Once again, the Obama administration has violated the Bill of Rights. Earlier this month, the feds took down a free Wordpress blogging platform and disabled more than 73,000 blogs.
From: http://www.infowars.com/feds-ignore-due … -of-blogs/
Copyright infringement is not a freedom of speech issue.
If it can get rid of some of those sites that steal our writing I'm all for it.
Out of the 73,000 blogs on that server do you think they were all copied content?
What recourse do those bloggers who only posted original content have, their work is lost. The time they spent backlinking and setting themselves up an income stream gone.
I can understand pulling down content that has obviously been stolen. Does not theft constitute a criminal act to be adjudicated in a court of law? Doesn't everyone deserve their day in court? I know terrorists do! Is cyber theft a more vicious act?
Dear me. I have had blogs shut down and adsense accounts closed. The hosting provider was protecting themselves - as they are ultimately responsible. And - no it would not surprise me if all 73,000 blogs were stolen.
Are you seriously suggesting that I need to go through the courts every time my content gets stolen? Do you have any idea how many times I get my content stolen? I would spend all my time in court.
You right wing nuts really take the biscuit. Laughable really. The issue is with the blog provider for not maintaining their sites properly. Why do you think hubpages is so aggressive with copied content or content that breaks the adsense TOS?
A discussion about it is here:
Somebody pissed somebody off, or as there is a suggestion here - there might have been kiddie porn up.
Interesting thread Mark, answered a lot of questions I had. I am all for taking down illegal stolen or misappropriate content.
It is just alarming to think that you could be guilty by simply posting to the same site as offenders. (Guilty by Unknowingly being associated)
There must have been some legitimate bloggers on that site that lost all their hard work.
They should have been more careful then. I am. I trust hubpages - even though there is a possibility they will vanish one day. I don't think they will - but - you never know.
I wouldn't dream of publishing anything worthwhile at a site like that. I just dump spun garbage with a link in it - the same as everyone else - except the criminals - that is all those sites are good for.
One man band? Dear me - 73,000 blogs - assuming just 10 posts per blog - that is 700k posts - he has no clue what he had on his own site.
Serves him right.
Due diligence starts at home.
I can understand pulling down illegal sites, but 73,000 is crazy! Why doesn't this stuff make the big press?
Because they do not want you to know. And mainstream media is complicit with those in charge. Citizen journalism is the biggest threat to those in power on both sides of the aisle. And they do not want to be held accountable for the misdeeds they do in real time !
Unfortunately, some sites seem to protect those who steal and cheat and basically do nothing when confronted to take those stolen articles or blogs down. Or those who post kiddie porn, etc. Sadly, some innocent people might get hurt. But it's still not a freedom of speech argument.
Actually Habee, it isn't hard to believe, when the truth about the Internet is actually understood.
Most people believe the Internet to have about a few billion pages/websites/blogs, however, what is unrealized is the true size or scope, which is about 100 Billion pages/websites/blogs actually exist.
All search engines only index what they choose to index.
I don't find it hard to believe at all. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of software programs specifically designed to steal other people's content and post it to massive blog farms full of content that is stolen, spun, or bought from freelancers in India and the Philippines working for fractions of a penny per word. Based on my quick skim of the article, it sounds like the takedown was mainly aimed at the "watch movies/tv shows online" niche, which is massive right now and causes double the copyright infringement, because most provide illegal video downloads in addition to using stolen content to get backlinks to their sites.
But still, the constitution dosn't allow for wide sweeps netting hundreds if not thousands of innocent people, to net some few thousands... or even more.
I find it hard to believe there wasn't a more specific way to do this.
But - you know absolutely nothing about this. Nothing. Why even make a comment? Do what exactly?
Thousands of innocent people? LOLOLOL You right wing nuts are so funny LOLO
Go ahead - list one thousand innocent people here.
Of course the constitution allows it. Feel free to point out any art that wouldn't.
I'm sure they weren't all bad, but if the owner wasn't policing it, I'm betting it was a huge number.
The thing is, people on shared blogging platforms or article writing sites tend to learn from each other.
Pop over and take a look at Flixya, for instance - it's similar to HubPages but it's overflowing with stolen content and people colluding to click on each other's ads. Some of the members probably have no idea they're doing anything wrong - they joined the site as complete newbies and just took the advice of the members already there.
Well... Hubpages is safe from Obama, I guess thats the perk for being a leftist site.
I find just the opposite. I find everything to be right wing Judeo/Christian censorship myself.
