United States Pushing International, Mandatory Copyright Laws. Guilty Until Proven Innocent!
Via Boing Boing, some shocking news:
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
And from an October 13, 2009 statement by Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, a group that received copies of the text:
While we appreciate USTR's recognition that increased participation is important, and its efforts in that regard, this process is still miles away from anything approaching real, public transparency. In terms of openness, a lot of the tension between what USTR says it wants to do and what has been done so far seems to come from the characterization of ACTA as a trade agreement, when its aims seem considerably broader than that. If we're going to be seeing a new kind of trade agreement that more broadly affects policy and legal interpretation, we're going to need a new, more open kind of process that lets the public see what agenda its government is pushing.
Nothing makes me angrier than corporations using the U.S. government for their own private security force - and the feds happily cooperating. I suppose we'll now require that copiers check copyrights every time someone makes a copy?
The Founding Fathers wanted copyrights that lasted no longer than 10 years. This isn't how America is supposed to be - and we have no right to demand it of everyone else, unless we're finally admitting we're more interested in protecting plantation corporate profits than we are in being a nation of laws.
. .
the love you take/ Is equal to the love you make. ...
See what you did? Now you owe Paul McCartney 30,000 bucks!
EEP we BOTH do!
Thank goodness you didn't say Jehovah!
In all seriousness, why are we worried about something "leaked" that hasn't even went up for legislation?
I mean, they could be demanding that all piraters buy them a pony. Until it actually has a hope in hell of passing, i'm not sure why we should panick
© Evet 2009
It's important, as Susie says, because it illustrates how well-coffered Corps use the wholly-owned government to protect and enhance their own bottom lines, to the detriment of use mere citizens.
If this is legitimate, it's just another in a long line of corporately-authored extreme proposals that have no hope of actually being implemented as written. As we've seen several times, the EU- aside from despising our bullying ways- prizes personal privacy over everything else, and they'd laugh this horrible "treaty" right out of the room.
All you need's a pre-nup...duh...duh...duh...duh...duh
Pre-Nup, pre-nup
A pre-nup's all you need...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.....day-yum, big bro is lurking everywhere!
dandy
Once they start to enforce these rules, it will be the death of the internet.
P.S. Thanks Barak.....
That must be what IBM and Microsoft are saying as their respective general counsel for intellectual property and senior government affairs lobbyist write these laws. Seriously check this out from CREW:
"Two former high-level managers at IBM and Microsoft are playing key roles in the Obama administration’s patent reform efforts, leading critics to question whether their involvement constitutes a breach of the administration’s ethics policy. [...]
As recently as March, Kappos, who was vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property at IBM, appeared before a Senate panel to express the company’s support for patent reform legislation making its way through Congress. And for more than a decade, Berejka worked in senior government affairs roles at Microsoft, including eight years as a lobbyist for the high-tech giant.
Now they are once again influencing the debate but from within the Commerce Department, where Kappos has been in charge of the patent and trademark office since August and Berejka serves as a top policy adviser." ~ CREW http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43210/p...
Thank's Barack,... (sigh) for breaking your own ethics policy. Should have known when there was no Kucinich amendment in health care, or when they continue to hide human rights abuse in the GWOT, or when he kept Goldman,... er ... I mean Geithner in and signed the ahhh, AIG stimulus, no ..., I mean the bailout..... i guess you have to choose.. which promises um, I mean, your battles.
The internet is the last true free frontier, and it scares the hell out of the elites.
Information is freedom. Information empowers the masses. It must be controlled, in order to maintain power.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
A bit wiser and a whole lot older, feelin' bolder
Suckin' up to the last stockholder with a
Golden parachute slung over your shoulder
that because the intertubes is the last functioning example of legitimate journalism, free speech, and by proxy, free assembly, it is a must-be-destroyed threat that the self-appointed, would-be fascist elites cannot allow to stand. An informed and thoughtful populace, even if it is only a fraction of the population is an intolerable threat to them and an intolerable obstacle. These guys are never going to stop trying to destroy the net.
