectual Property rights protections are those of English Law, as recognised by international treaty. This is considerably stricter than US law, and have extraterritorial application. No action here is required, as the shows were removed upon request.

3. The major issue of contention: Foghorn's ban. This was not, as has been suggested, for the above two issues, but for his belligerent, rude and unconstructive manner. I quote the Antican citizen Horowitz, who hit the nail on the head:

Foghorn, you are reacting to this, in typical form, like a child. Get your head out of your ass man. Historically you've always resorted to childish tactics and by doing this again you're ceding the moral high-ground to Liam. If you would just have been decorous about getting your show back and not responded like a 9 year old that got his tv privileges taken away by his mommy, then maybe this wouldn't have happened.

And to be fair, this whole everyone hates Antica theory? You haven't got a leg to stand on. Liam may personally dislike you, to be fair, especially since your so-called journalism is accurately described by him as a collection of puerile humor and off-topic rants. Fine, great, your show lost you the FNORDs. Who the fuck cares?

I think anyone who has ever listened to your show would clearly understand that it's intended as a comic or satiric editorial rather than hard journalism. Editorializing is fine, and so is satire (see the Onion), but as it stands, your show would only be protected by artistic license in a court of law.

As far as marketing yourself as a pirate show that blatantly violates copyright laws ...
What the hell were you thinking man? That's like asking for trouble. Fine call it a pirate broadcast, but don't pretend to flaunt copy protection if you're not actually doing it.

Look, I'm not saying Liam is right. I think it was definitely an unfair move, especially if he hasn't taken the time to warn you about this in the past, but you're only making things worse for yourself with the brainless tactics that you have up until now employed.

From a purely logos perspective your arguments are fine, but you're relying excessively on rhetorical fallacies such as blatant overuse of ad hominem attacks. Dude, come on, you're better than this. Be sensible in your approach to this situation. I know that it might feel good to hurl insults at your perceived antagonist but now is definitely not the time or place. You are behaving in an irrational way that is not at all going to resolve this situation optimally.

If you had just thrown out legal arguments and maybe an apology (I know, I know, it hurts to back down) you would have probably ended up getting what you wanted.

If I didn't know you were a college student I would have thought your responses would have been penned by a precocious 15 year old. Put your education to good use!

Foghorn's response:

Yeah, but it's more fun to be belligerent. These days, I get more entertainment from watching people's reactions to my ass-hattery than from political intrigue.

Moving on, anyone up for a DDoS?

Is extremely telling. Likening administrators to nazis, pestering and hectoring them with a sense of entitlement when you've admitted to violation of the terms of service, is hardly the way to get things done. Had he behaved in a constructive and reasoned manner rather than blowing a minor and easily resolvable issue (that was largely a misunderstanding) entirely out of proportion, this current controversy would never have arisen. As it stands the ban is in place for 30 days in the hope that he will cool down in future. It is also a lie that he cannot access MNN at all: only his username is banned, allowing him guest access to view the forum. Threatening a DoS attack and trying to rally people to a non-existent cause with misrepresentations is not the way to go about things. The only person Foghorn has to blame for the ban is himself: had he been polite, this would never have happened.

This was not a Liam Sinclair decision, it was countersigned by another owner, and agreed by consent of the administration team.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:39 am**

Behmanesh FarzAn wrote:1. MWG and KZFO were delisted for admitting violation of the Terms of Service required.

How did The Micronational Wulaptonachgat violate the Terms of Service? Its removal from the MNN feed seems rather unnecessary, even if you accept the removal of KZFO.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:56 am**

Behmanesh FarzAn wrote:
Yeah, but it's more fun to be belligerent. These days, I get more entertainment from watching people's reactions to my ass-hattery than from political intrigue.

Moving on, anyone up for a DDoS?
blah blah blah

Can you blame a man for taking pleasure in creating sweet, sweet activity-boosting problems?

And, in response to your legal statement, here's an excerpt from my conversation with Liam in Babkha:

2. If you'll be so kind as to actually read the law, you'll see that for the case of the United States, I'm 100% in the clear. Despite what you may believe, I have the ability to publish whatever I please on my feed. The only stipulation is that I have to respond to these "takedown notices", which are notes from the content makers themselves directly to me asking politely to remove their content. If I don't comply with those (which I have, in the case of the INS SS), then I'm in violation of the DMCA, and you can sue me.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:46 am**

Can you blame a man for taking pleasure in creating sweet, sweet activity-boosting problems?

So you're just doing this for the hell of it, regardless of the fact that you're libelling people in the process?

How did The Micronational Wulaptonachgat violate the Terms of Service? Its removal from the MNN feed seems rather unnecessary, even if you accept the removal of KZFO.

I refer you to this entry (emphasis added):

In a typical showing of blatant disregard for copyright laws and standard distribution methods, KZFO has begun re-broadcasting the "pirated" (taken without permission from their website) news shows of other feeds prominently displayed on the MNN feed. When asked for a comment, Foghorn, current director and station manager stated:

Well, we figured that we don't have enough programming to keep the airwaves busy, and since the FNORDs are run by jackasses we don't really care about playing nice anymore. Plus, being in a nation without copyright laws has its perks.

Having that sort of thing on the MNN feed means we have to run the risk of being liable for your "blatant disregard for copyright laws". Our servers are in Australia, and thus bound by Australian law. We can't show feeds that violate their copyright laws. Even if you are within your rights to rebroadcast without permission on your SF server (a very shaky position), MNN is not, and that is why the KZFO feed was removed. MWG was removed because it went round bragging about the fact, which makes us by extension promoting what would be considered a copyright violation in Australia.

On another note, if you'd bothered to ask the INS, we'd probably have let you rebroadcast our content. It's called courtesy. As it is you just went and rubbished the show and called it the "INS SS", simply for asserting their IP rights, something you do on your website:

Copyright, 2007 (nickleghorn.com)

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:28 am**

I've read enough. Shireroth has no stance on this issue, and will not endorse any side. As far as I can see this is the usual childish tripe I've seen people pull over the last 9ish years I've been in Micronations, and Shireroth isn't about to get involved.

If individuals want to take a stance, fine, but I and this government will back neither side.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:41 am**

Thank you for your consideration, Kaiser.

As for you, FarzAn, are you seriously trying to use the argument that a show that blatantly violates copyright law every episode (INS SS, Radio Free Woodstania), can make the statement that their content should be more respected than the content they pirate every single episode?

And I thought this hobby was intelligent enough to understand the difference between a marketing campaign (which it was explained that it was the day after Liam's first post, and further explained later on) and actual violation of laws, something no intelligent person would do if they could help it.

Either way, I'm through with the MNN and mncentre.net. Even if all you say is correct, and I really am the evil, heartless bastard I am, then explain to me what policy the Wulaptonachgat violated that necessitated its removal from your feed? I hold that Liam, in a vindictive mood, removed that vital news source solely to attempt to "punish" me. There is only so much ass-kissing I will endure to keep a stable, working system in place before I re-invent the system myself. Watch for my response later this afternoon.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:13 am**

As for you, FarzAn, are you seriously trying to use the argument that a show that blatantly violates copyright law every episode (INS SS, Radio Free Woodstania), can make the statement that their content should be more respected than the content they pirate every single episode?

This isn't to do with the INS or RFW. It's to do with KZFO and MWG.

And I thought this hobby was intelligent enough to understand the difference between a marketing campaign (which it was explained that it was the day after Liam's first post, and further explained later on) and actual violation of laws, something no intelligent person would do if they could help it.

This isn't about what the hobby thinks, or what Liam or any other MNN administrator thinks, it's to do with what the law we are bound by states. In the post you claim to have committed an illegal act, and even if this is not actually the case, it renders MNN legally liable for promoting illegal activities, which could land us with a lawsuit. Even if our case were watertight (which it isn't), none of us want to have to put up with the hassle and cost involved.

explain to me what policy the Wulaptonachgat violated that necessitated its removal from your feed?

I just did. And I have done so several times before. Get your head out of your arse and read.

I hold that Liam, in a vindictive mood, removed that vital news source solely to attempt to "punish" me.

Well there's the first problem with your claim: this was a collective decision by the MNN administration team.

There is only so much ass-kissing I will endure to keep a stable, working system in place before I re-invent the system myself.

So far you have engaged in almost no "ass-kissing" beyond a half-hearted apology for a nazi comment on the Babkhan forums. You've been rude and hectoring from the outset of this issue, and rather than displaying a bit of decorum you've continued to persist in digging your heels in because you can't take the knock to your ego that might result from admitting that you might not always be right 100% of the time. All it takes is a small rewording of the MWG article and the feeds can be reinstated. Is that really such a difficult thing to do?

