Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Sorry, This Post Has Been Censored
IainB:
IainB:
Talking of censorship...this proposal seems to be more than slightly relevant.
Media fears for freedom as watchdog unleashed
I never would have supposed that the Ozzie government would propose such a thing, but there we are:
The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.
--- End quote ---
Finally, there's to be some "regulation". That should fix the naysayers.
IainB:
I find that one of the most saddening things about censorship driven by Government/State/Commercial Lobby organisations is the scope that it affords for potential and actual oppression of people in societies that, in historical terms, have only relatively recently (since WW2) been able to live in peace and freedom. The German surrender to the Western Allies and the Soviet Union took place in late April and early May 1945 - that was only 67 years ago, but probably before most of us reading this will have been born. The German surrender would probably not have been made then - if ever - if the Allies had not been strengthened by America joining the fight after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese in 1941.
This freedom and peace was earned with great difficulty and at the dear cost of hundreds of thousands of lives sacrificed for us in WWII, and arguably in WWI. The people from the oppressing countries in those wars were embraced by the victors and invited into that freedom. But as soon as that freedom came into being, it was to be under attack from all sides by ideologies hostile to it.
The advent of the Internet has heralded an incredible acceleration in communication, the transfer of knowledge and the enablement/fostering of freedom, reaching like a light deep into the darkest recesses of some of the most oppressive States, surprising despotic regimes like a Trojan Horse.
It became clear from various statements and acts over the last few years that oppressive regimes wish to be able to control and censor the Internet within their own countries, and (in the case of the US) censor the Internet in other countries - i.e., outside of their sovereign domain. Now it is becoming abundantly clear that regimes within "free democracies" are already moving progressively to control and censor the Internet within their own countries - e.g., including the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the EU countries.
I had been of the view that the current generations that are of the age to contemplate inheriting the Earth were not up to the task. That they undervalued history and the price of freedom and had shown themselves to be too apathetic and disorganised to do anything to confront the oncoming onslaught on their freedoms.
But I hope I was wrong, because I have just read about a new "manifesto" for freedom that has been drafted (in pastebin - here), which could help us to confront whatever is the latest piece of repressive legislation or proposal - e.g., including FRAND, SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP or TSA or RIAA/MPAA or WIPO or Google or Facebook, or Google redesigning their country URL links to allow for (on an as-required basis) country-by-country filtering (censoring) on a national basis by those countries' governments.
From the Techdirt post Josef Anvil’s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week:
… So where does all of this lead? To Glyn Moody’s article about the “We, the Web Kids” manifesto, my FAVORITE post of the week and possibly my favorite post EVER on Techdirt. This one article encapsulates almost everything that is discussed in this forum. Whether the debate is about SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP or TSA or RIAA/MPAA or WIPO or Google or Facebook, we have to accept the fact that we are all far more connected than ever before, some of us are even hyperconnected, and it has changed us. We no longer just accept the opinions of “authority,” we want FACTS, we want data, we want the truth (or close as possible). This article details a fundamental shift in the way people THINK, and it’s not just the “web kids.” Personally, I didn’t grow up with the web, but I’m certainly not so blind as to miss how integrated into my life it is. Before the web, I didn’t talk to people all over the world on a daily basis, now I do. How I consume media is completely different, as I get to choose what, when, how, and why. In other words, the way things are done has CHANGED because of the internet.
This manifesto is a wake up call to politicians and corporations around the world. Your citizens and consumers have changed. They are becoming or have become a part of the digital era. They Skype, Tweet, FB, and IM their ideas, opinions, and comments without giving much thought about the process. They Google everything, they shop on their phones, they record video and post it before the “real news” can, they text while in meetings, they create with Gimp and NVU, they work with OpenOffice, and they consume media thru Netflix, HULU, Spotify, Grooveshark, HuffPo, and YouTube. They want to throw away physical storage and move stuff into the “cloud,” if you let them. They don’t want to hear that consumers shouldn’t dictate the market, because they know how to write reviews and share information. They don’t want to hear about laws being bought, and are willing to speak out and challenge the “old ways.”
(read the rest here.)
--- End quote ---
IainB:
A superb FREE film - Sita Sings the Blues - that @Renegade pointed to:
I found this: http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/
While reading this: http://mimiandeunice.com/
Mimi and Eunice is hilarious, so I figured I'd download the "Sita Sings the Blues" movie. (Still downloading -- very much looking forward to it, and too impatient to wait, watch, then post! :) )
But, check this from the site:
You don't need my permission to copy, share, publish, archive, show, sell, broadcast, or remix Sita Sings the Blues. Conventional wisdom urges me to demand payment for every use of the film, but then how would people without money get to see it? How widely would the film be disseminated if it were limited by permission and fees? Control offers a false sense of security. The only real security I have is trusting you, trusting culture, and trusting freedom.
--- End quote ---
You can read more at both those sites. If you're mildly interested in copyright and all that wonderfulness, check it out.
-Renegade (July 02, 2011, 07:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
I watched the film with my daughter Lily. We loved it and have had repeat viewings. It seems the film is in a semi-autobiographical meta-context (if that makes sense?) of the film's creator (Nina Paley), but is also an accurate animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana, set to the beautiful 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw.
The other day we were browsing the website and reading all about and watching the YouTube videos about the copyright hassles that the producer (Nina Paley) went through. It seems that those beautiful 1920's jazz vocals are bound up in almost eternal copyright, due to the media-making lobby's successful attempts in getting the coverage of the copyright legislation extended indefinitely by incremental steps. The songs are a veritable treasure of human creativity locked up by a seemingly greedy, Dog-in-the-manger media group, and could well have never seen the light of day again if it had not been for Nina Paley's persistence.
I think this sort of thing (copyright hassles) could be a typical aspect - part and parcel - of the media-rights commercial lobby's strategy that seems to be driving a lot of the censorship that has been going on (the subject of this thread).
That this has more recently become a more public concern is only because it happened to rise to public awareness and there was an "Internet protest". The SOPA legislation was like a Trojan Horse that got belatedly spotted by an otherwise generally unsuspecting public.
So, I think that what I said above was/is probably true:
...that makes me wonder if that Internet censorship is not just a single narrow aspect of a much larger overall strategy of state censorship in the US, driven presumably by commercial interests rather than by genuine state security interests.
-IainB (March 01, 2012, 05:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
If it is true, then it could indicate that the corporate lobby groups are now effectively the real de facto lawmakers, and the Senate/Judiciary are now the administrators/bureaucrats who are paid to rubber-stamp and enact the new "laws". Presumably, this would make the State Legislature the puppets of the relatively few corporate legal Persons, enacting laws in the interests of those Persons and often against the interests of the many public persons - which would seem to run contrary to (or in breach of) the democratic process and even the duty of government to protect the people.
I could be wrong in this, of course - e.g., if I do not understand the system very well and the system is just fine.
IainB:
Coincidentally, this interesting post from The Centre for the Study of Innovative Freedom:
Copyright is Unconstitutional: Update
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version