Aaarrrggghhhh, Piracy Strikes The Rant!

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is doing well.
The title of today's post reflects something that has recently affected this blog. It would seem that someone out there is so mindless, so intellectually deficient, and so mentally enfeebled as to not be able to come up with original posts. So, in an effort to fill a bogus blog with information, they have taken to plagiarising this blog.
If you scroll down to the entry entitled "Updating A Few Things..." and click on the "links to this post" selection at the bottom of the post you will notice a link with the same title as the post. If you click on the link it will take you to a page called "newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com". There you will find MY post in its entirety. The page does not provide a reciprocal link to this blog, nor does the page credit me with being the original author of the post. This page has done nothing more than to steal my post outright. The open theft of intellectual materials is not what linking to this blog is about. The intent in providing the option to link to my posts was/is to provide my readers with a convenient way to cite (not wholeheartedly copy) my works and to provide me with some way of tracking the dissemination of my ideas.
But back to the problem at hand, the theft of my post.
When I discovered that the linking website had stolen my post, I was, needless to say, quite angry. As I cooled down, I didn't know whether to be angry or flattered. What I mean is, on one hand they (the website in question) have stolen my material outright, but on the other hand they found it so valuable and so good that they decided to commit a federal crime to obtain it. I decided to be angry rather than flattered. After investigating the website, I used my trusty copy of Sam Spade (an excellent program by Steve Atkins) to convert the page's name to an IP address that I could then put through a whois search. The DNS-to-IP yielded an IP address of 209.126.254.105. I then did an ARIN whois search of the IP. The whois search told me that the website was hosted by California Regional Internet, Inc. The company is out of San Diego, CA. With this information in hand, I decided to write to the system administrator of the company in the hope that he or she could aid me in getting the problem resolved. Here is the letter I wrote [edited to omit my name]:
"Dear Sirs,
My name is [my name here]. I run a small
weblog entitled "Chuck's Occasional Rants (now banned
in 15 countries)". The blog is hosted by Blogger.Com
at the address "http://lobstercigs.blogspot.com".
While recently checking through my weblog, I noticed
that a site called "newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com"
had linked to an post entitled "Updating A Few
Things...". Upon further investigation, I found that
the site "newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com" had
reprinted my post in its entirety without first
obtaining the necessary permission of the author (me).
The evidence of infringement may be obtained by
following this link:
http://newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com/blog/?p=34
As all of the entries/posts on the weblog (Chuck's
Occasional Rants...) are the intellectual property of
myself, and as all of the entries/posts are
copyrighted by me, the owners of
"newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com" have committed a
clear violation of current US copyright laws. The
notice that all entries/posts are copyrighted (with
all rights reserved) by me appears at the bottom of my
weblog.
I am requesting that you, as the administrator of
the system hosting
"newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com", do a few things.
The first request is that you send me the contact
information for the registered owners of the site
"newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com" so that I might
contact them directly concerning this matter.
The second request is that you suspend the webpage
"http://newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com/blog/?p=34"
until such time as the copyright infringement can be
resolved.
The last request is that you forward this message to
the parties responsible for the infringing website
(newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com) with the notation
that, should they seek permission to reprint my post,
I would be so inclined as to grant a limited
permission to reprint.
Please note that this is not a DMCA takedown notice.
I am requesting these things so that the issue at
hand may be resolved in a timely and amicable fashion.
Your cooperation toward this end is greatly
appreciated.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
[my name here]
Owner, "Chuck's Occasional Rants""

