PDA

View Full Version : UK Copyright Lobby Holds Closed Door Meetings to Discuss Web Censorship


Jane-DoH
20th Jul 2011, 03:54
Leaked: UK Copyright Lobby Holds Closed-Door Meetings With Government to Discuss Web Censorship Regime (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/22/leaked-uk-copyright.html)

I'd like to hear everybody's opinions on this matter. If this is to the disliking of anybody here who are UK citizens, there is a form here which you can use to write your MP (http://action.openrightsgroup.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1422&ea.campaign.id=10992) with

lomapaseo
20th Jul 2011, 04:45
I sense a joke

Bad timing what with all the other news, this will be forgotten quickly besides all the enforcers are tied up hunting terroists or taking early retirement

hellsbrink
20th Jul 2011, 06:01
First, they're going to censor all talk of conspiracy theories from those who wear tinfoil helmets.



Give it a rest, jane, that sort of thing raises it's ugly head on an annual basis. It ain't news.

jumpseater
20th Jul 2011, 06:19
It's nothing to do with 'censorship' :rolleyes: it's to prevent copyright infringement.

The procedure will allow for "swift" blocking in order to shut down streaming of live events.

So its function is to assist in preventing people stealing digital media that they aren't entitled to.

Jane-DoH
20th Jul 2011, 06:35
jumpseater

No government is going to say that they're for censorship -- they do it through the guise of something else, whether it be preventing copyright infringement, fighting terrorism, or what have you.

As for swift blocking, that sounds like a fantastic tool for blocking a person speaking about something that corporate or government interests don't want people to see.

Parapunter
20th Jul 2011, 07:35
Why would you begin a discussion, asking as you do for people's opinions only to declare, four posts in that you have decided what it's about?

Makes no sense to me. You Jane, need to spend a couple of weeks on the beach at Snopes, chilling out.

stuckgear
20th Jul 2011, 08:40
just spoof yor IP address to one somewhere else. :E

green granite
20th Jul 2011, 08:59
It's nothing to do with 'censorship' it's to prevent copyright infringement.

jumpseater blocking your access to a site is censorship, whatever the reason for it, the government lambastes China for doing precisely the same thing on human rights grounds yet they seem quite happy to do it here. That to say the least is disingenuous.

mixture
20th Jul 2011, 11:32
umpseater blocking your access to a site is censorship, whatever the reason for it,

Nonsense green granite.

That's like saying freedom of speech gives you the right to libel and slander.

I suggest a trip to the Oxford dictionary website to review the definition of "censor". It seems pretty tightly defined to me and not blocking something "whatever the reason for it".

green granite
20th Jul 2011, 12:11
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

There is nothing illegal about visiting a site that has music on it, only downloading it if it has been published without the copyright owners permission.

jumpseater
20th Jul 2011, 14:44
As usual with these things the Gimme gimme's are out. Clearly none of them have ever had to buy equipment and create 'work' or stage an event to make money to put bread on the table. It's all terribly simple, if its not yours, you can't have it, unless you get agreement or pay from it from the 'author'.

GG.There is nothing illegal about visiting a site that has music on it, only downloading it if it has been published without the copyright owners permission.
You're absolutely right, what this is about is for the original media provider, i.e. the copyright holder to be able to close down that source of illegally aquired data so you or others can't see stolen material.

The procedure will allow for "swift" blocking in order to shut down streaming of live events.

I realise that arguments about using some elses intellectual property rarely requires the use of any intellect on the part of those arguing that theft is acceptable. := However, surely for even the most energy efficient thinker, (we're lucky, we are fortunate to have two such 'green' thinkers here today:ok:), it's clear that this isn't about censorship. It does what it says on the tin, hopefully the red bit above will help if you're still unable to grasp the concept of taking something that isn't yours. This is about closing the website of the parasites so they can't make money or gain from the back of others efforts.


GG Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication
Exactly GG, no one is having their speech suppressed are they? Parasites are being prevented from stealing property, if they want access to the media they have to pay for it, or, get this, the 'author' may just say 'No, you can't have it, it's ours'. They have a right to do that, legally and morally. On the other hand, you don't have a 'right' to it. Simples. Get over it.


GG and JD 2/10 for your copyright infringement essay. Breaking news for you, you don't have a 'right' to see anyones 'work'. :rolleyes:


GG stay behind and write out 100 times,
'This is not about censorship, it is preventing theft and unauthorised distribution of copyright material'.

er340790
20th Jul 2011, 14:49
Boooooooooooooooooooooo!

Thanks to the likes of Navi-X, I was able to watch the new Harry Potter movie on-line within 48 hours of its release last weekend.

Is that a record or did anyone beat it???

green granite
20th Jul 2011, 15:39
As usual with these things the Gimme gimme's are out.

Sorry jumpseater, you're totally out of order, as far as I'm concerned it's got sod all to do with music theft as I don't download music. Most of it is total crap anyway. We are talking, in effect, about the government having the power to block/shutdown any web site they wish, (music downloads? of course it has, look here's some we put on earlier.) If somebody thinks their copyrights are being infringed then they could apply to the courts, present the evidence with the site having the right to defend itself and the courts can then put a block on it if they agree with the plaintiff , that would be perfectly acceptable to me. The concept of the government arbitrarily having the power to shut a site out is not, Wikileaks? not a problem here any more it had music on it.

A prime example of misplaced trust in a government has been the creation of the police state in England where the police can now arrest anyone they like on the suspicion having committed a crime, tourists taking photographs in London springs to mind.

stuckgear
20th Jul 2011, 16:55
of course it is GG..

Does anyone really think the government gives a rats if someone downloaded an MP3 of Beyoncé's new album without paying for it, or is information control more important?

baby steps...

vulcanised
20th Jul 2011, 18:02
What's a Beyonce?

jumpseater
20th Jul 2011, 18:22
Sorry jumpseater, you're totally out of order

No need to apologise, I'm not out of order, I'm right.

Try reading what the proposals are actually about, rather than what you think :rolleyes: they are about. You need to put a little more effort into understanding the difference between censorship, and copyright protection of live events. If you have a live event, this will enable parasites who take the live feed to use for their own means to be shut down instantly. Cock all to do with censorship.

Oh, and I've never had any trouble taking piccies in London either, even in Trafalgar Square, or railway stations or airports ...

Have you finished the lines yet?

green granite
20th Jul 2011, 18:43
Ah, you're only concerned about live feeds now jumpseater I presume therefore you concede on the other points.
If the live feed site has been found which it must have been to even think about shutting it down, then the quickest way of so doing is to work out where the camera is (not very difficult) and getting the site security people to confiscate it. Or just set up a legalised DoS attack on the site for the duration of the show.

stuckgear
20th Jul 2011, 18:45
What's a Beyonce?

this...
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Beyonce--3-beyonce-381644_375_562.jpg

stumpey
21st Jul 2011, 02:34
Why have her air bags been deployed? ;)

11Fan
21st Jul 2011, 03:07
Why have her air bags been deployed?

Obviously, she was rear ended.

Jane-DoH
21st Jul 2011, 04:48
stuckgear

of course it is GG..

Does anyone really think the government gives a rats if someone downloaded an MP3 of Beyoncé's new album without paying for it, or is information control more important?

It's about information control, plain and simple.

baby steps...

Sadly most people won't realize the danger of this until it's too late

jumpseater
21st Jul 2011, 09:40
GG Ah, you're only concerned about live feeds now jumpseater I presume therefore you concede on the other points.
If the live feed site has been found which it must have been to even think about shutting it down, then the quickest way of so doing is to work out where the camera is (not very difficult) and getting the site security people to confiscate it. Or just set up a legalised DoS attack on the site for the duration of the show.

Deary me, this homeworks even worse than the last lot you handed in laddie.

I most certainly do not concede 'the other points', whatever they were in this ill prepared diatribe of yours. Show your working sonny, provide examples of where government has made use of copyright legislation, to block commercial live feeds of sports events, etc, (this is what the assignment is about isn't it, you did read the question didn't you?), to censor a web site.

Of course the live feed site will be found, it will have four (ish) wheels at each corner, a steering wheel in the front right or left hand corner, a big round plate type thingy on the top and helpfully labelled 'The Acme Television Co. Ltd.

Unsurprisingly the 'The Acme Television Company' will take a dim view, having paid for the broadcast rights, of turning their cameras off as you suggest by security. Their customers, who unlike the parasites have paid for the shite being pumped into their front room, will also be unimpressed that the cameras are turned off to prevent theft. Therefore the easy way is to identify that someone is streaming the media illegally, that'll be called watching it, and blocking that website.

Simples. Done the lines yet?

JD:8 It's about information control, plain and simple.

The only thing plain and simple in evidence here is your inability to understand what the subject is about, or do a simple bit of research.

It's about copyright theft and preventing it. Endex.

green granite
21st Jul 2011, 10:12
It's about copyright theft and preventing it. Endex.

jumpseater no it is not It's about the governments ability to block any site without the due process of law.

As for the live streaming problem, you will never really stop it as they can just switch streaming websites at will. Far better to use the time to trace the person doing the uploading and prosecute him/her.

Simples. Done the lines yet?

Stop being patronizing, it adds nothing to the debate and just makes you look silly.

hellsbrink
21st Jul 2011, 10:28
It's about the governments ability to block any site without the due process of law.

