|
On October 07 2010 03:54 alexpnd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 03:30 Precipice wrote:
This is remarkable. There's a bill being passed to allow for the enforcement of copyright infringement, and the whole lot of you are throwing up arguments about "Freedom". This has relatively little to do with a loss of rights and a whole lot more to do with an enforcement of laws.
I also find it ironic that while this bill is, if it is any violation of liberty, a violation of what is known as the "negative" form of liberty; that is, liberty that exists as the absence of control (due to an increased measure of control). What is ironic is that the majority of people raging about this "violation of liberty" are raging about the application of "positive liberty" or the idea that liberty must be achieved internally and with the help of others or government. Basically, I find it insulting to see people rant about liberty without any realistic understanding of "what" freedom is. I find it dismally tragic that people are throwing around the term "liberty" like it's something with an easy, common, shared definition; as opposed to admitting the fact that if you've been using torrents you've been breaking the law.
Sure the bill can be abused, just about every damned bill can be abused. What is fundamental is that the bill's job is to enforce what is essentially already law. I doubt that it would be intelligent for the government to fail to make laws which stay up to date with growing technology.
Lastly, perhaps the greatest demonstration that this conversation lacks grounding knowledge is the fact that both liberals and conservatives are blaming the *other* group for this. Then again, in the 21st century, you're entitled to everything and shouldn't have to pay for products which come from the hard work of others. I understand yet I disagree on some parts. Primarily in the condescending tone, as if you are fully knowledgeable on all the implications of this bill. I personally hate/distrust Hollywood so I don't download movies. I do download books however. What's the difference between a book I download and a book I get from the library, or borrow from a friend? I don't see a difference. In particular, and as reparation for your seething quest for justice, if that book I downloaded helps me secure a job or improves the economy in some fashion, would it still be a bad idea? If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea? If I actually like it and buy it for display in my personal library? Lastly the author who wished to divulge his sense of reality, knowledge and opinions unto his readers has his wish fulfilled. I think it's a good idea to share books.
Given the extent to which it is difficult enough for most authors to make a living just by writing, I'd say you do a disservice to the people who write books too. Especially given that there are multiple programs available which would let you download them from home while still supporting the author. Obviously you can make the claim that it's all these companies that get the money as opposed to the author, and you would be correct to a point. That point is where the author still relies on the commercialization of his product in order to subsist. I think that your note about the possible benefits of someone reading a book are irrelevant given the slippery slope of that topic. If you don't pay for the book, in our societies current design, there's a point at which the book does not get made.
I think that the construction of your argument in such moments as, "If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea," is a perfect demonstration of my point that when it comes to such terms as liberty and independence, people are using them without much of an understanding of their historic or modern meanings.
I feel your critique of my tone in the first post is valid; I would suggest that my frustration in this thread is equally valid.
This will likely be my last post in this thread in order to avoid the shit storm that I can see coming out of this.
|
The government being able to enforce copyright infringement over the internet is a good idea and should be pursued to that end.
This bill, however, is giving a single media company (ClearChannel, research them if you want to have an afternoon of amusement) the ability to "sick the dog" on anything they can construe as slight copyright infringement.
The concept is sound, but the bill itself is nothing but giving corporations even more control over government.
|
On October 07 2010 04:05 Precipice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 03:54 alexpnd wrote:On October 07 2010 03:30 Precipice wrote:
This is remarkable. There's a bill being passed to allow for the enforcement of copyright infringement, and the whole lot of you are throwing up arguments about "Freedom". This has relatively little to do with a loss of rights and a whole lot more to do with an enforcement of laws.
I also find it ironic that while this bill is, if it is any violation of liberty, a violation of what is known as the "negative" form of liberty; that is, liberty that exists as the absence of control (due to an increased measure of control). What is ironic is that the majority of people raging about this "violation of liberty" are raging about the application of "positive liberty" or the idea that liberty must be achieved internally and with the help of others or government. Basically, I find it insulting to see people rant about liberty without any realistic understanding of "what" freedom is. I find it dismally tragic that people are throwing around the term "liberty" like it's something with an easy, common, shared definition; as opposed to admitting the fact that if you've been using torrents you've been breaking the law.
Sure the bill can be abused, just about every damned bill can be abused. What is fundamental is that the bill's job is to enforce what is essentially already law. I doubt that it would be intelligent for the government to fail to make laws which stay up to date with growing technology.