I would have thought that by now I would have heard back from them. Instead, I got a letter (from a mailer daemon) telling me that the letter was being forwarded to a "jlambert@complexdrive.net" and that the forwarding had not yet succeeded.
So, not having heard back from the folks responsible for the page, I decided to lookup the IP for "complexdrive.net". The lookup yielded an IP address of 209.126.254.29. Look familiar? It should, it is part of the block assigned to California Regional Internet, Inc. Hmmm, that's an odd coincidence, don't you think?
Since it is obvious that the person or people responsible for the offending website read this blog, hopefully this post will serve as their notice that I have been trying to contact them regarding this obvious copyright infringement and that they should contact the system administrator at California Regional Internet, Inc concerning my efforts to do so.
As indicated in the letter, I am not adverse to someone republishing my stuff. All I ask is that they ask permission to do so, and give me proper credit (we're not talking about a line or two citation, that falls under fair use). However, should they fail to do so, I will be left with no recourse but to remind them that copyright infringement is a federal crime, and that I will pursue a prosecution of the offender(s) through any means available. No one can claim that they didn't know the material on this blog is copyrighted, a notice of copyright ownership appears at the bottom of each and every page on this blog. Furthermore, that notice also specifies "All rights reserved." What that means is that, outside of a fair usage citation, I own the material here, lock, stock, and barrel! It also means that you need to ask permission before using my stuff (outside of the fair usage exception).
As fair warning to the party or parties responsible for "newyork-legal-attorney-lawyer.com", if I do not hear from you by Monday, 05 December 2005, no later than 12:00 noon EST(1800 hrs UT), I will be forced to contact both the FBI and Federal Prosecutor in my area to pursue legal action against you on the charges of copyright infringement.
If anyone wishes to offer advice, or suggestions on how best to pursue this, please leave your suggestions in the comments. Thanks.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant. (Betcha they don't link to this post!)

The Title Change...

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is well and had a good Thanksgiving (at least those of you in the US).
As you may have noticed the title of the blog has been changed slightly from "Chuck's Occasional Rants" to "Chuck's Occasional Rants (now banned in 15 countries)". The reason for this is that due to the content of this blog it doesn't meet the standard of acceptability in 15 different countries on the world. The countries ban certain websites according to their own rules however idiotic those rules may be. Because my blog talks about politics, foreign affairs, freedom, and political dissent, I have violated the Internet rules for 15 different countries. The countries are (in alphabetical order): Belarus, Burma (Myanmar), China (Communist version), Cuba, Iran, Libya, The Maldives, Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
Most of these countries come as no surprise. In fact, the only surprise on the list is North Korea. I didn't even know that that backward-assed country even had computers, let alone the Internet. Hmm, guess you learn something new everyday. As I said, I am not surprised by the list. Of the 15, 12 are dictatorships (all but Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria), and the remaining three are the home of terrorist regimes. So as I said no surprise here. Oh well, what does one do when confronted by a group of nations run by degenarates with small penises and low IQs that make up the world's collective rectum? (There, that ought to really get me banned!)
As always, I am Chuck and to the countries that don't like what I say, kiss my big white ass!

Welcome To The Occupation...

Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone is doing well.
The title above comes from an old R.E.M. tune by the same name (off the "Document" album [I highly recommend the album. It is essential R.E.M.]) However, I am not here to talk about music. I am here to address the serious violation of oaths and ethics by the current Congress.
When a Representative or Senator is sworn in they take an oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic...". This past week, the House and Senate saw fit to compromise on a bill that violates that oath. The bill I speak of is an extension of the USA Patriot Act.
The bill had been passed by both the House and Senate in different forms back in July. Those two seperate forms had to wait until this week to reach a committee that would hammer out the differences between the two versions and recommend a compromise bill to both the House and Senate for approval. That committee has done its job and the compromise bill is now awaiting formal approval (essentially a rubber stamp in this case).
The compromise would make permanent 14 of the Patriot Acts most controversial sections and would allow the use of "National Security Letters" (the most odious of the bill's tenets). National Security Letters would allow the FBI to conduct searches of a person's records without first obtaining a search warrant. All that would be required of the FBI to use an NSL is the desire to do so, and the rubber stamp approval of the Special Agent in Charge (of the given office). Now not being a legal scholar, I could be wrong about this, but isn't that a violation of the Constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure? And should the FBI actually seize something, isn't that also a violation of the right against being deprived of property without due process of law? The saddest part of the NSLs is that they can be used against anyone...even if you don't have anything to do with terrorism!
The bill also allows (without judicial approval) the government to look into library records, medical records, financial records, in short, every record that may (or may not) be remotely connected to you. The government is now allowed to tear your life apart all without you even being allowed to defend yourself against such an inquisition in a court of law. The people who are contacted are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to inform you that the government is investigating you. Furthermore, should you be taken in for questioning in one of these NSL investigations, you aren't even allowed to tell your lawyer about it. Nice paradox, eh. You can have a lawyer, but you can't tell him why the government has you.
If the US had been conquered by a despotic regime, I could probably understand all of this. However, we have not been conquered by anyone. This bill comes from the (supposedly) democratically elected representatives of the people, namely the Congress. This bill so violates the Constitution and, subsequently, the individual liberties guaranteed by such that I would have expected this piece of legislative crap to be something crafted in Red China, the old Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, not in the US! By coming up with a piece of legislation that violates the Constitution this egregiously, the Congress has abrogated their responsibilities to the people and violated their oaths of office. That is at least a violation of the ethics codes pertaining to government employees. A government employee guilty of ethics violations usually gets fired. I say that we have a mass firing of the US Congress, followed by a firing of the moron in the White House who pushed for all of this. It is time to tell the Congress that violating a person's Constitutional rights is a crime. A cop who violates your rights usually gets fired and sometimes goes to jail (depending on the magnitude of the violation), why should a Representative or Senator be any different?
As I see it, we have three ways of disposing of the current congress. The first, and least effective, is that we can vote them out of office and hope that their successors rectify the problem (not likely as incumbents generally win reelection, and the successors would probably be no better than the current bunch). The second, and somewhat more effective, is to recall each Representative and Senator and replace them with people who know what the Constitution says. The last involves somewhat more trouble but is probably the most effective solution. It involves two words, one of which starts with an "o" and the other starts with an "r". The first word, the one starting with "o" is the same word that sportscasters use when a quarterback passes to a reciever but the ball is too high and out of reach for the reciever. The "r" word is another word for one complete orbit of the sun by a planet, or the first word in the anagram "rpm". I can't say those words on this blog for fear of being put on a government watchlist, blackballed concerning future employment, having the FBI come knocking on my door, and possibly being deported (despite being a native US citizen).
Now the "o" and "r" would not be a whole new system with a whole new constitution or the like, it would merely be to restore the system back to what the current Constitution had in mind. That is to say that the current neo-Fascist government has to go in order that we, the people, might restore the system to one that recognizes that the rights of the individual outweigh the right of the government to do as it pleases (something the current regime in DC has rejected time and time again).
We face a grave choice, not in the future, but right now. The choice is between whether we, as a democratic and free people, will allow an elected government to guide us into a police state where the power of the government is all pervasive and allows for little or no privacy or dissent, or whether we, as a democratic and free people, will take back power from the government, restore sanity to the politcal process, and show the world that in the United States of America the right of an individual to do as he or she pleases is both inviolable and politically sacred.
In 1933 the German people faced a similar choice...they chose wrong and brought years of terror, in the form of an evil dictatorship and war, to their country. What will our choice be?
As always I am Chuck, and if this gets me deported I want to go to England.

Updating A Few Things...

Hello again, loyal readers. I just wanted to update folks on the success or failure of a few previous posts.
The war against the spammers is going exceptionally well. By instituting the Turing Test (the "enter the word or letters seen here" part of the comments page), I have completely eliminated the scripted comment spam that was taking place. Thus I am claiming a provisional victory over the spammers. To the spammers: I won, you lost, now pack up your stuff and leave quietly! *sticks tongue out at departing spammers* (Ok, it is juvenile, I admit it, but if you hated spammers as much as I do, then you'd do it too!)

Speaking of things I hate, here's something for you if you haven't already heard about it.