Judging from Obama's pick of people and their Trilateralist, CFR and Bildergerger entanglements, and his own similar affiliations, it becomes clear where his loyalties lay, his lofty sounding rhetoric notwithstanding. One more example of whereliberty, democracy and the American People stand with this administration.
into a giant Shopping Mall
And that it became an information clearinghouse scares the living shit out of them.
..they call the software a BROWSER?
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
... screw up the most important technological advance for the average citizen in the past 50 years ...!
Thanks a load President Sham Wow Guy ....
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
"blogger license" . . and blogger liability insurance?
The fed the best of luck trying to enforce this.
It will be as successful as closing the borders or making pot illegal.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
... is in prison for pot?
DNKT ....
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
"National security concerns"? Shove it. >:(
lobbyists have a seat at these negotiations?
© Evet 2009
© Evet 2009
....kill a weaker person, no doubt.
©Paul 2009, All Rights Reserved.
Facism, plain at simple.
And I dont think ISPs will go-along with this. There is absolutely no incentive for them to. It would be on their dime and their watch.
This reads more like a wet dream of corporatists.
with Tax Dollars no less.
© Evet 2009
Speaking of Lawyers how come we're not scrutinizing the Law Racket?
© Evet 2009
Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. Mark Twain
© Saddest day in history when someone invented property
of drug users to make room for the new wave of "criminals"?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
"we're not paying for god damn music!" will be the first to try out Warren Buffets railroad acquisition.
They want the rest of the world to do this as well, yeah, like that has a chance in hell of happening.
When angry, count four, when very angry, swear.
-Mark Twain-
"Nothing makes me angrier than corporations using the U.S. government for their own private security force - and the feds happily cooperating."
Very close to what mandatory health insurance is without a meaningful public option. The health insurance industry, already exempt from anti-trust laws, is about to have the government mandate everyone must buy a failed product under the force of law and government will also act as the industry's collection arm.
Are their meaningful distinctions between government and corporations?
Hell, health insurers and banks should plead sovereign immunity when sued.
flip em the bird and toss out the computer equipment.
Buh Bye!
TV.
" it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising"
Karl "Unindicted" Rove
this summer when we got rid of all the Systems we've bought since 92. About 8 systems. $65 bucks to recycle.
We paid $1800.00 for that 386, our first system. Talk about waste.
For my part I wait until the technology lowers the prices to the point of affordability. My first 8 Track Tape Deck was given to me at a garage sale just last week. They threw in some free tapes from this fabulous group called the Doobie Brothers. Are they still recording?
" it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising"
Karl "Unindicted" Rove
very Best Of The Doobie Brothers is the latest release.
Just another perspective--as "peer to peer sharing" (read: RIP OFF ARTISTS) has pretty much destroyed an artist's ability to survive, I happen to think we DO need to enforce copyright laws and increase penalties for ripping someone's artistic creation. Do you think it's cool for me to go into a dentist's office and demand that they clean my teeth for free? How about you lawyers? Could I get you to take on my case for free? Hey, why not? It's PEER TO PEER, man!
I don't support infringing on free speech, or making it impossible for bloggers to do their thing, but when anyone uses video, music, art, or anything that someone else created, the artist needs to be compensated fairly. I can't see how any true progressive would want to see any artists, mostly independents, stop creating because they cannot make a decent living.
I actually think one should pay to read the NYTimes online. It's a business, why do you think you should get it for free? If C&L wanted to charge me 5 bucks a month, I'd gladly pay it. They are working their tales off to provide me with the latest and they deserve to be compensated.
Slam away.
but your attitude betrays a belief that sometimes you should be able to create your art in a closed environment that is not totally transparent and open to having your motivations challenged by those who might want to later use your art or free.
" it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising"
Karl "Unindicted" Rove
P2P did no more to destroy an artist's ability to survive than the audio cassette did.
I wish I had a better plan. Somewhere there should be a solution between out and out theft of copyrighted material, unauthorized duplication of such and the "demands that the rest of the world follow the US model."
Sorry that I can't provide a good answer now.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
answer you will do so in an open transparent manner.
" it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising"
Karl "Unindicted" Rove
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I felt the same way ten years ago, but P2P has actually leveled the playing field and made 1000's artists succeed and profit, even established artists such as Radiohead and NIN, the Dixie Chicks succeeded even more because the record companies were removed from the equation.
The Greatful Dead and many other artists have always felt that their music was a GIFT to their fans and their fans could do with it what they wanted to. They knew they could make enough from their live performances, which is all musicians had 100 years ago.
Without P2P a great many artists would be nobodies with no income at all unless they got a day job flipping burgers.
With the internet . . selling 10 Million albums is reserved for a select few.
Just standing out and being seen and heard is next to impossible. "Over Saturation".
No evet. It is egalitarianism at its best. No more pay to play or manufactured bands like Linkin Park and Limp Biscut. Sites such as reddit have a pretty good electronic democracy where material is shared and voted upon. many people have received exposure that they would not have.
unless you feel the primary goal of music is to make money.
If people want ultra excellent album productions and huge shows-tours they are going to have to realize that takes an enormous amount of money to produce.
If they want to just download an album produced by am unknown band, and go to see them play at a local bar or small club that's a different story.
Naw really evet it is a good thing. Think about it.
Size destroys everything.
If you had a favorite band would you rather see them in a theater that holds 500 people, or a stadium that holds 100,000 and you watch them on a jumbo screen?
Many bands stay good because they stay small, modest and humble. (ie, Pearl Jam-Target exclusive= not humble)
No more mega-bands!
I've worked in huge studios with multi-platinum producers as an independent artist, it's not impossible to do without the help of a label.
The people that got hurt with P2P are the record labels, NOT the artists. The record industry has a long history of screwing artists and a change was needed to shift the balance from the record weasels to the actual creators of music.
I love when I find my music on P2P sites, it makes me happy to know that people are listening to my music, I'd take 1000 people listening to my music for free over 100 buying an album of mine any day of the week. (Plus, I can make money with touring and merch sales, which is where most artists make the bulk of their money anyways).
"I could give a flying crap about the political process.... We're an entertainment company."
- Glenn Beck - Forbes interview; April 26, 2010
.. a lot of great artists and bands made no money off their recordings at all, or very little anyway. That was due to the rapacious way the industry wrote their contracts. You didn't get any residuals from record sales until first the studio costs, then the mastering, then the pressing, then the distribution and promo costs were deducted. At each step the record company expected a lucrative markup. Only the songwriters stood to make anything (from royalties) before you reached about a half million singles or 100,000 LPs.
Still, a hit record meant that when you went on tour it was in large venues for good pay, instead of the chicken-wire fence scenario parodied in The Blues Brothers. That's what made the recording pay off for the band, which when you think about it is how it is still. So in a sense it doesn't matter (or more accurately matters very little) whether you acquire a song through P2P, through iTunes, at a music store, or for the smarter indy artists, through direct marketing.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
all you want. But the reality of it is that this is designed for and by corporate publishers(print/audio/video) who are all to happy to rob both the consumer AND the artists.
I created and ran a record company for about 5 years, doing new age music. Couldn't make any money, in spite of reieving top 10 radio play. Sold few CD's, and watched them get pirated. After the 3rd CD album, I shut the company down. We made some quality music and set the company up so that the artists got the lion's share of profits, instead of the record company. It was a good vision made non-viable by theft and piracy.
