An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
FluTrackers is concerned about freedom and human rights. Our ability to freely speak our minds.
It seems there is a constant challenge to our natural rights. This past year we saw the chilling effects of the Righthaven partnership. Thankfully federal judges have expanded "fair use" under the law and it appears the Righthaven copyright "business model" is becoming defunct.
Now there are proposed bills in the US congress that will allow the government to shut down "rogue" sites. The government has already shut many sites claiming copyright infringement.
Sound like China?
China Seizes Websites, Clamps Down On Speech... Uses Copyright Infringement As The Excuse
from the but-of-course dept
We noted recently that China had promised the US it would ramp up efforts to "stop online piracy" in China, though at about the same time, we also had noted that it had ramped up its online censorship apparatus. Once again, the two things go hand in hand, as China has shut down hundreds of sites, and put greater restrictions on the web, increasing the overall censorship via The Great Firewall of China. And... it's using copyright law as the excuse. Apparently some of the websites seized were distributing infringing files, so now China can claim that it's just doing the same thing the US is doing, when it puts massive restrictions on the internet and seizes websites.
US goes on offense against digital piracy
2011/05/28
By Rich Gardella and Jamie Forzato, NBC News
Amid growing calls for more government regulation of the Internet, the United States is conducting what it calls "a sustained law enforcement initiative aimed at counterfeiting and piracy" – an effort that already has resulted in arrests and the seizure of 125 websites.
snip
"American business is threatened by those who produce counterfeit trademarked goods and pirate copyrighted materials," ICE Director John Morton said Wednesday in a press release announcing the seizures. "From counterfeit pharmaceuticals and electronics to pirated movies, music, and software, IP thieves undermine the U.S. economy and jeopardize public safety. Our efforts through this operation successfully disrupt the ability of criminals to purvey counterfeit goods and copyrighted materials illegally over the Internet."
Of course, the owners of material deserve to be financially compensated for their work. There are other solutions to online piracy besides granting the government broad powers to shut down sites. Eric Schmidt of Google recommends "regulations based on tracing payments spent at websites offering illegal materials."
And who decides what is a "rogue" site?
We agree with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and many others who fear these bills will act to censor the internet. (hat tip Emily):
NOVEMBER 15, 2011 - 5:19PM | BY PARKER HIGGINS AND TREVOR TIMM An Explosion of Opposition to the Internet Blacklist Bill
On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the Stop Internet Piracy Act—where five witnesses will appear in favor of the bill to just one against—a broad group of tech companies, lawmakers, experts, professors, and rights groups have come out against the bill.
The statements, written by people from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions, incorporate many of the same broad themes: SOPA will threaten perfectly legal websites, stifle innovation, kill jobs, and substantially disrupt the infrastructure of the Internet. Here is a small sample of what they had to say:
A veritable Who's Who of tech giants—including Facebook, Google, Twitter, eBay, Yahoo, AOL and Mozilla—explicitly came out against both SOPA and PROTECT-IP in a letter to the ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees:
Who can blame the powers that be? The internet has functioned to shift power from a tiny minority of the world's population to the common man. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can ustream an event - and they do.
A free and open press is a threat to the rich and powerful. It is the same with the internet.
We are all reporters now.
__________________
"May the long time sun
Shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you
Guide your way on."
"Where your talents and the needs of the world cross, lies your calling."
Aristotle
“In a gentle way, you can shake the world.”
Mohandas Gandhi
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
"A key provision of the bill would give copyright owners the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice that the site is “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property” — even if no court has actually found any infringement.
The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt. Courts have always treated such cutoffs of revenue from speech as a suppression of that speech, and the silencing of expression in the absence of judicial review is a classic prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment."
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
This situation is nothing less than a war for access to information.
RIAA Thinking Of Backing Righthaven
from the can-they-get-any-more-out-of-touch dept
snip
"So, now the RIAA is realizing that Righthaven -- and in particular the Hoehn ruling, which lays out in great detail why the full use of a copyrighted offering can still be fair use -- is suddenly an important battlefront in its war on fair use. Just having the line from the case "wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use" freaks the RIAA out.
