Internet strike...

[Hants_red]

Which is what?

Everything should be free. Yeah, right on, man.

No. That the 2 bills are bad ideas. Plus its not just the USA that will be effected, it will have wider implications. We already saw last week the granting of extradition of a UK citizen to the USA for alleged copyright infringement.

 

[Jason H]

No. That the 2 bills are bad ideas. Plus its not just the USA that will be effected, it will have wider implications. We already saw last week the granting of extradition of a UK citizen to the USA for alleged copyright infringement.

If you nick stuff, should you not be punished?

Thou shalt not steal, etc. etc.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

It's not "censorship", it's fighting crime.

Do you think we should just let shoplifters get away with it, or should there be a crime called "theft" to deal with it?

This is exactly the same thing, just done via computers rather than via going into shops and nicking stuff.

I tend to agree with you on this one...but only to an extent. There is an attitude that has prevailed that its ok to do stuff on the internet you wouldn't otherwise do. It becomes a free-for-all. I'm not a fan of regulation on the whole but it is clear in years to come action will be required on a whole swathe of legal issues.

In fairness to Jimmy Wales, I believe his attitude is that the bills themselves are not particularly impressive and I wouldn't be surprised if he is right. But jumping on censorship is a little too far really, it's more complicated than that.

 

[mfcrocker]

It's not "censorship", it's fighting crime.

Do you think we should just let shoplifters get away with it, or should there be a crime called "theft" to deal with it?

This is exactly the same thing, just done via computers rather than via going into shops and nicking stuff.

The crime already exists you numpty, it's called "copyright infringement". There's an example of this crime being punished in this very thread.

Quit being so flippant and actually try listening - no-one is arguing that copyright infringement isn't a crime or shouldn't be punished (although I'll happily go hells bells on that one). The argument is that this legislature is a) unnecessary, b) ridiculously overpowered and c) open to abuse.

 

[mfcrocker]

But my point is, do you think the strike will work and also, are the US govt being stupid, in trying to censor public speech?

Yes and no. Yes it'll work (assuming the government listen to torrents of voters), no the government aren't being stupid - I'm pretty sure censoring public speech benefits them greatly.

 

[Jason H]

The crime already exists you numpty, it's called "copyright infringement". There's an example of this crime being punished in this very thread.

Quit being so flippant and actually try listening - no-one is arguing that copyright infringement isn't a crime or shouldn't be punished (although I'll happily go hells bells on that one). The argument is that this legislature is a) unnecessary, b) ridiculously overpowered and c) open to abuse.

Aside from politely asking you to kindly refrain from name-calling (it only reflects badly on the perpetrator...), I would argue that mere "copyright infringement" doesn't cover what is being discussed here.

There is too much of an attitude of "The Internet is free" (both in terms of cost and in terms of the normal laws governing so-called "freedom of speech"), which these bills seek to negate. It should therefore be the responsibility of the hosts to ensure their content complies.

If the likes of Wikipedia are complaining that they couldn't possibly police this, then perhaps they have created a monster they cannot handle and should face the consequences for this.

 

[mfcrocker]

Aside from politely asking you to kindly refrain from name-calling (it only reflects badly on the perpetrator...), I would argue that mere "copyright infringement" doesn't cover what is being discussed here.

There is too much of an attitude of "The Internet is free" (both in terms of cost and in terms of the normal laws governing so-called "freedom of speech"), which these bills seek to negate. It should therefore be the responsibility of the hosts to ensure their content complies.

If the likes of Wikipedia are complaining that they couldn't possibly police this, then perhaps they have created a monster they cannot handle and should face the consequences for this.

Rather than stating that "the internet is free" is bad, why not actually justify that opinion? Why is the free exchange of information (where that information does not contravene property rights) a problem?

 

[Jason H]

I didn't say it was (referring to your addition in parentheses). All too often there is, however, a need to justify the free exchange of information that DOES contravene property rights.

The Internet needs to be governed in the same manner that other walks of life are governed. Again, if the likes of Wikipedia claim they can't possibly adhere to this, that's their lookout.

 

[mammooman]

Just remember kids,

The Internet is for....

 

[mfcrocker]

I didn't say it was (referring to your addition in parentheses). All too often there is, however, a need to justify the free exchange of information that DOES contravene property rights.

The Internet needs to be governed in the same manner that other walks of life are governed. Again, if the likes of Wikipedia claim they can't possibly adhere to this, that's their lookout.

Ah, that wasn't the impression I got from your post.

You want the internet to be treated like other walks of life but that's already the case - if your property rights from one country are infringed in another country you're SOL unless a treaty is agreed with that country, whether internet or otherwise. This bill is disproportionate, heavily abusable and by your own standards (equality between "real life" and the net) unnecessary.