Internet Censorship?

[Cogidubnus]

Um, china at least uses censorship for political reasons , which in my view is a large step above using it to bow over to corporate interest.

Other than that ,the idea is hillarious.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. You're saying that political censorship is...better than censorship based on copyright issues?

[VAE]

Um, china at least uses censorship for political reasons , which in my view is a large step above using it to bow over to corporate interest.

Other than that ,the idea is hillarious.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. You're saying that political censorship is...better than censorship based on copyright issues?

Yes... not entirely sure whether China qualifies - I wasn't there,  but my way of thought is as such - if the government actually maintains decent standard of living for people, and pretty much only uses censorship to  help quench opposition to it, it is better than it being used to enforce corporate interests which by definition run against the interests of people, be it workers , or those who are supplied the produce - there are clear antagonist class relationships there.

[justacritic]

Then again that is dependent on whether there is a good standard of living, if not then the government is taking away one of the few ways people attempt to make themselves heard

[Gabi]

I think censorship, whether political or economical, is bad. Unless you're only censoring things that have proven to be illegal, which is not the case with these bills. It is the case in China because they have laws that forbid speaking out against the government, but I think that's a terrible legislation.

Anyway, for an unimportant piece of information, the Chinese say "wei" when they pick up the phone (pronounced like "way"). "Ni hao", if said at all, comes later.

Oh, and I did what I could, being outside the US. TPM joined the blackout yesterday, I changed my Facebook profile picture for the day and signed the online petition, and I've been raising awareness among my friends.

[VAE]

More wankery, as an aside.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/20/0259218/eu-to-sign-acta-later-this-month

[Alondro]

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA... all these bills, almost identical... all appearing at the same time?

There are no such things as coincidences in politics, kiddies.

Nearly everything they do is contrived well ahead of time, especially where legislation is concerned.

In essence, what we have here is solid evidence of massive multinational-corporation-government collusion.

All the companies have found a way around anti-trust legislation by agreeing not to compete with each other, using price fixing and unions to ensure they're all on the same footing (in much the same way the oil companies work), at the same time they give money and high-paying positions to government officials before, during, and after they're in office (as example, Chris Dodd now is a lawyer for the MPAA, one of SOPA and PIPA's biggest supporters).

I've been studying these monstrosities carefully since they first appeared in October, following the money trail, seeing who's behind it and which groups are working directly with each other to force the issue.  There is no doubt at all in my mind any longer that this is indeed a true conspiracy, but one that they haven't even bothered to hide because a) they're confident that eventually they'll be able to sneak it through when the public gets bored, as it always does b) it's on a scale too big to hide, so they just tried to make the wording deliberately obtuse and disguise it as an anti-piracy bill.

[Tapewolf]

(as example, Chris Dodd now is a lawyer for the MPAA, one of SOPA and PIPA's biggest supporters).

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/22/1945243/white-house-petition-to-investigate-dodd-for-bribery

And a direct link to the petition is here:  http://wh.gov/KiE

...have fun.

[justacritic]

Oh wow 26,554 signatures already and still counting. You think they might take a lot of notice if this reaches 100,000?

[Gabi]

Speaking of Internet censorship, have you seen this?

[Tapewolf]

Here's one for ACTA:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/

[VAE]

Signed.
In related news, I'm proud my country (Slovakia) was among the five that didn't sign ACTA.

[Gabi]

I have signed as well.

[Alondro]

With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.  ACTA will be enforced by another giant independent agency with broad prosecutory powers, and the ability to violate the rights of anyone who comes in their sites. 

I agree with Poland, time for open revolt.

[Tapewolf]

With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.

I was under the impression that it was the USA or at least US corporate interests which created the thing, with the intent of forcing it on everyone.

[VAE]

With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.

I was under the impression that it was the USA or at least US corporate interests which created the thing, with the intent of forcing it on everyone.

To be honest , though , not like anyone asked the actual american public, either  - they didn't choose it anymore than the poles or us for that matter.

Yet another pointer on how democracy was swapped out for plutocracy.

[Tapewolf]

To be honest , though , not like anyone asked the actual american public, either  - they didn't choose it anymore than the poles or us for that matter.