So we've now seen that RIAA's chief apologist litigator is suggesting that perhaps the RIAA is going to get involved in the fight (from an interview behind a paywall, so we'll just quote her words) concerning the fair use finding in Hoehn:
Newspaper Publisher Caves at Last, Agrees Excerpts of Articles Do Not Infringe Copyright
San Francisco - In a victory for fair use, the publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Stephens Media, filed papers yesterday conceding that posting a short excerpt of a news article in an online forum is not copyright infringement. The concession will result in entry of a judgment of non-infringement in a long-running copyright troll case that sparked the dismissal of dozens of baseless lawsuits filed by Righthaven LLC.
The case began when the online political forum Democratic Underground -- represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fenwick & West LLP, and attorney Chad Bowers -- was sued by Righthaven for a five-sentence excerpt of a Review-Journal news story that a user posted on the forum with a link back to the newspaper's website. Democratic Underground countersued, asking the court to rule that the excerpt did not infringe copyright and is a fair use of the material, and brought Righthaven-backer Stephens Media into the case.
The Court dismissed Righthaven's infringement case because it did not own the article, but Democratic Underground's counterclaim against Stephens Media continued. After initially attempting to defend the bogus assertion of copyright infringement, Stephens Media has now conceded it was incorrect.
"I knew the lawsuit was wrong from the start, and any self-respecting news publisher should have, too," said Democratic Underground founder David Allen. "I'm glad that they have finally admitted it."
"This concession comes after more than a year of needless litigation," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Stephens Media never should have authorized Righthaven to file this suit in the first place, and should never have wasted our client's and the court's time with its attempts to keep Righthaven's frivolous claim alive for the last year."
The original lawsuit against Democratic Underground was dismissed earlier this year, when Judge Hunt found that Righthaven did not have the legal authorization to bring a copyright lawsuit because it had never owned the copyright in the first place. Righthaven claimed that Stephens Media had transferred copyright to Righthaven before it filed the suit, but a document unearthed in this litigation -- the Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media -- showed that the copyright assignment was a sham, and that Righthaven was merely agreeing to undertake the newspaper's case at its own expense in exchange for a cut of the recovery. In addition to dismissing Righthaven's claim, Judge Hunt sanctioned Righthaven with fines and obligations to report to other judges its actual relationship with Stevens Media.
Righthaven has filed hundreds of copyright cases based on its sham copyright ownership claims. Despite several attempts by Righthaven and Stephens Media to re-write their Strategic Alliance Agreement, half a dozen judges have ruled against the scheme to turn copyright litigation into a business.
"This is a hard fought and important victory for free speech rights on the Internet," said Laurence Pulgram, the partner who led the team at Fenwick & West, LLP in San Francisco. "Unless we respond to such efforts to intimidate, we'll end up with an Internet that is far less fertile for the cultivation and discussion of the important issues that affect us all."
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
NOVEMBER 18, 2011
Are We All Online Criminals?
snip
The problem is that, under the Justice Department's expansive reading of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, underage Googling, or any other violation of a Terms of Service agreement, may well be a crime.
Not that the Justice Department will say so. Richard W. Downing, deputy chief of the Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section at the department's Criminal Division, assured lawmakers this week that it was silly to think prosecutors would use the CFAA for anything other than going after malicious hackers, data thieves and Internet con-artists. But given the growing threat of computer crime—a serious enough problem, as those who found their Facebook pages hijacked this week and filled with pornography and pictures of bludgeoned puppies will attest—the Obama administration wants the already broad CFAA made more robust.
As it stands, the statute allows punishment of anyone who "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. According to critics of the law, such as Prof. Kerr (himself once a computer-crime prosecutor at the Justice Department), that vague and broad statutory language makes it a federal offense to violate any Terms of Service agreement. Take the user compact for the dating site Match.com, which states "You will not provide inaccurate, misleading or false information…to any other Member." At the congressional hearing this week, Prof. Kerr argued that, given people's natural propensity to fudge when cataloging their physical assets, "Most Americans who have an Internet dating profile are criminals under the Justice Department's interpretation of the CFAA."