Lastly, perhaps the greatest demonstration that this conversation lacks grounding knowledge is the fact that both liberals and conservatives are blaming the *other* group for this. Then again, in the 21st century, you're entitled to everything and shouldn't have to pay for products which come from the hard work of others. I understand yet I disagree on some parts. Primarily in the condescending tone, as if you are fully knowledgeable on all the implications of this bill. I personally hate/distrust Hollywood so I don't download movies. I do download books however. What's the difference between a book I download and a book I get from the library, or borrow from a friend? I don't see a difference. In particular, and as reparation for your seething quest for justice, if that book I downloaded helps me secure a job or improves the economy in some fashion, would it still be a bad idea? If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea? If I actually like it and buy it for display in my personal library? Lastly the author who wished to divulge his sense of reality, knowledge and opinions unto his readers has his wish fulfilled. I think it's a good idea to share books. Given the extent to which it is difficult enough for most authors to make a living just by writing, I'd say you do a disservice to the people who write books too. Especially given that there are multiple programs available which would let you download them from home while still supporting the author. Obviously you can make the claim that it's all these companies that get the money as opposed to the author, and you would be correct to a point. That point is where the author still relies on the commercialization of his product in order to subsist. I think that your note about the possible benefits of someone reading a book are irrelevant given the slippery slope of that topic. If you don't pay for the book, in our societies current design, there's a point at which the book does not get made. I think that the construction of your argument in such moments as, "If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea," is a perfect demonstration of my point that when it comes to such terms as liberty and independence, people are using them without much of an understanding of their historic or modern meanings. I feel your critique of my tone in the first post is valid; I would suggest that my frustration in this thread is equally valid. This will likely be my last post in this thread in order to avoid the shit storm that I can see coming out of this.
I don't think you should leave the thread. You're right about the slippery slope, but you can't deny hard copies are not being sold. Look at Glenn Beck lol. I buy hard copies when I have to have it. Most books I download are in fact free from copyright. The thing I worry about is regression in technology in favor of copyright. I want a solution where copyright is retained with an infrastructure that is flexible and fast as it is today.
|
On October 07 2010 02:40 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 02:17 FaZe wrote:
Honestly, the idea that they would even consider this bill is rediculous. They are giving the media / corporations even MORE control over the populace than they already have. It's a bill that's fueled by greed. Corporations want to continue the trend of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. The interests of the people are ignored, and the corporations continue to make unbelievable profits.
Do you really think companies like Universal Music or Warner need protection? Some media moguls are worth billions now. Billions. You can bet your ass that Joe Schmo in his basement producing his own records isn't going to be the one to profit from this. It's going to be the people who already have the money to bring these issues to court.
At this rate, capitalism will not longer be able to exist within the poor semblance of democracy that we currently live with. It will simply replace it. Since when are acts of congress capitalism?
ANSWERS BELOW
COICA
In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.
If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media copanies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed form the internet and not just in the US.
On October 07 2010 04:12 Ympulse wrote:
The government being able to enforce copyright infringement over the internet is a good idea and should be pursued to that end.
This bill, however, is giving a single media company (ClearChannel, research them if you want to have an afternoon of amusement) the ability to "sick the dog" on anything they can construe as slight copyright infringement.
If you think what the government does isn't influenced by money and corporations ... then you're just naive.
|
On October 07 2010 04:37 FaZe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 02:40 Yurebis wrote:On October 07 2010 02:17 FaZe wrote:
Honestly, the idea that they would even consider this bill is rediculous. They are giving the media / corporations even MORE control over the populace than they already have. It's a bill that's fueled by greed. Corporations want to continue the trend of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. The interests of the people are ignored, and the corporations continue to make unbelievable profits.
Do you really think companies like Universal Music or Warner need protection? Some media moguls are worth billions now. Billions. You can bet your ass that Joe Schmo in his basement producing his own records isn't going to be the one to profit from this. It's going to be the people who already have the money to bring these issues to court.
At this rate, capitalism will not longer be able to exist within the poor semblance of democracy that we currently live with. It will simply replace it. Since when are acts of congress capitalism? ANSWERS BELOW Show nested quote +COICA
In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.
If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media copanies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed form the internet and not just in the US.
Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 04:12 Ympulse wrote:
The government being able to enforce copyright infringement over the internet is a good idea and should be pursued to that end.
This bill, however, is giving a single media company (ClearChannel, research them if you want to have an afternoon of amusement) the ability to "sick the dog" on anything they can construe as slight copyright infringement. If you think what the government does isn't influenced by money and corporations ... then you're just naive.
It's still contingent on congressional action.
Would you also call the Federal Reserve private?
edit: Sorry, the Federal Reserve System
|
On October 07 2010 01:34 Rev0lution wrote:
Isn't the provision unconstituttional? Wouldn't websites invoke free speech?