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:17 am**

Yes, yes it is. You're asking a newspaper, an entity that represents the opinions of a group of people about news and happenings, to censor itself in order to please external sources. No sir, I won't do it.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:21 am**

Behmanesh FarzAn wrote:This isn't about what the hobby thinks, or what Liam or any other MNN administrator thinks, it's to do with what the law we are bound by states. In the post you claim to have committed an illegal act, and even if this is not actually the case, it renders MNN legally liable for promoting illegal activities, which could land us with a lawsuit. Even if our case were watertight (which it isn't), none of us want to have to put up with the hassle and cost involved.

You're a news aggregator, in the same vein as an ISP, and universally recognized as not being responsible for the content your feeds post. It's the same tried and true argument that allows ISPs like AT&T and Comcast to not be sued every time someone pirates a movie, the same logic that allows usenet providers and indexers (around since the 1970's) to keep operating without fear of being sued. Learn the law before you bumble your way into another catastrophe.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:50 am**

Yes, yes it is. You're asking a newspaper, an entity that represents the opinions of a group of people about news and happenings, to censor itself in order to please external sources. No sir, I won't do it.

Get your head out of your arse. You wrote an article about yourself doing something. That's a diary. Furthermore, an external aggregator has the right to set the terms of the service it provides, and one of those terms is that you don't do something that we feel could render us legally liable.

You're a news aggregator, in the same vein as an ISP, and universally recognized as not being responsible for the content your feeds post. It's the same tried and true argument that allows ISPs like AT&T and Comcast to not be sued every time someone pirates a movie, the same logic that allows usenet providers and indexers (around since the 1970's) to keep operating without fear of being sued. Learn the law before you bumble your way into another catastrophe.

http://text.broadbandreports.com/showne ... ions-91467

Not really that universal. The Pirate Bay has just been charged with copyright violations for a similar act.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:10 pm**

Behmanesh FarzAn wrote:
http://text.broadbandreports.com/showne ... ions-91467

Not really that universal. The Pirate Bay has just been charged with copyright violations for a similar act.

That's wonderful! You've learned to Google! Very well done!

You'll note that, unlike the MNN that simply links to news articles, the Pirate Bay actually hosts the .torrent files. It's the fact that they host the files that, according to the prosecuting lawyers, makes them liable. Since the MNN doesn't host the feeds themselves, they're not liable.

I'm growing tired of explaining this same argument again and again to you Liam lackeys that don't want to accept the truth that he got a little mad and threw a hissy fit. So I won't. Just as he refuses to even discuss this issue , I now refuse to discuss it as well.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:30 pm**

Actually by linking to them we are liable:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/29 ... _criminal/

I'm growing tired of explaining this same argument again

We can all see your argument, but it's completely bogus. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and trawling out the same line again and again, regardless of the evidence presented against it. We've just shown you two court cases where linking to pirate feeds or sites renders one liable to prosecution, and to be more specific, the KZFO feed violates Australian copyright law as the "pirate" shows would not be considered "non-infringing copy", on the grounds that they were not made with the consent of the copyright owner. Even if one were to accept your argument that the KZFO feed was within its right to broadcast the shows in the US (which, under the Berne Convention, it is not), the same protections do not exist in the Commonwealth of Australia, and it is Australian law which holds primacy over the MNN website.

(1) A copy of a sound recording is a non-infringing copy only if it is made by or with the consent of:

(a) the owner of the copyright or related right in the sound recording in the country (the copy country) in which the copy was made; or

(b) the owner of the copyright or related right in the sound recording in the country (the original recording country) in which the sound recording was made, if the law of the copy country did not provide for copyright or a related right in sound recordings when the sound recording was made; or

(c) the maker of the sound recording, if neither the law of the copy country nor the law of the original recording country (whether those countries are different or not) provided for copyright or a related right in sound recordings when the sound recording was made.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:22 pm**

I've a lot more to say, but as I don't want my further thoughts to reflect on His Niftyness or the government, I'll go find some other ways to amuse myself.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:14 pm**

Last reply, because it's too good to resist.

If MNN does in fact worry about liability as much as it appears to, I demand that the links to the INS Sketch Show and Radio Free Woodstania be removed as well, as they violate copyright law to a greater extent than any KZFO produced show currently listed on the feed does.