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
EU Court of Justice: Censorship in Name of Copyright Violates Fundamental Rights
Submitted on 24 November 2011
Paris, November 24th, 2011 — The European Court of Justice just rendered a historic decision in the Scarlet Extended case, which is crucial for the future of rights and freedoms on the Internet. The Court ruled that forcing Internet service providers to monitor and censor their users' communications violated EU law, and in particular the right to freedom of communication.
At a time of all-out offensive in the war against culture sharing online, this decision suggests that censorship measures requested by the entertainment industry are disproportionate means to enforce an outdated copyright regime. Policy-makers across Europe must take this decision into account by refusing new repressive schemes, such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and engage in a much needed reform of copyright.
Context: In this very important case, Belgian collecting society SABAM had asked Belgian Courts in 2004 to mandate broad censorship mechanisms to block all unauthorised transmissions of copyrighted works by ISP Scarlet's subscribers1. The Belgian judge devolved the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), asking EU judges the following question: “Does EU law allow a national judge to give an injunction for an ISP to filter preventatively all the electronic communications passing through its network?”
Analysis: In its final ruling2, the ECJ agrees to the advocate general's conclusions and stresses that such filtering measures have drastic consequences on freedom of expression and privacy. EU judges also stress that these measures disrespect the eCommerce directive's prohibition of any obligation imposed on ISPs to engage in general monitoring of their users communications.
Consequence: The ECJ ruling will have crucial consequence on Internet related law in all of the EU, especially now that the EU Parliament is starting to work on its consent vote on ACTA and as the Commission is working on the Copyright Enforcement Directive (IPRED).
“As the war on culture sharing is fiercer than ever, this ECJ ruling comes at a timely moment. After the Promusicae ruling3, it is a blow for the European Commission, which has implicitly supported the broad filtering schemes that the entertainment industries are pushing for4. The ruling stresses once again that instead of keeping on pushing for more repression EU policy maker should work towards a much needed reform of copyright that would protect citizens' freedoms. Rejecting ACTA and other extremist measures imposed in the name of copyright would be a first step.”, said Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder and spokesperson of citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net.
Beyond copyright, this decision also underlines the dangers of Net filtering and calls for an important democratic debate regarding their disproportionate nature.
“After the report of the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression pointing out the dangers of Net censorship, this ruling is another wake-up call. The relentless extension of filtering to new fields must be stopped, and lawmakers across Europe must commit to repealing any law enforcement measure that disrespects fundamental rights.”, concluded Jérémie Zimmermann.
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
European Parliament rapporteur quits in Acta protest
Negotiations over a controversial anti-piracy agreement have been described as a "masquerade" by a key Euro MP.
Kader Arif, the European Parliament's rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta), resigned over the issue on Friday.
He said he had witnessed "never-before-seen manoeuvres" by officials preparing the treaty.
On Thursday, 22 EU member states including the UK signed the agreement.
Twitter's new censorship plan rouses global furor
By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- Twitter, a tool of choice for dissidents and activists around the world, found itself the target of global outrage Friday after unveiling plans to allow country-specific censorship of tweets that might break local laws.
It was a stunning role reversal for a youthful company that prides itself in promoting unfettered expression, 140 characters at a time. Twitter insisted its commitment to free speech remains firm, and sought to explain the nuances of its policy, while critics - in a barrage of tweets - proposed a Twitter boycott and demanded that the censorship initiative be scrapped...
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Read this in full - Ro
Unhandled Exception
Building Better Internets
The Truth about Aaron Swartz’s “Crime”
January 12, 2013
By Alex Stamos
I did not know Aaron Swartz, unless you count having copies of a person’s entire digital life on your forensics server as knowing him. I did once meet his father, an intelligent and dedicated man who was clearly pouring his life into defending his son. My deepest condolences go out to him and the rest of Aaron’s family during what must be the hardest time of their lives.
