raq's Prime Minister said that a US Senate proposal to split the country into regions according to religious or ethnic divisions would be a ''catastrophe.''
The Kurds in three northern Iraqi provinces are running a virtually independent country within Iraq, while nominally maintaining relations with Baghdad.
They support a formal division. But both Sunni and Shiite Muslims have reacted with extreme opposition to the US Senate proposal.
The majority Shiites, who would retain control of major oil revenues under a division of the country, oppose the measure because it would diminish the territorial integrity of Iraq, which they now control.
Sunnis would control an area with few if any oil resources. Kurds have major oil reserves in their territory.
The non-binding Senate resolution calls for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of the three communities in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia.
Democratic US presidential hopeful Senator Joseph Biden was a prime sponsor of the measure.
''It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis,'' Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said on Friday on a return flight to Baghdad from New York, where he appeared at the UN General Assembly.
''Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity. Dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe.''
Autonomous powers
The comments were al-Maliki's first since the measure passed the Senate on Wednesday.
Iraq's constitution lays down a federal system, allowing Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center and west of the country to set up regions with considerable autonomous powers.
Nevertheless, ethnic and sectarian turmoil have snarled hopes of negotiating such measures, especially given deep divisions on sharing the country's vast oil resources.
Oil reserves and existing fields would fall mainly into the hands of Kurds and Shiites if such a division were to occur.
So far there has been no agreement on a broader sharing of those revenues, one of the several US-mandated benchmarks the government has failed to push through parliament.
On Thursday, Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite, said decisions about Iraq must remain in the hands of its citizens. And a spokesperson for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demanded the al-Maliki government reject the proposal.
''We demand the Iraqi government to stand against such a project and to condemn it officially,'' said Liwa Semeism, the al-Sadr spokesperson.
''Such a decision does not represent the aspirations of all Iraqi people and it is considered an interference in Iraq's internal affairs.''
A spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite spiritual leader, dismissed the proposal during a Friday sermon in Karbala.
''The division plan is against Iraq's interests and against peace in a united Iraq,'' Sheik Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalaei told worshippers. ''Any neighboring country supporting this project will pay the price of instability in the region.''
Biden argues that the US has focused too much on trying to prop up a strong, central unified government in Baghdad.
But it is unlikely the Bush administration will alter its policies on Iraq as a result of the resolution.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday that the administration supports a federal Iraq, but it is a ''sensitive issue best left to the Iraqis to address at their own pace.''
Meanwhile, Iraqi police and witnesses said US troops backed by helicopter gunships raided an apartment building at 2 am on Friday in a primarily Sunni neighborhood in southern Baghdad, killing 10 civilians and wounding 12.
The US military said it was checking into the report.
Several people detained
An unknown number of people also were detained after the clashes between US helicopters and gunmen in the Dora neighborhood's Sihha district, said a police officer who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
Shaheed Abdul-Al, a 42-year-old metal worker who lives in the area, said his family was awakened by the sound of helicopters, heavy gunfire and bombing.
''We saw a big flash of light with the sounds of bombing from the direction of the (targeted) building,'' he said. ''We were horrified and still awake at sunrise.''
Ahmed Salim, a 16-year-old student who lives near the targeted complex, said he saw US military vehicles through his window.
''When the Americans left, I and others rushed to the site where people were rescuing survivors,'' he said. ''I saw wounded and dead bodies.''
In violence north of Baghdad, at least six people were killed when four gunmen with full beards and wearing military uniforms barged into a busy cafe late on Thursday as people were playing a popular game to celebrate the end of the dawn-to-dusk fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
The men arrived in a Russian-made military vehicle used by the Saddam Hussein-era army and opened fire, shouting, ''God is great,'' according to a provincial police officer who asked that his name not be used for fear of reprisals.
The six killed included three off-duty police officers. Eight others were wounded, the officer said. The attack occurred in Sadiyah, a town in volatile Diyala province.
Also on Friday US Spc. Jorge G Sandoval, 22, was acquitted on charges he killed two unarmed Iraqis.
