If It Were Not For The Internet
I suggested a topic on recent government actions and the internet. “I’d like to know what readers here think of government attempts to restrict internet freedom. Not so much about this blog, but what it would mean for financial issues like the housing bubble, or just plain free speech.”
One said, “Unless people are willing to pay for content, there will be less and less of it. The piracy issue is real, and not just overseas. On the other hand, I understand the bill over-reaches, in some way that is hazy. That’s what I get from a brief debate I saw on TV. The issue is ‘fair use,’ I suppose — quoting something with attribution rather than simply republishing it without attribution.”
A reply, “I would characterize it as over-reaching in ways that are not ‘hazy’ at all—but rather downright unconstitutional IMHO. There is no right to due process before your site is taken offline, and you get to argue about getting it back online. Of course, our current crop of SCOTUS PTB would likely not find it unconstitutional, unfortunately.”
One had this, “I think it is clear that the legislation was targeted at sites that specialize in the distribution of copyrighted movies, music, tv shows, entire books, etc. The problem is the difficulty is in drafting legislation that allows them to shut down sites clearly created to assist in the pirating of copyrighted materials, and a site intended as a discussion forum where the owner of the site can not prevent people from posting copyrighted materials.”
A reply, “I think internet freedom relates to our guaranteed freedom of privacy in our papers. The federal government has no right to monitor what we write. No right to read it, shut it down, take it away or censor it.”
Another said, “I had enough of 1950’s-type censorship in the 1950’s. We anti-war activists got a little taste of it during the run-up to IW2 when you were ‘either with us or with the terrorists.’ Having to live, work, write, with that sort of mentality leads to both creative deadlock and a strong desire to circumvent the law— neither of which bodes well for a vibrant, functional society.”
“Practical considerations aside, living in fear that your words/posts may land you in prison, on unspecified charges, indefinitely, makes for an authoritarian (and unaccountable,) ruling class, and ultimately revolution.”
And another, “My simple conjecture is that limiting information about the real economic situation can serve to cover up and accelerate incipient economic collapse. Exhibit A: The defunct Soviet Union was famous for gross official overstatement of its economic successes, to the point where citizens and non-citizens alike realized the end was at hand.”
“Exhibit B: Enron’s stock price stayed reasonably high right up until the point of collapse, during a period of massive control fraud.”
“Exhibits A and B both are examples of how using deception to cover up economic malfeasance can lead to sudden and ‘unexpected’ collapse. Restricting free speech on the internet would act in the direction of increasing the number of sudden collapses of ‘too-big-to-fail’ economic entities operated under conditions of control fraud, of which I assume Enron and the former Soviet Union are primary examples. (Ironically, both failed, and the world kept on spinning.)”
“The internet has been a great driver of free speech and information exchange. Those who are against freedom of speech and who profit from limiting others’ freedoms will not hesitate to take away American’s Constitutional free speech rights if doing so best serves their avaricious interests.”
And finally, “If it were not for the internet I would have thought I was the only one paying $9 for mayo and inflation wasn’t a problem just like the government said. In 2004 I would have thought I was the only one who thought house prices were way out of whack because there wasn’t anyone where I lived that didn’t buy into the mania that was supported by the media and the PTB.”
“It would be a lot easier for the PTB to control people if they had to take the official government numbers as the truth.”
The Atlantic Wire. “With the U.S. government trying to pass what Google’s Sergey Brin has called ‘China-like censorship,’ China has found a new way to tamp down free expression on the Internet: make people use their real names. After the Chinese government realized that Weibo, a Twitter-esque microblogging service, gave rise to ‘irrational voices and negative opinions and harmful information’ — in the words of Wang Chen the deputy director of Communist Party’s propaganda department — it has decided to clamp down by requiring all bloggers to register their identities with the government, reports The New York Times’ Michael Wines.”