If the good that men do is oft interred with their bones, so be it, but in the meantime I feel a responsibility to correct some of the erroneous information being posted as comments to otherwise informative discussions at Reddit, Hacker News and Boing Boing. Apparently some people feel the need to self-aggrandize by opining on the guilt of the recently departed, and I wanted to take this chance to speak on behalf of a man who can no longer defend himself. I had hoped to ask Aaron to discuss these issues on the Defcon stage once he was acquitted, but now that he has passed it is important that his memory not be besmirched by the ignorant and uninformed. I have confirmed with Aaron’s attorneys that I am free to discuss these issues now that the criminal case is moot.
I was the expert witness on Aaron’s side of US vs Swartz, engaged by his attorneys last year to help prepare a defense for his April trial. Until Keker Van Nest called iSEC Partners I had very little knowledge of Aaron’s plight, and although we have spoken at or attended many of the same events we had never once met.
... http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-...swartzs-crime/
__________________
Twitter: @RonanKelly13
The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
An enormous tradgedy. The world will miss a man such as this. Let us hope that enough people have been sufficiently motivated to continue to defend the freedom of the internet following his example.
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Thanks Ronan for posting that. I agree Vibrant. There are so many testaments about Mr. Schwartz's contribution to the internet that I had a hard time deciding what to choose. In the end, I selected his own words above. Please watch it. It is a bit of internet and freedom history.
We offer our sincere condolences to his friends and family. Both of my children are close to his age. I can not imagine the loss his parents are feeling.
I would add to our story to his fight, also, against the tyranny of those who want to control the internet. Before SOPA and PIPA there was Righthaven. This was a partnership between a law firm and a newspaper located in Nevada. In 2010 they began a campaign against the freedom of the internet by claiming copyright infringement and suing, without any prior contact, various bloggers, forum operators, news aggregators in federal court. In total they filed 275 suits.
We were the only non-profit or forum to stand up to the "Righthaven Experiment" by voicing publicly in June 2011 the damaging impact that this new model of internet control had on public health. This move was not without risk. We had over 380,000 posts on FluTrackers at that time. The statutory damages for copyright infringement are between $200-$150,000 USD for each instance. Righthaven was asking for $50,000-$150,000 per case plus attorney fees.
We had a choice - close FT, delete thousands of threads, or stand up and fight. We chose to fight. In 2010 I contacted Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic at Berkman Center and they agreed to represent us pro bono if we were sued. I made moves in my personal life to prevent my family from suffering if I lost a legal battle in federal court. While I can not possibly know what Mr. Schwartz was experiencing with the threat of federal prison, it was really unnerving to think I could be sued in federal court for literally millions of dollars. For about a month I was physically ill over this prospect. Then the judges began to rule against Righthaven as case after case began to be heard. With each new ruling defining fair use in our favor, I began to feel better. Righthaven is now defunct. Many of the cases they instigated have been dismissed. The defendants have been awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, complaints were filed with the attorney licensing entity in Nevada against at least 1 attorney working at Righthaven.
All of you can be proud of the role that you have played in defending our right to speak freely on the internet. Every time you post here or read here you are reaffirming this right.
And this is what Mr. Schwartz worked for.
__________________
"May the long time sun
Shine upon you,
All love surround you,
And the pure light within you
Guide your way on."
"Where your talents and the needs of the world cross, lies your calling."
Aristotle
“In a gentle way, you can shake the world.”
Mohandas Gandhi
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Why We Should Remember Aaron Swartz
By Brendan Greeley on January 13, 2013
snip
Swartz wasn’t an anarchist. He came to believe that copyright law had been abused, and was being used to close off what, by law, should be open. It is hard to find fault with his logic, and there is much to admire in a man who, rather than become a small god of the valley, was willing to court punishment to prove a point. The world will have no trouble remembering Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, and this is as it should be. But it should remember, too, people like Aaron Swartz, the ones who make those empires possible.