Guess you better read up on the Digital Economy Act 2010.......

stuckgear
21st Jul 2011, 11:39
Introduced by the Dark Lord, Lord Mandelson, Some specific criticisms of the legislation are the:

Removal of presumption of innocence [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
Lack of oversight of accusations made by rights holders, who are inclined to abuse this power. [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
Little of no requirement of proof for accusations[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
Shared networks wireless access points in access points becoming impossible to administer.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-35)
Flawed appeal processes[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
That access to the internet is crucial for accessing many services [37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-36)
That preventing copyright infringement is far less important than privacy and the effective function of the internet.
Likelihood of abuse of powers to disconnect users via 'special pleading' to secretary of state. [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)

green granite
21st Jul 2011, 11:59
Precisely stuckgear and this proposal will just add to that list. But then obviously jumpseater doesn't give a toss about peoples freedom as long as his precious copyright is not infringed, nor does he realise that no matter how much you pass bills like this it wont stop it anyway, the internet is too vast and it's too easy for criminals to stay one jump ahead, even with the use of the vast resources of GCHQ or Menwith hill

hellsbrink
21st Jul 2011, 12:06
But the matter of fact is that the DEA is on the statute book in the UK, there is a "due process of law".

jumpseater
21st Jul 2011, 17:03
GG But then obviously jumpseater doesn't give a toss about peoples freedom as long as his precious copyright is not infringed, nor does he realise that no matter how much you pass bills like this it wont stop it anyway, the internet is too vast and it's too easy for criminals to stay one jump ahead,

So GG not found an example of a government using copyright legislation as censorship then?

This proposal does nothing to prevent 'peoples freedom' it is to make it easier to prevent theft by cutting a stolen stream at source and make it harder for parasites who do steal other peoples media. Does 'peoples freedom' now involve being able to take what isn't yours? Now the average 'jumpers for goalposts' event runs for about 90 minutes. Are the courts open on weekends and sitting ready, available for immediate response on your planet? I think by the time that a court case has been filed here in the UK, the damage will have been done, the theft will have occurred. Being able to kill the stream at source instantly protects those people who have paid for the service, as opposed to the theifs who have not.

And copyright is precious if it protects your income, so you can feed your kids and put a roof over your head. As usual the gimme gimme's don't think to consider the impact of their theft on the victim. Yeh freedom brothers, I want, I want. It's my right to take your property, stopping me taking your work is censorship, it's soooo unfair!

I'm intrigued howcome you're so late getting on the outrage bus, the meeting 'leaked', (it was in his public diary, but that might water the outrage down a insy bit), occurred well over eight months ago, where were you then?

That's two pieces of homework outstanding, the lines and the evidence showing censorship by government use of copyright legislation of live events.

I'm not looking silly, I'm not the one clutching at straws claiming 'the state' is oppressing me and censoring us, by preventing me watch Manchester Town play Arsenal Villa FC.

hellsbrink
21st Jul 2011, 17:13
by preventing me watch Manchester Town play Arsenal Villa FC.

So you can't tell us what the score was?

jumpseater
21st Jul 2011, 17:17
Nah, the capitalist pigs cut me off half way throught he second half ... :mad:ers!

Ancient Observer
21st Jul 2011, 17:22
You have to feel sorry for the multi-millionaires in the pop world, darling!

If they don't get this law in place, who will pay for their lines of coke and Bollies?

green granite
21st Jul 2011, 18:54
I'm not looking silly, I'm not the one clutching at straws claiming 'the state' is oppressing me and censoring us, by preventing me watch Manchester Town play Arsenal Villa FC.

No nor am I so stop calling me a thief, I so glad you have absolute faith in the integrity of the government, I just hope you never have cause to regret it.

Jane-DoH
22nd Jul 2011, 19:30
green granite

blocking your access to a site is censorship, whatever the reason for it, the government lambastes China for doing precisely the same thing on human rights grounds yet they seem quite happy to do it here. That to say the least is disingenuous.

Of course. You have to keep in mind that governments routinely criticize other nations for practices that they themselves engage in.

jumpseater no it is not It's about the governments ability to block any site without the due process of law.

That's correct, and the desire to be able to perform quick-blocking is only greater cause for concern; they realize a person could potentially get a message out fast, so they want a guy with a chicken-switch that could block anybody who tries this.

This is odious to the extreme...


hellsbrink

Guess you better read up on the Digital Economy Act 2010.......


Actually this process, despite being considered voluntary makes reference to the DEA which is not.


stuckgear

Introduced by the Dark Lord, Lord Mandelson, Some specific criticisms of the legislation are the:


Removal of presumption of innocence [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
Lack of oversight of accusations made by rights holders, who are inclined to abuse this power. [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
Little of no requirement of proof for accusations[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
Shared networks wireless access points in access points becoming impossible to administer.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-35)
Flawed appeal processes[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)
That access to the internet is crucial for accessing many services [37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-36)
That preventing copyright infringement is far less important than privacy and the effective function of the internet.
Likelihood of abuse of powers to disconnect users via 'special pleading' to secretary of state. [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#cite_note-org_crit-34)


All legitimate concerns, the fact is I find it very hard to believe that this will not be abused by the UK as a tool for internet censorship under the guise of copyright enforcement. This will serve to further embolden other nations to engage in similar practices as well.


Ancient Observer

You have to feel sorry for the multi-millionaires in the pop world, darling!

If they don't get this law in place, who will pay for their lines of coke and Bollies?

Yeah, it's amazing how many people feel sorry for big-businesses who don't care a whit about us and don't care about their own interests.


green granite

No nor am I so stop calling me a thief

I really resent it when people do that. Neither of us are thieves and neither of us want people to steal, we just care about the right to not be censored even more. Those companies make so much money that even if somebody took some copyrighted content here and there, they'd still make billions anyway.

I so glad you have absolute faith in the integrity of the government, I just hope you never have cause to regret it.

To this day, it amazes me how so many presumably educated people can have so much trust in their governments.

jumpseater
23rd Jul 2011, 10:47
green granite/JD


No nor am I so stop calling me a thief

I really resent it when people do that. Neither of us are thieves and neither of us want people to steal, we just care about the right to not be censored even more. Those companies make so much money that even if somebody took some copyrighted content here and there, they'd still make billions anyway.,


PMSL! There you have it folks, we're not theives, but it's alright to steal from them because they're so big and they'll still make billions anyway. Presumably the unemployable ned who'll take your car/wallet/phone etc is similarly entitled, because you've got a job anyway, you won't notice it, you've got insurance, a job etc etc. The last time I saw thinking this woolly it went Baah!

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c351/refshots/IMG_3751-1.jpg


I'd like GG or JD to show where I actually accused either of them of being thieves. They'll find it as hard as GG's current homework assignment. If however, they have at some point downloaded and used copyright media without the authors permission, then they are thieves.

Still no homework submitted GG, whats the excuse this time? Dog eaten the modem?


To this day, it amazes me how so many presumably educated people can have so much trust in their governments.

It amazes me how many presumably educated people think it's all right to steal from a large organisation, and can't tell the difference between copyright and censorship.

green granite
23rd Jul 2011, 12:16
No nor am I so stop calling me a thief

I really resent it when people do that. Neither of us are thieves and neither of us want people to steal, we just care about the right to not be censored even more. Those companies make so much money that even if somebody took some copyrighted content here and there, they'd still make billions anyway.,

I see you have now taken to merging different peoples quotes together to try and reinforce your point that anyone who objects to this censorship are only doing so so as to be able to steal your oh so precious copyrighted stuff, frankly my right to freedom from any form of cencorship is worth considerable more than a few mediocre songs which I have no interest in anyway.

Still no homework submitted GG, whats the excuse this time? Dog eaten the modem?

You get more pathetic every time you post

jumpseater
29th Jul 2011, 03:45
GGI see you have now taken to merging different peoples quotes together to try and reinforce your point that anyone who objects to this censorship

PMSL! I see you still haven't provided any evidence of 'censorship'. While you're at it you can kindly provide evidence where of your 'right to freedom' allows you a 'right' to steal from others be they a multinational media empire or an individual where copyright material is concerned.

Perhaps I am 'pathetic' countering your argument that copyright protection is censorship. I'm quite happy to be considered 'pathetic' if that associates me with standing against parasites who steal.

Mediocre songs eh? Well it'll come as a shock to a freedom fighter such as yourself, but your opinion of the relative quality of the media isn't worth squat. Sorry about that. Copyright theft is still copyright theft, but what it isn't, is censorship, if you'd done your homework you'll have realised that, (assuming you'd done it correctly of course:rolleyes:)

Perhaps you should have a look in a dictionary, that's a book that tells you what words mean, and to a degree, how to use them. Both copyright and censorship are under 'C', thats near the front of the book in the C section, and we look forward to the early delivery of your next energy efficient ramblings on our oppression.

green granite
29th Jul 2011, 08:30
Oh dear jumpseater you're so focussed on your perceived injustices that it's hampering your understanding of the written word.

1) Nowhere have I said that copyright infringement was acceptable, and that I have a right to steal other peoples work, that's purely a figment of your imagination brought about by my insistence that I have a right to access any website I wish, if I then go ahead and DOWNLOAD a piece of copyright material that is a totally different thing.

2) Once again you fail to realise dispite it's obviousness that the word pathetic refered specifically to your "Still no homework submitted GG, whats the excuse this time? Dog eaten the modem?" remark.

3) My comment about "pathetic songs" as you call them, was an attempt to make you realise that I have no wish to download them and thereby infringing copyright, but you obviously don't interpret words in the same way as the rest of us mere mortals.

Preventing people from accessing web sites is what totalitarian regimes do to oppress their subjects. And incidentally doing so in the UK wont actually work anyway as you can easily access it through a foreign proxy server thus bypassing the censorship.

CATIII-NDB
29th Jul 2011, 16:05
I have to say that I agree with GG in respect of his posts here. Particulary in relation to his definitions of censorship.

There seems to be a hidden agenda at work here, where an implimentation of a methodology of censorship: serves the interests of two compleately different groups, that could be instuted into law, to the profund detrement of the freedom of the populace; as a whole.

As stated, the laws of copywrite are well established. The fact that the discussions were held in secret, belays a mistrust of the electorate by both parties involved in the meetings and also the exclusion of the electorates' interests.

Never loose sight of the possibility that the industrial interests involved, could exert leaverage by the prospect of financial "assistance" to the political parties involved too.

CAT III

mr fish
29th Jul 2011, 21:27
how much music DID home taping kill??

Flap 5
30th Jul 2011, 08:28
Two problems with the music and software industry:

1. They are forcing the circumvention of the law by blocking websites.

2. They assume that all pirating would have resulted in revenue and calculate their losses as such.

In reality:

1. All other laws require due process.

2. People who pirate are unlikely to pay the normal price. In fact trial before purchase has been shown can actually increase sales as people get to see/hear the product and then decide to purchase. In fact this is often used by advertisers to do just that.

M.Mouse
30th Jul 2011, 10:00
1. All other laws require due process.

Er, no they don't. How about the police confiscating your car because no insurance is shown on the database? They don't toddle off to court to ask first. Rarely a mistake is made but that is a small price to pay to remove from the road the scum who routinely do not insure their cars.

My brother works for himself and writes very clever software for a living. It gets stolen. He works for those thieves for nothing. Excellent system.

I am not a multi-national corporation, as if that is at all relevant, but do sell copyrighted music. File sharing sites allow that music to be stolen.

As jumpseater says this legislation is about copyright protection.

Everybody jumps up and down about 'freedom' but what I see in society today is an awful lot of freedom with a corresponding lack of responsibility. If people didn't steal copyrighted material, which the internet has made easier, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

green granite
30th Jul 2011, 11:49
File sharing sites allow that music to be stolen.


A thief with a jemmy that breaks into a record store can do so as well, so should we ban record shops so that nobody can break into and steal from them?

jumpseater
30th Jul 2011, 22:51
GG brought about by my insistence that I have a right to access any website I wish
I don't give a flying one if you want to listen to music, copy images, watch filums, read e-books or watch sports events. It is so deperately simple a five year old child can understand the concept. If you want the sweety(digital media) you pay for it, ask for it or earn it, if it hasn't been provided on a free access basis by the copyright holder. If the grown up says no you can't have it(access to the media), because you refuse to pay/ask/earn for it then tough. You can't have it.


You can insist all you like mate, but you don't have the 'right' to access any website you wish at all. If you did then you have the right to access anyones online banking if you so desired, as you have the 'right' to access any website you wish. You can't even post your replies here without having the permission of the board owner, you sign up to that when you join, you don't have any 'rights' here, you post under the boards terms and conditions that you agreed to, (you did read them didn't you? not just pressed I Accept See what I mean about energy efficient thinking?

I have a number of websites that are currently private. Let's assume one of my sites had content that were of interest to you, not to steal, just to look at, to read. Do tell us where your 'right' to see the content of my website is enshrined in any constitution of any country in this solar system. What 'right' do you have to view it. Provide specific examples of these rights, not some wooly lefty liberal theory.

Still waiting for your evidence of copyright legislation for live streaming of sports events being used as censorship. Why have'nt you provided it?:hmm:

Perhaps it's all down to Bernie and that white persian cat on his lap. He's starting to censor:D Formula One, you'll now have to pay to watch some races, he'll be ruling the world next ...

Jane-DoH
30th Jul 2011, 22:55
jumpseaters

PMSL! There you have it folks, we're not theives, but it's alright to steal from them because they're so big and they'll still make billions anyway.

I never said it was alright to steal from them. I'm saying that the protections they want to put in place are ridiculous considering how much money they make.

Do you ever bother to think about how laws can be misused?


M.Mouse

Er, no they don't. How about the police confiscating your car because no insurance is shown on the database? They don't toddle off to court to ask first. Rarely a mistake is made but that is a small price to pay to remove from the road the scum who routinely do not insure their cars.

Do you think a government should have the right to block a website without due process of law?

jumpseater
31st Jul 2011, 01:11
JD I'm saying that the protections they want to put in place are ridiculous considering how much money they make.

Sorry? who made you the arbiter of how much money a copyright holder can make before its alright to steal from them? How much do you earn? How much of that can a thief take before you consider it sufficient to look for protection for yourself?

Of course laws can be misused jane dahlink, but it'd be nice if you actually provided the smallest shred of evidence of copyright legislation for live events being used as censorship. Because thats what you're arguing isn't it? I'm also not so dense as to think that copyright legislation on a football match would be big brothers first step to censorship.


JD Do you think a government should have the right to block a website without due process of law?
More energy efficiency.:rolleyes: Perhaps some research on your part of what 'due process of law' actually means will help you:hmm:. You know, the accepted legal definition. Then if you don't understand it, ask someone who does, to explain it to you.

So the answer to your question is no.:E

Jane-DoH
31st Jul 2011, 02:52
jumpseater

Sorry? who made you the arbiter of how much money a copyright holder can make before its alright to steal from them?

Me myself and I. I'm pretty sure I can do five times better than most of the morons in charge now.

How much do you earn?

I can assure you it's a lot less than most of the companies you describe.

How much of that can a thief take before you consider it sufficient to look for protection for yourself?

Well, I'm not happy when anybody takes any money from me, but the fact is if I made billions of dollars, if a person stole a couple of hundred million from me, it wouldn't make a serious dent in things.

I certainly don't think it's right to give corporations and governments the power to swiftly take down websites without due process, without explanation, without oversight.

Of course laws can be misused jane dahlink

Then you should realize the danger this law would have...

hellsbrink
31st Jul 2011, 03:40
I still want to know how we've gone from some lobbyists just having a talk with someone from the government, trying to get the gov to see things from their point of view (for that is what lobbyists do, after all), to a full blown conspiracy over internet censorship.

Astounding, a non-event gets turned into a full blown "where's my tinfoil helmet" discussion. Only on Pprune............

Jane-DoH
31st Jul 2011, 20:03
hellsbrink

This isn't exactly something that just started on PPRuNe... there are already privacy advocates who have started raising the issue. If you read the opening post link you would know that.

Secondly, this isn't a non event. Corporations and government want the power to block content they deem to be copyright infringement. Their proposals do not include due process, and while they claim them to be voluntary, they include references to the DEA which is mandatory.

Their proposals do not include a presumption of innocence, safeguards against abuse (no oversight of rights holders, no requirement of proof for accusations) and include flawed appeals processes. They even want the means to take websites, live video feeds down in real time. You're telling me this couldn't be abused by overzealous corporations or governments to stifle free-speech (the ability to shut down communications in real time is definitely a threat to free-speech) about things they might not want the public to hear about?

Freedom of speech outweighs the dangers of copyright infringement, plain and simple.

While people like jumpseater foolishly believes this is just about copyright infringement, this is way more than copyright infringement. This is about freedom of speech, and corporations and government wishing to be able to have a chicken-switch to pull the plug on even live communications.

Do you honestly think the government would actually admit to wanting to censor communications in real time in a manner similar to China? They're not going to admit to that!

Governments don't usually admit to something like that, instead they claim they're doing what they're doing under the guise of something else which doesn't seem so bad. In this case, they are talking about stopping copyright infringement instead of censorship.

In the United States, there is a desire to require all internet service providers to retain all data on users for 18-months (HR 1981). They're not calling it a data retention law; they're calling it a law aimed at preventing pornography from reaching the eyes of children.

hellsbrink
31st Jul 2011, 21:19
Jane

I can assure you that there isn't remotely the level of "privacy advocates" raising the issue, as you claim.

Also, this is NOT the UK Government doing something to "censor" the internet but merely some people with a vested interest LOBBYING the Government, something that happens all the time and is something that those AGAINST government interfering in internet matters also do. Of course it was held "behind closed doors", NOBODY lobbies in public!!

So, in other words, this is a bloody non-event, it's merely some people trying to sway government policy, something that happens on a daily basis. Only a true paranoid tinfoil helmet wearer would think that there was more to it at this moment.


Now, to the rest of your drivel.

Their proposals do not include a presumption of innocence, safeguards against abuse (no oversight of rights holders, no requirement of proof for accusations) and include flawed appeals processes. They even want the means to take websites, live video feeds down in real time. You're telling me this couldn't be abused by overzealous corporations or governments to stifle free-speech (the ability to shut down communications in real time is definitely a threat to free-speech) about things they might not want the public to hear about?

That's because it's about people streaming sporting or other events from their Sky feed so others can see it without paying. Of course those who have paid for the right to broadcast these events want their investment protected, and "free speech" does not allow what is THEFT. Pure and simple.

Freedom of speech outweighs the dangers of copyright infringement, plain and simple.

Bullshit. Freedom of Speech does NOT allow you to break the law. That is plainer and simpler than the nose on your face.

While people like jumpseater foolishly believes this is just about copyright infringement, this is way more than copyright infringement. This is about freedom of speech, and corporations and government wishing to be able to have a chicken-switch to pull the plug on even live communications.

Wrong again. This is about COPYRIGHT HOLDERS having the ability to have illegal live feeds pulled from the moment they are identified. The Government is NOT going to have some sort of kill switch but are being lobbied to have the law changed to allow these ILLEGAL feeds to be pulled faster.

Corporations and government want the power to block content they deem to be copyright infringement. Their proposals do not include due process, and while they claim them to be voluntary, they include references to the DEA which is mandatory.

Again, GARBAGE. The due process will be there as the source of the ILLEGAL feed will be identified. The feed will be pulled and the person supplying the feed will be prosecuted under the DEA. That is a law which allows said prosecutions, therefore the due process is there.

Governments don't usually admit to something like that, instead they claim they're doing what they're doing under the guise of something else which doesn't seem so bad. In this case, they are talking about stopping copyright infringement instead of censorship.

Again, HORSEMANURE. The UK Government is NOT proposing anything or trying to pass anything into law here. This is representatives of various groups LOBBYING the Government, they are putting forward their viewpoint. Again, this happens on a daily basis regarding various topics. And, until someone stands up in the House of Commons and presents a motion, the Government is doing NOTHING like you are trying to say they are.

You've been talking through your ass again, Jane, best you close it for a while and actually learn the truth about some of things you try and talk about in various parts of this board.

Jane-DoH
1st Aug 2011, 05:16
hellsbrink

Also, this is NOT the UK Government doing something to "censor" the internet but merely some people with a vested interest LOBBYING the Government

And we all know that lobbyists always have the greater good and public interest at heart, and never ask the government to do things on it's behalf :rolleyes:

hellsbrink
1st Aug 2011, 05:26
But does that mean the UK Government is actually doing what these lobbyists want, like you have been trying to convince us all, that the lobbyists have made the UK Government "censor" all aspects of the internet?

NO, IT DOES NOT! YOU have taken a normal meeting and turned it into yet another half-baked conspiracy theory, embellishing any "facts" with nothing but paranoic BS, in an attempt to further your own ideals, no matter how fanciful they may be.

In other words, you're talking rubbish.

green granite
1st Aug 2011, 08:47
We are just talking around each other, time will tell.

Flap 5
1st Aug 2011, 10:46
Those of you who write in favour of clamping down on copyright theft have every right to be indignant about this. However I feel the latest rulings are going too far. It is already being said that the latest rulings will be unworkable as those who wish to will always find a way around them. An unworkable law is often worse than no law at all.

The only way of really protecting material, be it music or software, is to charge a sensible price for it where people will be happy to pay. When Bill Gates was visiting China to complain about the theft of his software, at a time when he was the richest man in the world, it all seemed just like greed.

Big music and software companies clearly have plenty of money when they can afford the best lawyers and lobbyists to persuade government. And it really doesn't cut it for me when they say they are doing it for the little person who can not afford it. They are doing it for themselves.

M.Mouse
1st Aug 2011, 13:12
A thief with a jemmy that breaks into a record store can do so as well, so should we ban record shops so that nobody can break into and steal from them?

The analogy is flawed. A shop is set up to sell things. A website offering copyright music is not inviting theft it is actually playing a part in the theft.

Try another straw.

Blacksheep
1st Aug 2011, 13:26
That's like saying freedom of speech gives you the right to libel and slander.It does.

It also gives one who is slandered or libelled the right to seek reparation; but it doesn't include a right to stop the slanderer or libeller from speaking or writing in the first instance. They do so at their peril.

Lets wait and see what comes out of the current fuss over voicemail "hacking" - when the whole of our news reporting industry will come under heavy handed control, as a result of the misdeeds of a few. As well as putting the gutter press in its place, the result will - and have no doubt about it - also put an end to useful investigative reporting such as that which revealed the Watergate affair.

hellsbrink
1st Aug 2011, 16:58
However I feel the latest rulings are going too far. It is already being said that the latest rulings will be unworkable as those who wish to will always find a way around them. An unworkable law is often worse than no law at all.


What's the latest rulings, Flap 5? After all, all there has been recently, afaik, in the UK courts is a ruling which has forced BT to block access to a usenet site (Newsbinz) but that ruling only applies to that site. Any other sites that copyright holders want taken down/blocked MUST go through the same court procedure as UK ISP's like BT are saying they will NOT voluntarily "block" any site.

So, in other words, there doesn't seem to be any "new" rulings as all that happened was that a judge found that BT had to block a site under the terms of the DEA (which is a flawed law in itself), but there has been no modification to that and no agreement to "voluntarily block" any site so nothing has changed.

stuckgear
1st Aug 2011, 17:54
The analogy is flawed. A shop is set up to sell things. A website offering copyright music is not inviting theft it is actually playing a part in the theft.

Try another straw.


No it's not. As you say, a shop's purpose is to sell things, there are many websites that charge for legal downloads in comparison, but once the CD or MP3 is purchased, it can then be copied and redistributed....

.. as can recording off radio broadcasts, etc etc.

the thing is we already have copyright laws in the UK and have had since 1709, which have been subject to review and update. As per the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2003:


The previous "infringement by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme" (s. 20 of the 1988 Act) is replaced by a new "infringement by communication to the public" (reg. 6). This includes both broadcasting (under the new definition) and making a work available to the public by electronic transmission. A performer's rights are also infringed if his performance is made available to the public without his consent (reg; 7; new s. 182CA of the 1988 Act).


So, we already have laws which are statute in protecting copyrighted material, so the issue in terms of the lobby action is the addition to shut down the propogation of media without due process and without recourse because it is so decided by a faceless entity.

So where does one draw the line from downloading or accessing media that is considered 'theft' or illegitimate access thereof ? perhaps accessing a news station that has a news story, in another country that is perhaps critical of our host country's actions ?

Now couple this with the whole 'Murdoch' thing and possible legislation concerning news distribution and its control and you now have perfect situation where a government can control news media in its borders and shut off access to 'media' outside, under the guise of copyright.

all legal, all fair play, all done to protect 'us' and you have a nation of mushrooms (fed s:mad:t and kept in the dark).

function creep. it's a bitch !

Jane-DoH
1st Aug 2011, 21:02
stuckgear

No it's not. As you say, a shop's purpose is to sell things, there are many websites that charge for legal downloads in comparison, but once the CD or MP3 is purchased, it can then be copied and redistributed....

.. as can recording off radio broadcasts, etc etc.

Correct, the argument green granite made was completely valid; of course that's an inconvenient fact for hellsbrink and jumpseater.

So, we already have laws which are statute in protecting copyrighted material, so the issue in terms of the lobby action is the addition to shut down the propogation of media without due process and without recourse because it is so decided by a faceless entity.

Which is where my concern is; it makes it extremely dangerous.

So where does one draw the line from downloading or accessing media that is considered 'theft' or illegitimate access thereof ? perhaps accessing a news station that has a news story, in another country that is perhaps critical of our host country's actions ?

The problem is that the same law that the copyright lobby is pushing for could be used to block exactly what you describe.

Now couple this with the whole 'Murdoch' thing and possible legislation concerning news distribution and its control and you now have perfect situation where a government can control news media in its borders and shut off access to 'media' outside, under the guise of copyright.

To make it worse, this could embolden other nations (such as the United States) to do the same. This affects all of us like it or not.

A A Gruntpuddock
1st Aug 2011, 21:33
"Of course laws can be misused"

Every law passed is misused almost immediately.

Look at how the Councils went way beyond their powers to snoop on people.

Look at how a protestor at a meeting was ejected under the 'Terrorism' law by the police before the ink was even dry on the statute.

hellsbrink
1st Aug 2011, 21:52
Will ONE person here actually point out where there is an agreement from the UK Government, where there is a proposition to change existing law, where a new law is being enacted or ANYTHING that says that the UK Government is doing the very things that people are so paranoid about?

Please point out where the original article has said that such draconian laws are now being introduced into the UK

Oh, Stuckgear, you're waffling. Try saying something that has some fact in it instead of going all tinfoil helmet.

And, for your information, a lobbying group does not make the law. They can try to persuade people to act in their interests, as the "free, unrestricted internet" lobbyists and ISP's are also doing to make their point that things like the DEA are a bad thing (but Jane would never start a thread about that, you can guess why), but there is NOTHING on the table, at this moment, that can justify the sort of mass hysteria we are seeing on this thread.

No, Y'all better get into the real world, the fact of the matter is that the legal standing of ISP's, regarding site blocking, has just been clarified. There is no "instant kill switch", there is no attempt being made to create such a position in law, and anyone that wants a site blocked MUST go to court and persuade a judge that said site must be blocked. That is the position now, not the hysterics we are seeing here where you all have decided that the UK Gov is now going to automatically block any site it feels like willy-nilly. After all, we ain't talking about Australia, but the UK.

Get a grip, guys.

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 07:24
hb, and there i was thinking that you were one for debate and discussion and not drifting toward ad hom attacks.

i must have been mistaken.

green granite
2nd Aug 2011, 07:50
hellsbrink the time to start protesting is as early as possible before it gets to the lawmaking stage.

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 17:50
hb, and there i was thinking that you were one for debate and discussion and not drifting toward ad hom attacks.

i must have been mistaken.

What, exactly, was there to debate? All you came out with was a load of "could", "might", "maybe", etc, which had no bearing whatsoever on the topic of how the people representing copyright holders actually dared to put their views forward to the government, same as those who do not want restrictions on the internet (like free speech groups, AISP, etc), same as tree huggers, same as oil companies, same as "stop the war", same as those who make arms/munitions/etc for the military, same as drug companies, same as "holistic" groups.

In other words, Jane's "article" is nothing but a non-event that everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over despite NOTHING HAPPENING!! There is no new "censorship", there is no "kill switch", there is no new law saying that live feeds can be pulled in "real time", NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 17:53
hellsbrink the time to start protesting is as early as possible before it gets to the lawmaking stage.

Got any evidence to show that it MIGHT get to that stage?

Just show me ONE report that says the UK Government are actively proposing such "censorship" as described in the original "article" posted.

I know you can't.

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 18:48
so, you want to believe evey word your government tells you? there's never been a case of government obfuscating the true intentions?


so that's all right then.

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 18:57
Just show ONE report anywhere that says the UK Gov is actually following up on that lobbying, especially when the legal position under the DEA has VERY recently been made clear regarding pulling/blocking sites.

