Internet Blacklist Bill

[RobinGoodfellow]

Robin, you're far too trusting. Fibbers will take this law, mix it with the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act, and decide that any special agent can shut down a site if he states he has "reason for suspicion" of suspicious activity.

If that were the case, I'd be having more issues with the law. However, only one office (the AG of the DoJ) can invoke this law, and it takes a court order in order to execute it. So not only does the AG need to have a reason to invoke, but he then has to convince a judge of the same thing. That paper trail gives it at least an air of transparency, so if an agent starts going after sites, that trail can be used to slap him down.

And the problem is in the creation of a way in which the internet could just be turned off, shut down, gone. That should frighten anyone who believes in individual liberty.

Again, if that were an issue I would be worried. However, the law specifically goes after only those that are currently involved in an illegal activity, and a very specific one at that.

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

If standing up for basic democratic rights and freedom suddenly is being "zealous" than I have no problem being one.

Yeah, a Republican!

Er...You are aware that at this point you have attacked me, censorship, and even areas that aren't even touched by the act, but at no point have you bothered attacking the actual law? Weird that....

Well but you are so strongly for laws that are basically ONLY being lobbied by the big media corps?

Because as a content provider, I'm against piracy past a certain point...

And if you have followed that independent artists scene you will have noticed that many of them experimented with one or the other new way of distributing their content - and quite successfully so. Something that the big corps (RIAA) are afraid of.

1) Actually, no. They haven't experimented with any form that hasn't already been shown to work. Please prove me wrong. Also, the issue here is piracy, something that hurts the independent film community more than it does mainstream movies.

2) Again with the RIAA. RIAA and the Big Corps don't always work hand-in-hand.

Again .. any kind of censorship is NOT a cure for other problems. It is equally as silly as the "stop child porn through blacklists" debate. This doesn't stop a single child from being abused. But it introduces a censorship framework.

Again, the inability to download something that is illegally being shared is not censorship.

By the way .. it is really nice to see how you complete ignored the other ways of communication that "still" are uncensored. So I take it you don't want your snail mail and e-mail to be checked and monitored? Or did you just chose to ignore this part of the discussion?

I just thought it was a ball from left field and ignored it because it had no relevance to the conversation. I'm definitely against the monitoring, but what relevance does this have to anything about PROTECT-IP? The act only applies to sites that are on the web doing piracy. That's it. On what grounds was it even part of this conversation?

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I tried to explain (and tried again above) it seems you did not comprehend it though.

No, you haven't. The "specifics" comment was asking for which parts of the bill I'm not understanding; all it looks like you're trying to explain parts I'm patently familiar with (such as Fair Use) and in a way to make it seem like we're disagreeing. You have apparently failed simply because you haven't bothered to show what I'm actually not understanding and tried to explain what I do...

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

If that were the case, I'd be having more issues with the law. However, only one office (the AG of the DoJ) can invoke this law, and it takes a court order in order to execute it. So not only does the AG need to have a reason to invoke, but he then has to convince a judge of the same thing. That paper trail gives it at least an air of transparency, so if an agent starts going after sites, that trail can be used to slap him down.


Again, if that were an issue I would be worried. However, the law specifically goes after only those that are currently involved in an illegal activity, and a very specific one at that.

RG

Do you really mean to tell me that you expect a certain kind of power could be handed to the government and it won't get abused?

Cops arrest people for violating laws that don't exist. DAs prosecute people with manufactured evidence. Judges sign blank warrants. The NSA runs programs that read ALL of our email. The DoJ shuts down sites that don't even host content and arrest the people running them. And Attorneys General of the U.S. say things like habeus corpus isn't a right.

And you believe this power won't be abused......?

 

[Corny]

Again, the inability to download something that is illegally being shared is not censorship.

Oh geez. You haven't understood a single bit.

If just stopping people from downloading something illegal would be possible with a simple law. Please .. do it. I won't complain.

But back to reality. This is not possible. It never will be.

Once again: just because people can (snail) mail illegal stuff, that doesn't justify them to check every letter or package that arrives at your house.

It really is the same with internet connections. Stopping a few, and yes only a few, a very few illegal downloads is NOT justifying the erection of a censorship infrastructure.

You wear this huge blindfold of "must stop piracy" and thus you don't even see the technical and legal implications of this silly law. So many people have tried to explain you why it is back, but like a dog that only wants food your only reply is "we have to stop piracy"

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll try another illustration.