Yes, this bill is very unconstitutional but that's for the courts to decide. Congress can literally pass any bill they want and the bill will get enforced until a case reaches a Federal court that overturns the bill as unconstitutional. Line-item veto is a good real world example. They could pass this bill, use it to shut down sites like Demonoid, and then we could see it repealed in a year by the Supreme Court. Regardless it will still lead to at least some websites being shut down (and since Viacom is backing this bill I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube is targeted if the bill goes through).
On October 07 2010 02:53 Losticus wrote:
You useful idiots on the left outraged by this bill (including the "Progressive" org being linked) -- do realize it's the left, lead by Obama himself -- promoting regulation and control of the internet?
Glad to see you, too, see the horrendous fruits that your ideology bares. Big government and Statism invariably leads to tyranny and loss of freedom. Let's hope this is stopped.
I had to quote this simply because this is one of the most ignorant things I've seen posted on this thread. Let's ignore for a second the net neutrality issue in which it was Liberals in the Senate and House who were siding with us internet geeks while Conservatives were cool with corporations and ISPs deciding which websites get traffic and which websites don't.
Let's look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill. I'll start off by saying that yeah, the bill is sponsored by a Democrat from Vermont. So one would assume that this is being put out there by Democrats, or if you watch Fox News, that this is apart of the "Liberal agenda!" But hold on a second, there are 16 co-sponsors. Of those co-sponsors 10 of them are Democrats and 6 are Republicans. For starters, having 16 co-sponsors is actually quite a bit for a bill in the Senate. Having a fairly even number of Democrats and Republicans co-sponsoring a bill like this one also isn't very common.
While Conservatives could once claim that they were for small government, that doesn't exist anymore. The Republicans and Democrats are both big government, you need only look at the policies of the last few Republican Presidents to see this demonstrated effectively. This isn't a discussion of Liberals vs. Conservatives as it's both Liberals and Conservatives trying to get this passed in the Senate.
Let's not forget that loss of freedom is frequently committed by Conservatives.
|
This was inevitable in the USA, all other forms of media are heavily controlled, why wouldn't they do the same for the internet?
Just look at all of the conspiracy theories you can learn about on the internet that put the US government in a bad light: JFK, moon landing, cold war, cuba, 9/11, Bilderbergs, Illumanati, Rothschild banking dynasty, alien cover ups, I could really go on and on.
How much can you learn about these things in other forms of media, such as newspapers, books, magazines, and TV? Not much, if at all, and when it does come up it is almost always one sided in favor of the government. Books are probably the next best source to the internet, but the government already knows that the majority is too lazy and stupid to read, so they are not so concerned about books.
Whatever your opinion is on any of these conspiracy theories does not matter, what matters is that the information is available and people are free to make up their own mind.
When you have the government teaching history to everyone, and then censoring all other forms of information as they see fit, it can become very dangerous very quickly. Honestly I think the USA is already too brainwashed for this to matter, but they are still going to do this to "secure the win". They don't want anyone spending too much time on the internet and waking up, as many already have.
|
Speaking of useful idiots, anyone who still buys into the two party bullshit needs to get a clue. This is not democrat vs. republican, it never was, that is just a tool for control. The tried and true divide and conquer technique. It works oh so well.
|
[B]On October 07 2010 05:45 overt wrote: Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 02:53 Losticus wrote:
You useful idiots on the left outraged by this bill (including the "Progressive" org being linked) -- do realize it's the left, lead by Obama himself -- promoting regulation and control of the internet?
Glad to see you, too, see the horrendous fruits that your ideology bares. Big government and Statism invariably leads to tyranny and loss of freedom. Let's hope this is stopped. I had to quote this simply because this is one of the most ignorant things I've seen posted on this thread.
1-What I said about Obama is factually correct, and in reference to something far more worrisome on the internet front. Instead of worrying about a copyright law, I'm a bit more distraught over the Obama Administration's push to have executive power to shut down parts of the internet, on a whim. http://www.startribune.com/nation/103836983.html http://www.infowars.com/big-sis-to-get-expanded-role-in-policing-internet/
2-Besides laying the blame of deteriorating freedom at the correct feet -- I'm also scoffing at the selective concern leftists have over 'freedom.' Obama is Bush on steroids in all the wrong ways, yet if Bush did half the things Obama's done in the last year and a half, your guys' heads would be exploding. You know all that shit moonbats made-up and screamed about for the last decade re: civil liberties, Bush is a fascist, etc. to score political points? Well now that's actually true, and these same people are silent. Because it isn't abuse of power that bothers them, it's when they aren't the ones doing it.
3-Did I say this was a partisan issue? That Reps have a great track record on liberty? Bush was big government too. I'm a libertarian-conservative, not a Republican, and Bush/McCain are no small government conservatives.
|
I'm kind of a libertarian-conservative myself.
|
On October 07 2010 06:06 Losticus wrote:Show nested quote +[B]On October 07 2010 05:45 overt wrote: On October 07 2010 02:53 Losticus wrote:
You useful idiots on the left outraged by this bill (including the "Progressive" org being linked) -- do realize it's the left, lead by Obama himself -- promoting regulation and control of the internet?
Glad to see you, too, see the horrendous fruits that your ideology bares. Big government and Statism invariably leads to tyranny and loss of freedom. Let's hope this is stopped. I had to quote this simply because this is one of the most ignorant things I've seen posted on this thread. 1-What I said about Obama is factually correct, and in reference to something far more worrisome on the internet front. Instead of worrying about a copyright law, I'm a bit more distraught over the Obama Administration's push to have executive power to shut down parts of the internet, on a whim. http://www.startribune.com/nation/103836983.html http://www.infowars.com/big-sis-to-get-expanded-role-in-policing-internet/2-Besides laying the blame of deteriorating freedom at the correct feet -- I'm also scoffing at the selective concern leftists have over 'freedom.' Obama is Bush on steroids in all the wrong ways, yet if Bush did half the things Obama's done in the last year and a half, your guys' heads would be exploding. You know all that shit moonbats made-up and screamed about for the last decade re: civil liberties, Bush is a fascist, etc. to score political points? Well now that's actually true, and these same people are silent. Because it isn't abuse of power that bothers them, it's when they aren't the ones doing it. 3-Did I say this was a partisan issue? That Reps have a great track record on liberty? Bush was big government too. I'm a libertarian-conservative, not a Republican, and Bush/McCain are no small government conservatives.
Will this be abused? Probably
Will the once abused sue for a shit ton of money? Probably
Truthfully I have mixed feelings, on the one had I like the thought stopping piracy and theft, on the other, I feel uncomfortable with the possible abuse.
1. The left has been pissed at Obama for a while. Obama even made a reference to them as “the professional Left”
2. I know I forgetting a lot, but this is just off my head. You see the left has been pissed as well.
a. Not going after those who authorized the torture of ksm-left pissed
b. No trials in NY-left pissed
c. Re-enstating patriot act-left pissed
d. Mandate with no public option-left pissed
e. Slow on repeal of DADT-left pissed
3. No True Scotsman’s fallacy, but you put all the blame on Obama, which is completely unfair considering its congress that is writing the bill
|
wait, you live in America and you thought you were free to begin with?
|
On October 07 2010 06:45 whiteguycash wrote:
wait, you live in America and you thought you were free to begin with?
While true, America has never been "free", people here get some heavy indoctrination about how amazingly free we are starting at an early age. So it is perfectly normal for them to think they are free. Unfortunately.
|
I wish there was a law against posting self-important gobbledegook on the internet.
|
I was not trying to start some stupid debate over left/right, I merely wanted to point out that this was not a Liberal policy or even a Liberal/Conservative issue. Also, Obama isn't even involved with this bill and he won't be until he either makes a statement on it or if the bill is passed if he approves or vetoes it later.
Sure, you aren't "free" in America just like you'll never be "free" in any country. Stop acting like it's some huge deal though, we have far more civil liberties in America than just about any other country. If there are liberties you wish you had, but don't, then please point them out. Actually, don't point them out anyways because this thread is about the COICA bill and not about whether or not we're actually free in America.
|
On October 07 2010 04:12 alexpnd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 04:05 Precipice wrote:On October 07 2010 03:54 alexpnd wrote:On October 07 2010 03:30 Precipice wrote:
This is remarkable. There's a bill being passed to allow for the enforcement of copyright infringement, and the whole lot of you are throwing up arguments about "Freedom". This has relatively little to do with a loss of rights and a whole lot more to do with an enforcement of laws.
I also find it ironic that while this bill is, if it is any violation of liberty, a violation of what is known as the "negative" form of liberty; that is, liberty that exists as the absence of control (due to an increased measure of control). What is ironic is that the majority of people raging about this "violation of liberty" are raging about the application of "positive liberty" or the idea that liberty must be achieved internally and with the help of others or government. Basically, I find it insulting to see people rant about liberty without any realistic understanding of "what" freedom is. I find it dismally tragic that people are throwing around the term "liberty" like it's something with an easy, common, shared definition; as opposed to admitting the fact that if you've been using torrents you've been breaking the law.
Sure the bill can be abused, just about every damned bill can be abused. What is fundamental is that the bill's job is to enforce what is essentially already law. I doubt that it would be intelligent for the government to fail to make laws which stay up to date with growing technology.
Lastly, perhaps the greatest demonstration that this conversation lacks grounding knowledge is the fact that both liberals and conservatives are blaming the *other* group for this. Then again, in the 21st century, you're entitled to everything and shouldn't have to pay for products which come from the hard work of others. I understand yet I disagree on some parts. Primarily in the condescending tone, as if you are fully knowledgeable on all the implications of this bill. I personally hate/distrust Hollywood so I don't download movies. I do download books however. What's the difference between a book I download and a book I get from the library, or borrow from a friend? I don't see a difference. In particular, and as reparation for your seething quest for justice, if that book I downloaded helps me secure a job or improves the economy in some fashion, would it still be a bad idea? If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea? If I actually like it and buy it for display in my personal library? Lastly the author who wished to divulge his sense of reality, knowledge and opinions unto his readers has his wish fulfilled. I think it's a good idea to share books. Given the extent to which it is difficult enough for most authors to make a living just by writing, I'd say you do a disservice to the people who write books too. Especially given that there are multiple programs available which would let you download them from home while still supporting the author. Obviously you can make the claim that it's all these companies that get the money as opposed to the author, and you would be correct to a point. That point is where the author still relies on the commercialization of his product in order to subsist. I think that your note about the possible benefits of someone reading a book are irrelevant given the slippery slope of that topic. If you don't pay for the book, in our societies current design, there's a point at which the book does not get made. I think that the construction of your argument in such moments as, "If it furthers my independence and saves energy for the rest of the people (including yourself) to use would it still be a bad idea," is a perfect demonstration of my point that when it comes to such terms as liberty and independence, people are using them without much of an understanding of their historic or modern meanings. I feel your critique of my tone in the first post is valid; I would suggest that my frustration in this thread is equally valid. This will likely be my last post in this thread in order to avoid the shit storm that I can see coming out of this. I don't think you should leave the thread. You're right about the slippery slope, but you can't deny hard copies are not being sold. Look at Glenn Beck lol. I buy hard copies when I have to have it. Most books I download are in fact free from copyright. The thing I worry about is regression in technology in favor of copyright. I want a solution where copyright is retained with an infrastructure that is flexible and fast as it is today.
Sorry I've been asleep for several hours (I'm extremely sick at the moment).
I think that your desire for something *better* is most appropriate. I'll just briefly add that what has annoyed me in this thread is that a lot of what's going on is exaggeration of problems and ignorance of purpose. I hope, however, that I am right, and things which truly are open domain (or non copyright) are not infringed upon.
|
Just want to bump this topic again because the bill is coming up again. They are trying to get the bill passed during the lame duck session. In fact there will be a Judiciary Committee Hearing on COICA (S. 3804) on 11/18/2010 @ 10:00 am EST.
If you don't believe me go to http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm
then use your fancy "ctrl+f" find feature and type in 3804.
We've defeated the bill once, we can't let them pass it while we aren't paying attention.
|
So we are turning into New China? This is just dandy.
I really really hope this does not pass. I will be furious if it does. Censorship is just ignorant. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
|
The bill more than likely isn't going to go through this year. Just because it was voted to go to the senate doesn't mean it's passed.
Here's are a few quotes to get the gist of what's happening now:
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said late Thursday that he would seek to block the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, from passing through the full Senate, unless the legislation is changed.
Wyden called the bill the "wrong medicine" for dealing with online copyright infringement. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to seek expedited court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials.
"Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile," Wyden said during a hearing on digital trade issues. "If you don't think this thing through carefully, the collateral damage would be American innovation, American jobs, and a secure Internet."
Wyden's opposition means the bill is likely dead this year. Individual senators can place holds on legislation, and there are only a few working days left in the congressional session this year.
"The significance and implications of the legislation I don't think have been well thought through," Black said during the hearing on digital trade. "Sadly, it's an example of what not to do in an important, complicated digital ecosystem."
Sources: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211162/senator_threatens_to_block_online_copyright_bill.html
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/11/wyden-threatens-to-block-onlin.php
http://providencedailydose.com/2010/11/18/coica-breezes-through-committee-but-thats-as-far-as-its-going-to-go/
|
The downfall of net neutrality....
Shit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
