Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 07, 2016, 02:17:56 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates  (Read 97116 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
More copyright fun:

http://torrentfreak....ng-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10  (porn!) Movies

Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.

http://www.news.com....ejlrpu-1226503001489

And that's for the real thing! :P

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member

More copyright fun:

http://torrentfreak....ng-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10  (porn!) Movies

Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.

http://www.news.com....ejlrpu-1226503001489

And that's for the real thing! :P



I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:


Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,296
    • View Profile
    • www.StoicJoker.com
    • Donate to Member
More copyright fun:

http://torrentfreak....ng-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10  (porn!) Movies

Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.

http://www.news.com....ejlrpu-1226503001489

And that's for the real thing! :P



I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:

Hay, if somebody is willing to pay top dollar for a blank slate...what's the harm? It wasn't "special"?? 9 time out of 4 "special" is in reality defined as short, confusing, and on somebody's thigh. ...Yeah, getting paid well would ruin that memory... :)

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
More copyright fun:

http://torrentfreak....ng-10-movies-121101/
BitTorrent Pirate Ordered to Pay $1.5 Million Damages For Sharing 10  (porn!) Movies

Well, they better have been lesbian porn, because to my knowledge, the highest paid yet is $780,000.

http://www.news.com....ejlrpu-1226503001489

And that's for the real thing! :P



I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:

Hay, if somebody is willing to pay top dollar for a blank slate...what's the harm? It wasn't "special"?? 9 time out of 4 "special" is in reality defined as short, confusing, and on somebody's thigh. ...Yeah, getting paid well would ruin that memory... :)

Dunno. It's just seemed so cold-blooded and demeaning. It gave me this weirdly ugly feeling for some reason.

Must be me. Maybe I'm just tired? Please ignore. 8)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
...Maybe I'm just tired?...
Never mind. Just sit down, put your headphones on, and listen to this with your eyes closed. You'll feel more like your old self in a matter of minutes.



Not all people are on the same wavelength.    ;)

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
It sometimes seems as though quite a lot of the issues affecting Internet freedoms tend to be largely ignored or "under-reported" by the MSM (MainStream Media), so that we interested parties (Internet users) actually only find out about things at the last minute.
Now why might that be?
[/sarc]

Thank goodness for a relatively independent and diverse blogosphere to keep us informed (and I do not incluse MSM reports hidden behind paywalls in that) when the MSM either cannot or will not do so.

Relevant post from Falkvinge on Infopolicy:
Berlusconi Convicted: What We Learn From Political Media Contamination, though I think the word "Contamination" might have really been intended as "Collusion" or "Corruption"(as per the URL).
Just the text copied below sans embedded links/images.)
Quote
by Rick Falkvinge

Diversity: Against all odds, former Italian prime minister Berlusconi was recently sentenced to one year in prison. This followed a long process where an Italian referendum had to be held to revoke his legal immunity, in order to indict him in the first place. We can learn a lot about the dangers of politically controlled media from how Berlusconi tried to defeat this referendum.

Silvio Berlusconi was sentenced to one year in prison for “notable tax evasion”, and prohibited from holding public office for five years. Experts say that this means that the 76-year-old’s political career is effectively over.

However, this case has been dragging on for a long time, and started out as a seemingly hopeless case since Berlusconi enjoyed legal immunity for acts committed during his prime ministry. To repeal this immunity, a referendum was required in Italy – a population-wide referendum just to allow the former prime minister – one man – to even stand trial.

To understand the complexity of this situation, three pieces of data are vital:
First, the functional illiteracy in Italy is 43% (yes, forty-three per cent). This means that almost half of the population can’t read an average-complexity newspaper article, or this blog post, and understand its content and use its information in their daily lives.

Second, referendums in Italy need two things to pass and take judicial effect. Out of the voting people, over 50% of the valid votes cast must be “yes” votes – simple enough; there must be a majority in favor of the referendum. But the second thing required is that the voter turnout must also be over 50%. This means that there are two mutually exclusive strategies for defeating an Italian referendum – either campaign heavily for a “no” vote, or not campaign at all in shooting for a voter turnout less than the required half.