As I said earlier, groups against further controls over the internet lobby the UK Gov too, so why aren't they being reported by Jane?

Sorry, but I prefer to live in the real world where FACTS do the talking and not paranoid claptrap. And that is all this thread is, paranoid claptrap targeting UK users because nobody is paying attention to the paranoid claptrap being posted in the US Politics thread.

Get some facts to back up your allegations of plans of the UK Gov actually acting upon that meeting with the copyright holders' lobbyists. I'll be waiting.

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 19:00
PS.

Stuckgear.

Where, in the article posted by Jane, has the UK Gov actually stated any position regarding the blocking of illegal live feeds in "real time"?

Oh, they haven't.

So how can I believe things the Gov says when they haven't actually said anything?

Hmmmmmm..... :hmm:

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 20:01
ok, here's the the thing Hells.

lets look at what lobbying actually is :

'Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.'

Now, i am crediting you with a certain degree of intelligence and indeed you have demonstrated such on many threads, no less than the climate change thread, which has indeed resulted and has discussed legislative changes the results of which are from presentations by lobbyists to suit an agenda.

So in comparison to the activities of lobbyists, who seek legislative change, the whole climate change issue, on which you have been an active participant is clearly indicative of the result of lobbyist presentation which affects and has effect on the wider population.

does any government have a clear and defined stance on every possible circumstance that they may or may not be lobbied on during their term ? if so it would be a considerable manifesto that would have to be presented for review and digestion prior to an election, which would take oh maybe decades to complete, by which time, many of the issues would have changed requiring a complete rewrite...

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 20:14
I know what lobbying is, I also know that most attempts at lobbying do not result in what the lobbying groups want!!

Now, again, provide ONE piece of evidence to prove what Jane stated at the start of this thread, and all the nonsense that has followed from both that person and others (including your stupefying leap into fantasy over the NotW/News International phone hacking and your concept of the UK Gov blocking news sites from other countries which publish/stream "news" which the Gov don't like), to say that the lobbying mentioned at the start of this thread has now resulted in the paranoid claptrap we have seen here, and why won't Jane, or any of the others participating in the tinfoil helmet orgy mention the lobbying also going on, behind closed doors (scary, they won't tell us everything they are saying!! DUH!!), by groups like AAISP and BT (who, as I have stated more than once, have VERY recently been involved in a case where they were ordered to block Newsbinz and have stated that they will only block when a court says so. There will be no "voluntary" agreement and the process copyright holders must go through, as well as any defense by companies like BT, has been fully clarified under UK law).

Over to you, back up your claims. I can back up mine, very easily.

Cacophonix
2nd Aug 2011, 20:31
Ah hellsbrink

Sanguine as ever!

You are that most admirable of citizens, ever tolerant, trusting and without the slightest hint of paranoia. One might call you credulous but I won't and can only suspect that you sleep well at night and have low blood pressure...

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.

~Henry Steele Commager

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 20:54
hells,

i havnt made any fantasy claims of anything. What i have satated is that there is danger following certain events that legislative changes can go too far in the other direction.

After a certain incident when someone went 'postal' the UK faced a significant change in legislation on firearms. To the extent now that the Olympic sportsmen and women have to train outside of the UK due to our firearms laws. Did the legal changes stop the death by firearms of countless others since ? nope.

In terms of government policy regarding copyright:

From the FT


May 18 2011 11:52 | Last updated: May 18 2011 14:05

The UK’s copyright laws need to be overhauled to encourage innovation and economic growth, according to a government-commissioned report published on Wednesday.
However, such reforms would stop short of adopting a US-style “fair use” policy, which allows limited use of copyright material without permission from the owners




Now, censorship activities are already underway in the UK. As an example a business asscoaiate and myself use a file share site to transfer large files to each other, for example borescope videos and have a paid member ship to the file share site. this site has recently been blocked by UK ISP's under the decision that the servers *could* be used for criminal activity. Once the IWF has added URL's to the list it is now not accessable from the UK ISP's.

Now of course i do not condone criminal activity on line or the distribution of certain media, so yes censorship is already in use in the UK from a self regulated body that states:


We operate independently of Government, but are closely supported by the Home Office , the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Justice as well as working with the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and a number of Parliamentarians, Peers and MEPs who take an interest in our work.


Now, I am no tinfoil hat wearer, but caution must be considered in terms of potential function creep, the last government in the UK tried to foist compulsory ID cards on the population, which were already being subject to function creep between the proposals and the implimentation stage and while some may contend that it was sunk by widescale public disapproval, that was not the case, despite the public disapproval, the scheme was set go ahead, it was only sunk by one issue, the lack of money to pay for it.

going back to the FT article:



According to Mr Hargreaves [report], changes to the system could add up to £7.9bn to the UK’s economy.


i don't know how you are taking my posts, they are certainly not tinfoil hat territory, but the territory of maintaining our hard won and earned freedoms at the cost of political and corporate dominance.

heck, the whole issue of freedom of speech has been tested with the likes of the trafigura issue.

So indeed the government has already looked into the copywright laws, before the lobbyists presentation and indeed censorship is already alive and well in the UK and cannot mention any more certain cases, being subject to a superinjunction, what the point is that I am making is, is that we as a nation must step carefully in 'progression' in order that we do not divest ourselves of our own freedoms.

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 21:04
Caco

Apart from the small matter that the DEA and UK Gov don't actually affect me, the fact of the matter is that news of a group lobbying for something (like the Open Rights Group, AAISP, ISPA and BT have also been doing, for their own reasons, yet nobody talks about that :hmm: ) has been turned into a full blown conspiracy theory by our resident nut and others who really should know better.

As I say, I want to see facts and not some "maybe they'll start blocking anything they want and have a backsplatter van on every street corner" malebovinefaeces just because some bunch of lobbyists ALLEGEDLY (remember, we're just dealing with a rumour here and nothing else) said to someone from the UK Gov that "We want this and we want it now". Jane also fails to grasp the small matter of the DEA facing a judicial review, a Parliamentary Inquiry AND an OFCOM review (to see if enforcing the act is actually possible) so the dreaded DEA may well be scrubbed altogether as even the LSE says that it is a poorly written law. So, until these reviews are completed, there will be no "real time blocking", there will be no "kill switch", there will be nothing that resembles any of the hysterics seen in this thread as everything they say would be ILLEGAL under the Digital Economy Act!!

So all we have is some lobbyists allegedly saying something that BT has said they will never do ("voluntary" blocking), a mention of an act that may well be scrubbed, no mention of other lobbyists who are trying to get the opposite result that the copyright holders want, and a hell of a lot of hot air which bears no resemblance to what the realities out there actually are.

When someone comes up with some evidence to PROVE that the UK Gov is planning a masssive, country wide, scheme to stop people accessing any site that disagrees with the stance the UK Gov takes (as stated by one person here) then let me know. I'm patient, I can wait a long time for someone to produce the goods and if I die of old age before then I know I'll have been proven right.

SpringHeeledJack
2nd Aug 2011, 21:15
caution must be considered in terms of potential function creep

With most of these seemingly innocuous changes, the above is the bogeyman. Government will always seek to increase control (legal) over it's citizens and in the ever more digitalised world we live in, such changes can have big ramifications for all.

maintaining our hard won and earned freedoms at the cost of political and corporate dominance

And if we look back over the last 10years alone, we can see how many of these once taken for granted freedoms have disappeared or altered so much as to have effectively disappeared.



SHJ

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 21:23
When someone comes up with some evidence to PROVE that the UK Gov is planning a masssive, country wide, scheme to stop people accessing any site that disagrees with the stance the UK Gov takes (as stated by one person here) then let me know


who made that assertion ?

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 21:32
what usenet group would that be, stuckgear?

After all, the only one pulled recently was Newbinz (I have already mentioned this) and that was only after a court ordered BT to block it. Note the small matter of it NOT being the government ordering the site blocking, but a judge in the High Court after BT lost a case brought by copyright holders.

Oh, and Newsbinz was one of, if not the, biggest Usenet groups dealing in wares. Don't try and tell us that you didn't know that or that there was no evidence that they were actually acting as a conduit to facilitate the proliferation of illegal distribution of software, music and movies and that has been known for a hell of a long time.

So explain how the government is now "censoring" the internet when, in fact, one usenet group has been blocked, by order of the High Court, in the UK because it did actually participate in "illegal activity" by allowing the proliferation of said illegal uploads/downloads.

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 21:35
who made that assertion ?

We are only talking about the UK, here, stuckgear, so who else could you have been referring to when YOU wrote the bit below




So, we already have laws which are statute in protecting copyrighted material, so the issue in terms of the lobby action is the addition to shut down the propogation of media without due process and without recourse because it is so decided by a faceless entity.

So where does one draw the line from downloading or accessing media that is considered 'theft' or illegitimate access thereof ? perhaps accessing a news station that has a news story, in another country that is perhaps critical of our host country's actions ?

Now couple this with the whole 'Murdoch' thing and possible legislation concerning news distribution and its control and you now have perfect situation where a government can control news media in its borders and shut off access to 'media' outside, under the guise of copyright.

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 21:45
the UK Gov is planning a masssive, country wide, scheme to stop people accessing any site that disagrees with the stance the UK Gov takes


hells i did not state the government was specifically planning anything, the statements were in reference to potential misuses and does not state any firm opinion toward intent.

so despite your own assertions of tin foil hattedness, you have asserted something was said that was not.

you win today's award, here you go.

http://www.gwally.com/news/photos/catintinfoilhat.jpg

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 22:10
Really? So your assertion regarding possible legislation post NotW/NI hacking and the use of any new, but unheard of, legislation to completely restrict the access to any site that the Gov doesn't agree with was not scaremongering, not fantasy, not drivel and was actually paranoid claptrap which has no basis in the actual reality of the state of things in the UK at this moment?

