Obama administration comments on SOPA

[stocktrader23]

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...ative-internet

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

You could look at what's going on in reality with this or just listen to Paul Markham and those that say "It will pass so get ready you dirty pirates!"

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...ative-internet

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

You could look at what's going on in reality with this or just listen to Paul Markham and those that say "It will pass so get ready you dirty pirates!"

well as i predicted this dog won't fly

but robbie and paul hold out hope maybe the riaa will be able to buy enough voted to overide a veto

[Joshua G]

oh come on now. where were all the SOPA haters when the patriot act got passed. then extended by obama.

[V_RocKs]

Needs a serious rewrite... Perhaps this time they should include the industry as authors?

[L-Pink]

Post #2 by the resident freetard, what a surprise.

.

[topnotch, standup guy]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Post #2 by the resident freetard, what a surprise.

Post #1 wasn't much better, but it is on par for that particular tube boy.




.

[IllTestYourGirls]

This is typical Obama. He first comes out against unpopular, and freedom suppressing legislation then when it is passed he "reluctantly" signs it into law.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Post #2 by the resident freetard, what a surprise.

.

seriously name one single time i have ever talked about getting something for free.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

oh come on now. where were all the SOPA haters when the patriot act got passed. then extended by obama.

I was saying the same shit about that POS legislation all over the internet. Same thing I was doing when Bush was running for office (talking about that POS human) and again when McCain / Palin were running.

[raymor]

The sponsor of the bill already removed it's teeth, the DNS removal. SOPA is as good as dead, for better or for worse.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...ative-internet

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

You could look at what's going on in reality with this or just listen to Paul Markham and those that say "It will pass so get ready you dirty pirates!"

Are you the same guy who accused me of being obsessed with SOPA?

I don't think I've ever started a thread about SOPA.

[woj]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

This is typical Obama. He first comes out against unpopular, and freedom suppressing legislation then when it is passed he "reluctantly" signs it into law.

that's just how the game of politics is played...

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously name one single time i have ever talked about getting something for free.

That's right freetards don't want something for free. They just don't want to pay for anything. My bad.

.

[WarChild]

What's funny is these idiots actually believe SOPA would stop tubes.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Are you the same guy who accused me of being obsessed with SOPA?

I don't think I've ever started a thread about SOPA.

Start threads? Maybe not. Cry in every single thread while posting your idiotic opinions? Yes.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by WarChild

What's funny is these idiots actually believe SOPA would stop tubes.

So does the guy with this copyright infringing image in his avatar.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

So does the guy with this copyright infringing image in his avatar.

Calling you a retard would be an insult to retards.

Please post a quote where I claim that SOPA will stop tubes.

You can't.

What I have said it that it would be like speeding tickets. People will get away with it
but those who get caught will pay the fine.


BTW: My avatar is a composite image of baddog and a non-copyrighted image of
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

[blackmonsters]

UPDATE :

Clarence Thomas is not related to Spring Thomas even if he actually fucked her.

[NaughtyVisions]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

So does the guy with this copyright infringing image in his avatar.

Isn't that avatar a parody? It's one of the lingering Baddog avatars from the "movement" last year. It's baddog's face merged onto Clarance Thomas. So it would fit the description of a parody image.

[Jakez]

Is 2257 enforced at all?

[Vendzilla]

I don't think Paul Markham has read whats going on with SOPA, I have, scary shit as usual http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...-website.shtml

[Redrob]

Once the legislation passes both houses, it will go to committee for reconciliation. And, who knows what will come out of committee.....I have seen everything change in the dark of the committee: Bo Peep goes in and comes out the Big Bad Wolf.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

That's right freetards don't want something for free. They just don't want to pay for anything. My bad.

.

want to post a single example of that then

i have repeatedly advocated for paying for shit, most fair uses (except for access shift) require you to buy the content at least once.