Oh, absolutely.  The fact that the thing is being done in secret is appalling.

Yet another pointer on how democracy was swapped out for plutocracy.

How did it go?  "In the 1980s, capitalism defeated communism.  In the 1990s, it defeated democracy."

[joshofspam]

With its participation in ACTA, the USA has once more signed away its soverignty to a foreign government entity.

I was under the impression that it was the USA or at least US corporate interests which created the thing, with the intent of forcing it on everyone.

To be honest , though , not like anyone asked the actual american public, either  - they didn't choose it anymore than the poles or us for that matter.

Yet another pointer on how democracy was swapped out for plutocracy.

To be honest with you.

It makes it seem that they don't care what we think anymore.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

To be Devil's advocate here, something to combat piracy/copyright fraud is probably going to have to take the form of a multi-national treaty. Otherwise, you run into all the problems of someone hosting a hub somewhere that your country doesn't have an extradition treaty with. And I've yet to hear of a treaty that allows for full congressional (or parliamentary, or whatever the local legislature calls itself) approval and review of each individual action.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

To be Devil's advocate here, something to combat piracy/copyright fraud is probably going to have to take the form of a multi-national treaty. Otherwise, you run into all the problems of someone hosting a hub somewhere that your country doesn't have an extradition treaty with. And I've yet to hear of a treaty that allows for full congressional (or parliamentary, or whatever the local legislature calls itself) approval and review of each individual action.

Yup, I have no problem with that.

That's not what ACTA is, though. I'd tell you what ACTA is, but it's being discussed in privacy, and NOBODY is telling anyone what the requirements being discussed are, other than the person with the big pockets can sue anyone they like in their local court, and can extradite the person they're suing back to their own country with no warrant, judicial review, or, indeed, anything other than a statement that "that person may or may not have been stealing my shit"; the truth or untruth of the statement is not required to be checked before guilt is presumed, and the "guilty" party is dragged out of whatever car they happen to be in by whatever enforcement agency gets there first.

This is not justice. This is money buying their own laws.

[Sofox]

You know, this stuff is popping up in Ireland.

There's a minister, Sean Sherlock, who's trying to get these wide ranging copyright powers in Irish law through a statutory instrument. This is a very sneaky way of passing law and can be seen as unconstitutional. A lot of steam is picking up against it, mentions in Irish Times, boards.ie going on protest (essentially a forum for Ireland). I've already sent emails to various ministers and including my thoughts and legal knowledge in them.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

To be Devil's advocate here, something to combat piracy/copyright fraud is probably going to have to take the form of a multi-national treaty. Otherwise, you run into all the problems of someone hosting a hub somewhere that your country doesn't have an extradition treaty with. And I've yet to hear of a treaty that allows for full congressional (or parliamentary, or whatever the local legislature calls itself) approval and review of each individual action.

Yup, I have no problem with that.

That's not what ACTA is, though. I'd tell you what ACTA is, but it's being discussed in privacy, and NOBODY is telling anyone what the requirements being discussed are, other than the person with the big pockets can sue anyone they like in their local court, and can extradite the person they're suing back to their own country with no warrant, judicial review, or, indeed, anything other than a statement that "that person may or may not have been stealing my shit"; the truth or untruth of the statement is not required to be checked before guilt is presumed, and the "guilty" party is dragged out of whatever car they happen to be in by whatever enforcement agency gets there first.

This is not justice. This is money buying their own laws.

But you can't *have* the usual court machinery of due process, warrant, fighting of extradition, because if you write a story living in the UK, I could theoretically build a damn ocean platform in the middle of the pacific, (international waters) upload a copy to something I host on my server, and distribute it to whomever I damn well please, and if you try to bring a lawsuit against me, I'll just thumb my nose and say that the court has a lack of jurisdiction.

The only conceivable people who would are the ICC in The Hague, but given their incredibly long and ineffective trial against figures like Slobodan Milosevic, I wouldn't hold much hope out there.