“A lesson for U.S. Internet users, after old-school government control of websites comes censorship 2.0: Total removal of online anonymity. If you think this can’t possibly happen in the U.S., this identity issue is already being debated and enforced, however the main actors have been the tech giants who are championing the SOPA protests.”
The LA Times. “Watching from China, where web censorship is practically a national hallmark, some can’t help but smirk and crack jokes about the controversy raging over Internet freedom in the U.S. The brouhaha has generated some strong opinions in the country Google fled, not the least because opponents of the SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy bills are conjuring Chinese web censorship to promote their case.”
“The consensus here, however, appears to be this: Americans should try a minute in our shoes before invoking online Armageddon. If anything, Chinese bloggers say, the debate underscores how privileged U.S. web-users and Internet companies are, even in times of duress. ‘Only an American company could protest the way Wikipedia or Google has to the government,’ said Zhao Jing, a closely-followed blogger in Beijing who uses the pen name Michael Anti. ‘A Chinese company would never get away with that.’”
“‘It’s hard for people in the U.S. to understand Internet censorship in China,’ said Wen Yunchao, a prominent blogger and outspoken government critic who left mainland China recently for Hong Kong. ‘In China, all the government decisions are done in a dark box. No one knows what’s going on. There’s never any legal reason cited. If these laws are passed in the U.S., every step of the way it will be more transparent. People can challenge it. There’s no comparison when it comes to censorship in China and in the U.S.’”
“Still, Wen supports U.S. activists challenging the bills, saying it’s a slippery slope to lesser web access. He said China’s so-called Great Firewall, which blocks access to many foreign sites like Facebook and Twitter, was first billed as a strategy to stop piracy and pornography. ‘Now it’s being abused and extended to thousands of websites,’ he said.”
Here’s a few things about these bills. This stuff is already covered in existing laws. Why do these people in congress want these broad powers? And why are they so concerned about US piracy, when most of it occurs in China? From the LA Times piece:
‘Ironically, China’s 513 million web-users have relatively free access when it comes to the very sites targeted by the, now faltering, Protect IP Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Those include BitTorrent sites such as Extratorrent and sellers of counterfeit goods like Taobao.’
‘The Chinese Great Firewall is not targeting pirated material,’ said the Beijing-based Jason Ng, another popular blogger who has 29,000 Twitter followers. ‘Look at the Chinese Internet space and it’s all about pirated movies, TV and porn.’
Let’s get down to brass tacks:
‘A bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act is the latest attempt to tackle the issue of copyright infringement in the digital age. Even though it is primarily a piece of anti-piracy legislation, SOPA is broad. The proposed bill gives the U.S. government, through the office of the Attorney General, the power to pursue court orders against any site believed to be engaging in copyright infringement. (There’s nothing adversarial about the court proceedings that lead to those orders: the defendant doesn’t even have to be present).’
‘Armed with that power, the Attorney General can then order search engines to remove the site from their listings. The AG can likewise order Internet Service Providers to block users from accessing the site. The AG can also order advertising networks and payment providers to stop doing business with the site. And all those entities are compelled to comply. Indeed, the bill imposes stiff penalties on anyone who doesn’t, and offers immunity to ad networks and payment processors that follow orders. As such, SOPA is chock-full of incentives for ISPs, content-hosting sites and other such entities to go along with the government’s demands.’
‘Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright-holders can issue takedown notices for individual bits of content, such as infringing Youtube videos. SOPA extends a variation of that power to cover entire Web sites. The onus is then on the blacklisted sites to prove the absence of infringing content.’
‘SOPA combines these iron-fist powers with a series of broad definitions. Whereas some previous incarnations of anti-piracy bills in the U.S. at least focused on sites that were primarily dedicated to copyright infringement, SOPA sets its sights on any infringement, no matter how small. That means the Attorney General can pursue court orders against and demand the blocking of any Web site with a tiny amount of infringing content. Somebody used an unauthorized Maroon 5 song in that summer vacation video they posted on your social network? The entire site now falls under SOPA’s penalty clauses.’