Back in the good old days of sailing ships, a vessel far out at sea discovered it had a problem: rats were gnawing at the ropes, getting into the food. The captain asked for ideas, then spent some time looking them over. When he'd picked one, he called the officers together. "Gentlemen, you have proposed many ideas. Most are complex, and not guaranteed to work. But one was simple, powerful, direct, and guaranteed to kill all the rats." He turned to the first officer. "Lieutenant, prepare to sink the ship."

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

And you believe this power won't be abused......?

Obviously I'm not saying that nor am I by any stretch pre-supposing that America is all pretty and orderly. That's sort of why I've been pointing out that there is now an actual paper trail that when abuse happens it will be easier to deal with whoever is doing it. think that anything allows someone who has suffered abuse a clearer way to determine who did the abuse is a good thing, rather than the murky waters we have now...

RG

 

[vforvendetta]

Obviously I'm not saying that nor am I by any stretch pre-supposing that America is all pretty and orderly. That's sort of why I've been pointing out that there is now an actual paper trail that when abuse happens it will be easier to deal with whoever is doing it. think that anything allows someone who has suffered abuse a clearer way to determine who did the abuse is a good thing, rather than the murky waters we have now...

RG

You seem to have the illusion that we live in a country where they care anymore - the Constitution has declined in relevance for the federal government for some time now, because nobody is able to defend it. Just because it's easier to see who may be responsible abuse doesn't mean that they'll be tried for it. We know who was responsible for abuses under the Patriot Act, but we never tried Bush and his cronies for it. Why? Powerful people, those with lots of money and those in high places are essentially immune from prosecution - whether you want to believe that or not. We in the lower classes must defend our liberties by what means we have left, and that is especially true when warding off dangerous legislation like this.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I'll try another illustration.

Back in the good old days of sailing ships, a vessel far out at sea discovered it had a problem: rats were gnawing at the ropes, getting into the food. The captain asked for ideas, then spent some time looking them over. When he'd picked one, he called the officers together. "Gentlemen, you have proposed many ideas. Most are complex, and not guaranteed to work. But one was simple, powerful, direct, and guaranteed to kill all the rats." He turned to the first officer. "Lieutenant, prepare to sink the ship."

So...you are saying that we should cut off the internet completely? Yeah. Brilliant example....<facepalm> I love how artists are supposed to give out all of their work for free, getting nothing from it, whereas everyone else expects to get paid for their work. If a carpenter or scientist or even a cashier doesn't get paid, that's a crime, but an artist trying to make money is shameful.

As I've said elsewhere: If you're willing to subsidize artists, including all of their materials, and insure them complete freedom to do as they please, then we would no longer need anti-piracy laws. The idea behind the laws is to ensure that artists have as many options regarding the dispersal of their art as the artist wants, while at the same time ensuring that the artist gets something for their efforts. Sure, you can let there stuff go for free; you had just better have a way to make money from it.

Yeesh....
RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Oh geez. You haven't understood a single bit.

Says the guy who thinks that not allowing him to download something illegally equates to censorship...

Once again: just because people can (snail) mail illegal stuff, that doesn't justify them to check every letter or package that arrives at your house.

And this law is not doing that. But great way to stoke the conspiratorial flames!

It really is the same with internet connections. Stopping a few, and yes only a few, a very few illegal downloads is NOT justifying the erection of a censorship infrastructure.

I'm not really not getting how this is censorship. If I want to download Avatar legally, I can. If I want to buy the DVD, I can. If I just want to stream it, I can easily do so legally. As I have all of these different ways of watching Avatar that are legal, how is shutting down a site where it was illegally uploaded to censorship?

What exact definition of censorship are you using? "If I can't get it for free, it has to be censorship"? Fine. Then subsidize artists. Rather than closing bad art down, which is the case when you need to pay for it, you would be paying taxes for something that you have no control over and would have to accept regardless of the outcome. Worse, it would be subject to all sorts of abuse as anyone that applies would get accepted, or the agency in question would be forced to deal with charges of censorship.

If you can come up with a means that an artist can control what happens to their work and get paid for it, then by all means suggest something. Instead, all you are doing is complaining about is someone taking your precious free downloads away so you may have to actually pay for them. That's not censorship. Get over it.

You wear this huge blindfold of "must stop piracy" and thus you don't even see the technical and legal implications of this silly law. So many people have tried to explain you why it is back, but like a dog that only wants food your only reply is "we have to stop piracy"

Yeah, I get the implications, but that's because I'm the only one who has apparently actually bothered reading the material. I'm not wearing some metaphorical blindfold as I'm obviously not unaware that pirating does have some benefit, which you would realize if you bothered to actually read my posts.

