Next post Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee

[Lumi]

<!--end post navigation-->Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee


Who says Congress never gets anything done?
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed ?central to the activity? of the site ? regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the ?nuclear option,? which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites ?off.?

COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

Story Continues......

 

[StevieD]

It's nice to know that both sides of the aisle can come together when corporate profits are at stake.

 

[Chadman]

Sorry, I don't get why you guys are so indignant about these sites being dealt with in an aggressive manner. Copyright infringement is against the law. Illegal downloading of movies, music, etc., is against the law, with good reason. This content is protected, just like any other product that's for sale. This material is just able to be copied and given away, unlike other material, but that's the point - it has to be protected in different ways.

These sites are merely places where people go to take part in illegal acts and give away copies of things for free, which is illegal. That's why we have a copyright system in this country, which makes perfect sense. Guessing whatever companies you work for, whatever services you provide, etc., if there was another individual doing what you do for free, or making a copy of your product and sharing it with thousands of other people for free, it might bother you a little bit more. While these sites may not be technically breaking the law, they certainly are providing a place for people to come to to break the law. Which is wrong, in my view. This is not infringing on people's rights - it's protecting the individual's rights that create the products and try to sell them.

 

[StevieD]

Chad, I don't really find anything wrong with the law per se. But I find it very interesting that when it comes to something like unemployment benefits, which I think you agree is important, they can argue for months about is. But when it comes to something to help the Corporations they pass the bill so fast your head will spin.

 

[Chadman]

Chad, I don't really find anything wrong with the law per se. But I find it very interesting that when it comes to something like unemployment benefits, which I think you agree is important, they can argue for months about is. But when it comes to something to help the Corporations they pass the bill so fast your head will spin.

To that point, I can agree - although I don't know how long this has been talked about or has been in committee. However, I think the two things are very different, and should be treated as such - I see no reason to delay the action legislators have taken on this issue - it's simple to me and should be quickly moved on.

On a related note - I have no problem with putting elimination of extending unemployment benefits on the table for elimination, if we are all truly committed to balancing a budget and cutting things across the board. Tough sell for me at the moment, though, when conservatives are standing strong for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs - again - at a time of war, which has always been a sticking point for me, and was unheard of until Bush's planning committee took over. If you go to war, everyone should sacrifice, IMO, and not benefit while others sacrifice.

 

[Lumi]

Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it ?dangerous.? (pdf.) The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have ?grave repercussions for global human rights.? (pdf.) Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country ? many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet ? said the bill will ?create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.? (pdf.) Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from RedState.com, HotAir.com, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this ?serious threat to the Internet.?

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, ?Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.? He added: ?In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.?

 

[Chadman]

Okay, Lumi - I know what your angle on this is. But what do you say about these sites that clearly are providing the bandwidth and sites for the express purpose of allowing people to commit illegal acts? To me, it's a joke that they shouldn't be held responsible for these sites, when they market them and make advertising revenues from them, based on knowingly providing the technology and linking site to allow people to break the law.

I can see the concern about the thoroughness of the law, that maybe it goes to far, etc. But the sites shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. It's not a free speech issue, in my opinion, as the ACLU is assessing. That completely skirts the issue of what these sites are doing.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

On a related note - I have no problem with putting elimination of extending unemployment benefits on the table for elimination, if we are all truly committed to balancing a budget and cutting things across the board. Tough sell for me at the moment, though, when conservatives are standing strong for keeping tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs - again - at a time of war, which has always been a sticking point for me, and was unheard of until Bush's planning committee took over. If you go to war, everyone should sacrifice, IMO, and not benefit while others sacrifice.

At a time of war? You mean these two BS wars that the rich are getting richer on? Plus they want their tax cuts? While at the same time denying the unemployed benefits? Give me a break.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I will add that I think two years of benefits is probably too much but its hard to tell how bad it is unless you are in that situation. However, I think it is sick that unemployed benefits has to be tied to tax cuts for the rich to pass. This country is going down hill even faster than I thought.

 

[Lumi]

Okay, Lumi - I know what your angle on this is. But what do you say about these sites that clearly are providing the bandwidth and sites for the express purpose of allowing people to commit illegal acts? To me, it's a joke that they shouldn't be held responsible for these sites, when they market them and make advertising revenues from them, based on knowingly providing the technology and linking site to allow people to break the law.

I can see the concern about the thoroughness of the law, that maybe it goes to far, etc. But the sites shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. It's not a free speech issue, in my opinion, as the ACLU is assessing. That completely skirts the issue of what these sites are doing.

Chad,

I was going to reply , but I am on the ground with another migraine.

I can't string 3 words together... other than this reply.

Back later... I hope:sadwave:

 

[Chadman]

NP, hide in the dark for a while, man. Talk atcha later.

 

[Lumi]

NP, hide in the dark for a while, man. Talk atcha later.

That's what I did.

Got in a dark room. Popped an Imitrex and some Naprocen.

Still a little buzz going

 

[Chadman]

Do you have anything good for cancer? :mj07:

 

[hedgehog]

That's what I did.

Got in a dark room. Popped an Imitrex and some Naprocen.

Still a little buzz going

:weed: :0074

 

[Lumi]

:weed: :0074

I didn't use that,

the "Buzz" is from the aura from the migraine,
the halos around the lights, and the sensitivity to to sound and light hedge.

Being that I only use when I have a Migraine, and I don't know when they are going to occur, my stash dries up.

I can't keep wrapping up my "stuff" in orange peels to moisten the green.

Plus, as a RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS OWNER, I CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE MY SENSES DULLED by the green.

The Imitrex is a nasal spray and it is fast acting, but tastes like shit, :facepalm: I will deal with it.

In summary, I'm off the green.... :SIB