My abortion blog was fine for quite a while...all of a sudden flagged an the ads disabled...GEE, wonder why???
Couldn't be a left wing atheist who had a problem could it?
Howard Stern fined off commercial radio, Limbutt, Shmecky and Hammity say whatever they please all day and night.
Someone's got his censorship demons all backwards.
Big difference between Rush, Hannity, Boortz and all them.... as compared to Howard. Of course to someone who equates all things to others.
There wouldn't be.
Oh and I hate to break it to you... but hubs is a leant leftist site... but as compared to your politcal views chrs... it may seem center.
Yeah...BIG difference. Stern was harrassed off the air cause he didn't care for Bushco and the extreme right wing Christians.
Limbutt, Boorst, Beckles, Klannity can say anything about Obama and get away with it.
I KNEW there was something I just loved about HP and just could not put my loony leftist ACLU liberal atheist finger on it!
So now HP operators are left wing atheists? You know there are treatment programs for paranoia; the whole world is not one vast conspiracy against you.
Did you hear me say that?...
I said... "Well... Hubpages is safe from Obama, I guess thats the perk for being a leftist site."
There is an entire spectrum of leant leftist in the world.... some not so bad... others... well?... y'know.
Gosh, I was kind of hoping that it is, actually..
Howard Stern was gross and obscene. He needed to go by-by!
Did nobody notice that the article says that the feds were " execut[ing] seizure warrants against nine domain names." (emphasis mine)
Seems to me, getting a warrant is part of due process. If they'd seized and shut down the sites without a warrant, then I'd be pretty upset, too. But they had a warrant. That means there was probable cause. That means that either there will be a trial, or the evidence will be released back to its owners once the investigation is over.
The Obama administration has made plenty of mistakes that are actually worth complaining about. How about you complain about those things rather than getting all hysterical about stuff that isn't worth complaining about?
My issue is with the lack of specificity, Jeff. Seems like a very wide net to me... but lets wait and see how many of those site affected and shut-down are actually doing something wrong.
There may be very good reason to hit them all.
I hope there was, anyway.
If someone in my apartment building was selling drugs? Would that mean my property could be confiscated along with theirs?
We would both be using the same address?
Just a side note to something you said. If someone was selling in your building, then their apartment would be the restricted guidelines authorities would go by.
However, if the owner of the building had something to do with it also? Then the whole building could be covered under ONE warrant.
Just a thought.
No it wouln't cag.
Each individual tenant would have to be shown to be a part of it, either actively or without thier knowledge, in order for the warrent to issue to thier places of residence.
Do you think that would result in my completely losing my domain all together?
Red herring anyone? Maybe some crackers to go with it?
Nine domain names would mean nine family homes not nine appartment buildings--and yes if the authorities found someone sharing a house with a criminal their room could reasonably be searched.
Not the same at all - when you join a website to post your content you are in affect making a business deal - you are part of a business now, more like an employee - this is more like employees who knowingly commit crimes being culpable along with the business owners. Doesn't compare to your living in a place where there is crime going on.
The owners of the apartment building may be charged with knowingly allowing drug dealers to deal there - but other apartment renters are not involved and not guilty of anything.
Also the internet is public - unless it is a members only site, all the content is available to everyone and subject to the laws governing against porno, breaking copyright rules, slander, defamation, illegal pirating of copyrighted materials, etc. This is the way we want it to be!
The owners of the website are responsible for its content, bottomline. If innocent contributors to that website lose their articles, it is just one of the risks you take when you publish on the internet. Hopefully you are saving copies of your work on your private computer.
Blaming the President for everything that happens that you don't like is just inane and creepy!
If I have a blog next to your blog but your blog contains inappropriate content, that should not give the Government the right to take both our blogs.
The government can shut down the server, but anyone who had a blog there but committed no crimes should at least be able to have their property (Blogs) returned to them. Not republished but at least given back to them in some form.
Once again, when you contribute your writing to website you own article, you're publishing it, but you keep a copy - just like you would if you were sending your material to someone, as a precaution. What if the website has a big glitch and loses everything? When a website is shut down, its just shut down! Your article doesn't show up there anymore. Big deal.
They didn't TAKE the articles - they shut the site down!
This is what has me confused? I always am seeing people whining about having someone duplicate their content somewhere else on the Internet. I agree this is wrong.