But, in this particular instance, I do not believe that the concern is even remotely about piracy issues or artist rip-offs; it's nothing more than a shallow subtrefuge, an excuse behind which they will hide while destroying net neutrality. If they cannot get Congress to destroy net neutrality by bribing the Members, they can disguise their intentions and shut it down by means that amount to draconian censorship. Achieving that, they destroy this country's only functioning example of true journalism, they destroy a forum of free speech that up to this point they have been unable to control, they destroy a virtual means of free assembly and, having accomplished these goals, get back about the business of dumbing down the populace, picking up where they left off before their work was so rudely interrupted by the pesky intertubes. This isn't about protecting rights, IMO, it's about subverting and destroying rights.
I don't think there should be ads on cable TV because I have to pay for it.
Everyone here has file shared.
Ever made a photo copy of an article and sent it to friends? That's file sharing.
Ever recorded an album to cassette from the radio or a friend? That's file sharing.
Ever listened to your neighbor's radio? That's file sharing.
We need to rethink copyright laws, patents and intellectual property. These guys went in the wrog direction.
and then passed it on to a friend.
The examples are endless. We are considering criminalizing millions of people's everyday behavior.
A culture can only thrive when there is a rich, open public domain of arts and information.
Now we're gonna' have to shut down all the pubic libraries and do some book-burning???
Do CD's/DVD's make good bonfires?
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
I think you're supposed to microwave them.
They just want the library to pay the publisher the full cover price of the book every time it's lent out.
Steal This Film II is a great short film about the history of intellectual property and covers this topic well. IMO no o\ne should make up their mind on this topic unless they have considered the issues raised in that film.
PEOPLE have been THINKING too long that
ART is a PRIVILEGE of the MUSEUMS & the
RICH. ART IS NOT BUSINESS!
It does not belong to banks & fancy investors
ART IS FOOD. You can't EAT it BUT it FEEDS
you. ART has to be CHEAP & available to
EVERYBODY. It needs to be EVERYWHERE
because it is the INSIDE of the
WORLD.
ART SOOTHES PAIN!
Art wakes up the sleepers!
ART FIGHTS AGAINST WAR & STUPIDITY!
ART SINGS HALLELUJA!
ART IS FOR KITCHENS!
ART IS LIKE GOOD BREAD!
Art is like green trees!
Art is like white clouds in blue sky!
ART IS CHEAP!
HURRAH!
Bread & Puppet Glover, Vermont, 1984
Hooray terrible!
at least one person gets it! It's not about the money when it comes to art.
And did anyone know that the patent process is a complete clusterf*ck these days as well? It is nearly impossible to bring an invention to market without violating some obscure patent. often owned by a corporation.
Oh and they are patenting life forms now too, like Monsanto owning kinds of pigs and produce. That's not a good use of intellectual property.
I know as I am involved in a study at Duke.
Anything gained from my DNA makes the corporate-paid researchers rich while I get bupkiss.
Wow that's an interesting job.
Is there ever any discussion about the notion that patent laws were never meant for life forms?
I'm just curious.
Someday this will get reversed. The Supreme Court is so beholden to industry that it might well take 100 years, but the decision to allow patenting genes flies so blatantly in the face of the definition of a patent that I can't believe it will hold up forever.
Patents are explicitly for inventions, not for discoveries, i.e. things that already existed before you found them. AFAIK, every gene that's been patented is a discovery, not an invention. If you take a DNA sequence and modify it to do something else, or otherwise make something that's not found in nature, THAT would be justifiably patentable, since it's new.
They are suing farmers who have had pollen from Monsanto's Frankenseeds blow onto crops on land near where Monsanto seeds are grown.
The ironic thing is that one of the biggest recent products, the iPod, was actually a complete ripoff - somebody designed it (not just the concept, but the exact thing, with the circular touch-scroller) ten or so years ago (maybe even longer) but never patented it. Later Apple got hold of his original blueprints and the rest is history.
OK here's something that will piss people off. I recently downloaded a shit load of music.
But here's the thing; most of it is out of print. These artists wok will go unheard for generations, maybe forever, because of some BS intellectual property which often only benefits the recording label, not the artists heirs.
How could anybody keep such works unlistened to because of the NOTION of intellectual property?
Many of these songs were recorded from the 10's to the 50's, and some of them are very minor and obscure, some foreign bands from the seventies. None of this stuff would get exposure if not for the current structure and openness of the internet.
But Copyrights can also be transferred by will or inheritance to children.
That is if the artists HAD a decent contract to begin with.
And what is the incentive of paying $20 for a CD that came out 90 years ago? These people settle for nothing because of the remote hope of very little money.
Good story of Monty Python is they complained years ago that youtube was infringing on their intellectual property.
Shortly after the advent of youtube their DVD sales skyrocketed due to their free exposure on youtube.
By giving it away, they received more in the end.
How can we talk about protections for the duration of a person's life when that redefined "person" can live forever?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
British poll: Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music'
Corruption favors the wealthy.
LOL greatest lie ever invented.
... music nuts would easily be among both those that spend the most and those who download the most. I'm not vouching for the poll (I don't know much about it), but the results fit my experiences.
The music nuts I've known who had bought the largest album collections were also the ones who owned the most bootleg albums.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No it makes sense evet. Most people aren't audio philes and buy one or two cd's. People who really love music and collect start out buying a ton of CD's and LP's before progressing to harder stuff, like downloading.
..P2P downloading is just a way of shopping around. They're voracious listeners, and may consider ten CDs before they purchase one. It only makes sense.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
there is a difference between playing downloaded MP3's on a set of cheap computer speakers and an Ipod and appreciating and truly listening to music on a good audio reproduction system.
Quality is more important to me then quantity.
I have an advanced audiocard for recording and 3 foot old school speakers. As much as possible, mp3's i listen to are a higher sampling rate or FLAC files which sound pretty damn good.
As a writer my copyrights are my property. I made those writings and should be able to profit from them. The copyrights will last beyond my death so that what I have made becomes part of my estate. Not forever, but for a reasonable time. If someone wants to use one of my writings then they can pay me. I don't see how this can be a problem. I may be wrong about this but I always thought the intent of the constitution is quite opposite to what has so far been stated. The idea of copyright was new then. They weren't trying to limit rights, they were promoting work by allowing its creator to benefit from it at a time when the usual thing was for writers to sell their MSS outright to publishers for a one-time fee and composers worked either for patronage or commission. It was only with copyrights that it became possible for a writer to receive payment for the use of work. I find it remarkable that writers in the US are expected to subsidize public libraries: why don't they get a fee every time a book of theirs is checked out?
If I see anything of mine being used without permission I shut it down. I see that most of the people posting don't create stuff so 'everything that's yours is mine' is a convenient position to take.
Oh. And I've seen the Bread and Puppet theatre. Terrific. However, I paid for my ticket and they received payment for their work. So let's not get carried away.
Because it looks like it's coming from the same writer that gave Lars Ulrich his talking points.
N.B.: wisterly, member, 18 minutes.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
he/she is a publishing exec?
very creative....
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No. I do create and I felt the same way about ten years ago. The internet is a new and different method of distribution that makes information worth less. And that can be a good thing. it is a level playing field and if someone's primary goal is to be heard or noticed, it is a great place.
You cannot give everyone a "replicator" and then tell them this is how and when you will use it. There is no way to effectively police it.
So you're full of shit!! Their performances are STRICTLY donation!!! And their art and printed materials are charged for there but I can 100% assure you they are perfectly happy to have their words copied and spread around the planet for FREE!!
Not when they play BAM. I can't remember how much I paid but I certainly paid. And anyway, that's what they choose to do. Good for them.
I joined 15 mins ago to reply to this post.
It's different for someone writing fiction, say. If you want to use the internet you can. I write for the theatre and my work is then taken up and produced by theatres and I earn a percentage. I see nothing wrong with this. And if I see it posted anywhere without my permission - which I think is the real issue - then it's taken down. Because I made it and it is mine. If you want to use it then you license it from me. Easy.
You think you should have a veto power over that use?
If so, you've virtually ended satire, and I believe you might have some 1st Amendment problems with that.
Of course, you earlier complained about public libraries in their entirety so I suppose losing just the satirical works is really no great loss.
If you wish to keep your work private - don't publish it. If, on the other hand, you wish to put your work into the public arena, then you must be prepared for the public to make fair use of it.
Commercial use is a different story.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
parody, satire, reviews with content snippets, news coverage using snippets
these are ok
for their venue costs NOT the B&P. I would hope that B&P did make something for their work there but unless you can provide evidence of that then neither you nor I have anyway of knowing that. You're making assumptions about things you have no knowledge of on that.
Not at all. This is how the theatre works. The writer works for a percentage of the gross. In their case they would be paid as a collective for the piece and the individual members would receive whatever payment is mandated by Equity. You can't work in a union house unless you work within the union. And as a member of Equity myself I would not enter a theatre if a non-union cast was performing. Even B&P must pay their bills.
Of course I should have veto power. And I've done it. I've stopped two productions that were abusing my work. Other productions that have interpreted the work - not necessarily in a way that I think best or even suitable - I've allowed to go forward. To repeat: it is mine. However, when a play is published the writer hands over to the licensing company the right to choose who can produce the play and when. That's the deal. So a writer isn't always in a position to stop a production of which he or she disapproves. For example, Beckett has a very stringent clause in the contract he makes with theatres who wish to produce him. Nothing may be changed, added, subtracted or altered. I don't necessarily think that's such a good thing. Some years ago the Public produced Godot and radically changed its setting. Beckett tried to stop it and couldn't.
But I think it's important not to confuse the idea of fair use with a wholesale appropriation. And of course satire is not affected. No one is confused by the Nation's lampoon of the Palin 'memoir'. I do think that intent is important. And also asking for permission instead of taking.
I wasn't attacking libraries. I just don't understand why writers have to support them. In the UK a writer whose work is in the library system submits a claim and is paid according to the number of times his or her books were checked out. Of course, in this country the government doesn't seem to feel responsible for the education or happiness of the citizens and the sacred free market seems only to apply to banks.
All I mean by these posts is that copyrights protect writers (and musicians and inventors, etc) and should not be sloughed off. There's an earlier post pointing out that these laws could very well be a back-door way to control the internet. I don't know and I don't speak to that. I can only speak from my own experience.
Oh. And it's easy and cheap to obtain a copyright. The service is extremely well run and simple to navigate.
All Sarah Plain has to do is have a lawyer write a letter and the video of the speech Dave Niewert is lambasting must be removed. No neutral and detached magistrate to determine whether or not something is fair use - just a letter.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Whatever will I do if I have to write my own stuff?
let me know if another planet exists where life is free.
LOL
Thu, 11/05/2009 - 07:43 — Evet
© Saddest day in history when someone invented property
So, where do you stand on the issue?
and the fence is too uncomfortable to sit on. So Evet is jumping back and forth lately.
if you have it and nurture it to make the world a better place rather then flipping it to make a fast buck that's another story.
We've become a throw away society that doesn't help much either. It's become a curse on us it's cheapened everything. Now you can slap your name up on Facebook and claim to be someones friend without even taking the effort to earn it.
can I add you to my list of friends? I mean, shit. we see each other everyday. I think I've earned it.
; )
it's like . . .
Well at least the Administration's heart is in the right place. I know they think they are protecting business and copyright owners by doing this, but they're wrong. This is going to drive more content providers, programming talent, ISPs and other tech companies overseas to countries that aren't part of this agreement. Mr President, you can't save the economy with one hand and then smash it to pieces with the other - only Republicans do that.
Obama understands what he's doing. If it was McCain I would say it is all coming from someone else, because he doesn't understand the subject. Its like saying Obama's heart is in the right place when he chooses not to prosecute war crimes or withdraw from Afghanistan.
Importance of cheap art
A Cheap art is NOT important
B Cheap art defies, ridicules,
undermines & makes obsolete
the sanctity of
affluent-society economy
C Cheap art is light, little, quick and easy to do
made mostly from scrap and junk
D Cheap art is a movemnent
E Cheap art FIGHTS the business of art
Bread & Puppet Press Glover, VT 1985
http://c4ss.org/content/1374
destroying net neutrality via a back door approach. Censorship is even more effective than slow access. It also looks like a way to create a treaty obligation without the advice and consent of the senate. I don't believe that their professed concern with copyrights is anything more than a subtrefuge.
Ever since the telecoms picked up the tab for the Democratic national convention, I've been wondering when they would get their payback.
This is so looking like Bush's 3rd term.
everyone is missing is that you don't have to actually have done anything wrong to get booted from the internet. They don't have to prove anything. They just have to say you did it.
But this law is not about artists getting ripped off. It's just a way to keep the people down. The internet is the people's staying informed and, in many cases, it's the only place they can get the truth. Imagine the BushCo years without the internet. The Cons would have taken over the whole country lock, stock and barrel. The spineless Dem "leaders" didn't stop the takeover. People on the internet did. It tilts the balance of power in our favor even if it's just a little bit.
The internet allows us to connect to people who feel the same way we do. It allows us to talk to people all over the world from our living rooms. It gives us knowledge. It gives us info. It keeps us in touch. It gives us power. This bill is about taking all of that away.
/
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Fuck you for this piece of shit, Obama.
Perhaps it is starting to appear that Obama is not the leader we thought he would be. You don't need to be a rocket scientist of economist to figure out just how stifling this is policy would be to innovation.
It's amazing how many people have been willing to apologize for Obama's shortcomings as inexperience, or that he is seeking to reach bipartisanship, strictly because they still have -- no pun intended -- hope that he is going to eventually come around to being that liberal, humanitarian savior we wanted him to be.
It may be finally sinking in that he is actually not the liberal supporter of the constitution we all believed he was, and that the reason he will not support criminal actions against the Bush administration is because he wants to guard his own ass.
I was scared he was nothing more than a politican -- and he's proving himself to be way worse than I had thought.
This is what we elected?
Voters only have the government's ear every 4 years. Corporation have it every day. Who do you think wins?
OK, now try to imagine how angry that makes people in other countries, to have an arrogant brutish superpower pushing their weight around like that.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
this is the staging for our invasion of hong kong and taiwan, as well as the wholesale ownership of turkey for trillions in back fees. the world will be one big copyright infringement funding future cia endeavors and land grabs. (this is all in the redacted detail of the form).
by the way,
be withheld because it was deemed to be a "concern of national security"?
i see that when obama pledged government transparency, "transparency" was actually in quotation marks
much must be sacrificed.
If you can get something removed based on the accusation of illegality -- not even the proof -- this website may essentially be shut down. After all, there are many snippets of other copywrited works here every day.
Every blog entry someone writes is copyrighted. While permission to use maybe be implied, all someone has to do is actually say that the story we all commenting on is actually copyrgithed by someone else, and then this whole story gets shut down.
This legislation hurts everyone- even the big websites like Facebook- Half of my wall postings there are Youtube links..
What about the Youtube links on Crooksandliars?
The right wing would love to see liberal sites like this one destroyed-
How do we fight back?
The corporations control everything..
....how do we fight it? Staying on our elected officials isn't all we need to do. The more they try to control things, the more they will piss off a very tech savvy generation.
If this goes into effect, I say hack them till they beg us to stop.
The EU is ridiculing the US over this and has already passed it's own legislation that is pretty much the exact opposite of what Washington tried to shove down their throat.
Pretty much tells you where the US stands in the world today when Europe just laughs at them and calls them loony.
Comments are closed on this entry