 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: gnu Date: 21 Jan 13 - 09:25 AM openmedia.ca |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Tootler Date: 06 Feb 12 - 04:15 PM I came across this article on the BBC Website earlier today. It seems that protests against ACTA are taking place across Europe. The powers that be are trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle, but in reality it's probably too late and there is a need for a fundamental rethink on the whole issue of intellectual property. What too many people forget (or choose to ignore) is that intellectual property rights basically create a monopoly and a monopoly is basically a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: gnu Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:53 PM Right on, dude. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Feb 12 - 03:33 PM You were right, gnu, that it's about "other things" but so far as anything publicly known, the real question is "how many other things can they trash on top of good intentions" that we're not supposed to notice until it's a done deal. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: gnu Date: 06 Feb 12 - 01:56 PM Agreed. BIG oops on my part. Apologies to all. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Feb 12 - 08:58 PM gnu - The way I read the article on ACTA that you linked, you should say "ACTA is about other things too." The article does, in fact, say that ACTA encompasses things like digital rights and the like, although the committee that met over the specific provisions mentioned in the first paragraphs were discussing only a narrow part of the ACTA range of subjects. Part of the problem with ACTA is that multiple nations want it to control multiple different things, and there's apparently no agreement on what it will regulate, but they all want it RIGHT NOW. And thus far all the meetings where anything may have been agreed among some of the participants have been held in secret, so no one knows what they may have decided. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: gnu Date: 05 Feb 12 - 01:42 PM In Canada, ACTA is about other things. ? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Feb 12 - 02:35 AM Since the thread happens to have popped back up, it might be as good a place as any for the recent note about ACTA. If you haven't heard of it, that's understandable, as it apparently created in secret, nobody wants to say what it does, but it has the potential to be exceedingly troublesome. Post SOPA, it's time to protest ACTA (on Feb. 11) By Helen A.S. Popkin Hey! Remember our nation's 24-hour nightmare last month when we were forced to live a whole day without easy access to Wikipedia, Reddit, BoingBoing and other popular websites that went dark for 24 hours to protest anti-piracy legislation? In the end, U.S. lawmakers agreed to withdraw the SOPA and PIPA bills, legislation that free speech advocates and tech companies said would crush Internet freedom and inspire frivolous lawsuits. Well, don't exhale just yet. There's still the Anti-Counterfeiting Trademark Agreement (ACTA) in Europe floating around, and on Feb. 11, Access, a "new global movement for digital freedom," wants to mobilize people all over the world to protest what the group and others see as a threat to free speech, human rights, innovation and trade. What exactly is ACTA? Well, that's a huge part of the problem. Signed by the EU and 22 of its 27 member states on Jan. 27, the exact details of this act are known only to those involved. Here's what the Electronic Frontier Foundation has to say about ACTA: You wouldn't know it from the name, but the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a plurilateral agreement designed to broaden and extend existing intellectual property (IP) enforcement laws to the Internet. While it was only negotiated between a few countries, it has global consequences. First because it will create new rules for the Internet, and second, because its standards will be applied to other countries through the U.S.'s annual Special 301 process. Negotiated in secret, ACTA bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens. Worse still, the agreement creates a new global institution, an "ACTA Committee" to oversee its implementation and interpretation that will be made up of unelected members with no legal obligation to be transparent in their proceedings. Both in substance and in process, ACTA embodies an outdated top-down, arbitrary approach to government that is out of step with modern notions of participatory democracy. Prefer bullet points? Here's how Access breaks it down: ACTA lacks democratic credibility because it was negotiated in secret, undermining democratic principles of transparency and multistakeholderism; ACTA poses a threat to free speech and access to culture by, among other issues, encouraging private companies to police users of the Internet; ACTA threatens privacy, as ISPs will be obliged to carry out surveillance on all users; ACTA could have a chilling effect on innovation by disincentivizing startups and encouraging anti-competitive behavior; ACTA would harm trade by giving the U.S. a structural competitive advantage over other countries in addition to creating barriers for international trade; ACTA lacks legal clarity with vaguely drafted language, and is clearly not aligned with current international and European legal standards. Currently, Access protests on Feb. 11 are scheduled in Europe only. As the EFF points out however, if you live in the U.S., "you can demonstrate your opposition ... by signing this petition on the whitehouse.gov website, demanding the Administration submit ACTA to the Senate for approval." ****** Thus far, the above seems to be the only mention I've seen (my notes don't have anything earlier, although something might have slippped in under another description/name?). Does anyone know anything more about it? John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Feb 12 - 06:01 PM We would have to find a way to get round it so that we could still access the Cat. Mind you, I don't think it would be long before the US government came begging, cap in hand, for reinstatement. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Feb 12 - 05:58 PM ""The House of Representatives' SOPA bill aims to crack down on online sales of pirated American movies, music or other goods by forcing Internet companies to block access to foreign sites offering material that violates U.S. copyright laws. U.S. advertising networks could also be required to stop online ads, and search engines would be barred from directly linking to websites found to be distributing pirated goods."" Seems to me that, if the US government doesn't wind its neck in, it may find itself on the sharper edge of a two edged sword. If US internet companies can block foreign websites and foreign advertisers, then the rest of the world can as easily cut off US websites and advertisers, effectively isolating the United States from trading anywhere other than domestically. Best guess as to who would stand to lose most from this? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: gnu Date: 04 Feb 12 - 04:55 PM So, where are we? And can we combine some threads to pull it all together so that we as a community can be aware of what is happening and be a part of fighting this ominous cloud from raining on the exchange of information and education between humans for the good of humankind? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 Jan 12 - 09:27 PM I thought there was another more recent thread on the subject, but can't seem to find it. The IMPORTANT news is that today's news indicates that SOPA is almost certain to pass. The reason is because: OBAMA OBJECTS TO IT Actually, it was only a couple or three "Administration Advisors" who blogged suggestions that it's "ill considered," but the rats are already racing out of the woodwork to proclaim that "it must be a great bill if ... "he" ... doesn't like it. The Story: White House officials raised concerns ... By Laura MacInnis Reuters 14 Jan 2012 WASHINGTON — White House officials raised concerns on Saturday about online piracy legislation pending in Congress. ... In a blog posting, three advisers to President Barack Obama said they believed SOPA and other bills could make businesses on the Internet vulnerable to litigation and harm legal activity and free speech. "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small," said the officials, including White House cyber-security czar Howard Schmidt. The House of Representatives' SOPA bill aims to crack down on online sales of pirated American movies, music or other goods by forcing Internet companies to block access to foreign sites offering material that violates U.S. copyright laws. U.S. advertising networks could also be required to stop online ads, and search engines would be barred from directly linking to websites found to be distributing pirated goods. The search engine Google has repeatedly said the bill goes too far and could hurt investment. Along with other Internet firms such as Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter and eBay, it has run advertisements in major newspapers urging Washington lawmakers to rethink their approach. Bill's backers vow to press ahead ... Proponents of stricter piracy rules reacted strongly to Saturday's White House statement ... © 2012 Thomson Reuters Quite a bit more rhetoric at the link. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:46 AM Rhe Financial Times of London.
""A cyber gangplank"" Tuesday, December 06, 20011, (Top Center Banner, page one)
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72389f18-1a7d-11e1-ae4e-00144feabdc0.html
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 04 Dec 11 - 06:02 PM I LIKE THIS For a nominal fee - ANYONE can obtain a "print-out-file" - of the "mudcat.org" ingoing/outgoing Max is smart. He holds his cards close. For little more than a nominal fee ...he could sell most of us beyond the sea.... Sincerely, Gargoyle and some in the UK to prison. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 Nov 11 - 02:07 PM Add another set of influential(?) opponents to the proposed bill(s): Software alliance yanks support for piracy bill By Suzanne Choney In a move that would seem to be against its own interests, the Business Software Alliance — which includes Microsoft, Apple, Intel and Adobe, and focuses heavily on anti-piracy efforts — is pulling its support of federal legislation aimed at stopping Internet piracy. Less than a month ago, the alliance was behind the bill: "The Business Software Alliance today commended House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) for introducing the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' (H.R. 3261) to curb the growing rash of software piracy and other forms of intellectual property theft that are being perpetrated by illicit websites," the group said in a news release. What's happened since then? Many have taken a closer look at the bill's provisions, including one that requires websites and telecom service providers to be monitoring their networks for piracy, and another that would let law enforcement actually seize a website and shut it down. "Many Silicon Valley companies agree that piracy is a problem but say the legislation goes too far," said The Washington Post last week. "Web giants including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn, eBay, and Mozilla ... co-wrote a letter to Senate and House lawmakers urging Congress to reconsider the measures. They fear the proposals would invite lawsuits and empower law enforcement to shut down their operations if a copyrighted movie or song appeared on their sites without their authorization." Now, the Business Software Alliance, which tackles piracy issues on a regular basis, agrees that "valid and important questions have been raised about the bill." BSA president Robert Holleyman wrote on the group's blog: It is intended to get at the worst of the worst offenders. As it now stands, however, it could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors. To fix this problem, definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed. Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights cannot be compromised. And the security of networks and communications is indispensable to a thriving Internet economy. Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas. BSA has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet. All of these concerns should be duly considered and addressed. It's pretty unusual to have legislation in the pipeline that is not getting the blessing of the major players, from Google to Facebook, Apple to Microsoft. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBCUniversal.) The alliance says it hopes to work with Smith and the House Judiciary Committee to "resolve these issues." A committee aide told the Post that the congressman is open to changes, but only "legitimate changes." The aide, who spoke anonymously, told the Post that some sites "are totally capable of filtering illegal content, but they won't and are instead profiting from the traffic of illegal content." Christian Dawson, COO of commercial Web hosting provider ServInt, said SOPA and another proposed law, the PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA), need to be closely examined. On ServInt's blog, Dawson explained the potential impact of both bills for those trying to understand them: ... if you walked into Best Buy and saw something on the shelf you thought was pirated merchandise, under a law like the DMCA you would work with the store to get that product off the shelf. Under a law like PIPA or SOPA, you would force the landlord to close Best Buy. Innovation cannot thrive in such an environment. Businesses won't tolerate continuing to host on U.S.-based servers with the uncertainty that this model creates. Enacting such laws to combat copyright infringement, he said, "would be like using a flamethrower to find a needle in a haystack." The issue now is whether that torch will be lit. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Jeri Date: 24 Nov 11 - 10:33 AM Richard's EU Court document in PDF |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Nov 11 - 10:05 AM The latest thinking on the analogous problem of "piracy" (forgive the lazy shorthand) from the European Court of Justice is Case C‑70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM); Belgian Entertainment Association Video ASBL (BEA Video), Belgian Entertainment Association Music ASBL (BEA Music) and Internet Service Provider Association ASBL (ISPA) intervening You'll have to google it for yourself as the IP address is too long to blickify. Max, I don't believe that anonymity creates better behaviour. All the evidence here and on the streets of life is to the contrary. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: katlaughing Date: 23 Nov 11 - 05:56 PM Just wanted to add a link to EEF's latest newsletter with some very interesting articles on SOPA etc. Max, I am thinking on what you last posted, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bill D Date: 21 Nov 11 - 10:44 PM I am thinking all this over, Max, and I am beginning to see the basic reasoning....but my first thought is that an 'anonymous' name, used consistently, is quite different than no name at all. Whatever freedom is gained by not being personally identified is offset if many folks decline to use any name, or a dozen different names. Therefore, I repost your reminder- "For users: ~Use anonymity only if you have to. Frivolous uses weaken the seriousness and usefulness of the capability for others. ~Do not use anonymity to provoke, harass, or threaten others. ~Be aware of the policies of the anonymous site and respect them. ~Be prepared to forfeit your anonymity if you abuse the privilege." |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 21 Nov 11 - 10:13 PM You're wrong about anonymity. Extensive scientific research as well as my 15 years of thoughtful observation shows that it's the GROUP who's behavior actually demands it, and is the real source of the conflicts. Postmes [1997] (http://mudc.at/s9vHQh) using the SIDE model (social identity model of deindividuation effects) shows that anonymous participants in an online debate are more likely to stay focused on the actual issue AND the group was less likely to polarize a stance. Double win, albeit counter-intuitive (Also interesting to note that those that are most accusative of anonymity tend to be the most pugilistic members of a group).
Do I need to protect our members? Yes, and anonymity is actually the greatest protection I can offer. "Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions." ~anonymous (not just talking about AA's traditions, ALL OUR TRADITIONS)Without anonymity on the internet, in our community, we are all slaves to the bully-norms, shackled by our own identities, walled-in by the persistence of the internet. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. ~Ronald Reagan This argument has already been won: "Freedom of expression must be allowed. With this freedom comes all sorts of problems, but these types of problems are not unique to the internet. Unpopular speech is a necessary consequence of free speech and it was decided long ago, during the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that the advantages of free speech outweigh the disadvantages. This principle should hold on the internet as well." ~M.I.T.'s Karina Rigby [1995] "Anonymity on the Internet Must be Protected" (http://mudc.at/oXgSw2).mudcat.org's deal reads: "If anonymity is granted, it will be on condition of strict compliance with the forum rules. Subject to that, anonymity will be preserved to the extent allowed by law." Fear not, there's a strategy: For users:
Jason Calacanis "We Live in Public (and the end of empathy)" http://mudc.at/rdK6bn, used the term "Internet Asperger's Syndrome" to describe the reaction to a late-90s "art project" in which his friend Josh Harris "put a couple dozen cameras all over his loft and recorded the inevitable breakdown of his life with the love of his life", and set up internet chat rooms for public discussion of the results.Lastly, for your consideration, from "Why I Like Vicious, Anonymous Online Comments" by Matt Zoller Seitz - http://mudc.at/ofFJzS It's impossible for anyone who reads unmoderated comments threads on large websites to argue that racism, sexism or anti-Semitism are no longer problems in America, or that the educational system is not as bad as people say or that deep down most people are good at heart. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Janie Date: 21 Nov 11 - 09:36 PM Thanks for what you posted Max. Combined with what was written on the EFF it helped me to understand the implications of the bill. Had I simply read what EFF had to say I would not have understood the broader implications. Your example of what you deal with often as the owner/operator of Mudcat, the only social media site with which I am familiar, brought it home. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bugsy Date: 21 Nov 11 - 07:25 PM Problem is, The "STOP CENSORSHIP" banner has "Censored" the "Mudcat Cafe" banner. Ain't life strange Cheers Bugsy |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,Hookey Wole Date: 21 Nov 11 - 11:46 AM new swear words....??? well I'll be Thatchered !!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Chris in Portland Date: 21 Nov 11 - 10:04 AM The biggest gaming operation in the US is now run by Congress, followed by the President. One example: Bad bills get introduced so that Congressional crooks can collect campaign contributions and then "kill" the bill that would not have passed anyway. The President now has so many ways to "help friends," (grants, rules, diplomatic posts, state dinners, etc.) that the Presidency is a profit center, even though the country is in the red. I agree with Madison and Jefferson - since government is so easily corrupted, the smaller government the better. I have worked in corporations, and I believe the biggest risk of loss comes from crooked employees. With government, there is very little incentive to weed out crooks. Whistle blowers are not welcome. Here endeth the Lesson. Chris |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Nov 11 - 08:14 AM I think we need new swear words, in this day and age, the better to relate either to our religions as they are today, or the things that cause us most distaste. So, combining the functions of "Bloody" (derivation,"By our Lady") and "Shit", I proudly introduce - "Fimk" - an abbreviation for "Financial Markets". |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: the lemonade lady Date: 20 Nov 11 - 06:55 PM Not sure I like all the swear words now appearing on this page. Shouldn't that be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Arthur_itus Date: 20 Nov 11 - 04:31 PM "One place the US got it right and the UK have an epic fail is on online gaming. All gaming and gambling (apart from small prize lotteries for registered charities) should be illegal - it's simply another type of fraud. State lotteries, apart from being mostly in the hands of companies connected to organised crime are hidden taxes on stupidity. " Couldn't agree with you more Richard. My big big concern about online gambling is that as people get poorer, they can so easily get sucked into gambling all their money away just on that hope that they might land the big one. Ther is only one winner when it comes to gambling. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Nov 11 - 04:05 PM I feel that anonymity rather than a blessing is the curse of the internet. Here, here, Richard. But then how could a completely open internet protect the identity of a person who genuinely needed to be anonymous? Maybe it should be that one of the 'rules' of the internet is that you give up your right to anonimity? Even then though it could be unfair. If, for instance, my name was John Smith I could hapily post whatever tripe I liked and blame another John Smith. My name however, which I will not post on here. although it is available elsewhere, is truly unique. How do I prevent people from using that name? If John Smith cannot prevent it, why should i be able to? Complicated. Probably needs a lawyers mind to sort it out (Hint. hint) :-) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:29 PM I have a better idea. A local tax at 100% on all gaming transactions - payable by the recipient. If they could get Al Capone for tax evasion they can get gambling too. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:27 PM Sandy, I agree. I'd go further - make it illegal for all card issuers to do business in Nova Scotia (or wherever) if they do business with gaming. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:09 PM "One place the US got it right and the UK have an epic fail is on online gaming. All gaming and gambling (apart from small prize lotteries for registered charities) should be illegal - it's simply another type of fraud. State lotteries, apart from being mostly in the hands of companies connected to organised crime are hidden taxes on stupidity." Richard, the government of Nova Scotia is considering getting into on-line gambling. As an excuse they say that millions are being lost illegally to external sites. To my untrained Philidelphia lawyer mind the solution is painfully simple: If online gambling is illegal have Nova Scotia courts refuse to hear collection claims made by Visa, Mastercharge etc. for unpaid bills stemming from on-line casinos. If the big banks can't get their money it would be up to them to police their cards being used for illegal purpose. Perhaps they could even be charged for aiding the commission of the crime. Sadly we all seem afraid to piss off big business, be they banks or publishing companies. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,Hookey Wole Date: 20 Nov 11 - 12:19 PM It's been at least a day.. has it stopped yet ? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: pdq Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:07 AM SOPA is the House version of this legislation. The Senate version is called Protect-IP and was itroduced by Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont, |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Nov 11 - 09:20 AM I feel that anonymity rather than a blessing is the curse of the internet. If the typical things were done by post rather than online they would be called "poison-pen-letters". It seems to me first that in general providers of internet services (which is wider than ISPs) should be required to take reasonable steps to identify and store identities of uploaders, and to reveal those details to individuals (note I did not say corporations) aggrieved and to emanations of the state - apart from states without civil rights (and for a first approximation that would be any state not fully subscribing to the ECHR. I am debating whether the US's court system and constitutional rights outweighs the extraordinary and flagrant breaches of human rights in the name of or by the US government, and the way things are going about the UK I am open to persuasion that the UK does not properly implement human rights either. Second is the issue of how far (a) intellectual property rights and rights to reputations or privacy should go and (b) the extent to which breaches of rights should be capable of attracting the criminal law. I'd probably abolish the law of blasphemy altogether. Most IP rights have now gone too far. Life +70 is too long for copyright (but formats should be protected although they are not). Fair use needs clarifying but there is no need to exempt sampling, collection societies have standard licence packages that cover artists using sampling and incidental use covers a range of things. There should be a wider private learning exemption to cover for example the words of songs that one intends to learn for personal use - the "rightsowner" gets his cut out of the performing right. I am on balance probably against protection for typographical arrangements. I am probably against the statutory recording licence. However collection societies need to behave properly and many do not. Certainly the US and probably the UK need to control the abuse of copyright in arrangements in ways that unreasonably impact use of works in which copyright has expired. Some trade mark protections need cutting down (including US "dilution" theory) and the right for example to advertise that you repair or sell spare parts for (say "Citroen") needs cutting down. Design right repair and replacement exemptions need bolstering. I think registered designs should vanish altogether. Plant variety rights have become overmighty and are abused. Software should not be patentable, and there should be much much tighter control on pharmaceutical and medical patents. US control of international treaty bodies that govern IP law is excessive. IMHO only substantial intentional commercial breach of IP rights should be criminal, but the burden of proof both of infringement and intent should be to the criminal standard. One place the US got it right and the UK have an epic fail is on online gaming. All gaming and gambling (apart from small prize lotteries for registered charities) should be illegal - it's simply another type of fraud. State lotteries, apart from being mostly in the hands of companies connected to organised crime are hidden taxes on stupidity. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: alex s Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:26 AM Get your bloody banner off my screen |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:13 AM (that was a joke...) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,Jon Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:09 AM Not at all, Bonnie. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:01 AM ...people so addicted with their must watch / must listen to... Oh, you mean like Mudcat? :-p |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,Jon Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:55 AM Whilst some sort of control over this is perhaps needed, it seems almost impossible to find a way of doing this which doesn't do more damage than it prevents. I don't think there is any Internet control method that wouldn't risk or actually do more damage than it prevents. I don't know what the solution is though. I just wish that the media companies didn't have people so addicted with their must watch/must listen to in the first place... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 20 Nov 11 - 07:23 AM I agree with Dave. There's a very difficult balance to be found between protecting legitimate rights and maintaining rights to free speech. One of the negative effects of the internet is to create an environment where people seem to think it's acceptable to take things without paying for them, and to say or write things without the need for justification or evidence. This is now seen as normal behaviour - a recent TV ad here for a respectable internet provider showed a family using their broadband, finishing with one of them downloading music and instantly sharing it with friends. People feel free to make comments on Twitter which would see them in court if printed in a newspaper. Whilst some sort of control over this is perhaps needed, it seems almost impossible to find a way of doing this which doesn't do more damage than it prevents. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Nov 11 - 06:48 AM I realy am torn here. I fully agree with the sentiments of free speech and an ability to say stay anonymous if required. On the other hand, having been victim to some of the more extreme tactics of certain people who shall be nameless, I can see a case for a better way to handle these things. If that involves some censorship and the giving up of some anonimity then so be it. The big question is where do we draw the line. I certainly would not consider myself qualified to be the architect of that one! DtG |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Nov 11 - 06:26 AM Some censorship is both necessary and desirable. Indeed the US state wrongly (in my view) permits some things to be said that would rightly be restrainable and in some cases criminal in most other countries and also wrongly restricts the law of libel. The UK law of libel is too generous in some respects and too restrictive in others, and the US refusal to enforce UK defamation awards in relation to things done in the UK to claimants in the UK is a shocking rejection of what lawyers call "the comity of nations" (particularly when compared to the terms the US likes to ram into its extradition treaties although these relate to criminal rather than civil law). Some laws of intellectual property are desirable, but perhaps more in the USA than anywhere else the tendency has been for the monopolies or other protections afforded by intellectual property have tended to grow to excess. The USA has tried to export some of these excesses to other jurisdictions - a case in point being the criminisation of the removal of copy protection even if the copy protection needs to be removed to exercise rights that are entrenched in copyright law to back up or decompile computer programs. The Sherlock Holmes estate are great proponents of trade-mark style protection (based on "secondary meaning") for characters delineated in literary works that are out copyright, and the pre-emptive effect of copyright expiry needs to be clearer. The examples Max gives above about discussion of Rudolf are likely (I am guessing, not having seen the correspondence) to be founded not so much in copyright but on a very greedy interpretation of character protection, under US common-law trademark and/or statutory trade-mark laws. The USA has however a broader general "fair use" copyright exemption (including "parody") from copyright protection than many other countries, and some examples of arguments put by "anti-censorship" campaigners fail to recognise this and also fail to recognise the breadth of the US view of "transformative use". A number of the arguments I have heard or seen that might appear to be focussed on the recent Bill seem inaccurately to conflate the two. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bob the Postman Date: 20 Nov 11 - 03:17 AM Intellectual property is cultural theft. You're my hero, Max. Karmic law #2:19 states that you become your enemy. The bad news is that the US is turning into China. I sure hope China turns into the new Home Of The Free. |
|
Subject: RE: stop censorship? From: stallion Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:48 AM Got it ogre thought I had done something wrong |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: stallion Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:44 AM Now I understand . Got a bit panicy thought I had down loaded veal on my phone |
|
Subject: RE: stop censorship? From: GUEST Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:39 AM Try looking at the existing thread It'a only 4 messages down... |
|
Subject: stop censorship? From: stallion Date: 20 Nov 11 - 02:30 AM Why am I getting this block message overwriting the Mudcat logo at the top of the page? I am on my Android phone and not a pc |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:40 AM If Xerox Parc could have just done that the Digitrad would still be on their servers and mudcat would still be a blues site. I think they had more than $17.02 it their checking account though. If I were a lawyer I'd be such a dick. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:34 AM Here's how that one resolved. I sent them one letter saying something about "prying [something] from my cold dead hands." They sent another letter, certified, with fancy seals and signed by what seemed like 37 lawyers and notaries and referencing me DEFENDANT, and making these (as if trying to help me) strong recommendations that I hire council. I ignored that for a while, then I got a phone call from a law firm asking who my council was for the case (number apparently pending). Now they were saying Rudolph was one of MANY violations involving their clients and we were to remove all songs that their client, Character Arts LLC, represented. So, I asked them for a list. They said it was my responsibility to provide THEM a list of their songs that are being talked about on my site. I agreed to disagree by saying something like "have fun looking through 75,000 threads" and I believe it ended with "go fuck yourself... hello? ...hello?" Then I sent a letter c/o the CFO with a copy of my bank statements with the account balances and told them to hold it next to their bill from their law firm that month... ...never heard from them again. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: katlaughing Date: 20 Nov 11 - 12:18 AM Fuckers! Thanks for the banner, Max, and the examples. Just one note: it was a dem in the senate, but a gop-er in the house, so no one party..still fuckers,imo. There's a good piece about it HERE. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 20 Nov 11 - 12:11 AM so we can mention Rudolph on 19 Nov, but not 19 Dec? sandra in sydney, australia |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 19 Nov 11 - 11:23 PM I shit you not, it was a few years ago around this time of season that I got a letter from Character Arts, LLC on behalf of The Rudolph Company, L.P. reminding me that the song AND story of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is not public domain even though it, as they said, had become Christmas folklore. I was to cease and desist allowing my users to publicly discuss Rudolph... during Christmas time. But I looked at the other side of the court order and it didn't say nothin' so... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 19 Nov 11 - 11:02 PM They'll come right for us... mudcat.org... you know... if this is passed. You have no idea how much pressure I get as it is now, publishers telling Google to block individual threads because they contain copyrighted material even though the lyrics we have are from 1906 and someone did a cover of a public domain song and copyrighted the arrangement yet... The publishing company merely fills out a form online and the thread is blocked by Google. I get an email (this one just 2 days ago, ON the 16th even, and AFTER I fought it once already in March) that says:
I need to file an actual legal counterclaim with proof that I have the right to "publish" that material that initiates a legal proceeding which essentially invites the publishing company's lawyers to start digging around the site. The last step of the Google process warns (in bold and red no less):
My personal info goes right to the person who complained but I still don't know who they are. This happens about 30 times per year, 4 times I've been in court. I mess with them sometimes just because I have nothing to lose, when they find out that I'm poor and host myself (no cloud or ISP to pressure) they usually quit fighting me. I'm a nut with an excellent philosophy education and way too much free-time. It's expensive to get into litigation with me. I make sure of it. And SOPA was introduced by democrats, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Jeri Date: 19 Nov 11 - 10:08 PM From the Wikipedia article on SOPA: Opponents of the bill include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, and Wikimedia Foundation, the Brookings Institution and human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.They had the banner up on the 16th, Mudcat has it today. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 11 - 09:58 PM It's NOT only this site. Max is making a point with the banner/link that many/all sites 'could' be affected. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 19 Nov 11 - 08:47 PM Think I'm missing something... how come what's only this site? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: the lemonade lady Date: 19 Nov 11 - 08:11 PM How come it's only this site? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Spleen Cringe Date: 19 Nov 11 - 07:43 PM Good shout, having the link on the logo. Good luck, US friends, stopping this. Remember, there are more of us proles than there are of those people who are temporarily in charge... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Jeri Date: 19 Nov 11 - 07:16 PM We gave up the right to criticize other countries' torture of POWs with Abu Ghraibe. What other high ground, real or believed in, will we give up? They'd better not pass this. I get tired of complaints of censorship here, and complaints about the lack of it. The right to free speech that we have (and at Mudcat, we have it because Max believes in it) means that people who say what we don't like have the right too. It gets messy sometimes, but I like not having somebody making the decision about what I can read. ...and if I were into conspiracy theories, I'd think a certain faction really wants to stupidify Americans. Well, OK, it might actually be true. Some of these guys would never get into power if the folks who voted for them could competently operate their brains. Letter from Congressional representatives opposing SOPA (It's a .PDF) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:47 PM So "UNCLE SAM" has dropped the pretense, and revealed that he is really "BIG BROTHER" in disguise. And now it seems he's to be frustrated after all, it has left his little toady spies rather exposed. Cox Communications better keep a sharp eye on their share price, because anybody with half a brain will be getting shot of 'em before the shit hits the fan when their clients head for the exit in droves. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: gnu Date: 19 Nov 11 - 04:38 PM Max... "They'll sell a 30-day wiretap on you for $3,500." And THAT is legal? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: BTNG Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:53 PM sorry, forgot to add this link The Realist Archive Project |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: BTNG Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:51 PM (If you are old enough to remember The Realist magazine, this needs no comment.) errr...it doesn't need any comment whether you remember the a fore mentioned periodical or not |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM I had one of those shirts. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:37 PM F**K Censorship! (If you are old enough to remember The Realist magazine, this needs no comment.) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:12 PM "Whatever about the semantics" yeah whatever |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: DebC Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:12 PM One of our media critics here in Boston, Dan Kennedy has a BLOG POST about this. I agree with max. This un-f%^$ing believable, but I am not surprised. Deb Cowan |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: bobad Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM We Are Winning: Pelosi Comes Out Against Internet Censorship Bill Nobody thought it could be done, but it looks like we've turned the tide against the Internet Blacklist Bill. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi just spoke out against it, and Republican Darrell Issa says it now stands "no chance of passage"! It's been a show of force like no other: More than 700k anti-censorship contacts have been delivered to Congress so far this week, as the Blacklsit Bill gets heard in committee. https://act.demandprogress.org/act/pelosi/ |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:50 PM I couldn't put my finger on what was giving me such an awful sense of deja-vu. Then I remembered a thread I started nearly two years ago BS: Blasphemy law in Ireland http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=126211#2802095 in which I wrote: Happy new year. When I drank my auld-lang-syne toast, I raised a silent glass to the founding fathers of the US Bill Of Rights. [#ironyalert] Tonight, on another website, a friend put up a YouTube link to something that was very funny, and HARMLESS, but could certainly be interpreted as sacrilegious. He's now taken it down. Whether or not he would have been prosecuted, that is intimidation. He censored himself, voluntarily, because he didn't feel safe otherwise. How Orwellian is that? Never knowing whether you're on safe ground or not is intimidating - and there are no fear-police like the ones in your head. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:26 PM Maybe they're Just Following Orders... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM I'm waiting for someone to say, "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear." That was the war cry when some of us objected to the little green cameras springing up all over everywhere. This is simply the logical extension. Yes, it sucks. And yes, I hope it can be fought. But bit by bit it has crept into the culture of so-called security. It ain't new, just more invasive. I suppose that next we can look forward to tags much like those used to track caribou or various birds. I mad as hell about it, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:17 PM Whatever about the semantics (or diplomacy?) of the above statement, if that bill passes there ain't gonna be no freedom to fight FOR. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: BTNG Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:09 PM The only problem I have with this statement is that the United States (at least the governments) have never even been soldiers, let alone leaders, in internet freedom fight. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:05 PM International Community Rallies Against SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act] This week the House of Representatives opens hearings on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill that EFF - along with a number of prominent organizations and other actors - has opposed loudly and vigorously. Though the bill would have grave implications on free expression for American Internet users, website owners, and intermediaries, its effects on the international community are even worse. In light of that fact, a coalition of international civil society and human rights groups have penned a letter expressing their opposition to the bill. The letter - whose signatories include prominent groups like French groups La Quadrature du Net and Reporters Without Borders, UK-based Index on Censorship, and global consortium the Association for Progressive Communications - states: "...by institutionalizing the use of internet censorship tools to enforce domestic law in the United States creates a paradox that undermines its moral authority to criticize repressive regimes. We urge the United States to uphold its proclaimed responsibility as a leader in internet freedom and reject bills that will censor or fragment the web." |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:05 PM I am livid over this shit. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:50 PM Tim Berners Lee's baby is growing up. It's changing from a Little Orphan Annie, into a Damien. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:43 PM Anyone use Cox Communications for phone or internet? They're eager to turn you in. They have a helpful FAQ for subpoena seekers and even a fucking price list. http://mudc.at/vSrFix They'll sell a 30-day wiretap on you for $3,500. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:41 PM I did |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: GUEST,999 Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:30 PM Click it, John. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP From: Max Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:14 PM  |
|
Subject: Tech: STOP CENSORSHIP> From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:13 PM I get this on a black strip superimposed over the Mudcat Café logo. Is it just me> |
| Share Thread: |