What if you logged on to your pc and saw that everything you have built up on your blog has not been copied, it has been completely removed. In other words you no longer have it. All this being done by the Government. Without you so much as breaking a single rule. You cannot group 73,000 blogs together and have them removed without some kind of charge being made against each and every blogger involved. Is intellectual property actual property or not?
If it is actually property how can anyone just come and take it away? If it is not Property then why all the hoopla about someone copying an article? BTW: I do believe anything written, videoed or photographed is the property of the person who produced it. This is a case of property seizure without due process plain and simple, if there were violators among the 73,000 then bring the charges into a Court of Law. We are setting up some pretty strong precedents by sitting back and allowing the Government to infringe even more on our rights to personal property.
The answer to that point is that nobody has had their property seized - if somebody had an article on there, it still belongs to them.
They are perfectly free to publish it elsewhere - your personal intellectual property rights have not been infringed upon.
As Flightkeeper said, if anybody does not have a back up of their work, then that is their own fault.
I guess I see it from a different perspective. I have no backups to anything. I would lose everything. All my work I had put in for hope of future gain would have been futile.
I did save my stuff to Google docs unshared today.
I still think, a copy of everything removed that is not used for criminal proceedings should be returned to the bloggers.
@Reality - Many years ago, I lost about 2000 words of my dissertation when a hard disk corrupted. I now back everything up - it is a mistake that you only make once! It only takes a few seconds to copy and paste your work into a Word doc, and that is a good habit to get into.
Put it this way - If the same happened to Hubpages tomorrow (not going to happen), then I have the copies of my article and would upload them to Squidoo.
"It only takes a few seconds to copy and paste your work into a Word doc, and that is a good habit to get into."
I actually create my articles with word first, and then copy-and-paste into the hubpages editor. i never have to worry about losing anything this way.
This is why every blogger and hubber should have a copy of all their work; both digital and a hard copy.
blaming OBAMA? for copy cat webbers? geez some people have very simple minds and like to blame the pres for everything thinking that people will believe it - would be funny except they get to vote, too!
People don't grasp the real impact of it because it is a distant thing to them. Most people are not affected by it directly and the internet itself is so ephemeral to most. And alot don't really realize how deeply govt intrusion could affect them online. How much of themself' is on there to be intruded upon.
It's been like that since the Kelo Ruling and eminent domain. Even if most of those sites were illegal, I think it should still be contested because it seems so broad. Look at this as the beginning of a fight with the gov't for free speech on the digital front.
From what I've read elsewhere the majority of the 'content' were thousands of links to upload sites. Pirated movies and such could be downloaded.
I don't understand the problem. Sounds like a business was bad and had to be shut down. Naturally, its clients have to go elsewhere.
It could be perfectly legitimate, Pan. Doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it and question it anyways.
It is always better to be safe, then sorry.
WordPress is not that great just my opinion.But stealing another persons writing without a link are even mentioning who really wrote it,then yes they should be shut down.
It seems that this was probably a bad online neighborhood to be playing in and people who weren't paying attention or were just lazy got screwed as collateral damage.
Just look at at the people on HP who "can't be bothered" to do their homework (Like reading the Amazon, Ebay and HP TOS) and expect the rest of us to tell them the rules and how to do stuff.
No. Google has scripts that check when you post dirty stuff about children, etc. This guy just provided free website for everyone to post what they can and never bothered to find out what was being posted there. Keeping a backup to his site was a problem to him and that one in itself is too unfair to all those who were posting in that site.
Now the plane is down with the pilot, crew and all the passengers and we can not ask for their lives back.
This guy should stop asking for backup to his site and prepare himself properly for the FBI visit. There is music that is yet to be danced.
by Teresa Schultz 6 years ago
Do you think HubPages would warn us in advance if they shut the site down?I suspect that, sometimes at least, many of us write directly onto the page at HubPages, without having first written offline and saving written work to our own pc. This question is also a warning to hubbers to do just that -...
by Shadaan Alam 3 years ago
Lately i have been hearing a lot about these two sister sites, but just wished to know are they worth writing for in terms of revenue? I am sure some of you might be on these two sites, what is your opinion?
by Jack Lee 2 hours ago
How did our government grew to be so large?
by AT Abueva 5 years ago
Is there a possibility for Hubpages to close down?In a range of 1-5, how would you rate the possibilities?
by erinshelby 3 years ago
What sites exist that are free to use, that allow writers to create any content (like HP), where you can make money?
by JAKE Earthshine 7 months ago
ABOVE: Trump Accusers that we know of: Is Mr. Trump above he law or will these women get their day in court to prove these horrific accusations?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|