For that one, kind sir, I'll see your

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001977901/312938054_tin_foil_hat_on_cat_cps_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

and raise you a

http://www.wecravefood.com/shelves/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/Sun-Pat---Smooth.jpg

stuckgear
2nd Aug 2011, 22:32
hahah ! nice retort hells :ok:


the thing is hells, it's not so much what a current government may do, but what one down the line may do with the legislation. You are equally aware as I am of the misuses of power perpetrated on the UK by the bunch of shysters the UK had in government from 1997 to 2010, books have been written about some of the misuses and abuses of power. somr of these were perpetrated with minor legislative changes that hid crucial changes amid less pervasive changes.

As such, some, if not most, of the nation has become cynical of government control and dominance over all aspects of our lives. For sure, i am not preaching anarchy here, but what we must do is to have open debate and discourse within our legislature. For sure, sometime it will be 'gotten wrong' maybe even more so than the first instances of getting it right, but then there needs to be redress and the capacity for rectification when it's been 'gotten wrong'.


The climate change/AGW is an example of this and i follow and respect your posts in teh CC thread, indeed i dont recall you posting anything that i disagree with in that thread or any other i recall, however, in the CAGW situation we have seen lobbyists affect our day to day lives, freedoms and levels of taxation on deliberately misrepresented and distorted information, all done in the name to protect 'us' and we have government policy predicated on, well, 'malebovinefeces'.

This for me is the crux of this issue, not that lobbyists approach government, for that will always be the case and has always been the case, but there must be oversight and the capacity even the will to change ill thought out legislation especially when the capacity exists for misuse and abuse to the detriment of the law abiding populace, otherwise there exists the ability of how a government in the future may exploit legislation for its own gain over the electorate.

The debates where MPs raised issues while 'forgetting' to disclose private interest was diabolical and should have been punished. Forgetting that you hold a position on board is frankly laughable when an MP lobbies the house.

It is not paranoia or cynicism, but an appreciation and understanding of how our elected bodies have manipulated, distorted and exploited the electorate for its own benefit as exampled by New Labour's 'activities'. Do i have faith the the UK populace is not daft enough to vote in Milibroon/Balls/Harman etc in the future? sadly not, but being careful to give them any rope to hang the country is pause for thought!

hellsbrink
2nd Aug 2011, 22:52
Lookit, the DEA is accepted to be a pee-poor piece of legislation, like damn near everything else that originated under NuLab. That is why it is under a Judicial Review, a Parliamentary Inquiry AND an OFCOM review, and there you have the "will", etc, to do something about said legislation. These things are going to happen, if they haven't all been done and we're just waiting on reports. That is a fact that, again, has escaped everyone in this thread as y'all been too busy smearing peanut butter in the tinfoil helmets and talking about things that are not happening because of the various reviews, etc, as well as the fact that they Gov knows what the backlash would be if they strengthened things towards the copyright holders. All we've had is lobbying, which happens day in and day out. Some people say some things, and a politician feels important because these people are all queueing up to speak to him. But that doesn't mean that the present lobbying, by groups on ALL sides of the "open internet" debate (but, I'll say it again, only the lobbying by one party is being discussed. Surprise Surprise) will result in any changes that will suit them.

But you're talking about possible "censorship". Don't you realise that the internet in the UK, and most other countries, is ALREADY censored? Or do you think that paedophilia websites (complete with pics and movies) should be freely accessible? Or hard core Jihadist sites? Or sites that deal with pics/movies of rapes? Or animal porn? Or "snuff" videos? No, you wouldn't want that freely accessible, and rightly so, but under the concept of stopping the Government from being able to use legislation to "censor" the internet you would have to allow these sites too, you either have censorship, and accept it, or you have no censorship and EVERYTHING is allowed. So, sorry, but your "rights" are already eroded as the internet is already censored, and has been for some years. It's the same as how, over the years, printed media and TV has been "censored" under UK legislation, including the distribution of illegally copied copyrighted material, the only difference now is the conduit used, the method to distribute said material and that is what the law is catching up on.

Your "freedoms" and "rights" went south some time ago, best accept it and get used to it.

Cacophonix
3rd Aug 2011, 01:49
Your "freedoms" and "rights" went south some time ago, best accept it and get used to it.

hellsbrink

Can't argue with the first part of that assertion but will never "get used to it". We should never forget that governments of every stripe use "for the public or moral good" as a cloak for their more devious schemes that generally result in more power or whatever for them.

The internet, unfettered, or even partially so, represents a democratic force that worries governments (ask the Chinese and those Arab governments who may have their own travails at the moment).

Let us not forget Lord "Slimy" aka Peter Mandelson and the previous lot of jokers...

Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing | Technology | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google)

Lord Mandelson is seeking to amend the laws on copyright to give the government sweeping new powers against people accused of illegal downloading.

But Labour colleagues are concerned that if he succeeds it could give a future Tory government the ability that Rupert Murdoch wants to quash Google.

In a letter to Harriet Harman, the leader of the house and head of the committee responsible for determining changes to such legislation, Mandelson says he is "writing to seek your urgent agreement" to changes to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act "for the purposes of facilitating prevention or reduction of online copyright infringement".

It turns out that the "Good Lord" has been far too close to too many power "brokers" like Murdoch et al!

hellsbrink
3rd Aug 2011, 03:55
I'm not forgetting the last lot, Caco, for it was they who rushed through the DEA which, as pointed out, is under review as it is wrong on so many levels.

But the last lot, with their never ending quest for more control over the lives of the populace, are not in power any more so that little bit of scariness regarding Mandelgrot is irrelevant under what the current Gov may or may not do.

Jane-DoH
3rd Aug 2011, 05:42
Blacksheep

t also gives one who is slandered or libelled the right to seek reparation; but it doesn't include a right to stop the slanderer or libeller from speaking or writing in the first instance.

But that's what the copyright lobby wants to do...


green granite

hellsbrink the time to start protesting is as early as possible before it gets to the lawmaking stage.

That's right, the instant you become aware of such a law, you tell everybody, you contact your legislators and so forth. You need to build up momentum way before this even gets close to becoming law.


stuckgear

so, you want to believe evey word your government tells you? there's never been a case of government obfuscating the true intentions?

I'm find it baffling that anybody could convincingly believe that.

'Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.'

Which means that this is the coypright lobby's objective. And while not every lobbyist gets their way, some do and this needs to be taken seriously because what they desire endangers basic freedom of speech.

i don't know how you are taking my posts, they are certainly not tinfoil hat territory, but the territory of maintaining our hard won and earned freedoms at the cost of political and corporate dominance.

Agreed, and maintaining those freedoms takes vigilance and hard work.


hellsbrink

Your "freedoms" and "rights" went south some time ago, best accept it and get used to it.

And that makes it okay?


Cacophonix

We should never forget that governments of every stripe use "for the public or moral good" as a cloak for their more devious schemes that generally result in more power or whatever for them.

Of course, they aren't going to admit that they're doing it for their own benefits; that wouldn't go over too well.

Cacophonix
3rd Aug 2011, 06:19
But the last lot, with their never ending quest for more control over the lives of the populace, are not in power any more so that little bit of scariness regarding Mandelgrot is irrelevant under what the current Gov may or may not do.

You miss the point! Mandelson represents the continuum between the non-libertarian impulses that are typical of governments "of whatever their stripe". His actions were very germane to what is happening under the current lot although the last shower were anything if not more apt to censorship and general interference with an anti personal liberty bias.

In any case the same people that were lobbying the slimy one are now lobbying his facsimile in the current government and no doubt the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" principle still pertains. This is not a party political matter (they are all at it) and as we all know lobbyists play the long game. They are a pernicious drain on democracy, governance and probity and governments are swayed by their blandishments whatever the sanguine think...

Caco

MagnusP
3rd Aug 2011, 12:38
The conspiracy theorist(s) may wish to address this:

BBC News - Government drops website blocking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698)

Cacophonix
3rd Aug 2011, 12:52
No conspiracy theorist but "neutering by a thousand cuts theorist" posting here.

In terms of global trends the UK government has not interfered with internet freedom to the extent that the Iranian or Chinese governments have...

Government In The Lab | Blog | Growing Threats to Internet Freedom (http://govinthelab.com/growing-threats-to-internet-freedom/)

http://govinthelab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/freedomreport.jpg

Caco

Cacophonix
3rd Aug 2011, 13:25
Be legal, be fair, be righteous and, most important, be free!


A religion is a belief system with rituals.
The missionary kopimistsamfundet is a religious group centered in Sweden who believe that copying and the sharing of information is the best and most beautiful that is. To have your information copied is a token of appreciation, that someone think you have done something good.


And most of all give credit and citation.

Det Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet « Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet (http://kopimistsamfundet.se/)

Make PPRuNe not war!

The Internet, Freedom are Threats to the State « Antiwar.com Blog (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/07/15/the-internet-freedom-are-threats-to-the-state/)

Caco

hellsbrink
3rd Aug 2011, 17:19
You miss the point! Mandelson represents the continuum between the non-libertarian impulses that are typical of governments "of whatever their stripe". His actions were very germane to what is happening under the current lot although the last shower were anything if not more apt to censorship and general interference with an anti personal liberty bias.

I'm not missing the point. The last lot wanted to interfere in everyone's life no matter what, they wanted to have absolute control over the populace (with exceptions, and we do know what they are) but even they slapped down the slimy one, albeit for the wrong reason. That is why his "proposals" didn't appear in the DEA.