An access shifting only applies when the copyright holder chooses not to support the medium. (geo locked distribution)

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

Isn't that avatar a parody? It's one of the lingering Baddog avatars from the "movement" last year. It's baddog's face merged onto Clarance Thomas. So it would fit the description of a parody image.

Prove it. Would only take someone sending a notice to GFY's host, domain registrar etc. and we could all sit around hoping they didn't get the plug pulled.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

want to post a single example of that then

i have repeatedly advocated for paying for shit, most fair uses (except for access shift) require you to buy the content at least once.

An access shifting only applies when the copyright holder chooses not to support the medium. (geo locked distribution)

with your ridiculous definition of fair use why do you think everyone thinks that?

[brentbacardi]

Internet should be unregulated.

[NaughtyVisions]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Prove it. Would only take someone sending a notice to GFY's host, domain registrar etc. and we could all sit around hoping they didn't get the plug pulled.

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

BTW: My avatar is a composite image of baddog and a non-copyrighted image of
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

[mynameisjim]

Obama said the same thing about detaining citizens without trial. He said he didn't like it and wouldn't do it, but still signed it into law.

I wouldn't get too excited though if you are against SOPA and cheering that the teeth were removed from it. Once it has passed with no teeth, you can add too it by quietly paper clipping amendments to totally unrelated legislation. For example, a bill about funding the military can simply have an amendment to add power to SOPA and nobody knows about it till after it goes through. That's how they kept adding stuff to the patriot act.

Not saying this will happen or that it's right, but passing a somewhat toothless bill then quietly adding to it using unrelated legislation is a very common tactic.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by brentbacardi

Internet should be unregulated.

Internet shouldn't be full of criminals either.

.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by porno jew

with your ridiculous definition of fair use why do you think everyone thinks that?

you keep saying that but never explain it

serious i have asked 6 times to explain yourself

The supreme court explictly ruled that you must look at fair use from the point of view of the user not the network.

Please explain why from that pov any of the fair use i have discussed are invalid.

[L-Pink]

No one wants to get into a 10 page argument with you spouting the same old "freetard" shit. Now hurry, the rest of your bowling team is waiting.

.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you keep saying that but never explain it

serious i have asked 6 times to explain yourself

The supreme court explictly ruled that you must look at fair use from the point of view of the user not the network.

Please explain why from that pov any of the fair use i have discussed are invalid.

yes you explained it, but it is wrong. take a look at the commonly used definition of fair use. they way you use it is simply wrong.

it is like to discuss dog training with someone who defines a dog as an upright hydrant for drawing water to use in fighting a fire. pointless.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

No one wants to get into a 10 page argument with you spouting the same old "freetard" shit. Now hurry, the rest of your bowling team is waiting.

.

it a true or false situation

present one single quote where i ever said anything about taking stuff that was available for sale for free.

either your freetard arguement is a bald face lie or you can present said quote.

[chaze]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...ative-internet

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

You could look at what's going on in reality with this or just listen to Paul Markham and those that say "It will pass so get ready you dirty pirates!"

Wow I like Obama again, awesome statement.

[DWB]

What many fail to understand is, all the things they are trimming from SOPA is so that it will grease through with ease. Once it's in, it will be much easier to come along later and change it, be it for better or worse. Being happy some parts are being cut out is being naive.

And as far as them not supporting legislation that reduces freedom of expression, keep in mind they did just support legislation that allows them to detain Americans and hold them without charge or trial, for as long as they see fit.

If they can pass The Patriot Act and sign off to have the power to detain Americans without due process, SOPA is no big deal. Don't kid yourself.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Obama said the same thing about detaining citizens without trial. He said he didn't like it and wouldn't do it, but still signed it into law.

I wouldn't get too excited though if you are against SOPA and cheering that the teeth were removed from it. Once it has passed with no teeth, you can add too it by quietly paper clipping amendments to totally unrelated legislation. For example, a bill about funding the military can simply have an amendment to add power to SOPA and nobody knows about it till after it goes through. That's how they kept adding stuff to the patriot act.

Not saying this will happen or that it's right, but passing a somewhat toothless bill then quietly adding to it using unrelated legislation is a very common tactic.

Sorry, didn't mean to steal your exact reply almost. I saw yours after I posted, but we're on the same page.

[ry0t]

Obama administration joins the ranks of SOPA skeptics http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...a-skeptics.ars

[Odin]

Originally Posted by DWB

What many fail to understand is, all the things they are trimming from SOPA is so that it will grease through with ease. Once it's in, it will be much easier to come along later and change it, be it for better or worse. Being happy some parts are being cut out is being naive.

And as far as them not supporting legislation that reduces freedom of expression, keep in mind they did just support legislation that allows them to detain Americans and hold them without charge or trial, for as long as they see fit.

If they can pass The Patriot Act and sign off to have the power to detain Americans without due process, SOPA is no big deal. Don't kid yourself.

DNS blocking seems to be the only major thing have backflipped on. The thing is, whilst that is the key issues for many, it isn't the only major issue for the tech industry. So long as the major tech companies don't support it (including Google, Facebook, Reddit, etc etc) who all rely on legal protection from user uploads, it won't pass.

The tech industry is simply too important to fuck with at this point. It is a huge engine for growth, and it really is still in its infancy. Given the US has the lead in this sector by a large margin, I highly doubt any of this will get through. The only reason it has got this far, is because the tech industry by and large does very little lobbying in comparison to the movie and recording industry. I have a feeling that is also going to continue to change.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Odin

DNS blocking seems to be the only major thing have backflipped on. The thing is, whilst that is the key issues for many, it isn't the only major issue for the tech industry. So long as the major tech companies don't support it (including Google, Facebook, Reddit, etc etc) who all rely on legal protection from user uploads, it won't pass.

The tech industry is simply too important to fuck with at this point. It is a huge engine for growth, and it really is still in its infancy. Given the US has the lead in this sector by a large margin, I highly doubt any of this will get through. The only reason it has got this far, is because the tech industry by and large does very little lobbying in comparison to the movie and recording industry. I have a feeling that is also going to continue to change.

I agree that it is huge and growing, however I think it's "tunneled growth" in that a
few big boys are making billions and hording the wealth. And one reason their growth
is tunneled is that they take content from people who could profit and only profit themselves.
Make a song that's a hit and all the profits go to those few sites and nothing for you.

So instead of millions of people making billions we have 1000's of people making the
billions. This will kill the economy in the long run. Oh wait, the economy is already dead.

1000's of people who served popcorn at the theater are unemployed because of
torrents. Tower records and Block Buster video are history. Barnes and Noble are
no longer so noble. So we lose all that to get Facebook and youtube.

Not really a great pay off in the broader scope of the economy.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I agree that it is huge and growing, however I think it's "tunneled growth" in that a
few big boys are making billions and hording the wealth. And one reason their growth
is tunneled is that they take content from people who could profit and only profit themselves.
Make a song that's a hit and all the profits go to those few sites and nothing for you.

you do realize that the copyright industry creates way fewer jobs then fair use counter parts right

look at apple it data center for itunes employees 49 people, the ipods manufacter in china creates 1000s of jobs, shipping, trucking, warehousing, and selling those things.

since the jobs creating the songs has to be split 50/50 because people would by mp3 if the mp3 player wasn't there, the fair use (format shifting) creates way more jobs.

So instead of millions of people making billions we have 1000's of people making the
billions. This will kill the economy in the long run. Oh wait, the economy is already dead.

1000's of people who served popcorn at the theater are unemployed because of
torrents. Tower records and Block Buster video are history. Barnes and Noble are
no longer so noble. So we lose all that to get Facebook and youtube.

auto scopic 3d has been around in a theater form since 1996
we still don't have personal cameras that can record autoscopic 3d.

torrents could have been a totally inferior experience compared to theaters if theaters had invested in technology instead of resting on their monopoly control.