Administrative agencies are part of every modern government, in fact, the bulk of most legislation/regulation that most of us live by is written by them. I don't see how ACTA is any more prone to abuse than say, the DOJ or the EEOC or the SEC. (which might not in and of itself be all that reassuring)

[VAE]

But you can't *have* the usual court machinery of due process, warrant, fighting of extradition, because if you write a story living in the UK, I could theoretically build a damn ocean platform in the middle of the pacific, (international waters) upload a copy to something I host on my server, and distribute it to whomever I damn well please, and if you try to bring a lawsuit against me, I'll just thumb my nose and say that the court has a lack of jurisdiction.

True.
That however calls in the question why should there be a law or a set of them whose enforcement requires the breaking of the usual court machinery, since it exists for a reason.

The only conceivable people who would are the ICC in The Hague, but given their incredibly long and ineffective trial against figures like Slobodan Milosevic, I wouldn't hold much hope out there.

By incredibly long and ineffective trial, do you perchance mean him being assasinated by being given wrong medicines for his heart condition (which made it worse), which I'm pretty persuaded was so that a proper trial couldn't take place?

Because that only illustrates the point that justice is a stranger to such organisations, and we definitely *don't* want any more of them.

Administrative agencies are part of every modern government, in fact, the bulk of most legislation/regulation that most of us live by is written by them. I don't see how ACTA is any more prone to abuse than say, the DOJ or the EEOC or the SEC. (which might not in and of itself be all that reassuring)

Very true in that it isn't at all.
Furthermore, I don't see a reason why other countries should essentially submit to US version of copyright legislative plus further maluses , a move which had zero input from the public so far, and is, as Boxy said, pretty much bought and paid for.
Countries have sovereignty, after all. I think you wouldn't like it if we decided to enforce British law regarding guns in the US and arrested everyone in possession of one who isn't a cop/soldier/hunter/whatever.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Very true in that it isn't at all.
Furthermore, I don't see a reason why other countries should essentially submit to US version of copyright legislative plus further maluses , a move which had zero input from the public so far, and is, as Boxy said, pretty much bought and paid for.
Countries have sovereignty, after all. I think you wouldn't like it if we decided to enforce British law regarding guns in the US and arrested everyone in possession of one who isn't a cop/soldier/hunter/whatever.

I'm not sure what you mean by my previous statement about the bulk of practical law being formed by administrative entities not being true. From a factual standard, it is true. Maybe as a normative standard, it shouldn't be true, but at least in the U.S., where I'm more familiar with the statistics,  they dwarf congressional lawmaking by a wide margin, and those "Regulations" have the force of law. Here's a link. Offhand, I don't know if it's done the same way in other nations, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that they do, modern legislators simply don't have the amount of technical knowledge to practically come up with coherent doctrines for most legislation, and these days primarily concern themselves with budgets.

Furthermore, the analogy between internet pirating and gun control doesn't hold water. If I own a gun in the U.S., I don't illegally own it in the UK. Unless and until we come up with a weapon that can fire accurately over the Atlantic, I can't even commit a gun crime in the UK with it. I can sit at my keyboard and pirate stuff all day long from all over the globe, and then trust to a national border to shield myself from the bulk of the international consequences. No, a better analogy would be people looking for corporate tax shelters in Bermuda, which almost every country in the Northern Hemisphere has clamped down on in some form or another.

True.
That however calls in the question why should there be a law or a set of them whose enforcement requires the breaking of the usual court machinery, since it exists for a reason.

Because current law doesn't stop the problem. Online piracy is real. It's huge. And it's not just those huge corporations who get hurt. An article I pulled up at random estimates that around 30-40% of film box office "projected" profits are lost due to the effects of piracy. A huge Hollywood studio can grumble, and reluctantly absorb that kind of loss. An independent one? Forget it.

By incredibly long and ineffective trial, do you perchance mean him being assasinated by being given wrong medicines for his heart condition (which made it worse), which I'm pretty persuaded was so that a proper trial couldn't take place?

Because that only illustrates the point that justice is a stranger to such organisations, and we definitely *don't* want any more of them.

