Spurred on by big media companies, the latest effort by governments to stamp out piracy comes in the form of two bills from the US Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

According to these acts, if a US site (or a foreign site that has its domain name registered in the US) is found to be "committing or facilitating the commission" of copyright infringment, then, on the request of a rights holder, it is subject to seizure in a way that many scholars believe violates due process, depriving people of a fair hearing and suppressing free speech.

It gets worse. If the targeted site is not based in the US and thus cannot be seized, then the following actions must occur:

1) US sites and search engines must remove all links to the foreign site
2) US advertising services must no longer serve ads linking to the site, or display ads on the foreign site
3) US payment networks must cease all transactions between the foreign site and US customers
4) US service providers to block access to the foreign site via DNS blacklisting

In other words, a rights holder would be able to accuse a website anywhere in the world of facilitating piracy simply because a user posted a comment linking to a file sharing site, and the site would completely vanish from the internet. Anyone using any US-based search engine (which includes pretty much everyone in the UK) would not be able to find it, and anyone in the US would discover that typing in its URL would lead to nowhere.

It's a breathtaking grab for power and control, one that seeks to use the very same powers and technologies that repressive governments in the Middle East and China use to stamp out free speech – except here, it's purely for the interests of rights holders. Talk about destroying the village in order to save it. And since the UK often blindly follows the US in these matters thanks to global media companies and star-struck politicians, we need to keep a very close eye on it.

What makes this entire affair so tragic is that SOPA and PIPA wouldn't even dent piracy; encrypted torrents, VPNs, anonymous proxies, use of foreign DNS servers and the TOR network: all of these technologies are trivial for pirates to use, and extremely difficult for authorities to track.

On 2012-01-19 10:53, gdw wrote:
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.

On 2012-01-19 11:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-19 10:53, gdw wrote:
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.

Perhaps they've considered alternatives and reached different conclusions than you have. Or perhaps you haven't really considered" alternatives as intently as you think. I never see you put the same level of scrutiny into the alternatives as you do in criticizing the existing structure (not that I'm a big fan of government). For instance, you have a complaint against being subject to any sort of dress code on pUblic property, as it restricts your freedom - no nudity, possibly no pajamas - and you object to public property. But in absence of public property, you'd have NO rights at all other than on your parcel. You couldn't leave your property in blue jeans, or at all in fact, if that was the decree of those who owned the adjacent parcels.

On 2012-01-19 13:49, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-19 11:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-19 10:53, gdw wrote:
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.

Perhaps they've considered alternatives and reached different conclusions than you have. Or perhaps you haven't really considered" alternatives as intently as you think. I never see you put the same level of scrutiny into the alternatives as you do in criticizing the existing structure (not that I'm a big fan of government). For instance, you have a complaint against being subject to any sort of dress code on pUblic property, as it restricts your freedom - no nudity, possibly no pajamas - and you object to public property. But in absence of public property, you'd have NO rights at all other than on your parcel. You couldn't leave your property in blue jeans, or at all in fact, if that was the decree of those who owned the adjacent parcels.

Lobo, are you suggesting you would be subject to the limitations imposed by others? How is that worse than now? The main difference is you would have a hell of a lot more options. It'd be a lot more like restaurant dress codes. Rather than an attempt at a universal one size fits all policy, which limits the options of individuals, you'd have variety and choice. Some places would certainly keep a "no short, no shoes, no service" policy (I always wondered why pants were omitted) and others might be open to full nude service. Though who would want to go to a nude restaurant is beyond me. Spill some hot soup, with no fabric to provide even a small bit of protection, no thanks.

As for your rights, you would have them all still. You'd be able to exercise a hell of a lot more of them to, given how many are currently limited.
No, you wouldn't be free to walk around nude anywhere you want, saying what ever you want, but, guess what, you can't do that now. However you probably would have MORE places that would be willing to accommodate such things.

We already know that people ARE willing to provide such places by the presence of nudist colonies, etc.
The difference would be these people would be more free to open an all nude restaurant, or clothing optional park open to the public, etc.

I have put far more scrutiny into these things than you seem to think. I didn't just jump to these ideas overnight, nor did they come from my own desires to do things I'm restricted from doing. I was a self described "liberal" before, and, even as things are now, I am pretty much free to do all the things I PERSONALLY desire to do.
That doesn't mean others should be restricted with regards to what they wish to do, provided they aren't harming or violating anyone else's person or property.
Nor does it mean I am not affected by the restrictions placed on others.

it nonetheless sends a very clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the Government a power it seeks — the power to shut down websites without a trial — only for the Government to turn around the very next day and shut down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites[Megaupload]. Whether intended or not, the message is unmistakable: Congratulations, citizens, on your cute little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular websites without a trial.

The U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine. That is not hyperbole. Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient. And now here is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website shuttered, its assets seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based solely on the unproven accusation of Piracy.

It’s true, as Sanchez observes, that “the owners of Megaupload don’t seem like particularly sympathetic characters,” but he also details that there are difficult and weighty issues that would have to be resolved to prove they engaged in criminal conduct. Megaupload obviously contains numerous infringing videos, but so does YouTube, yet both sites also entail numerous legal activities as well. As Sanchez put it: “most people, presumably, recognize that shutting down YouTube in order to disable access to those videos would not be worth the enormous cost to protected speech.” The Indictment is a classic one-side-of-the-story document; even the most mediocre lawyers can paint any picture they want when unchallenged. That’s why the government is not supposed to dole out punishments based on accusatory instruments, but only after those accusations are proved in an adversarial proceeding.

Whatever else is true, those issues should be decided upon a full trial in a court of law, not by government decree.

On 2012-01-21 12:29, kcg5 wrote:
Yeah.... So was "mobilitybundle" right or wrong? Do we understand it?