Protect IP Bill Breaks the Internet

[Leaf]

I found this video about the Protect IP Bill. It can be found here:
Protect IP Bill Breaks the Internet

[Rune174]

That is either really scary, or made to look very scary.

[Space Cats]

americancensorship.org

[Artyom Derison]

So this bill is meant to censor the internet in the guise of "Protecting" Corporations. Doesn't this violate the first amendment?

[Silvador]

Artyom Derison wrote: So this bill is meant to censor the internet in the guise of "Protecting" Corporations. Doesn't this violate the first amendment? What's the First Amendment?

[Artyom Derison]

Silvador wrote: Artyom Derison wrote: So this bill is meant to censor the internet in the guise of "Protecting" Corporations. Doesn't this violate the first amendment? What's the First Amendment?


1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech,creed, peacefully assemble, press, and petition. Basically most forms of expression are "immune" to government interference.

Here is a more detailed meaning of the 1st amendment http
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

[Arcanus]

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Press
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Petition

[Rune174]

Something like this is going to be very heatedly debated.

[Silvador]

Hmm.

The problem is that this bill is being played off as intended to enforce copyrights and combat piracy. Unfortunately, from a certain percpective, some freedoms might be considered as copyright infringement which would then lead to debate and legal conflict.

For example, say you want to create an amatuer movie and it strongly resembles Lord of the Rings. Who knows, maybe you are making an amateur version of Lord of the Rings. Some might consider this a freedom of expression in the form of art. Others could consider it copyright infringement. As it is a matter of perspective, both sides can potentially be correct. However, it falls to an unbiased party to evaluate the matter and decide for both conflicting sides what it is or is not.

This is just a vague example and the amateur movie makers would probably win the court case as I highly doubt they are making any money from it.

My point, however, is that when it comes to copyright infringement, if freedoms get in the way, they are liable to get tossed aside and be forced to either cease and desist or shell out large sums of money they probably don't have.

In short, your freedoms are an illusion.
Nothing is true.

If the law decides you are in the wrong, you're fucked.
Everything is permitted.

[Arcanus]

I guess that all depends, people are already rebelling against the government as it is for them being stupid.

[Silvador]

Arcanus wrote: I guess that all depends, people are already rebelling against the government as it is for them being stupid. That's nothing new. People are always unhappy with how things are being run. Pick any country and I will pretty much garantee you that you will find someone, somewhere in that country that thinks things should be run differently.

[Rune174]

The thing is, there is no such thing as being unbiased. You either lean one way or another. Its a sad, but true statement as the fallacies of being human blinds our judgement towards the truth.

[Pride]

Rune174 wrote: The thing is, there is no such thing as being unbiased. You either lean one way or another. Its a sad, but true statement as the fallacies of being human blinds our judgement towards the truth.

But what is true for some, is false for others.

[Rune174]

There is always one ultimate truth, even if it is difficult for some to accept.

[xivk]

I still dont thnk they'll be able to pull it off, already enough rioting and marches. x.x

[Leaf]

With all the crazy stuff happening lately, I am surprised that the country has not become engulfed in a second Civil war...

[Caroline]

((Rune174,

"Truth" is philisophical in nature.

Anyway, here's an idea to chew on. The First Amemendment, as it is known in the States, deals with the twitchy topic of self-expression in a number of forms. Expression of religion, expression to gather, expression to voice complaints and displeasure with figures in authoritarian positions. How is this twitchy, you might ask? It's twitchy as the Amendment itself is neutral. It's the application and enforcement of the Amendment that makes itself twitchy.

From the initial post by Leaf, as far as I can tell, the underlying issue that is trying to be addressed is how to protect someone's Intelectual Property given the rapid rise of electronic/digital media. It's no different than when similar bills and laws were debated and refined when tape and video media started to surface. For example, there were copyright infringement bills put up for debate when people would use non-public domain music in the video. Shoot, these same sorts of bills came around when people could make photocopies of pictures and posters.

Intelectual Property and Public Domain are going to be contentious topics until the sun itself burns out. Shoot, the first set of anti-trust laws were used against Unions and Union organizers.

Point being, I'm not buying off on the "truth" that trying to put some tools and regulations into effect is going to utterly crush the internet, people's ability to express themselves, and allow corporations to utterly control everything. Besides, for every corporation or government entity out there that is trying to abuse a law or referendum, you have just as many civil rights and independants exposing these actions and activities.

Think about it this way. We've had people expressing themselves about religion since the dawn of time itself... and that debate still hasn't gotten any closer to a conclusion. Corporations are going to try to make a buck, and people are going to try to find new and unique ways to express themselves.))

[Pride]

Leaf wrote: With all the crazy stuff happening lately, I am surprised that the country has not become engulfed in a second Civil war...

That's not going to happen any time soon.