Third, Silvio Berlusconi owns a controlling interest in six of the seven television networks in Italy.

Now, putting these three facts together, we observe that people in Italy do not get their daily news from newspapers (in fact, almost half of them are unable to do so), but from television and friends. We also observe that the programming on television is practically completely controlled by the single man in Italy who has anything to lose from the referendum passing.

So what happened?

The referendum wasn’t mentioned once on the televised news in six out of seven television networks. It was dismissed as “not newsworthy”, in all simplicity.

But the referendum passed anyway, reaching the required 50-percent voter turnout by and large thanks to the alternate newsflows of the net, which Silvio Berlusconi didn’t grow up with and which he hasn’t cared to understand. And so, Berlusconi was indicted. He stepped down from the prime ministry on practically the same day, and was sentenced to jail a few days ago, on October 26.

This story illustrates in a very straightforward way how media ownership, and the interest of the media owners, influences news valuation.

To put it bluntly, there is simply no such thing as “independent media” or “neutral media”. Ownership interests prevail; blood is thicker than water. Even public service channels choose to report from values in the middle lane. That’s not neutral; that’s in the middle lane.

Therefore, a plurality in reporting remains paramount – in order to hold elected leaders accountable, we need many reporters with many competing interests.

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I find something (ok...better make it many things) about that story extremely disturbing. Is it just me? :huh:

  Something VERY disturbing indeed.  There's NO coochie worth that much money.  NONE!!!
  Besides that, give me a woman with experience any day.  I want one that KNOWS what to do, not one that I have to train.  ;>

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
It sometimes seems as though quite a lot of the issues affecting Internet freedoms tend to be largely ignored or "under-reported" by the MSM (MainStream Media), so that we interested parties (Internet users) actually only find out about things at the last minute.
Now why might that be?
...
I didn't try to answer my own question, but I have just read where Rick Falkvinge answers it for me - and very cogently, it seems: Why SOPA-supporting news networks don't mention SOPA.
He starts with an arguably valid assumption, which he then substantiates, that there are relatively high levels of functional illiteracy in some populations, and gives the estimate of being (typically) 50% in the industrialized parts of the world, but Italy being higher - about %57% (i.e., only 43% functionally literate). He then goes on to suggest that that functional illiteracy was taken advantage of.

He writes of the Berlusconi fiasco: (my emphasis)
Quote
On these six [Italian] television networks, the referendum was simply not mentioned. Not once. Deemed not newsworthy.
At the end of the day, this enraged the Italian people enough to bump voter turnout over 50% anyway, and the referendum passed. Very shortly thereafter, having had his immunity revoked, Berlusconi stepped down.
Are we starting to see parallels to the SOPA blackout yet?

Conclusion
If you control what other people know, if you control the village newswell, then you control the entire village. The Catholic Church was in this privileged position before the printing press (which is also why they demanded harsher and harsher penalties — up to and including the death penalty — for unauthorized copying of knowledge in their time).
The one thing that can threaten TV news networks is the Internet and the ability for people to communicate directly, bypassing the judgment of the now-famous 1% to determine what knowledge befits the masses. We learn from history that all such power is always used to maintain and strengthen itself first. So, SOPA basically kills that ability of the everyday person to bypass the 1%.

Therefore, it is in the economic and political interest of today’s newswells to kill a strategic threat to their privileged position, and to act just like Berlusconi did in Italy: to actively not bring the topic up onto people’s radar.

In other words, Corporate United States is just as corrupt as Berlusconi’s Italy was, and is acting just like the Catholic Church did when they tried to kill the printing press.

Worth reading the whole post.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
I didn't try to answer my own question, but I have just read where Rick Falkvinge answers it for me - and very cogently, it seems: Why SOPA-supporting news networks don't mention SOPA.

Excellent read.

Falkvinge is just one badass site with non-stop, blow your mind, amazing stuff.