Not really a great pay off in the broader scope of the economy.

8 years of content is published on youtube every single day.

every person in the world is effectively a news caster/performer/comedian.
all of who have to buy cameras and editing software, and computers to do their "broadcasts"

movies are being funded by the crowd.

if your consern is pooling money in the hands of the few rich, guess what your on the wrong side of the arguement, because the copyright industry does that to a far greater degree then the youtube world.

[Paul Markham]

The problem with self regulation is it means people have to police their sites and the sites of people they do business with. So far the excuse often used is "We're too big." Which is the normal BS.

The real problem isn't the cost of policing a site. Unless you factor in the loss of traffic. It's the will to police your site. And that will, has to be enforced with as severe as required penalties to enforce policing.

For instance. Telling affiliates or companies you do business with, that you are policing, banning and not paying sites that are sending traffic or business from sites "Dedicated to piracy". This will initially start people with these sites to think about moving their traffic or business or changing their ways.

Then companies who will get penalised will have to check where traffic or business is coming from, start at the top and work down. Some will be automatically approved because they are well known, others will take a few minutes. They may have a little part but not "Dedicated to piracy". Some will take a little longer. And a few will take no time at all. Like some of the piracy forums, how long will it take to decide what Piratebay's business is based on?

New affiliates or companies are warned not to register if their sites are "Dedicated to piracy" and what happens if they are caught.

A company will soon find a lot of people and companies with sites "Dedicated to piracy" going elsewhere. Without the force of a law, this isn't going to happen. Then the playing field gets more level. Sites will have to police themselves or lose billing, advertisers, etc. Or be completely cut off from US funds. No CC processing, less advertisers will immediately hit their income.

One problem is, it's too easy to open a domain and start up today online. A domain registrant can be invisible by using one of many registrars who keep the registrants info secret. What's required to get the info they have? Then we don't know if the info is true.

And then just be a pirate, sell some traffic, take some ads, be an affiliates etc.

I would understand if people now, who turn a blind eye to piracy and say nothing were to tell us this is the way the world is. For instance, ST sells traffic. How much of that traffic comes from sites "Dedicated to piracy", VS have a problem making sure their ads and pop ups don't appear on sites "Dedicated to piracy" and Live Jasmin seems to also be hand in hand with pirates.

In fact given the ease and anonymity of setting up a site. How do we know who owns piracy sites. ST, GG, PJ and a few more anti stopping any legislation might own a few. No body really knows if I don't own a few.

And that's no way to run an industry.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem with self regulation is it means people have to police their sites and the sites of people they do business with. So far the excuse often used is "We're too big." Which is the normal BS.

The real problem isn't the cost of policing a site. Unless you factor in the loss of traffic. It's the will to police your site. And that will, has to be enforced with as severe as required penalties to enforce policing.

For instance. Telling affiliates or companies you do business with, that you are policing, banning and not paying sites that are sending traffic or business from sites "Dedicated to piracy". This will initially start people with these sites to think about moving their traffic or business or changing their ways.

Then companies who will get penalised will have to check where traffic or business is coming from, start at the top and work down. Some will be automatically approved because they are well known, others will take a few minutes. They may have a little part but not "Dedicated to piracy". Some will take a little longer. And a few will take no time at all. Like some of the piracy forums, how long will it take to decide what Piratebay's business is based on?

New affiliates or companies are warned not to register if their sites are "Dedicated to piracy" and what happens if they are caught.

A company will soon find a lot of people and companies with sites "Dedicated to piracy" going elsewhere. Without the force of a law, this isn't going to happen. Then the playing field gets more level. Sites will have to police themselves or lose billing, advertisers, etc. Or be completely cut off from US funds. No CC processing, less advertisers will immediately hit their income.

One problem is, it's too easy to open a domain and start up today online. A domain registrant can be invisible by using one of many registrars who keep the registrants info secret. What's required to get the info they have? Then we don't know if the info is true.