‘The bill also covers more than just infringement (the act of streaming copyrighted content, a felony under SOPA, carries a five-year prison sentence). It also covers “facilitating” such content. That term is so poorly defined, however, it could well apply to a hyperlink on an entirely unrelated Web site, or a single Tweet. The potential for self-censorship is glaring, as is the potential for false positives – how many sites will nuke non-infringing content, or links to such content, just to be safe?’
‘And because SOPA also prohibits tools that could be used to get around the Attorney General’s blockade, it may also mean that the same anonymity and address-spoofing software used by activists and protesters will become illegal to U.S. Internet users.’
‘There are plenty of other SOPA spillover effects…’
The main supporters of these bills are the BIG MEDIA companies, like Time/warner and FOX, and all the networks and “news”papers. It’s simple. They want to be able to control, and thereby profit from all printed media, even electronic media.
The laws covering “copyrighting” are already vast. Each of these companies could easily file a suit against any Offender and demand payment. But what would be the value of every little infringement vs. the cost of litigation??
I think most claims would be viewed as frivolous unless the offense was copying large sections of articles or books. Most the materials aren’t copied and used “for profit” in most cases.
Many are used on blogs, just like this one, where someone throws out a story or article and we dissect it here, discussing the merits and faults. I guess that’s what galls them.
If we are all getting to read a portion of a story and not “PAYING” for the privilege, they view it as lost revenue.
The fact is, we could probably get the main view by going to the source ourselves, but the internet and sites like this allow the parsing of information much more widely and quickly. Typically, whenever an article is clipped, it is sourced and credited.
So it’s not about the credit, it’s about the money. Even if the site was a FREE site as the source, the companies still object to being a source of information without control of the content, and consequently a possible revenue source. I get it.
But, people have been discussing what they read in the papers at cafeterias and lunch counters for generations. This blog from home concept is more isolationist, but serves much the same purpose. It should be viewed by the government as much the same and be left alone.
It’s like we’re having lunch and someone pulls out a copy of a NY Times story and passes it around the table. Is that a copyright infringement since everyone didn’t buy a copy of the NY Times??
I don’t believe for a second this is about copyright infringement. If it was, why isn’t it directed against China? Why are the powers so broad, vague and draconian? Why are they aimed at online material and not radio or TV? How many times have we heard Rush Limbaugh pull out a copyrighted article and read it on the air, or play a copyrighted sound clip?
Since when was Lamar Smith such a fan of Hollywood? Then there’s this:
‘The CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, former Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, warned that, “as a consequence of failing to act, there will continue to be a safe haven for foreign thieves.” The MPAA, which represents such companies as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., is a leading advocate for the anti-piracy legislation.’
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reid-postpones-vote-anti-piracy-144230153.html
I don’t believe this is directed toward ARTISTIC intellectual property rights as much as it’s about weapons technology copyrights– specifically genetic and energetics copyrights.
This Napster-like crackdown is a smokescreen for the real purpose of the bills, which is to discourage file-sharing of DNA, alternative propulsions, and scientific processes and patents that the DoD finds troublesome. “Terra-ists” don’t you know…?
“…why isn’t it directed against China?”
CRICKETS…
It’s like we’re having lunch and someone pulls out a copy of a NY Times story and passes it around the table. Is that a copyright infringement since everyone didn’t buy a copy of the NY Times??
From what I’ve read, not only would that be copyright infringement, but the NYT/government would also have authority to shut down the lunch counter. Good comment.
The power of the internet,like the power of the human mind,is underutilized.
We could use it to eliminate the jobs of most politicians,but we do not.
I could go on,but most of you out there probably get the idea.
Perhaps we should ask Al Gore what to do next.
Television, radio, books, magazines - all very profitable channels of information to the population. Politicians use these channels to spread their propaganda in order to get and maintain power. Business makes vast money controlling these channels.