(Off-topic - @Iain - I said in another thread that you probably wouldn't like David Icke, but if you like Falkvinge, you'll probably like some of what Icke has to say as a lot of the underlying premises line up.)
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Another "I thought this was ajoke until I read it" moment:
Quote
Anti-Piracy Group Threatens To Sue ISPs Over TV Show ‘Piracy’
enigmax, November 2, 2012

CIAPC, the anti-piracy group that has successfully forced ISPs in Finland to block The Pirate Bay, has threatened to sue the ISPs themselves over alleged TV show piracy. Local ISPs such as Elisa and TeliaSonera offer cloud services where their customers can store TV shows for later viewing over the Internet. CIAPC says the services fall outside the scope of private copying “fair use” and therefore require a license to operate legally. The ISPs are ignoring demands to shut down the services and now face legal action.

For decades TV companies lived in the moment, transmitting TV shows at a certain time and date and expecting their customers to adapt to their predetermined schedules. Be around when the show airs, be around for the repeat, or miss it forever, the business model used to dictate.

Technologies such as VHS and more recently home hard disc recorders went some way to bridging the accessibility gap but these days customers increasingly want everything “on demand”, at a time and place of their choosing, not one dictated by a TV company.

To fill this gap in the market, some ISPs such as Elisa and TeliaSonera in Finland are offering their subscribers personal cloud storage. As a TV show is aired it is recorded to the customer’s cloud account, ready to be watched over the Internet at a more convenient time.

The ISPs and their subscribers appear to be happy with the convenience of the services but perhaps unsurprisingly they are now coming under attack from rightsholders.

CIAPC, the anti-piracy group that successfully forced ISPs such as Elisa, TeliaSonera and DNA (around 80% of the Finnish Internet market) to block The Pirate Bay, insists these services are illegal and should be shut down.

“Storage services for TV shows are currently offered by around twenty companies, including major Internet service providers such as Elisa and TeliaSonera,” CIAPC explain. “None of the companies have licenses for the services. This is significant, because the issue concerns around 100 million euros worth of commercial services.”

CIAPC say they wrote to the companies advising them that their services breach copyright law and ordering them to be shut down, but thus far the warnings have gone unheeded. So this week CIAPC reiterated their threats that if the services remain operational, legal action will follow.

“None of the service providers has complied with the requirement of the ban. It appears that a legal solution needs to be considered,” says CIAPC managing director Antti Kotilainen.

The timing of the threats appears to be linked to an announcement last week that the operators of TVkaista, a company offering similar services, had been charged for illegally offering the content of several TV companies without permission.

TVkaista’s CEO and technical director are accused of copyright and intellectual property offenses plus aggravated fraud. The company’s legal adviser is charged with criminal copyright offenses and copyright fraud.

The accused all protest their innocence. They insist that their service is legal under current law which grants their customers a fair use exception for private copying of TV shows for personal use.

The service offered by TVkaista is, however, slightly different to that being offered by Elisa and TeliaSonera. TVkaista records all programs and stores them for a few weeks whether customers ask for them or not. The other services only record TV shows on demand.

CIAPC say that the Copyright Act only permits users to save content such as TV shows, movies and music locally within the home, and these cloud services don’t fit that description.

None of the ISPs are expected to give in without a fight.

And @Renegade, yes, I do see that a lot of what David Icke says makes sense. This "ISP Piracy" nonsense is an example of what he was on about - Fascism. The rightsholders seem to want to have us all in a straightjacket where we get force-fed exactly what they want to feed us, when they want to, and we will have to pay them for the privilege every time.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Quote
None of the ISPs are expected to give in without a fight.

Perhaps throwing everyone involved onto a battlefield with swords and shields would solve this once and for all. Mind you, I would expect CIAPC to be outnumbered a bit. :P


And @Renegade, yes, I do see that a lot of what David Icke says makes sense. This "ISP Piracy" nonsense is an example of what he was on about - Fascism. The rightsholders seem to want to have us all in a straightjacket where we get force-fed exactly what they want to feed us, when they want to, and we will have to pay them for the privilege every time.