And then just be a pirate, sell some traffic, take some ads, be an affiliates etc.

I would understand if people now, who turn a blind eye to piracy and say nothing were to tell us this is the way the world is. For instance, ST sells traffic. How much of that traffic comes from sites "Dedicated to piracy", VS have a problem making sure their ads and pop ups don't appear on sites "Dedicated to piracy" and Live Jasmin seems to also be hand in hand with pirates.

In fact given the ease and anonymity of setting up a site. How do we know who owns piracy sites. ST, GG, PJ and a few more anti stopping any legislation might own a few. No body really knows if I don't own a few.

And that's no way to run an industry.

paul the problem is it 100 times more expensive for a tube site to validate the content then the copyright holder to validate the content

look at the universal vs mega upload issue that is currently going on

people on slashdot (supports of universal) are making arguements that universal contract grants them copyright of anything those artst say /sing.

that it was ok to send a takedown even though mega upload fully paid those artist for the endorsement, record it in their studios, wrote the song and owned the copyright to the song lyrics because the words came out of that artist mouth.

youtube couldn't confirm or deny that arguement because they don't have access to the contract

Universal on the other hand just has to walk down the hall and look up the contracts.

that why i argue for balancing the act with an equal penalty, because the company that has the necessary access to records would therefore have an insentive to only take rights that contract actually gives them.

[bronco67]

At least it appears that there's an awareness of the dangers of SOPA. But I just think anyone who is vehemently against the bill is feeling the catastrophic, earth-shattering dread of not being able to get shit for free anymore -- or make money from it in some way. There are livelihoods based on the ability to rob content. I'd be scared of having to find another way to scam/scrape a living, but I'd probably be someone with no talent for anything. Maybe digging ditches or working at Starbucks could be a possibility.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by bronco67

At least it appears that there's an awareness of the dangers of SOPA. But I just think anyone who is vehemently against the bill is feeling the catastrophic, earth-shattering dread of not being able to get shit for free anymore -- or make money from it in some way. There are livelihoods based on the ability to rob content. I'd be scared of having to find another way to scam/scrape a living, but I'd probably be someone with no talent for anything. Maybe digging ditches or working at Starbucks could be a possibility.

I am as anti piracy as you can get and get into arguments all the time with the freeloading fucktards. I am also intelligent enough to not support stupid legislation from a stupid government that will use it to make their buddies richer while fucking the population. And I know it won't work anyhow.

[porno jew]

sopa seems very watered down now anyway.

[GregE]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

I am as anti piracy as you can get and get into arguments all the time with the freeloading fucktards. I am also intelligent enough to not support stupid legislation from a stupid government that will use it to make their buddies richer while fucking the population. And I know it won't work anyhow.

If some here have difficulty recognizing your anti piracy credentials that might be because you (and the rest of the SOPA critics) seem to oppose anything and everything that might combat it.

Keep in mind that the only effective way to deter others from what one views as a flawed solution is to suggest a better one.

I for one don't see anyone doing that.

Might that be because something like SOPA is the only solution?

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by GregE

If some here have difficulty recognizing your anti piracy credentials that might be because you (and the rest of the SOPA critics) seem to oppose anything and everything that might combat it.

Keep in mind that the only effective way to deter others from what one regards as a flawed solution is to suggest a better one.

Might that be because something like SOPA is the only solution?

I for one don't see anyone doing that.

I oppose every stupid thing presented to combat it. I oppose Steve Lightspeed threatening lawsuits and exposure to fans that have downloaded his tired old content on torrent sites, I oppose SOPA and I will oppose anything else that will will give the government more power without addressing the actual problem.

Want to stop pirates? Skip DMCA all together. Let content producers sue pirates directly and without hassle. Don't make it cost prohibitive to get a court order to track down the bastards. When the case gets to court let the penalties for blatant theft be stronger than those for someone posting some funny image to their friends. Make the court process reasonably fast and make sure the judgments are fairly standard.

