com.apple.iBooksX Cookies Hack

Here is how Daesh (US/UK/Australia) plagiarists hacked my computer and stole my work.  There is another program known as "Persona" which makes this job much easier.  AI writing programs handle the rest.  This is a US-backed operation overseen by agents at WGAW and beyond.

cook âÏA ê i 8CIKÄ 6[¿A! …øA.apple.comxp_ci/3z1pBr7ZzH23z4tMzAx0zewxPPrgrc 8CIKÄ 6[¿A! …øA.apple.comxp_ab/1#isj11bm+3598+17Eg4xa0U 8CJLÄ 6[¿A! …øA.apple.comxp_abc/17Eg4xa0O8CJL]™øA- …øA.apple.comitspod/48Ç 8CO\5%…øA- …øA.apple.comns-mzf-inst/WebObjects/179-33-443-215-60-8128-482485-48-st13 | Kbplist00— _ NSHTTPCookieAcceptPolicy & (

© Copyright 2018, The Cyberculturalist

RIAA Buys Anti-Streaming Bill

The RIAA bribed a string of politicos to pass a bill making embedding copyrighted videos a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Many of the paid-off fascists were Democrats, which comes as no surprise to most of us in and out of the entertainment industry, which has bought and paid for many Democrats in and out of office.

PCWorld has more on the devastating bill, which further cripples American culture.

Just do meth, kids. It's really all you've got.

© C Harris Lynn, 2011

About You

Seth Godin has five, simple rules for your About Me page today -- which is a damn good subject, since Blogger now has specific pages (where it did not before).  I've been meaning to post one, both on the blogs and the website itself, I just really didn't know what to say or include.

Like many people, I can bullshit with the best -- tell a decent story, write a thoughtful article, whatever -- but when it comes to talking about myself, I just go blank.  I tend to default to the Likes/Turn-Offs information -- bands, movies, and entertainment I like, and... you know, something about, like, not knowing what a Justin Bieber is and stuff.  While Godin's article is largely the type of thing you'll read and go, "Duh," it really helps (me) to have the obvious broken-down and pointed-out.

Customer Collective followed-up Godin's post with steps on creating [link removed - ed.] an About (You, the Reader) profile to aid in building a community around your blog readership, which many of you should find useful.  The Cyberculturalist is less about that sort of thing than documenting the Web in context, but I'm certainly not against it.

I guess I should qualify that by saying that this is not a "business"-based blog -- that is, a blog created with the purpose of selling/marketing anything -- so I want the community to grow organically, and on its own.  I invite you all to participate, I just don't want to explain to you the best way to go about doing so -- if that makes any sense.  Allowing the community to grow without my input is part of what this blog is all about.

Anyway, enjoy the articles, as both are good.

© C Harris Lynn, 2010

UPDATE:  You could always just download the Persona App from iTunes... should one be so inclined.  I hear great things about it... through the grapevine. - 2018

Judge Allows Movie Rights Holders to Subpoena ISPs

A federal judge allowed the holders to the rights of a German movie to subpoena ISPs for the names of Internet users who downloaded the movie.  The ruling also grants the holders the right to subpoena individual users, while simultaneously quashing individuals' requests to block the move.  The ruling held that Internet subscribers do not have a right to privacy once they submit their personal information to an ISP.

The case regards a German video game adaptation entitled Far Cry.

© C Harris Lynn, 2010

More Lawyers Trying to Shakedown 'Pirates'

A group of U.S.-based lawyers has disingenuously established themselves as the "U.S. Copyright Group" in an attempt to shakedown BitTorrent users who have downloaded obscure, independent films too shitty to make money legitimately. The same can be said of lawyers, but I digress...

This group of shysters is nothing more than a group of attorneys working for a handful of nobody filmmakers - both groups nothing but a bunch of talentless hacks - who are seeking to force individuals into settling out of court "to save money." They have also bought a disingenuous domain name, "savecinema.org," which suggests the collective is non-profit - which it obviously is not. Further, several ISPs have cooperated with them, at the tune of $60 per user revealed, thus creating a financial incentive for other ISPs to follow suit.