Planting evidence
He was convicted of a lesser charge of planting evidence on one of the bodies to cover up the crime. He was to be sentenced on Saturday.
The US military announced that American-led forces on Tuesday killed one of the most important leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq, a Tunisian named Abu Osama al-Tunisi who was believed connected to the kidnapping and killings last summer of American soldiers.
In Syria, Mohammed Gul Aghassi, a Sunni Muslim cleric who in the past has been suspected of recruiting militants to fight in Iraq, was shot dead as he left a mosque after Friday prayers in the northern city of Aleppo, aides said.
source:http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070027689
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, March 9, 2007
Subpoenas and Gootube
This past week I decided to supoena Google to get the names of users that were uploading copies of our movies. I have no intention of pulling an RIAA and suing the users. I do have every attention of sending supoenas early and often to get the names and emails of users uploading our content they have pirated.
Why ? To learn.
I expect that the users will have given fake information, but i want to confirm that is the case. It will be a useful data point. ( I will be interesting to see if when there is ultimately a legal battle, that the courts will allow a company to present itself as a hosting company when it has no idea who ANY of its customers are and it has no business model that creates revenues from hosting.) I suspect that from time to time we will get the emails and actually be able to make contact with users. That is when it could get interesting. I want to ask them some simple questions. The first of which is why ? Sure there are a lot of possible and obvious answers, but maybe the will tell me something new or interesting that I can learn from.
The 2nd question will be whether they were induced by Google in any way to upload the video. Not that I think Google coerced them in any way. I don't. But I want to know if they feel that Google endorses and supports uploading and streaming of pirated content. I want to know why they ignored the warnings that are on the video upload page.
Knowledge comes not just from supoenas.
This is a page that has the first 9 minutes of our movie The Host (which opens today, Friday March 9th across the country . See it, its a great movie.). We decided to not send a takedown notice for this clip. In fact, there were several of the clips we didnt send notices for.. Again, as a learning experience.
The comments on this page could potentially be very interesting. As you can note, we sent takedown notices for clips 4 through 13.
silverskates216 (1 week ago)
youtube deleted 4& up so i have to re-upload it. It may take some time.
(Reply) (Spam)
pooh666666 (15 hours ago)
can you re-upload the rest ? because the website that the links go to don't allow us to upload even one file at once . please ?
(Reply) (Spam)
silverskates216 (13 hours ago)
I tired to re-upload and it won't work. Plus that would endanger my account. If you message me with details of what the exact problem is I may be able to fix it.
What is interesting from the comments is that the re-upload didn't work. Does this mean Youtube is proactively filterning content ? Of course the user could be lying or just had tech problems. Who knows. But if they are proactively filtering, they lose ALL of their Safe Harbor protections.
The 2nd point of interest is that we didn't send takedown notices for parts 2 or 3 of the movie, but they are now gone. Why would the user take it down but leave up the first clip ? Did somebody at Youtube take it on themselves to take it down ? No idea. Again, if they did, goodbye to all the Safe Harbor protections.
Then there is the link by the user to rapidshare for the movie (which hopefully will be down by the time you read this). Is this the start of a trend ? Use Youtube as the "catalog" or a way to create traffic, but host on a 3rd party ? Time will tell.
And it appears they are now removing pages they had content that has been removed for whatever reason. Has anyone noticed this ?
One more thing.
It may suprise you that I dont have a problem with what Rapidshare is doing. I see them as legit, while you know how I feel about Gootube. Why ? Because Rapdishare is really a hosting service. They have customers who pay for the service. They dont create an index of the videos they host. They don't try to create traffic for the infringing videos they host. . They do what a hosting service does. They host.
If by chance someone uploads pirated content to them, they truly don't see it. They didn't create a napster/youtube like environment where you can search for any video. The video is only available when the uploader publishes the link.
Rapidshare deserves every bit of the protection the DMCA Safe Harbors offer. If we see our content with a rapidshare link published, as it is in this case. We will send the takedown notice and move on.
