The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » SOPA, and you thoughts (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Here is a view of SOPA and PIPA from the UK:

Quote:
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.


I agree with Bob, that the people have spoken, and this project is forestalled, but I also agree with gdw, that they'll keep trying.

W.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Sometimes the interests of the legislators and those in government APPEAR to line up with those of the people, but only at first glance. Just look at Obama's threats to refuse to sign the ndaa.
His reasons had nothing to do with people's concerns, but rather not wanting any limitations on his, or his office's, power.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
You know, it seems that I am constantly hearing this from many people:

"Complain complain, boo guantanamo, complain." They don't close gitmo. "Complain, complain, boo marijuana laws, complain." Obama breaks promise to leave medical marijuana to the states. "Whine, complain, this is rediculous, boo corporate bailouts, stupid government." Government authorizes trillions in bailouts.
"Complain, boo sopa and pipa, protect our internets." Government (temporarily) shelves sopa and pipa.
"See, they listened to the people, they system works!"
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
"Complain complain some guy is beating my mothers face in, police help! Complain"
"We're sorry, Mr. Rockeshiney has not authorized us, his private police force, to assist a plebe like you."
"Complain complain can she at least run away through Mr. Rockeshiney's private road?"
"We're sorry, Mr. Rockeshiney is a total richardwad."
"Complain complain, well Mom's dead. Oh, look! Here come the Germans 'cause there was never a US military to halt their expansion!"

Hitler point for me. No complaints.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Right, because there would be only one police force to appeal to, and one property owner who's property one could use to travel. Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what you have now.
As for your hitler point, good thing there were people around to impose the treaty of Versailles and cripple germany, priming them for hitler.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
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.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Yeah, somehow I don't see us breaking any new ground here. It's pretty much the same 'conversation' every time.
I'm going to make some fresh tea now.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Slide
View Profile
Special user
533 Posts

Profile of Slide
Here is pretty good video that explains the issues surrounding SOPA http://gizmo.do/wKtRpy
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
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's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Interesting TED talk from last year on government and technology/Internet. Not specifically sopa/pipa, but appropriate none the less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
The Truth about SOPA (just quoting the headline).
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
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.


I disagree with your conclusions, but I don't really have the time or energy to put into a long post about it right now. But I did want to address the "scrutiny" aspect. Here's something you wrote in another thread recently:

"Right, because no government legislation has ever opened the door for "unintended" consequences, nor have they ever been used to go after people they were clearly not intended for, and the checks and balances ALWAY keep everything in check, and balanced."

What I meant by the comment about scrutiny is that I've never once seen you apply even the suggestion of an inquiry into the potential negative consequences of a purely (or almost purely) private model of anything. What I see is the suggestion of worst-case scenarios to every issue the government is involved in, and a blithe disregard for those worst-case scenarios as applied to the private sector.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Article about Canadian legislation in the works, possibly of interest to some here.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
Greenwald on SOPA, and why I agree with gdw and Woland that this "victory" is hollow.

Quote:
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.


More here: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_less......ngleton/
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
Yeah.... So was "mobilitybundle" right or wrong? Do we understand it?


Lobo, was I correct in how it would affect YouTube?
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27140 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
The US govt reached out and had them arrested and charged.
Possession being nine tenths of the law, so to speak, the point has been made.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5017 Posts

Profile of landmark
Ah, but Jonathan, let's be clear and explicit what the point is: We will do whatever the *** we want, "justice" system or not. We will abide by the system when it suits us and ignore it when it suits us. We will apply it to enemies when it suits us and ignore it as it applies to friends when it suits us.

cf. Manning, Bradley, and "the danger to civilians."
MobilityBundle
View Profile
Regular user
Las Vegas/Boston
120 Posts

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



Right! Wait... what?
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
Could it shut down YouTube? Are all of us out of our minds? The articles as well? Another case of public paranoia?
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » SOPA, and you thoughts (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.36 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL