ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

<< < (77/79) > >>


"Perhaps equally astonishing (to me, at any rate) is this apparent US-sponsored stifling/censoring of free speech on the Internet"

... Unfortunately, to me it's becoming "astonishing that this is so routine"!

It's gonna be tough to roll this juggernaut back! Various people have remarked that even "Snowden" is just a new card-deal with a big new spin, going for "different mechanisms of control".

It reminds me yet again of that old venerable collectible card game Magic the Gathering, where you could have any number of specific kinds of "Control Decks", that just controlled different things. So let's say you were a moderately skilled player, and each gaming group has their local crowd of fifteen people who have their kinds of pet decks. Red Aggression (at the player), Green Monster Stomp, Black Weenie, someone's slightly flawed but always dangerous Flier deck, and so on. And then every group has their few Control specialists.

So your local group has the "Silence Stifle" specialist, that simply removes stuff from play, turning your hopes and dreams into a cross between the Sahara and Siberia. So you work around that.

Then you visit another city, and their group has instead a "Control Magic" specialist that borrows your stuff and uses it against you. That's what they're starting to shift to ... the old style was operating with the subpoena and gag order. But trust Reason of all places to have a good lawyer on retainer, so now it got out. Oops!

So now they have to go squash it around the edges.

"Dismayingly routine", because also on Slashdot, we get this entry:

Illinois Supreme Court: Comcast Must Identify Anonymous Internet Commenter

An anonymous reader writes: In 2011, an anonymous person on the internet posted a comment to the Freeport Journal Standard newspaper's website implying that a local political candidate *******. The candidate, Bill Hadley, took offense to this, and tried to get Comcast to tell him who the commenter was.

Comcast refused, so Hadley took it to the courts. The Illinois Supreme Court has now ruled (PDF) that Comcast must divulge the commenter's identity. "Illinois' opinion was based in large part on a pair of earlier, lower-court decisions in the state, which held that the anonymity of someone who makes comments in response to online news stories isn't guaranteed if their opinions are potentially defamatory, according to Don Craven, an attorney for the Illinois Press Association."

Important Redaction mine! Because I purposely want the issue known, not the "hot button noun" running around.

Iain probably knows more than me about this next bit - If someone is gonna express "frustration" about someone, I think you can even graph it scientifically that it's gonna have "inflammatory content". So what all these nasty cases are doing, are setting up the gradient scale. Echoes of:

"First they came for the people who called someone a (A). Then they came for people who called someone (B). Then they came for me."


"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."




This is one of the more strange and dangerous words in English vs Legalese.

In English we think it means "optional"". But in many legal contexts it means "you provide something, rather than us sending a representative to take it". (That's the answer to the famous '80 's junk scam 'taxes are voluntary!!'  No, they're not optional. However, you also don't get your very own rep at your door most times either.)

Whew! I hadn't known about this until I received this email from today:
Refer link:

* website post: Thousands of Internet users ask the European Commission to listen to their feedback | OpenMedia
* response tool: put an end to this copyright zombie once and for all.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
We’ve seen the leaked version1 of the roadmap for copyright reform, and oh boy is it sneaky. And although these proposals are coming from Europe, Internet users everywhere will be affected.
It could open the door to absurd new rules that would kill our ability to link freely – copyrighting hyperlinks and charging to link to freely accessible content online.2
This makes no sense. And we need EU Digital Economy Commissioner Oettinger to hear from us loud and clear that we think so.

EU parliamentarian and copyright rapporteur Julia Reda has declared this a “full frontal attack on the hyperlink, and that “each weblink would become a legal landmine and would allow press publishers to hold every single actor on the Internet liable."3
Does that sound like the Web you want? If it isn’t, now is the time to send your message. If enough of us speak out, we can convince the Commission to listen to Internet users instead of to the big media giants pushing this plan.

The most offensive part of this leaked plan? Decision-makers are setting the direction of copyright reform before the end of their own public consultation on this issue.
That’s right. Experts at Copyright for Creativity have said clearly stated this denies "citizens and relevant stakeholders the right to be heard" and would "prejudge the outcomes of these consultations."4

We’ve already seen over 9000 Internet users5 submit their comments using our tool – now is the time to make sure those in charge can’t ignore them.
Send a message right now to the commissioners leading on the digital agenda. Our best chance to stop this is by creating a loud public outcry.

Consider this: the link tax has already been implemented twice, and both times it’s been a disaster.6 The European Parliament even rejected it (twice!) mere months ago.7 But this is the bad idea that Just. Won’t. Die.
It’s simple: this is nothing more than twisting copyright in knots to justify propping up outdated business models.
Let’s put an end to this, once and for all.

–Meghan, on behalf of your OpenMedia team

PS: Want to do more? Tweet at the commissioners leading the charge on digital policy to make sure they get the message.

[1] Leaked copyright communication: Towards a modern, more European copyright framework.
[2], [3] Ancillary Copyright 2.0: The European Commission is preparing a frontal attack on the hyperlink. Source: Julia Reda.
[4] Dear European Commission, could you at least pretend you’re listening to us? Source: Copyright for Creativity.
[5] Tell the European Union: protect the Web and Save Hyperlinks. Source:
[6] MEP Petra Kammerevert's Open Letter on copyright. Source: OpenMedia.
[7] Reda report adopted; amendment rejected! Source: Initiative Against Ancillary Copyright.

--- End quote ---

European nations lost millions of lives in WWII fighting to retain sovereignty, independence, freedom and liberty, and against Nazi totalitarianism and fascism. Within 60 years their governments would seem to have achieved national and legal subordination to an unelected totalitarian EU body that takes away their sovereignty and freedoms. Go figure.

thanks for the heads up -- I went for the response:

response tool: put an end to this copyright zombie once and for all
-IainB (December 07, 2015, 10:13 PM)
--- End quote ---


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version