But, along comes the Internet which allows people to bypass the existing communications media. The powers that be are naturally concerned that the Internet’s information conveyal ability will reduce their control of the information which reaches the population. So naturally, they’re going to do everything they can to control it. Big business plus government are going to do their level best to bring the Internet under their control.
And it will all be done under the guise of the best of intentions.
Points of interest:
1) Obama’s billion dollar campaign.
2) Hollywood regroups after losing battle over anti-piracy bills
Sorry if this is a repost.
I don’t believe this is directed toward ARTISTIC intellectual property rights as much as it’s about weapons technology copyrights– specifically genetic and energetics copyrights.
This Napster-like crackdown is a smokescreen for the real purpose of the bills, which is to discourage file-sharing of DNA, alternative propulsions, and scientific processes and patents that the DoD finds troublesome. “Terra-ists” don’t you know…?
“Unless people are willing to pay for content, there will be less and less of it. The piracy issue is real, and not just overseas. On the other hand, I understand the bill over-reaches, in some way that is hazy. That’s what I get from a brief debate I saw on TV. The issue is ‘fair use,’ I suppose — quoting something with attribution rather than simply republishing it without attribution.”
Content is more of a public good in the internet era than ever before. This suggests more, not less, government support should be provided for quality news outlets such as the BBC, NPR, etc.
“…quoting something with attribution rather than simply republishing it without attribution.”
I always make a point of attributing, either by including the source in my post or linking to the source.
But what I believe is a gray area are MSM web sites which indicate you should not ‘redistribute’ their content: Is providing a link and a brief reference to an online article ‘redistribution’? And if the folks providing the content have a problem with this, couldn’t they just not make the content freely available online (as the WSJ has done)? Would verbally telling a friend about an online article be different than publishing a link to it so that many “friends” (e.g. HBB readers) are aware of its existence? Does such ‘redistribution’ hurt or help demand for a MSM news outlet’s content?
“With the U.S. government trying to pass what Google’s Sergey Brin has called ‘China-like censorship,’…”
It’s quite appropriate for a Russian ex-patriot to shine a light on the tools of official censorship.
“…China has found a new way to tamp down free expression on the Internet: make people use their real names.”
Pen names have served generations of writers who wished to freely express themselves outside the glare of official scrutiny.
We want anonymous commentary becomes sometimes, we encounter a situation like the first drill sergeant scene from Full Metal Jacket:
Joker (quietly): “Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?”
GSG Hartmann: “WHO SAID THAT? WHO THE F–K SAID THAT?”
GSG Hartmann, the senior drill instructor, finally discovers the perpetrator, and chokes him.
“Still, Wen supports U.S. activists challenging the bills, saying it’s a slippery slope to lesser web access. He said China’s so-called Great Firewall, which blocks access to many foreign sites like Facebook and Twitter, was first billed as a strategy to stop piracy and pornography. ‘Now it’s being abused and extended to thousands of websites,’ he said.”
With enough bribes, er, I mean, campaign contributions, from supporters of such measures, I am sure our Congress could muster the effort to pass a bill so we could enjoy a similar level of censorship here in America.
Wait for it.
As a businessman the idea of blog posters having to use their real names seems appealing (reference Chinese policy). As things stand consumer websites like Yelp, Insider pages, and others are an online fount of anonymous libel. Many comments are so over the top they would clearly be actionable if people who post had to give their real names.
On another note, relating to real estate, I am currently on the west coast and am seeing many ads on TV for “Renovation Realty”, a company that advances funds to “fix up” your house for resale. In keeping with my general adverse view of most of what’s advertised on TV, my first reaction is it must be a scam, but I’d love to hear more..
“As things stand consumer websites like Yelp, Insider pages, and others are an online fount of anonymous libel.”
Certainly nobody who is smart enough to log on to the internet is dumb enough to take anonymous blog posts as fact without further scrutiny? I take the discussion here and any other source of anonymously provided information as a source of leads rather than a place to get factual information. In the interest of providing financial support to good journalism, I subscribe to local and a national dead newspapers.
