How SOPA (as written) might kill ATS and free speech online (UPDATED)

reply to post by LazloFarnsworth


Yet, as stated before, the legalised producer of the creative work gets a hugely progressive chunk of the pie, leaving peanuts for the creator. It reminds me of the rigged progressive lottery systems where first place takes 100 times more than second place. Or in a golf tournament were first gets 2-3 times what second takes.

Society is morally bankrupt by excessive greed and excessive pride in success and knowledge! Corrupt marketing techniques based on these corrupt morals has driven home these corrupt subliminal messages.

Forgot to mention the middle man(distributor/producer) is virtually looked upon as king for providing a nominal service and thus gets a hugely disporportionate share of profits. Misregulated capitalism, aka state capitalism, is ALL to blame!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Agreed. As a trademark and copyright holder for nearly 40 years....Im fullly willing and able to support the free internet.

We never imagined there would be a day that when we put out a CD or write a new book...that BECAUSE its out there....people can and will access it, modify it, change and cut and paste it...without our consent or approval.

Thats all it ever was anyway...a means of how and who, would use our works.

We see a day now where once a creation hits the net...itself....becomes "free". How all this will pan out down the road...Ive not a clue. But Im willing to share the future and all the means developing, for exposing our creations to the world.

Rest assured...it will never go back to the restrictions that copyrights has on usage. And I OWN many myself!

Thanks for listening!

Originally posted by LazloFarnsworth
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Agreed. As a trademark and copyright holder for nearly 40 years....Im fullly willing and able to support the free internet.

We never imagined there would be a day that when we put out a CD or write a new book...that BECAUSE its out there....people can and will access it, modify it, change and cut and paste it...without our consent or approval.

Thats all it ever was anyway...a means of how and who, would use our works.

We see a day now where once a creation hits the net...itself....becomes "free". How all this will pan out down the road...Ive not a clue. But Im willing to share the future and all the means developing, for exposing our creations to the world.

Rest assured...it will never go back to the restrictions that copyrights has on usage. And I OWN many myself!

Thanks for listening!

edit on 9-1-2012 by LazloFarnsworth because: (no reason given)

You are welcome. I love sharing ideas and having discussions with people regardless if I agree or disagree with them. Copyrights SHOULD be protected but the solutions proposed by government(s) are frequently hollow and self-serving.

Instead of creating endless legislation that adds to uneffective beauracracy, they should be amending prior laws wherever necessary: less confusion for everyone and less need for legal advice. Lawyers and doctors are becoming a priceless commodity, free to rip-off as many as they can, to of course maximise profits.

I think the internet is a great tool but that does not mean people should have the right to download unlimited music and movies, just because the technology has made astronimical leaps and bounds. Intellectual rights should always be respect and royalties paid upon for access and usage. Who makes what is a different story and I discussed that in one of my prior posts.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by nenothtu

 

FYI: The non-circumvention aspect of the SOPA bill is written in such a loose and broad manner that your post could qualify as the type of content that could get the entire abovetopsecret.com domain blocked without warning or recourse other than a 90 day review process.

I realized that after reading up on it, but I also know that it's not illegal yet, and am confident the post can be made to disappear and be replaced with an "off topic" banner in the event that it IS made illegal. A the same time, I believe that if it's made illegal, most ATSers will have more on their plates at the moment than merely reading that post...

BTW, considering that it can also be considered as speech against the government (given the unfavorable comparisons of the US government to those of China and Iran), I'm willing to quit my job and camp out at the Supreme Court until THAT case is heard - you know, the one that violates not only the spirit but also the letter of the First Amendment.

Originally posted by H0n3yb33

Of course they want to mandate what Americans do online..less "revolution" less "violent" protesting.Let's just take us back to the dark ages why don't you? the last thing the government wants is more people using their brains.

In all honesty, if I'm sitting around griping on ATS, or out watching a movie, I'm not out in the streets setting cars, trucks, and piles of tires on fire. They might want to rethink that strategy.

"John Titor" for all his flaws, had some good points to make, even if he did so in a fictionalized manner. One of my favorites is the notion that if you take everything else away from a farmer, he has nothing better to do then than sit around shooting at government types.

Think about that for a minute.

reply to post by Observor


well, give me an American postal code and state and I will... I can't provide the information they're asking me for...

And just my opinion: America has been the guard dog of the world for far too long.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by nenothtu

 

FYI: The non-circumvention aspect of the SOPA bill is written in such a loose and broad manner that your post could qualify as the type of content that could get the entire abovetopsecret.com domain blocked without warning or recourse other than a 90 day review process.

I realized that after reading up on it, but I also know that it's not illegal yet, and am confident the post can be made to disappear and be replaced with an "off topic" banner in the event that it IS made illegal. A the same time, I believe that if it's made illegal, most ATSers will have more on their plates at the moment than merely reading that post...

BTW, considering that it can also be considered as speech against the government (given the unfavorable comparisons of the US government to those of China and Iran), I'm willing to quit my job and camp out at the Supreme Court until THAT case is heard - you know, the one that violates not only the spirit but also the letter of the First Amendment.

edit on 2012/1/9 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Yeah but I don't think there are enough radicals(left or right) to put anything more than a moderate dent in the machine of tyranny. The road to tyranny seems well planned down to minute details, so it will take a much larger portion of the population to get informed and upset, to really make a difference.

I think they are starting to panic and that is why they are getting desperate enough to want to shut down free speech as fast as they can. SOPA and PIPA is very suspect in this regard.

On the other hand china and iran are known to be anti-democracy so it is hardely a suprise for them!

well it seems some of you have missed a basic concept, there are NO intellectual property "rights", it is a gift from Congress, not a RIGHT like freedom of speech I want to see the Citation that says IP is a "right".


When I see the Citation for IP rights, like the right to free speech I'll be all for SOPA/PIPA. if IP is not a right, then how can it be ALLOWED to infringe on MY right to free Speech.

Is Money more important to free speech? I'd also like to see where it says that in the Constitution. (Citation Please)

you have no "right" to profit, at all.

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by Klassified
Anyone with an average IQ, and one moment of clear analytical thought can see this is one more step toward the Orwellian nightmare, and has absolutely zilch to do with piracy. The "digital age" is ALL about control. The "digital age" makes it possible to finally bring the totalitarian control grid online. And they are wringing their hands with excitement and glee at the prospect.

Yet, here you are engaged in the "core," and miraculously "out-of-pocket..."

Piracy btw, is exacerbated and perpetrated by the very corporations supposedly fighting against it. All the movies, music, and software that are to be found online through various outlets "illegitimately" are not there by mistake or theft.

This is like saying fires are set by fire fighters...or computer viruses are written by programmers from Symantec or McAfee...perhaps this is true, but it takes a lot more than your unsupported claims....please provide CLEAR EXAMPLES...

"Piracy" benefits those industries, and is making them richer, and more powerful by the minute. Which is the very reason they themselves perpetuate it.

Again...Where is the PROOF of these claims?

Think about it.

We are thinking, but what I really think right now, is that you just want everybody to take your word for it and not think at all...

Well, Kaspersky (now a multimillionaire) also sends out some very dodgy trojans, & then offers to cure them for you........I can send you one if you want
If you look at the proposal, it gives them the right to do just about anything.

Originally posted by Christosterone

Originally posted by satron
Forget ATS, it's going to kill the internet.

Surely no president would sign such legislation into law.
Although I do not know where our current president stands on this issue....

This is scary!!!

-Christosterone

You mean no president like the one that said he would veto the NDAA?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I started a facebook group called "the people's militia"!

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


Obviously, all that also applies to any other user-generated content site, all of which are vital to free speech online.

ATS already censors,there is no free speech here, just a semblance, a veil. Don't get me wrong, i like this site and think that there are valuable and important discussions and content here, but to claim that it embraces free speech is laughable.

Few things on the internet make me mad but I'm kind of peeved at the guy saying SO should have to paid mods to protect other people's intercultural property rights. You're saying SO doesn't want to pay mods because he wants to pocket the cash but why should He?! Why should SO spend his own cash , protecting property rights held by million dollar corporations? It shouldn't be his job or anyone elses to protect these rich fat cats property rights if they're to lazy to do it themselves.

This isn't about control or manipulation. It's about flat out hand over fist greed. The Movie , Record and Game industries are see diminished profits and they're mad about it. They need to buy more golden toilets and yachts while paying the people who actual create these "properties" chump change.


You want proof? www.telegraph.co.uk...


How is it possible that Michael Jackson , a man who created some of the highest selling albums history , died in debt? Simple , He got a meager percentage of what was rightfully his as the rest was taking by his record label who simply produced his creation.

Originally posted by aorAki
but to claim that it embraces free speech is laughable.

Is there any promise -- anywhere -- that free speech is "unfettered" speech?

Originally posted by something wicked
You say the blacklist is 'stupid' but then say the sites it blocks are promoting child pornography? Is that stupid? I would like to think that is a good thing, wouldn't you?