Now we have a situation where even the LibDems, via the voice of Clegg, stated that laws like the DEA were a joke and vowed to repeal it if they got into power (which they are not, in reality, they are the minor partner), and where the current coalition have no less than 3 "reviews" and "inquiries" into the DEA which could lead to it being amended into something sensible or scrapped and replaced with something sensible. But amending/scrapping the DEA would not actually change the ability for copyright holders to pull sites as, provided they have the evidence, they can prove that those involved are "facilitating" the spread of counterfeit material (movies, music, software) and that was an offence before the DEA was thought about, and prosecutions, site closures, etc, have been carried out under the existing copyright legislation (which stuckgear kindly posted a snippet of earlier). So it's not a great leap of the imagination for them to, eventually, scrap the DEA and issue a SENSIBLE amendment into said copyright legislation in a way that keeps everyone vaguely happy.

Sure, the copyright holders will ALWAYS want more, and those wanting an "open internet" will always want less, but, and let's be real about this, there will be changes to the existing laws which will allow warez/streaming sites to be blocked/taken down, but chances are it will only happen after a court has ordered it.

After all, this is what the subject of this thread is about, no matter what Jane says, copyright theft and illegal streaming. There is not one single shred of evidence to say that anyone is planning or has planned to take things further, especially as the current Gov knows that, at best, it would be kicked out at the next election and, at worst, would face the collapse of the coalition IF they tried to do so.

Politicians may be slimy baahstuds, with their noses stuck firmly in the trough, but they're also not stupid. They know what the backlash from the public will be if they try do censor the net in the way of the paranoid hysterics and bolleaux that has been spouted in this thread.

Oh, and I ain't no "fantasist" who believes in some utopia where a government is benign, the sky is always blue, it never rains and dog crap smells of roses. I'm a realist, I know there will be, ultimately, more restrictions on things you can find on the net. Let's face it, things are out of control now and, eventually, there will be ways devised to pull down certain sites worldwide. That is going to happen, but not in the near future. At this moment, nobody has the guts to truly try and control things, especially since they can't agree on anything apart from how much they disagree with each other. But that day will come, eventually, but don't hold your breath for it because I reckon it's maybe 10 years away since going beyond the present "censoring" on abhorrent sites like kiddie porn will be too much for the electorate in any "free" country to stomach and that will cost politicians their jobs. And you know how much they would rather keep said job, with allowances/pensions/etc, more than doing what is vaguely "right".



Now, excuse me for a bit since I just home after a 10 hour work day and need a shower and more beer.

hellsbrink
3rd Aug 2011, 17:40
PS.

If you don't believe what I am saying, read this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2021897/CD-ripping-legal-UK-Downloading-songs-MP3-players-longer-illegal.html).

A far cry from "censoring the net", or toeing the line the copyright holders want, as claimed by the paranoid ones.

hellsbrink
3rd Aug 2011, 17:44
And another nail in the coffin of the wishes of the copyright holders, the result of the OFCOM review into the viability of actually blocking sites..

Oops! Ofcom's DCMS's own blocking easily visible to world+dog ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/03/ofcom_blocking_cockup/)

hellsbrink
3rd Aug 2011, 17:46
And a bit more

Ofcom says no to web-blocking ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/03/ip_policy_roundup/)

Jane-DoH
3rd Aug 2011, 22:54
Cacophonix

You miss the point! Mandelson represents the continuum between the non-libertarian impulses that are typical of governments "of whatever their stripe".

Of course, he's merely one example.

In any case the same people that were lobbying the slimy one are now lobbying his facsimile in the current government and no doubt the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" principle still pertains. This is not a party political matter (they are all at it)

People often seem to fail to realize that lobbyists tend to spread their tentacles into everything and as a result all the parties operate in their interest.

lobbyists play the long game.

Which makes them exceptionally dangerous.

They are a pernicious drain on democracy, governance and probity and governments are swayed by their blandishments whatever the sanguine think...

In fact it seems the more corrupt things get, the less people realize the extent of the corruption.

No conspiracy theorist but "neutering by a thousand cuts theorist" posting here.

Well yeah, if it occurred very abruptly people would react. When it occurs slowly, people don't even notice it and don't react. It's only until it becomes so extreme that people notice it, and by then it's too late to do anything.

Government In The Lab | Blog | Growing Threats to Internet Freedom (http://govinthelab.com/growing-threats-to-internet-freedom/)

While it's obvious that Cyber-Security has become justification for ever increasing censorship of the internet, and the fact that in 37-countries there has been an intensification of this shows it.

Be legal, be fair, be righteous and, most important, be free!

I think that Missionary Kopimistsamfundet is a gross perversion of freedom of religion, though I admire the cleverness of using religious freedom to allow internet freedom; I think this will backfire in a number of disastrous ways: It could undermine laws protecting religious freedom; it could lend credence to those who wish to make more aggressive copyright protection laws (which can include censorship, and revocation of internet access).

This is short sighted thinking plain and simple.

The Internet, Freedom are Threats to the State « Antiwar.com Blog (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/07/15/the-internet-freedom-are-threats-to-the-state/)

Of course. People frequently misunderstand the concept of freedom. Dictators for example, have nearly limitless freedom; the problem is that his/her freedom tramples over everybody else's.

I recommend that everybody read that link. Effectively, it talks about the government's cyber security strategy, it's designation of the internet as an operational domain for waging war, and how nothing paves the way for unchallenged increases in government power and control like classifying it's endeavors as if they were war.

It also talks about how the CIA regards "American Freedoms" and internet freedom as being threatening to their own domination and control, as primary facilitators of anti-government sentiment and even terrorism. Which of course indicates a desire to scale back our freedoms and censor the internet.

hellsbrink
4th Aug 2011, 05:14
Nice to see you can read the links that say what you are proposing is NOT happening in the UK, Jane.

Of course, that would mean admitting that your paranoid conspiracy theories are totally wrong, so it's hardly surprising.

hellsbrink
4th Aug 2011, 05:18
PS

People often seem to fail to realize that lobbyists tend to spread their tentacles into everything and as a result all the parties operate in their interest.

That goes for lobbyists for people like Open Internet too, remember. So you're condemning the very people who are campaigning AGAINST censorship on the internet.

A funny world you live in, when even the people who agree with you are wrong....

Jane-DoH
4th Aug 2011, 22:36
hellsbrink

Nice to see you can read the links that say what you are proposing is NOT happening in the UK, Jane.

Irrelevant actually. Censorship has become an increasing problem in multiple nations; the UK is merely one of them. If one nation gets greater power of censorship, especially quick-blocking of websites and streaming video; it does technically open the possibility that other nations may become emboldened to do the same. This possibility is so dangerous that it must be condemned no matter where it occurs.

That goes for lobbyists for people like Open Internet too, remember. So you're condemning the very people who are campaigning AGAINST censorship on the internet.

Well, it's my personal opinion that anything taken to a sufficient extreme is dangerous.

hellsbrink
5th Aug 2011, 05:20
Wrong.

There will be no "blocking" of sites breaching copyright laws because it is technically impossible. That is not "censorship".

The UK Gov is OPENING UP the laws regarding copyright to allow things that were previously illegal. That is not "censorship".

Texts, etc, that have been previously "locked away" are to be released into the public domain. That is not censorship.

Everything that you have said has been proven to be wrong, the only place these things are happening are in your own mind. Like on the other thread where you habitually lie and fabricate things, you have been proven to be talking baseless crap here, spinning your own paranoid version of the world which is so split from reality it is beyond belief.


Oh, one last thing

Well, it's my personal opinion that anything taken to a sufficient extreme is dangerous.


That means you're own views are actually dangerous, in your opinion, due to the extremity of them and the extreme levels of scaremongering shown. You also do more damage to any debate on censorship, government "creep", etc due to your nonsense posts, separation from reality and "kinderachtige" scaremongering. Maybe it's time you took a time-out and reflected on things, you"re certainly not doing your "cause" any good.

Cacophonix
5th Aug 2011, 05:28
and "kinderachtige" scaremongering.


You really should try and calm down and stop putting words into Jane's mouth Hellsbrink otherwise you might blow a foofy flange!

I would suggest that you take a chill pill and also try and avoid personal attacks. Calling people childish might constitute a breach of the ROE here don't you think?

Caco

Cacophonix
5th Aug 2011, 06:08
Irrelevant actually. Censorship has become an increasing problem in multiple nations; the UK is merely one of them. If one nation gets greater power of censorship, especially quick-blocking of websites and streaming video; it does technically open the possibility that other nations may become emboldened to do the same. This possibility is so dangerous that it must be condemned no matter where it occurs.

I believe you are in the right of it on this one Jane!

We are lucky to live in liberal (in the philosophical sense) democracies in the UK and the USA and many other less tolerant societies use our positions as yardsticks (even if they abhor us)!


Caco

hellsbrink
5th Aug 2011, 15:45
You really should try and calm down and stop putting words into Jane's mouth Hellsbrink otherwise you might blow a foofy flange!

I would suggest that you take a chill pill and also try and avoid personal attacks. Calling people childish might constitute a breach of the ROE here don't you think?

I suggest you take note of your own "advice" because at no point did I call Jane "childish".

Her words, her scaremongering, however, is a different story.

hellsbrink
5th Aug 2011, 15:56
I believe you are in the right of it on this one Jane!

We are lucky to live in liberal (in the philosophical sense) democracies in the UK and the USA and many other less tolerant societies use our positions as yardsticks (even if they abhor us)!

Except she is wrong. The topic is how the copyright lobbyists put their case forward for the "blocking" of various sites which stream live events to a representative of the UK Government in an attempt to influence UK policy.

As seen in the links posted by myself, said blocking of sites is being kicked out of town due to it being technically impossible. HM Government is planning on OPENING UP things, not restricting them, and the only way any organisation can get a site taken down or blocked is to go to the High Court and get a court order to carry out said closure/block.