Contrast that with Gootube that flaunts their position that when pirated content is hosted on Youtube or Google Video, they are legally safe. Think that might send a message that encourages their users to upload pirated content ? Think maybe people who ignore the copyright warnings prior to uploaded pirated content might feel safe doing so because of Google's public position ? Or the fact that they see pirated content all over Youtube and Google Video, so it must be ok to ignore the warnings ?
I know a hosting company when I see one. Google Video and Youtube are not hosting companies.
ads saying dont upload pirated content
Why ? To learn.
I expect that the users will have given fake information, but i want to confirm that is the case. It will be a useful data point. ( I will be interesting to see if when there is ultimately a legal battle, that the courts will allow a company to present itself as a hosting company when it has no idea who ANY of its customers are and it has no business model that creates revenues from hosting.) I suspect that from time to time we will get the emails and actually be able to make contact with users. That is when it could get interesting. I want to ask them some simple questions. The first of which is why ? Sure there are a lot of possible and obvious answers, but maybe the will tell me something new or interesting that I can learn from.
The 2nd question will be whether they were induced by Google in any way to upload the video. Not that I think Google coerced them in any way. I don't. But I want to know if they feel that Google endorses and supports uploading and streaming of pirated content. I want to know why they ignored the warnings that are on the video upload page.
Knowledge comes not just from supoenas.
This is a page that has the first 9 minutes of our movie The Host (which opens today, Friday March 9th across the country . See it, its a great movie.). We decided to not send a takedown notice for this clip. In fact, there were several of the clips we didnt send notices for.. Again, as a learning experience.
The comments on this page could potentially be very interesting. As you can note, we sent takedown notices for clips 4 through 13.
silverskates216 (1 week ago)
youtube deleted 4& up so i have to re-upload it. It may take some time.
(Reply) (Spam)
pooh666666 (15 hours ago)
can you re-upload the rest ? because the website that the links go to don't allow us to upload even one file at once . please ?
(Reply) (Spam)
silverskates216 (13 hours ago)
I tired to re-upload and it won't work. Plus that would endanger my account. If you message me with details of what the exact problem is I may be able to fix it.
What is interesting from the comments is that the re-upload didn't work. Does this mean Youtube is proactively filterning content ? Of course the user could be lying or just had tech problems. Who knows. But if they are proactively filtering, they lose ALL of their Safe Harbor protections.
The 2nd point of interest is that we didn't send takedown notices for parts 2 or 3 of the movie, but they are now gone. Why would the user take it down but leave up the first clip ? Did somebody at Youtube take it on themselves to take it down ? No idea. Again, if they did, goodbye to all the Safe Harbor protections.
Then there is the link by the user to rapidshare for the movie (which hopefully will be down by the time you read this). Is this the start of a trend ? Use Youtube as the "catalog" or a way to create traffic, but host on a 3rd party ? Time will tell.
And it appears they are now removing pages they had content that has been removed for whatever reason. Has anyone noticed this ?
One more thing.
It may suprise you that I dont have a problem with what Rapidshare is doing. I see them as legit, while you know how I feel about Gootube. Why ? Because Rapdishare is really a hosting service. They have customers who pay for the service. They dont create an index of the videos they host. They don't try to create traffic for the infringing videos they host. . They do what a hosting service does. They host.
If by chance someone uploads pirated content to them, they truly don't see it. They didn't create a napster/youtube like environment where you can search for any video. The video is only available when the uploader publishes the link.
Rapidshare deserves every bit of the protection the DMCA Safe Harbors offer. If we see our content with a rapidshare link published, as it is in this case. We will send the takedown notice and move on.
Contrast that with Gootube that flaunts their position that when pirated content is hosted on Youtube or Google Video, they are legally safe. Think that might send a message that encourages their users to upload pirated content ? Think maybe people who ignore the copyright warnings prior to uploaded pirated content might feel safe doing so because of Google's public position ? Or the fact that they see pirated content all over Youtube and Google Video, so it must be ok to ignore the warnings ?
I know a hosting company when I see one. Google Video and Youtube are not hosting companies.
ads saying dont upload pirated content
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)