Regarding David Icke - He rants like Hell about fascism, and a lot more. One of the reasons that I like him. :) He is utterly scathing in his tongue lashings of the media.

The rightsholders seem to want to have us all in a straightjacket where we get force-fed exactly what they want to feed us, when they want to, and we will have to pay them for the privilege every time.

Related there - Icke would say "we pay for our own enslavement". However, he's far from alone in making that characterization (in a few contexts).
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Another 'roach: The Internet Radio Fairness Act: Revamping the Online Radio Marketplace
I hadn't known this was in the works.
Quote
Royalties for online radio and other digital music services are a prominent topic for today’s recorded music industry, and the discussion has only grown with the recent introduction of the Internet Radio Fairness Act in the House and Senate. IRFA aims to revamp the parts of the Copyright Act that create licenses for online radio services to pay for transmitting sound recordings to their users. More specifically, IRFA would change the standard by which online radio royalty rates are set, alter the qualifications and appointment procedures for the Copyright Royalty Judges, and make several more changes to the process of setting online radio royalties.

What could possibly go wrong?

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Looks pretty confusing in the UK too: Any Hint Of Evidence Based Copyright In The UK Seen As Nefarous Plot By Parliamentary Copyright Maximalists

No matter. I wouldn't be surprised if Internet freedoms all went down the plughole, same as in the US, only quicker.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Bulgarian banks show us how Internet censorship should work: Bulgarian Banks Try To Silence Web Site That Called Them 'Bad Apples'

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
From that article:

Quote
it's heartening to see BalkanLeaks and Bivol.org continuing to expose wrongs through the use of leaked information, despite the very clear risks.

It's sad when it's riskier to tell the truth or do the right thing than it is to be a criminal. :(
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Yes, I thought that indicated a lesson for us all - if we needed it.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Twilight Zone time!

Screenshot - 2012-11-05 , 7_10_48 PM.png
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.

"This morning, the majority of Bill C-11, Canada's copyright reform bill, took effect, marking the most significant changes to Canadian copyright law in decades."
http://news.slashdot...-reform-takes-effect

http://www.michaelge...ntent/view/6692/125/


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.

Most times it's less an issue of the law as written - and more a matter of how it's interpreted (and abused) in practice.

In Canada's case, I think only time and future judicial decisions will show whether it was a good thing or not.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I'll leave this one to my betters to see if this law is a Good Thing or not.

Most times it's less an issue of the law as written - and more a matter of how it's interpreted (and abused) in practice.

In Canada's case, I think only time and future judicial decisions will show whether it was a good thing or not.

Though the "tenor of the news" counts for a lot too. For example in the bills in the title of the thread, The Internetz rose up with an "OhDearGawdBBQ No!". Whereas this one seems all "look, it's moderate for the little guy!"

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Though the "tenor of the news" counts for a lot too.

Glad it still does somewhere. :(

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Loss of Internet freedoms "for the best possible reasons and for the greater good".
In 2007 the Australian government announced its intention to introduce compulsory filtering/blocking of the Australian Internet for traffic containing child-related pornography, including what's generally called "child abuse imagery".
I recall at the time being surprised at a very thought-provoking and reasoned post on a website (I think, but am not sure, that it might have been ArsTechnica or Slashdot, though I cannot find the post now) that this might be the first time that they (the writer) would have to come out on the side of allowing child-related pornography - because the proposed filtering was unworkable/infeasible and could only lead to a great loss of Internet freedom for everyone.

Then in 2009 there were reports that though there had been problems with the prototype/trial filtering, it was likely to be implemented.

In ArsTechnica on 2012-11-09 there is a post that: Australia comes to its senses, abandons Internet filtering regime.
Looks like the filtering will be abandoned and instead:
Quote
Canberra says it will use Interpol's "worst of" list to block child abuse sites.

Relevant to this subject there are two interesting posts in Falkvinge about the potential for unintended consequences arising from the "illegalisation" of child porn:

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Amazing: US imposes sanctions on Iran for Internet censorship
One wonders whether this might now mean that we have to re-define the term "hypocrisy".