As the people who know me can attest, if there is one thing dealing with computers that I hate above all others (including spam), it is spyware and malware. Spyware and malware, at least to me, are the scourge of the internet. They are generally unwanted and, sometimes, univited pieces of trash that do nothing more than gather information about you (generally stuff you don't want disclosed), slow down your machine, and eat up bandwidth. They are pathtically bad programs written by pathetically bad programmers, and doing bad things to your machine (especially in the case of malware).
Having said that, a new and despicable use for spyware has emerged this past week. Spyware is now becoming digital rights management (DRM). For those of you who don't know what DRM is, basically it is an attempt by certain companies to digitally protect the content of their products (it is a little more complicated than this, but this is the basic concept). DRM can be found in everything from computer software (see things like "safedisc" by Macrovision) to audio compact disks. DRM is a corporate illusion as hardcore computer junkies can, and have, found ways around it or have cracked it outright.
As for the spyware as DRM, here is the story. Sony, the Japanese electronics giant, has introduced a new type of DRM on certain audio cds. The DRM is called "XCD". The idea behind it was to stem the tide of piracy that (supposedly) currently exists. XCD does this by placing a program on your computer to limit the number of times you may copy a disk (I guess Sony hasn't heard of the "fair use" clause in US copyright laws). The problem with the new XCD DRM comes in the fact that the software copied onto your system is nothing more than a "rootkit". A rootkit is a program or package of programs that can allow a hacker to break into and control your system (in simplest terms). Not only does the XCD install as a rootkit, but it also hides itself on your system so that you can't tell it is there. This leaves a potential security hole in your system for hackers to exploit. In fact there have been reports of a virus (just now coming out) designed to exploit the security hole that the DRM opens up.
Sony has release a patch that will reveal the installed program and its components, but the patch does nothing to remove the software. In order to get the patch, you must first jump through half a dozen hoops and "request" it from Sony. Then Sony will send you an email. Then you must jump thorough a few more hoops, and Sony will send you another email. The finally, you must download the patch (which includes a few undisclosed "updates"). All of this just to reveal the program! The patch does not uninstall the software. In fact, if you try to unistall the software you run the risk of not only getting a blue screen error, but you also run the risk of rendering your computer's cd player/recorder inoperable!! In other words, trying to removing this unwanted p.o.s. will break your cd-r/rw!!
Now Sony isn't entirely at fault. The company responsible for coming up with this pathetic piece of crap is a UK-based company called "First 4 Internet". They claim to be a developer of "advanced software" based in Oxfordshire. I am guessing that by "advanced software" they mean software capable of making your system do its doorstop impersonation.
The man responsible for finding this Sony screw-up is Mark Russinovich of Sysinternals. Russinovich discovered the problem while having diffculties with his own system. For those of you who have never heard of Dr. Russinovich, he is the chief software architect and co-founder of Winternals (a company that makes advanced systems software for Windows-based machines). He has a Phd from Carnegie Mellon University (just up Forbes Ave from Pitt [in the Shadyside neck of the woods]) and is generally considered to be one of the world's foremost authorities on the Windows Operating System. So, therefore, when he says he found that Sony's DRM is a rootkit, I am pretty sure that he knows what he is talking about! Dr. Russinovich's blog explains the problem in more detail and much better than I ever could. The blog is located at Mark's Sysinternals Blog.
Also, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation has a page (here) listing the signs to look for to check if you have one of these rootkit "protected" disks. They have also compiled a list of the Sony CDs containing the XCD (rootkit) protection (here). If you have recently bought a Sony CD or have a Sony CD (or any cd as Sony publishes under many names, most notably Sony and BMG) that you are not sure of, I urge you to check out both of these sites. Then check out the Sysinternals Blog for ways of dealing with it if you are infected.
Finally, in my opinion, Sony has gone to far. In resorting to installing rootkits on the computers of people who have legally bought a Sony CD, Sony has resorted to a tactic once considered to be the sole province of internet criminals. We have laws on the books dealing with this sort of thing. People who hack your computer are (under many federal and state laws) criminals. Sony has hacked your system, and the people responsible for this debacle should be held criminally liable. But, Sony being a large company, and the Federal Government being in the hip pocket of the corporations, Sony probably won't be prosecuted. And more's the pity, as Sony has set a new precedent in how companies, in the future, will protect their products. If Sony gets away with this, it will open up the door to more companies (and not just the record companies, either) protecting their product by breaking your computer. This is the equivalent of a record company thug coming to your house and saying "I don't give a damn about the law and fair use, I don't like the way you are using your cd!" and then smashing your cd player or stereo. If someone actually did that, you'd call the cops and have them arrested (if you didn't shoot them first). In this case, Sony is actually doing that, but without stepping foot onto your property. Sony also thinks that their End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) will protect them. I have bad news for Sony. Their EULA is the equivalent of someone having you (voluntarily) sign a paper saying that it is ok to shoot you. Unfortunately for the person pulling the trigger, the shooting is still a criminal act and the paper means nothing as you are prohibited by law from signing any contract that entails breaking the law as one of the conditions of fulfillment. Therefore, Sony's EULA is worthless as it requires a criminal act to fulfill the EULA. If you have been affected by one of these Sony CDs, I urge you to contact a lawyer and your states Attorney General (to see if criminal charges can be brought against Sony). If you haven't been affected, then I urge you to boycott Sony products (or at least their audio cds).
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant. Oh, and this entry is protected by my version of Digital Rights Management. It is digital, and I manged to write it. (And unlike Sony's DRM, it won't break your computer!)