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
software,music,books,science-articles,patents, should be paid by an international information-buying organisation
from tax-money and then put into the public domain. (IMO)
How much to be paid for what and what country contributes how much to the fund,
that is still debatable. It should be made in a way to make the transition smoothly.
The taxing organisations (currently governments) would try to
tax particularly those higher who benefit most from such free information
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Tim Wu: what if we'd treated Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak the way we treated Aaron Swartz?
Cory Doctorow at 5:47 pm Tue, Jan 15
snip
In this sense, Swartz must be compared to two other eccentric geniuses, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, who, in the nineteen-seventies, committed crimes similar to, but more economically damaging than, Swartz’s. Those two men hacked A.T. & T.’s telephone system to make free long-distance calls, and actually sold the illegal devices (blue boxes) to make cash. Their mentor, John Draper, did go to jail for a few months (where he wrote one of the world’s first word processors), but Jobs and Wozniak were never prosecuted. Instead, they got bored of phreaking and built a computer. The great ones almost always operate at the edge.
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
“Aaron's law,” Congressional investigation in wake of Swartz suicide
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act would be amended to exclude EULA violations.
by Timothy B. Lee - Jan 16 2013, 11:04 am EST
snip
On Tuesday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) took to the pages of reddit to introduce legislation she dubbed "Aaron's Law." Lofgren's bill would modify the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the basis for Swartz's prosecution,
snip
Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has told the Huffington Post that he is investigating the actions of the US Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts, led by Carmen Ortiz.
"I’m not condoning [Swartz's] hacking, but he’s certainly someone who worked very hard,” Issa said. “Had he been a journalist and taken that same material that he gained from MIT, he would have been praised for it. It would have been like the Pentagon Papers."
snip
The Obama administration is also facing grassroots pressure to fire Ortiz. A petition asking for Ortiz's removal has attracted more than 35,000 signatures, easily clearing the 25,000 signatures needed for an official response from the White House.
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Das Ende des Urheberrechts" Ein Blick auf das neue Mega
Einige US-Medien haben einen Testzugang zu Mega erhalten und den Sharehoster ausprobiert. Gizmodo meint: "Dieser Dienst könnte das Urheberrecht für immer demontieren."
(this service could destruct copyright once and forever)
The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our staff to manually review each post.
The content of posts on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original authors or posters and are not endorsed by, or representative of the opinions of, the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author or poster and should not be construed as statements of advice or factual information.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. NO posts on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. FluTrackers.com Inc. reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, FluTrackers.com Inc. disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall FluTrackers.com Inc. be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Finally, FluTrackers.com Inc. reserves the right to delete, correct, or make changes to any post on this website without notice at any time for any reason.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to public health, civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 1 paragraph, and in no case more than 50% of the source material provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article. Please remember you are responsible for what you post on the internet and you could be sued by the original copyright holder if you do not honor these rules.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "Fair Use" and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright
we may be contacted concerning copyright matters at:
FluTrackers.com Inc.
c/o Sharon Sanders
1676 Hibiscus Avenue
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Phone: 407-745-1513
E-Mail: flutrackers@earthlink.net
In accordance with section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act our contact information has been registered with the United States Copyright Office. "Safe Harbor" noticing procedures as outlined in the DMCA apply to this website concerning all 3rd party posts published herein.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is the copyright of the respective owners / authors. FluTrackers.com Inc. makes no claim of copyright on such material.
For more information please visit:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
FluTrackers Does Not Provide Any Medical Advice:
FluTrackers, Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
By using and/or accessing this site, either passively or actively, you are agreeing to all of the above conditions. Also, by using and/or accessing this site, either passively or actively, you agree to conduct all business and legal affairs related to this website in the jurisdiction of Flutrackers.com Inc. which is registered in Central Florida, USA.
These Disclaimers are subject to change at anytime.
Email the Webmaster with questions or comments about this site at flutrackers@earthlink.net
An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Re: An Attempt to Censor the Internet in the United States - PROTECT IP Act - Stop Online Piracy Act
Linear Mode