What I mean is that censorship is bad and the blacklist is no exception. Whilst in some cases such as child porn,etc blacklisting is good..., well they even blacklisted wikileaks for a while... Though i know i've always seemed to have had access to wikileaks..

www.techradar.com... t/australian-government-takes-wikileaks-off-banned-website-list-585894

UPDATE Back in May 2009, the Australian government put Wikileaks on its banned list. As of 29 November, according to ZDnet, this is no longer the case. "Currently, the ACMA list of prohibited URLs that is notified to accredited filter providers does not contain any URLs within the Wikileaks website," said the ACMA. "Since April 2010, the ACMA has investigated two complaints about specific pages of content on the Wikileaks website, which both resolved to content found to be not prohibited." Wikileaks hit the front pages this month, with a new release of government documents that show the inside goings-on of diplomacy in the US. In the dosuments our very own Prince Andrew is namechecked, as is the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. ORIGINAL STORY The Australian communications regulator has issued a stark warning that websites who link out to 'banned' hyperlinks are liable to fines of up to Aus $11,000 a day. The news comes after web forum Whirlpool was threatened with the fine for posting a hyperlink to a blacklisted anti-abortion website Wikileaks blacklisted One of the newest additions to Australia's 'blacklisted hyperlinks' list is Wikileaks; the website that publishes anonymous submissions of sensitive info on everything from corporations, religion and governments.

Though as you can see from wikileaks (click on file.. its a text file), most are porn/child porn so i'm glad those are blacklisted. But still you have to be careful with government and censorship
Wikileaks

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by aorAki
but to claim that it embraces free speech is laughable.

Is there any promise -- anywhere -- that free speech is "unfettered" speech?

No, there isn't. But there also isn't any mention of the irony of protesting censorship whilst actively participating in it.
Again, to be clear, I like this site, but I think some of the claims come across as disingenuous, holier-than-thou, and possibly even downright lies. You do practice censorship, yes?


Somewhere in my possession I have a transcript of a talk by Professor Reverend Lloyd Geering who claimed that any form of censorship was not a good idea and stood in the way of progress, honesty, truth and when not having the opportunity to actively and constructively debate a topic - any topic- then it was anathema to free speech.

However, by the same token, you are the site owner, so you can run it as you see fit, and generally I agree with your decisions. I do not agree with this one, but I can see that you are trying to protect ATS, even if it means practicing the very censorship that you are protesting.

Originally posted by aorAki
No, there isn't. But there also isn't any mention of the irony of protesting censorship whilst actively participating in it.

The classic definition of "censorship" is the official suppression of ideas or thought. Our rules here on ATS, specific to ATS, are quite a bit more narrow, and well within our rights of management of a private venue. Free expression is guaranteed here... with a very small list of limitations.

I have a transcript of a talk by Professor Reverend Lloyd Geering who claimed that any form of censorship was not a good idea and stood in the way of progress

I'm familiar with the lecture to which you refer, and it's not as cut-and-dried as you assume. Geering understands, and in other cases demands, that those who espouse "free speech" must do so with equal measures of responsibility and tolerance. One must be able to tolerate, indeed support, discussion of ideas they abhor in exchange for a responsibility to understand parochial limitations to what one may say.

However, by the same token, you are the site owner, so you can run it as you see fit...

And as such, our narrow-set of rules are not defined by my personal preferences, or those of any of our staff, but on the cause-effect results on the community.

Example:
Allowing examination of drug-related conspiracies always has the effect of a percentage of members dragging the conversation into matters of personal use inappropriate to the core discussion.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

SOPA initiates guilty until proven innocent. If a complaint we to result in an ATS blockage, we would first be blocked, then subject to a 90 day process to prove our innocence.

SkepticOverlord, since guilty until proven innocent seems to be the 'New Black' these days - besides contacting our elected officials - what's a concerned citizen supposed to do?

seriously - I'm asking - and interested in your opinion

I share your concern (and/or fear) but, I am feeling just a little shell shocked lately...realizing that my feelings on all this are hardly unique, I gotta say: I'm not sure I have much faith in the whole write your congressman approach

I'll have to read and understand the bill myself. But what little I do know about this is that it does go too far to stop a problem that effects everyone equally.

I definitely don't agree with piracy because it is theft. At the same time when they present a bill that can shut down a website just by filing a complaint, I have to say that this bill is paving the way to fascism.

In a nut shell what is happening is the big corporations no longer have a monopoly on the distribution channels. The internet has come along and has allowed independents to compete with the giants. Sure the independents don't command a lot of profit individually, but when you start getting 30 and 40 independents together it is like a school of piranhas.

When independent musician over here sells 185,000 copies of their album first week, then independent musician over there sells 50,000 their first week, then when independent media over here gets 500,000 unique hits a day and independent media over there gets 1,000,000 unique hits a day. Then multiply the effect by 30, 40, 50 ect. what ends up happening is it slowly chips away at the giants as people are spending their money on things that suit their interests more.

Is it a bad thing or a good thing? That is completely up to your opinion. My opinion is that record company execs need to quit paying themselves a million dollar salaries and get their business more inline with the money they are making, not the money they want to make. Same with everyone else.

This bill does exactly what the conglomerates want which is put the independents out of business. This also gives control of distribution channels back into the conglomerates hands.

I have some experiences with the record industry and am currently contemplating on whether to do a thread about my experiences.