That's it, I'm done, I have work to do.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:28 pm**

It seems to me typical micronational bickering, with (no offence Nick) neither side really willing to back down or completely read the posts of the other.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:43 pm**

Andreas the Wise wrote:It seems to me typical micronational bickering, with (no offence Nick) neither side really willing to back down or completely read the posts of the other.

None taken.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:54 am**

Actually it's simpler than that: KZFO and MWG violated the Terms of Service of the MNN feed, and rather than admitting he's at fault, he used arguments that do not apply in the jurisdiction MNN is under.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:43 am**

Nick--

As I suggested earlier, why don't you just establish a non-Australia-based news aggregation service, and host it from the US, giving, as you have previously done, due credit for all sources. This would seem to put to bed the qualms of the MNN people, while still giving us a valuable source of micronational news which won't be subject to those pesky Australian copyright laws. There are other ways, as they say, of skinning a cat. Forget Liam and his cohorts, and your argument, and go out and prove again you have what it takes without continuing this pointless argument. You will never win in their forum, and they will never back down. Show how you can succeed in a non-Aussie-based one.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:46 am**

That is exactly what I launched last night.

http://nafticon.net/news/

I'm slowly but surely getting all the news sources to agree to be listed. It'll be a week or so before it has the same news as the MNN.

Here's the details:

http://nafticon.net/bilge/MNS%20press%20release.txt

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:22 am**

Competiton, free enterprise, free speech!

Everyone to their own rules.

No need for conflict, Problem Solved.

Do we give prizes? If this flies for any amount of time at all, Nick deserves one.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:26 am**

I really like the founding document for the MNS. It is what I thought the MNN news was, until it was proven to be otherwise. I hope you are able to attract the micronations to contribute to this service, to all our benefit. Free speech and a representative sample of news from the micronational world will keep us all informed about what is happening around Micras and beyond. I wish you well in this new endeavor, and anxiously await the first radio broadcast of the new service.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:37 am**

The MNS terms of service are self-contradictory. It uses a system to provide gold stars to news sources based (effectively) on how close they emulate KZFO, and then in almost the same breath states that it is "impartial" and "non-judgemental".

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:59 am**

So if someone posts obviously illegal material on there, and the RIAA sends you a takedown notice, you're going to fight it out in court?
And if I make a newspaper consistently plagiarizing someone else's, and they ask you to take it down, you won't do so?
What about someone like the old DeWaco Estates guy who spams the feed with a thousand stupid articles?

I seem to remember that old MNN system of accreditation leading to a lot of problems. There was some huge argument involving Liam I don't remember very well. Sometimes a story just really doesn't need three links.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:48 am**

Scott of Hyperborea wrote:So if someone posts obviously illegal material on there, and the RIAA sends you a takedown notice, you're going to fight it out in court?
And if I make a newspaper consistently plagiarizing someone else's, and they ask you to take it down, you won't do so?
What about someone like the old DeWaco Estates guy who spams the feed with a thousand stupid articles?

Takedown notices will be honored, as I stated somewhere (can't find it right now), and it's the responsibility of the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, not ours. As for spam, you do realize that politely asking people to stop usually works, right?

Scott of Hyperborea wrote:I seem to remember that old MNN system of accreditation leading to a lot of problems. There was some huge argument involving Liam I don't remember very well. Sometimes a story just really doesn't need three links.

They only have to meet some of the listed requirements. As long as the staff considers them to be a valuable, accurate news source, they're in.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:57 am**

More bonkers shit no one really needs. Wonderful. Nice to see the traditions of the community being upheld with yet another obscure internicine feud/schism. Keep up the good work chaps. (Oh and I'm back - sorry.

)

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:58 pm**

*Morning Mood plays, as a tranquil, pastoral scene unfolds* Why can't we all just frolick merrily amidst the flowers?

BECAUSE THERE IS TYRANNY AFOOT!!!!!! *The sky goes black, a blizzard begins to fall, and blaring Death Metal shatters everyone's ears*

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:32 pm**

I said it was nice to see traditions being upheld but I really must draw the line at death metal. Can't we just have a pyramid of skulls and be allowed to contemplate them in silence like good civilised folk?

Shireroth

Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn

Re: Liam Sinclair, MNN de-list KZFO, then TMW, then ban Foghorn