Even so, I don’t take the content of MSM news stories I read in these or other sources at face value; only a moron or an imbecile would do so. News content providers backed by big finance have a history of providing factual misinformation that supports the financial interests of their backers (e.g. the Real Estate Industrial Complex, or REIC). These people tend to be too-big-to-prosecute, leaving anonymous blog posts as one of the few hopes for those hoping to figure out the underlying story.
‘News content providers backed by big finance have a history of providing factual misinformation that supports the financial interests of their backers’
The who, what and where of MSM reporting is a object of news, in and of itself. Blogs like this one are a good example of scrutinizing these sources. In an age where most of the media is controlled by a handful of globalist corporations, this is not only lawful, it’s necessary for the goodwill of the public.
Companies don’t like it. <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation”They file SLAPP suits. I actually knew a guy who was on the receiving end of one. He was facing hefty legal bills, but the area of law was novel so a law firm took up his case pro bono and got him off.
“As a businessman the idea of blog posters having to use their real names seems appealing (reference Chinese policy).”
Is anything standing in your way that would prevent you from relocating to China?
Well erik, I notice you are anonymous.
That’s the thing about freedom; it cuts both ways. I use Yelp. When I look at it, I take any one comment with a grain of salt. Really it’s the body of comments that I pay attention to.
I’ve read recently of comparison of the internet to the Gutenberg press. IMO the internet is a million times more powerful because it puts this in the hands of individuals and allows them to interact in real time. The possibilities for the betterment of the human condition are unequaled in history.
“…I notice you are anonymous.”
Touche!
Why you think I’m anonymous? Just curious.
I’m aware that what bomb thrower says about sifting wheat from chaff on consumer websites is quite true, yet it also remains true that the internet does provide a venue for making reckless and untrue accusations about others. Whereas letters to newspaper editors always used to require one provide address and phone number (they would call you to verify that it was actually you writing the letter) and would edit letters and refuse to print those containing actionable libel, this is no longer true..
I’d like to clarify that I’m in no way a supporter of SOPA, eh? The comment about anonymity was really just an aside and my main interest was actually in the “Renovation Realty” deal.
Back to the former issue though, I tend to think most people can read between the lines on Yelp, etc……
“Why you think I’m anonymous? Just curious.”
Through the years I have said enough about where I was born, where I went to and got thrown out of school, where I live now and what I do for a living. At one point I posted my real name when a blogger had lost a loved one and I didn`t feel right about using a fake name. But if you don`t know who I really am by now I will tell you. My real name is Barry Manilow!
I write the songs that make the bloggers sing
I write the songs about that Deadbeat thing
I write the songs of how the victims cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
My home lies deep within you
And I’ve got my own place in your soul
Now, when I look out through your anonymous eyes
I’m young again, even though I’m very old
I write the songs that make the bloggers sing
I write the songs about that Deadbeat thing
I write the songs of how the victims cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
Oh my music tells you how they refinanced
And how they want a second chance
And I wrote some rock ‘n’ roll so you can move
Music fills your heart
Well, that’s a real fine place to start
It’s from me it’s for you
It’s from you, it’s for me
It’s a worldwide Deadbeatology
I write the songs that make the bloggers sing
I write the songs about that Deadbeat thing
I write the songs of how the victims cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
I am jeff saturday and I write the songs
LOL!
And I am Brad Pitt! The “B” for “Bill” was just a diversion.
Oh yeah??? I’m Spartacus!
Yesterday’s a dream
Now I face the morning
Crying on the breeze
The pain is calling, oh Mandy
You`ve lived for three years not paying
And you still get to stay there, oh Mandy
I`m a victim is what you keep saying
You`re just such a Deabeat, oh Mandy
I wish I was Brad Pitt being Barry Manilow sucks.