On the other hand, you are looking for conspiracy theories everywhere. You like to paint in the broadest brushstrokes possible so as to not worry about anything that really matter. Not my problem. Get over it. You want to discuss this law, fine; let's discuss it. Bother actually reading it. If you are going to keep raising the specter of censorship, then you need to define exactly how this is censorship, and how that applies, which you have yet to do. You're simply stating that it's censorship without, at any point, demonstrably showing how this is going to prevent someone from making a piece of art or how it blocks the knowledge of that piece or how it stops someone from distributing it.

That's censorship. Not making it illegal to download it illegally. But to ensure that others cannot enjoy it. So....precisely how is eliminating illegal downloading censorship? Don't just say it. define it.

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

We in the lower classes must defend our liberties by what means we have left, and that is especially true when warding off dangerous legislation like this.

And now we go into class warfare...Yay.

I agree that some laws need to be retracted. The Patriot Act's time is past, and Bush needs to deal with the repercussions of his acts. However, I disagree that the Constitution is something that the government disregards. The people have spoken and continue to speak; this is how we got the government we currently have. It may not be the one you want, but apparently enough people disagreed with you on that so it happened.

Nonetheless, this piece of legislation will help the "lower classes" more than the Big Corps. Avatar was the most pirated yet most successful movie when it was released, so I'm reasonably sure that any pretenses regarding piracy are just a facade. At the same time, smaller production houses have been put out of businesses due to piracy. In that regard, I think that the "lower classes" need more protection against piracy or it becomes de facto censorship; if you can't afford to produce something it's just not worth producing something. But I'm sorta weird; I like getting paid for my efforts...

RG

 

[vforvendetta]

And now we go into class warfare...Yay.

I agree that some laws need to be retracted. The Patriot Act's time is past, and Bush needs to deal with the repercussions of his acts. However, I disagree that the Constitution is something that the government disregards. The people have spoken and continue to speak; this is how we got the government we currently have. It may not be the one you want, but apparently enough people disagreed with you on that so it happened.

The people are weak and overwhelmingly naive when it comes to how easily they're conned - this back and forth tug of war between two superficially separate agendas has distracted people from the fact that both main parties, at least at the upper levels, have been continuing the practice of restricting our overall freedom and keeping us in multiple wars, even if some concessions are given from time to time.

Do you really think I didn't like what Obama put out for his campaign in 2008? It sounded like a dream come true. Of course, things that sound too good to be true often are, as has been the case here. Obama has done some things for our cause specifically, and I commend him for that - but he caved on leaving Iraq, shutting down Gitmo and repealing that abominable Patriot Act (which he re-signed two days ago if I recall correctly...so much for repeal...). I'm left only to the somewhat conspiracy theory-esque conclusion that there are stronger influences behind what we people on the ground perceive as the top man pulling some of the strings. This makes quite a bit of sense given how quickly he reversed many of his campaign promises once in office.

Nonetheless, this piece of legislation will help the "lower classes" more than the Big Corps. Avatar was the most pirated yet most successful movie when it was released, so I'm reasonably sure that any pretenses regarding piracy are just a facade. At the same time, smaller production houses have been put out of businesses due to piracy. In that regard, I think that the "lower classes" need more protection against piracy or it becomes de facto censorship; if you can't afford to produce something it's just not worth producing something. But I'm sorta weird; I like getting paid for my efforts...

Let me be frank in stating this - the whole piracy issue and its ethics really aren't what's being debated here, it's the abuse potential the law can cause. In that situation, we in the 'lower classes' benefit none but have much to lose if you're wrong and it is abused without limit (as the "Patriot" Act has been). If we lived in an ideal world where fair prices for media could be set and piracy could be abolished, sure, I'd support something like that. Fair is fair, right? But that's never going to be the case in this imperfect world and all you're doing in defending this beast is providing yet another tool for our government to screw us with.

 

[Kulindahr]

So...you are saying that we should cut off the internet completely? Yeah. Brilliant example....<facepalm> I love how artists are supposed to give out all of their work for free, getting nothing from it, whereas everyone else expects to get paid for their work. If a carpenter or scientist or even a cashier doesn't get paid, that's a crime, but an artist trying to make money is shameful.