I do believe Mr. Milosevic died some four years after the prosecution began. Do you have any evidence that his wrong medication was actually given with malice instead of being a medical error? Because once the ICC had their hands on him, I fail to see the motive for presenting a prosecution and *then* murdering him, in a proceeding that they were almost certain to convict the man. Or was someone outside the court gunning for him? That's possible, I suppose, he had a *lot* of enemies, but then how would that impact theeffectiveness (or lack thereof) of the ICC?

[VAE]

Very true in that it isn't at all.
Furthermore, I don't see a reason why other countries should essentially submit to US version of copyright legislative plus further maluses , a move which had zero input from the public so far, and is, as Boxy said, pretty much bought and paid for.
Countries have sovereignty, after all. I think you wouldn't like it if we decided to enforce British law regarding guns in the US and arrested everyone in possession of one who isn't a cop/soldier/hunter/whatever.

I'm not sure what you mean by my previous statement about the bulk of practical law being formed by administrative entities not being true. From a factual standard, it is true. Maybe as a normative standard, it shouldn't be true, but at least in the U.S., where I'm more familiar with the statistics,  they dwarf congressional lawmaking by a wide margin, and those "Regulations" have the force of law. Here's a link. Offhand, I don't know if it's done the same way in other nations, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that they do, modern legislators simply don't have the amount of technical knowledge to practically come up with coherent doctrines for most legislation, and these days primarily concern themselves with budgets.

Ugh, I meant that you are right that it isn't reassuring, more the opposite. *facepaws for fail wording*

Furthermore, the analogy between internet pirating and gun control doesn't hold water. If I own a gun in the U.S., I don't illegally own it in the UK. Unless and until we come up with a weapon that can fire accurately over the Atlantic, I can't even commit a gun crime in the UK with it. I can sit at my keyboard and pirate stuff all day long from all over the globe, and then trust to a national border to shield myself from the bulk of the international consequences. No, a better analogy would be people looking for corporate tax shelters in Bermuda, which almost every country in the Northern Hemisphere has clamped down on in some form or another.

Not quite so. Asides from the fact that tax shelters do exist (i think Malta and Switzerland are quite good examples where illicit finance often goes).
Thing is , what we are talking about isn't even agreed to be a crime - look at the case with the british youth for example (US law says it is, UK law says it is not) never mind other countries having different acceptable use policies (eg, if I recall correctly, under slovak law, uploading is illegal but downloading isn't). All of it makes it more analogous to eg. Iran trying to enforce its blasphemy laws on foreign media.

True.
That however calls in the question why should there be a law or a set of them whose enforcement requires the breaking of the usual court machinery, since it exists for a reason.

Because current law doesn't stop the problem. Online piracy is real. It's huge. And it's not just those huge corporations who get hurt. An article I pulled up at random estimates that around 30-40% of film box office "projected" profits are lost due to the effects of piracy. A huge Hollywood studio can grumble, and reluctantly absorb that kind of loss. An independent one? Forget it.

Uh, so instead of the studios changing their methodology of production in face of current one being unrentable, we should push forward a law that asides from an attempt to deal with "piracy" messes up a whole lot of other things?
That's rather analogous to what'd happen if the ice industry had pushed laws to outlaw refrigerators back in the day, arguing for the loss of profit.
Never mind that it can be said that piracy itself generates profits - an example out of the top of my head would be large-sized data plans for internet access.

I do believe Mr. Milosevic died some four years after the prosecution began. Do you have any evidence that his wrong medication was actually given with malice instead of being a medical error? Because once the ICC had their hands on him, I fail to see the motive for presenting a prosecution and *then* murdering him, in a proceeding that they were almost certain to convict the man. Or was someone outside the court gunning for him? That's possible, I suppose, he had a *lot* of enemies, but then how would that impact the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the ICC?

*throws paws up in air* You are right, I don't know of direct evidence.
However, there's a lot of circumstantial one, given the extremely flimsy reasons for the whole intervention there ,  the mess that was done by NATO (such as bombing civillian targets, even a chinese embassy),  never mind the fact that a running joke goes that the main crime ICC investigates is being a Serb.
And various sources do say that back then, they did release a bunch of contradictory statements, going from natural causes to suicide, never mind the fact they denied him the request to go for medical treatment into Moscow.

[Ignuus66]

This reminds me of a cutscene in SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE