View previous topic | View next topic

Internet Censorship Bill

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Ion Zone
866306.  Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:22 am Reply with quote

What do you think?

 
mckeonj
866331.  Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:21 am Reply with quote

I think that it's not that difficult to pose a question, give your opinion, and put a clear link below.

 
Ion Zone
866353.  Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:40 pm Reply with quote

I don't really have an opinion on it, but you guys don't really like me or listen to me anyway so I think it's probably better if I don't.

 
CB27
866456.  Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:10 pm Reply with quote

Have I missed a previous conversation or summat?

 
barbados
866482.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:05 am Reply with quote

You must have.
About a million years ago the American government started closing sites that breached copyright, or rather they decided it would be an offence to knowingly display material protected by copyright.

Nothing else has happened.


What is strange is that Vimeo have taken up the torch to challenge the latest instalment of the bill (American), and YouTube aren't really too bothered by it. So if you want to watch any videos protected by copyright without the owners permission then you head on over to Vimeo, if you want to see the official version credited to the copyright owner then you go to YouTube

 
CB27
866484.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:20 am Reply with quote

I meant, did I miss something about Ion Zone's comments?

I tend not to pay too much attention to who usually says what so as to avoid dragging arguments from one thread onto another, so I don't recall if some people disagreed with IZ about something and I just don't remember...

 
mckeonj
866530.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:58 am Reply with quote

Are we playing Pointless?

 
Strawberry
866544.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:42 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
I meant, did I miss something about Ion Zone's comments?

I tend not to pay too much attention to who usually says what so as to avoid dragging arguments from one thread onto another, so I don't recall if some people disagreed with IZ about something and I just don't remember...


People have often disagreed with Ion Zone and this tends to be about religion. i do think it sometimes seems as though people have picked on him a bit but i don't think that everyone hates him or anything like that; it's just that people on QI tend to like arguing about religion for some reason.

 
exnihilo
866545.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:43 am Reply with quote

I think it's more to do with the fact that when arguing about anything people on here prefer facts. Religion for some does not admit of that.

 
filofax
866590.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:14 am Reply with quote

But would a discussion on internet censorship involve religion in any way?

 
exnihilo
866591.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:15 am Reply with quote

It ought not.

 
cornixt
866598.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:49 am Reply with quote

I think it is partially because Ion Zone has opinions which aren't very common here, so when he expresses them there are a lot of people that state that they disagree and it seems a bit like ganging up even when it isn't.

Let's continue talking about him as if he can't read this ;)

 
Jenny
866653.  Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:41 pm Reply with quote

cornixt wrote:
I think it is partially because Ion Zone has opinions which aren't very common here, so when he expresses them there are a lot of people that state that they disagree and it seems a bit like ganging up even when it isn't.

Let's continue talking about him as if he can't read this ;)


I think Ion tends to interpret disagreement over an issue as personal dislike, which it isn't.

 
bobwilson
867809.  Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:58 pm Reply with quote

Going back to the original question. The link leads to a statement that says:

Quote:
PROTECT-IP is a bill that has been introduced in the Senate and the House and is moving quickly through Congress. It gives the government and corporations the ability to censor the net, in the name of protecting "creativity". The law would let the government or corporations censor entire sites-- they just have to convince a judge that the site is "dedicated to copyright infringement."

The government has already wrongly shut down sites without any recourse to the site owner. Under this bill, sharing a video with anything copyrighted in it, or what sites like Youtube and Twitter do, would be considered illegal behavior according to this bill.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would cost us $47 million tax dollars a year — that's for a fix that won't work, disrupts the internet, stifles innovation, shuts out diverse voices, and censors the internet. This bill is bad for creativity and does not protect your rights.


Reading that (admittedly partisan against the proposed legislation) – I think I’d have to wholeheartedly agree with the legislation. Not that it’s got much to do with me since I’m not in the US. But honestly, if that’s the best the opponents of the bill can muster I’d say there doesn’t seem to be much wrong with it.

Quote:
Under this bill, sharing a video with anything copyrighted in it, or what sites like Youtube and Twitter do, would be considered illegal behavior according to this bill.


Erm – actually, that’s already illegal isn’t it? The additional facet of the legislation is to go against those who foster illegal activity rather than requiring the aggrieved party to spend fruitless hours trying to track down the original perpetrator. Seems sensible to me – I’d quite like to see action taken against (for instance) those credit card companies who give licence to spam e-mailers.

Ultimately, law enforcement is a voluntary contract between the “individual” and the state – it isn’t a licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry to try to circumvent the law. It’s the duty of everyone (or at least everyone who accepts the rule of law) to make provision to ensure they are not a conduit for breaching the law. (Just to declare my interest – I don’t see anything wrong with taking the piss out of the law but that’s a different matter).

Put crudely – what the objectors seem to be saying (assuming that site is representative) is that “it’s unreasonable for the Government to shut down my stall selling jemmies and lock-picking equipment – I pay my taxes, I have a very profitable business that employs dozens of people, it’s all good for the economy". And what the law is proposing is that action can be taken against people selling equipment for the purposes of burglary rather than requiring those involved in the social contract to track down the people using the equipment clearly designed for the sole purpose of being a recalcitrant bastard.

Quote:
I think Ion tends to interpret disagreement over an issue as personal dislike, which it isn't.


If you’d added the word “always” to the end of that sentence I’d agree with you Jenny.

Incidentally

Quote:
The government has already wrongly shut down sites without any recourse to the site owner.


Interesting use of the word "wrongly" there. An explanation or definition of what it means would be appreciated.

 
Posital
867816.  Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:37 am Reply with quote

BBC wrote:
Firms told to delist fake sites

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group