In other words, as I stated earlier, what Jane has been saying is nonsense. And the attempt to then make this thread turn towards global internet censorship, NOT the UK as has been discussed from post one, is nothing more than scaremongering since there is absolutely no evidence to show that the UK is going to go further than the existing censorship where paedophilia, jihadist, etc, websites are rightly pulled when found.

She couldn't be more wrong if she tried (although I am shocked that she didn't pick up on my hint about Australia earlier, which would give something worth discussing. But no, she has to stick to the original nonsense instead of actually looking at what is happening in the world).

Jane-DoH
6th Aug 2011, 03:32
Cacophonix

I believe you are in the right of it on this one Jane!

We are lucky to live in liberal (in the philosophical sense) democracies in the UK and the USA and many other less tolerant societies use our positions as yardsticks (even if they abhor us)!

True.

Of course, it is more complicated than just tolerant societies setting a moral yardstick by which other nations follow as a standard (which is true); the fact is that even in liberal democracies, there are officials who, if they could, would dismantle it for their own objectives. When regimes in the middle east wanted to either outlaw Blackberries because of it's encryption; the US started demanding all sorts of things including requirements that encryption include a back-door so governments can snoop when they like.

hellsbrink
6th Aug 2011, 09:09
Yes jane, there are people in every government and society who want to have total control over everyone.That is a known fact.

So why did you take a non-event in the UK and turn it into a thread saying that the UK was actually going to censor the internet when it's clear that is not happening?

And why have you continued on that line but have never said a word about what has been proposed in Australia, why have you completely exaggerated the situation in they UK but completely IGNORED the very thing you are talking about when it happens in other, liberal and "free", countries?

Once you figure out what I am talking about then you'll maybe see why I have an issue with your fantasies and ideas which are not based on anything that is happening since you run with these "ideas" yet completely ignore the very things when they happen in another country because it does not suit your "agenda".

Keef
6th Aug 2011, 09:22
I'm confused. Jane seems to keep posting the same thing, time after time -
"That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep), and should I be arrested or framed for a criminal offense, or disappear entirely -- I think we all know who to blame for it"


I think I've heard the joke enough now. I think I've even understood it.

vulcanised
6th Aug 2011, 13:03
I think I've heard the joke enough now

Agreed. I find all 'signatures' irritating, but especially that one.

hellsbrink
6th Aug 2011, 16:26
I wait for Jane to come back and answer the *small* matter I raised................

11Fan
6th Aug 2011, 16:38
I wait for Jane to come back and answer the *small* matter I raised................

Bast make yourself a sandwich. It may be a while.

Cacophonix
6th Aug 2011, 16:41
There is generally nothing small about your posts Hellsbrink, that's for sure! ;)

Caco

hellsbrink
6th Aug 2011, 17:07
Well, Caco, I would "get straight to the point" but if I did that then the sweary word filter (HOLY SHIT, that's CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET!!!!!) would explode.

So then I have to think of the "lowest possible denominator" and address my posts to Jane in terms she understands.


That can take longer, and a lot of words. Mostly of two syllables....

Ace Brave
7th Aug 2011, 06:47
I agree with Keef and vulcanised and have mentioned how irritating I find that particular signature before, but the person would appear to be rather unable to take any hints.

"That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of Hannibal Lecter, that no matter how she dies, it will be almost certain to have been murder by an irate PPRuNer who had reached the end of his/her patience with an idiotic tag line being repeated again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again -- I think we all know that I'd like to be blamed for it"

jumpseater
8th Aug 2011, 07:07
PMSL! I've been away doing work and helping a mate do creative stuff, making things to sell, designing product, and scribbling stuff for his meejah releases.

So what's happened then, and I see JD and GG have not provided any evidence for copyright legislation being used as censorship. Perhaps they were both using the same modem the dog ate :rolleyes:

JD While people like jumpseater foolishly believes this is just about copyright infringement, this is way more than copyright infringement.

I'm no fool, I have a good understanding of copyright requirements, you clearly do not. I do actually work some of the time in different forms of media, video, magazine, books and newspapers. You are so keen on transparency for digital media and no censorship, prove it, set the example for us all to follow. Who are you? What do you do by the way? Where do you live?

Put up, or shut up, simples.

green granite
8th Aug 2011, 08:52
So what's happened then, and I see JD and GG have not provided any evidence for copyright legislation being used as censorship. Perhaps they were both using the same modem the dog ate

Just as vacuous as ever I see, If you'd bothered to read carefully what we said instead of what, because of your absolute fixation, you perceived we said, and accusing people on here of wanting stealing things that they had no interest in, you would have realised were only interested in preventing possible copyright legislation being used as censorship, not that it already was.

I shall not bother to reply to your inane waffle again.

jumpseater
9th Aug 2011, 01:30
GG you said, just to remind you,

jumpseater blocking your access to a site is censorship, whatever the reason for it,

Also

1) Nowhere have I said that copyright infringement was acceptable, and that I have a right to steal other peoples work, that's purely a figment of your imagination brought about by my insistence that I have a right to access any website I wish, if I then go ahead and DOWNLOAD a piece of copyright material that is a totally different thing.


I asked you what rights you had to see any web site, regardless of its ownership. I note you're very quiet on that. I asked you to provide evidence of where this sort of legislation has been used for censorship, I note you're very quiet on that. You tell us you have a right to view websites, and yet like Jane, you don't put who you really are, where you live, what you do, etc etc. Why not? Wheres your transparency?

I'm not the one being vacuous, you see I understand what the subject matter is about, you and Jane clearly do not.
Vacuous
adjective. empty of matter; having or showing lack of intelligence, interest, or thought; stupid; senseless; inane; characterized by lack of purpose, ...

However you'd be hard pressed to find a better example 'vacuous':ooh: than someone who argues that a meeting by a minister to discuss the blocking of streamed live sports matches to prevent copyright theft, is a precursor to a police state.


So put your money where your mouth is, set the example we can all follow by being completely open about who you are. Show us how much you believe in this principal you hold so highly. I suspect like the homework we'll be waiting a while.

Jane-DoH
11th Aug 2011, 05:10
green granite

Just as vacuous as ever I see, If you'd bothered to read carefully what we said instead of what, because of your absolute fixation, you perceived we said, and accusing people on here of wanting stealing things that they had no interest in, you would have realised were only interested in preventing possible copyright legislation being used as censorship, not that it already was.

Correct


R.C.
"That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep), and should I be arrested or framed for a criminal offense, or disappear entirely -- I think we all know who to blame for it"

Jane-DoH
11th Aug 2011, 15:41
With the riots going on in London and being that a crisis can never go to waste; what do you think the odds are that the government will try to implement a method of quick censorship?

stuckgear
11th Aug 2011, 15:52
With the riots going on in London and being that a crisis can never go to waste; what do you think the odds are that the government will try to implement a method of quick censorship?



None.



* No trees were harmed in the creation of this post, however, a few electrons were slightly inconvenienced.

shedhead
11th Aug 2011, 16:28
is the correct answer Stuckgear.



what is this thing at the bottom of peoples posts? is it a fashion? is it obligatory? should I be doing it? what to write though? oh b*gger my minds a blank.

Jane-DoH
11th Aug 2011, 17:32
stuckgear

I didn't say it has been done, but I wouldn't be surprised if the measure will be at least considered by some unscrupulous politicians and government officials.

hellsbrink
11th Aug 2011, 18:24
Jane, they can't without a change in the law. And that ain't going to happen.


Now, as I said earlier, why are you concentrating on a nonexistent "threat" to the UK when there's a very well known proposal on the cards for another "civilised" and "democratic" country (I'll give you a hint, it still has the UK Monarch as it's Head of State)?

Why are you chasing ghosts, what makes you have these hallucinations where you see spooks everywhere?

Cacophonix
11th Aug 2011, 20:31
Hells

I know a fog horn...

Caco

jumpseater
18th Aug 2011, 00:41
JD
With the riots going on in London and being that a crisis can never go to waste; what do you think the odds are that the government will try to implement a method of quick censorship?

So luv regarding your vacuous question above, with a recall special debate in parliament, physical evidence that internet sites and social networking media was used by those co-ordinating and attempting to encourage rioting was used, an open goal provided by media and public outrage, the government has done and proposed nothing to restrict internet/crackberry use.

Your UK police state looks even further away than ever.:D

hellsbrink
18th Aug 2011, 05:22
Your UK police state looks even further away than ever.

Have we seen any of the fantasy "New World Order" censorship and dictatorship posts of Jane vaguely resemble reality?

As I say, if she had come out with something about the proposals in Australia which were to restrict access to porn, euthanasia sites, drugs info and political dissent (as well as the "acceptable" censorship of paedophilia sites, terrorism sites, etc. Why doesn't she complain about that? Censorship is censorship, after all), instead of all of this paranoiac fantasy over something that isn't happening in the UK, then there might have been scope for a discussion.

stuckgear
18th Aug 2011, 08:39
Have we seen any of the fantasy "New World Order" censorship and dictatorship posts of Jane vaguely resemble reality?



New World Dysfunction seems to be the way things are going ! :}

stuckgear
23rd Aug 2011, 19:29
so... did Jane DoH get banned or fall victim to an internet killswitch ?

:E

hellsbrink
23rd Aug 2011, 20:00
Worse than that....

Her Visa was refused so she can't get order the tinfoil and peanut butter online and must venture OUTSIDE :eek: to go to the store to get more.

11Fan
24th Aug 2011, 03:18
did Jane DoH get banned

Caught the 10:30 I believe.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/ufo_2.jpg