In fact, if someone is found to be a habitual offender (uploading videos to file lockers, putting seasons of The Simpsons on YouTube, etc) then fine the ever loving shit out of them and make them surrender all accounts and websites used. On the same note, if it was innocent infringement like posting funny images or saying MONSTER CABLE SUCKS DICK then the company bringing the lawsuit should get slapped around in court, a fine for wasting everyones time, pay all court costs and compensate the accused. In the same vein, when the RIAA sues someone for downloading songs but tries to get millions of dollars out of them because they also "shared" those songs (by default with most programs) then make a fucking example out of them. Stop letting corporations use their money and willingness to push people around to make a mockery of the courts and stop letting pirates hide behind DMCA or anonymity because court orders are such a pain in the ass.

There is no reason to bring YouTube, Google or Facebook into this shit. Sue the people fucking up and let the rest of us go about our business.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by GregE

Keep in mind that the only effective way to deter others from what one views as a flawed solution is to suggest a better one.

I for one don't see anyone doing that.

Nobody offers a different solution because they don't really want a solution.
They want to continue to rip content and that is the only solution for them.

And the alternative solutions for SOPA are the old solutions :

- Get permission / pay fees / collaborate

That's how hulu.com does it.

Bottom line: people who fear SOPA don't want to get permission, pay fees or collaborate.

And the online adult model was built on a simple collaboration of "use my content, give me a link back".

That was just too hard for some people though.

[Half man, Half Amazing]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Want to stop pirates? Skip DMCA all together. Let content producers sue pirates directly and without hassle. Don't make it cost prohibitive to get a court order to track down the bastards. When the case gets to court let the penalties for blatant theft be stronger than those for someone posting some funny image to their friends. Make the court process reasonably fast and make sure the judgments are fairly standard.

Pirates operating out of the Ukraine and Slovakia is a bit of a hassle no? Pirates that don't give a shit about a ruling in an American court. Pirates that hide behind Chinese and Ukrainian whois protect services that have no physical address and an email that bounces. Pirates that are using ISP's based in the Netherlands who are havens for spammers, phishers and content thieves and could care less about a US lawsuit. Pirates who operate off not .com's or .net's and instead use domains outside of any US jurisdiction.

This is the biggest part that people don't realize. We aren't talking about bring a kid in Reseda, CA to justice. We're talking about dudes in the Ukraine, Russian Federation, China, Vietnam, etc. These aren't just kids doing it for extra scratch. These are criminal organizations being given cover by their countries because in case you haven't realized it...these countries could care less about US intellectual property.

I'm not all for SOPA, a lot of it is flawed. But it's a step, the first of many more steps. A lot of other countries are watching us to see what we can get passed before they enact their own laws. Eventually the parasite countries will have their own IP and then they'll care, but in case you haven't been paying attention. That country called China doesn't really give a fuck about US IP, much less any court order from Judge Judy in the United States.

[Half man, Half Amazing]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

There is no reason to bring YouTube, Google or Facebook into this shit. Sue the people fucking up and let the rest of us go about our business.

The only people bringing YouTube, Google or Facebook into this are the people trying to use the fear of losing those sites in order to protect The Pirate Bay.

Read the freaking law...it says the site has to be nearly TOTALLY DEDICATED to the infringement of copyright. The sites you mentioned DO NOT fall under this definition. Furthermore, the entire law is geared towards FOREIGN ROGUE SITES that don't comply with DMCA. I've sent shitloads of DMCAs to Google, Youtube and Facebook and they comply with DMCAs. YouTube has 3 strikes, Facebook has similar and Google removes URLs from it's index within a few hours. These aren't the sites SOPA is concerned with. But if you want to keep being a tool for the Electronic Freeloader Foundation to spread fear mongering lies, you do it knowing you're being manipulated.