The truth is that studies have shown people who download movies and music illegally are almost twice as likely to purchase the actual product as those who do not. But, beyond even that, the harder truth is that the entertainment industry is one which has become accustomed to making billions of dollars, and simply refuses to be content making hundreds of millions; without the pointless packaging and other, useless "features," the entertainment industry would not be able to command the extortive mark-up on its inferior product. Still, at just under $1.00 a pop through Amazon, iTunes, and similar services, entire albums cost more digitally than traditionally, so this is more about the lawyers making money than the entertainment industry.

The Cyberculturalist stringently urges individuals and ISPs not to cooperate with the "U.S. Copyright Group." People like these are the real pirates. While The Cyberculturalist does not support the illegal sharing of copyrighted material, we also do not advocate corrupt legal endeavors - and we're just not cynical enough to throw our hands up and say, "Well, they're all corrupt, so what can we do?"

Netflix costs less than $10.00/month, and Hulu and Fancast are free. You can also find streaming media on most TV stations' sites, and many bands make singles available for free download as publicity. Many of the better companies also make artists' videos available on YouTube and social networking sites for the same reason. You really don't need to illegally share material, even if you are poor!

Regardless, you sure as hell do not have to pay the "U.S. Copyright Group" a single, red cent.

© C Harris Lynn, 2010

Protecting the Public Domain

Major Web companies oppose Britain's proposed Digital Copyright bill because of a provision which would allow lawmakers to change the copyright laws in the future. Some people, both online and off-, don't appreciate how artists and creators use works in the public domain and, as a creator who employs both free-license works and those in the public domain, I wanted to explain this a bit:

As a creator, I certainly believe we should be allowed to profit from our work. While others, particularly young creators, don't fully appreciate this, it's largely due to a lack of understanding. Being paid for your work does not necessarily invalidate the work - in fact, in other industries, being paid more for your work actually indicates you do it better than those who get paid less! Of course, it goes without saying that some artists will farm-out their work (hire "ringers" to "fill-in" for them), allow the quality of their product to slip, and so on - basically lose their integrity, or simply sell it.

The law of public domain basically says that a work is protected by copyright for 50-70 years from the creator's death. This allows his family, estate, et.al., to continue to reap the benefits of that work after his death. In a country which holds families responsible for dead peoples' debts, this can be important! But more importantly, all fathers and families want to provide for their friends and loved ones, and this allows them a chance to do so - consider how many artists/creators, and/or their works, become posthumously famous!

But there are all sorts of impediments which cause setbacks and can even kill projects. Material in the public domain can often alleviate these problems. For instance, many of the pictures on the site are from free-licensed works or works in the public domain. Creating similar works from scratch would take far longer than it does to modify free ones - when it is even possible! This is not necessarily an "easy way out." Actually, some of the works I modified for use took hours - even days! - and I specifically chose to go that route because something about those original works inspired the finished products.

Further, there are some images that are really more about the content than the execution: if I want to include the image of a castle in ruins, a drawing is less powerful - not to mention removing it from context - it also may not be that important. The picture of Eastgate (Chill) is neither completely representative of that section of Vincent nor modified; it was only included to suggest - to hopefully inspire the correct imagery in players' minds - and because of this, there was no need to waste much-needed resources on creating an original work to accomplish this. This is one of the best reasons for public domain!

We've all seen documentaries which include public domain film to illustrate something - such as the mindset of the time, or to simply show the subject. Probably the best, and most oft-used (to my mind and taste), is the use of scenes from Nosferatu whenever the subject of vampires, and especially films about vampires, is discussed. While the title vampire bears no resemblance to modern-day pop-fiction vampires, the imagery is striking and resonant, and communicates volumes about the subject without words. Literally showing a few frames of this film allows the narrator to conserve hundreds, even thousands, of words and move forward in the discussion - it saves time, it communicates effectively, and on this level, it makes for better work!

So while I am completely for rewarding the creator/artist for his work, I am also for protecting the public domain for these, and many other, reasons. Last, but far from least, many of these works would have already disappeared, were they not in the public domain!

© C Harris Lynn, 2009