Dang! And I thought you were Harold Melvin with a posse of blues back up singers.
But, on the flip, we DO know you as of now.
“…yet it also remains true that the internet does provide a venue for making reckless and untrue accusations about others.”
Sounds quite similar to the Republican primaries, though easier to ignore…
The website maintains the IP address of all posters. From it, you can be traced to your ISP. However, only a court order will force the ISP to give up the account to which the IP currently belongs.
That’s mostly anonymous. Law enforcement could easily discover the information.
There are ways to be truly anonymous. Tor and whatnot. If one really wants to be truly anonymous. As in not wanting a totalitarian government to get its hands on you.
“I’d like to clarify that I’m in no way a supporter of SOPA, eh?”
Canadian, perhaps?
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=200867
Meanwhile, Chris “Countrywide” Dodd is scolding his peers for not being sufficiently obliging in their whoring for Hollywood and the MPAA.
Gingrich = latest “not Mitt” RNC hopeful. The Iowa Electronic Market Republican National Convention futures graph nicely captures the recent popularity spike.
‘At Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich painted himself as a friend of a free and open Internet, but in the past he’s talked up pretty radical proposals to curtail free speech online. The question Thursday was about the Stop Online Piracy Act.’
“You have virtually everybody who’s technologically advanced, including, you know, Google and YouTube and Facebook and all the folks, who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet, and the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. Well, I favor freedom,” Gingrich said. “The idea that we’re going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations’ economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do.”
‘But back in 2006, Gingrich argued censoring the Internet would be the right thing to do when it comes to Islamic radicals who use the web to organize jihad against the U.S.’
“We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we’re unfortunate,” Mr. Gingrich said during a speech in New Hampshire, according to a story I wrote at the time for The New York Sun. “We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of the threat.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/in-gingrich-backed-censoring-the-web-111756.html
‘SOPA and PIPA may have been put on hold but other legislation was introduced this week to combat online piracy. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) introduced H.R. 3782, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday. OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that “willfully” promote copyright violation. SOPA and PIPA, in contrast, would enable content owners to take down an entire website, even if just one page on it carried infringing content, and imposed sanctions after accusations — not requiring a conviction.’
‘Regardless of what investment firms, technology companies, Hollywood or Washington think, piracy isn’t going to go away and the future of an open Internet is still not secure with SOPA and PIPA merely tabled and not entirely abandoned.’
http://www.pcworld.com/article/248525/sopa_pipa_stalled_meet_the_open_act.html
“SOPA and PIPA, in contrast, would enable content owners to take down an entire website, even if just one page on it carried infringing content, and imposed sanctions after accusations — not requiring a conviction.”
Sounds like the camel’s nose under the censorship tent…
The internet has changed the way we do business…
We’ve been soaked in unprecedented freedom of speech on the Internet. It did nothing to stop any of the frauds and bailouts. Absolutely nothing. The appeal of the frauds and bailouts was just too high, and will probably always be that way. The worst form of the most blatant propaganda had 10 times more effect on people than the best written and best reasoned posting by any of us dissenters. And that’s just a comparison to the worst propaganda. The normal propaganda was easily hundreds of times more effective, and the best propaganda out-performed anything we’ve done by a factor of millions.
So what does it really matter if SOPA and its derivatives pass? Enforced or not, the frauds and bailouts will just keep happening. Governments will keep out-maneuvering us. The root problem can’t be changed by speaking and writing; the root problem is that most people have become totally immoral.
All my postings of the last decade haven’t stopped anything that happened. It didn’t even slow it down. All I really got out of it was smug satisfaction, and the ability to sleep at night. If there had been a SOPA during that period, maybe it would have been more frustrating for me… to be kicked off the Internet by ISPs and government, and not by site owners. I just don’t see how it makes any qualitative difference. Our propaganda system is the most effect one ever devised. It can’t be conquered, until it parasitically destroys the economic system that it purports to support.