As I've said elsewhere: If you're willing to subsidize artists, including all of their materials, and insure them complete freedom to do as they please, then we would no longer need anti-piracy laws. The idea behind the laws is to ensure that artists have as many options regarding the dispersal of their art as the artist wants, while at the same time ensuring that the artist gets something for their efforts. Sure, you can let there stuff go for free; you had just better have a way to make money from it.

Yeesh....
RG

Wow.

The illustration is showing what you're fighting for.

You have no comprehension of how the so-called law enforcement community works, or you would have gotten that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Says the guy who thinks that not allowing him to download something illegally equates to censorship...


And this law is not doing that. But great way to stoke the conspiratorial flames!


I'm not really not getting how this is censorship.
RG

That's the problem.

You're looking at this law as though everyone in law enforcement is a little angel who respects the rights of citizens and will be very careful to do no more than the law allows. But it doesn't work that way: you hand them a power, and they will use it. What the law says is only marginally important; the power is the thing.

It's like the NSA: they aren't supposed to spy on Americans at all, but they have the power, the capability, to run everyone's email through a program that reads it for them -- so they're doing it. It's against the law, but no one in law enforcement cares.

Remember my illustrations -- with the keys, with the rats?

 

[Kulindahr]

However, I disagree that the Constitution is something that the government disregards.
RG

Wow. The ACLU disagrees with you. The Institute for Justice disagrees with you. Judicial Watch disagrees with you.

SCOTUS disregards the Constitution on a regular basis -- like, they just approved of warrantless searches! They've been whittling away at the Fourth and Fifth for years, and it's not getting better.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Let me be frank in stating this - the whole piracy issue and its ethics really aren't what's being debated here, it's the abuse potential the law can cause. In that situation, we in the 'lower classes' benefit none but have much to lose if you're wrong and it is abused without limit (as the "Patriot" Act has been). If we lived in an ideal world where fair prices for media could be set and piracy could be abolished, sure, I'd support something like that. Fair is fair, right? But that's never going to be the case in this imperfect world and all you're doing in defending this beast is providing yet another tool for our government to screw us with.

Piracy will never be abolished. The reasons for piracy range from sticking it to the Man to issues of availability and price of a DVD. You also have various media using it as a form of marketing, and there is always the fansub issue. Like I keep saying: I'm not into the abolition of it, just a way to curb its excesses. I'm not looking at the sites that do a few movies here and there or even P2P, beyond a certain degree, but sites that do a few thousand movies in an hour or less.

My other concern is the person who is trying to break in and has an individual voice. Although piracy isn't an issue for the major players, it is for the little man. If I only need to sell a relatively few copies to make back my investment, odds are pretty good that pirating that movie is going to screw him over. In a way it's ironic that your claiming to be for the "lower classes", but this law would defend them the most...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

You're looking at this law as though everyone in law enforcement is a little angel who respects the rights of citizens and will be very careful to do no more than the law allows. But it doesn't work that way: you hand them a power, and they will use it. What the law says is only marginally important; the power is the thing.

I'm actually with you as far as scaling back their powers. This law represents exactly that; they need to go through a number of hoops in order to even temporarily deal with any given site, and, unlike the Patriot Act, that forces a lot of light into it. Also, another consideration is that the person who has the court order placed against them has the option of opposing it in court, as opposed to the Patriot Act which doesn't allow for that. You also have the option of abandoning the site or cleaning it up.

Summing up: It limits the government by forcing it to go through a transparent process. The target not only has his day in court, but can address the issue an get the site unblocked. The Big Names don't really benefit, but the independent scene does.

I'm just seeing this as win...

Now...the new Tennessee law where even a few people sharing the same account can get them into trouble...? That's an issue...

RG

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm actually with you as far as scaling back their powers. This law represents exactly that; they need to go through a number of hoops in order to even temporarily deal with any given site, and, unlike the Patriot Act, that forces a lot of light into it. Also, another consideration is that the person who has the court order placed against them has the option of opposing it in court, as opposed to the Patriot Act which doesn't allow for that. You also have the option of abandoning the site or cleaning it up.

Summing up: It limits the government by forcing it to go through a transparent process. The target not only has his day in court, but can address the issue an get the site unblocked. The Big Names don't really benefit, but the independent scene does.

I'm just seeing this as win...

Now...the new Tennessee law where even a few people sharing the same account can get them into trouble...? That's an issue...

RG

From my observation of law enforcement, once they have the tool, they will soon forget about paying attention to the niceties. And since this will set things up so they can shut down everything the way China can, just watch a future version of President Bush decide that the internet is dangerous to national security, and turn off whatever he feels like by executive order.

This is a tool they can't be trusted with.