SOPA and Protect IP act have passed.

Well when i posted this i was wrong on what i saw and read. They are debating it in two days but there is strong support for it. And if it passes then we lose access to areas of the internet that the gov't decides they don't want us to see. They can also shut it off I think
 
This is the tip of the iceberg. Maybe just a speck. This year has been a very unusual one in that many bills were passed that are tearing the framework of the U.S Constitution.

SOPA is a bill that was introduced at the request of the UN, Russia and China in a effort for those countries to exert control over U.S affairs. Countries today simply do not like the freedoms that are exercised on a daily basis here in the U.S.

The same year, another bill was passed under the 2011 Military fiscal budget that effectively labels all U.S territories as a "terror zone" or "war zone." What does this do? If you own weapons, have more than 7 days of food stocked up, missing fingers or hold a radical view of politics, you are by definition a terrorist. And you can and will be detained by the U.S Military without trial for an indefinite period. Doing this, and attempting to reduce the amount of information accessed on the internet is part of a bigger political picture aimed at what the Obama Administration calls a more progressive and socialistic agenda.

I'm betting that Obama will try to use these two laws to suspend next year's elections. I hope I am wrong.
 
SOPA hasn't passed yet and I hope to god it doesn't. Streaming copyrighted content a felony? That's completely INSANE. The entire country would be in jail right now if this had been around since the beginning of the internet. It's a violation of Eighth Amendment rights, IMHO. That alone is enough to get rid of this bill, forgetting about the countless ways in which it could be used to violate free speech and free press. I agree with Dart here, it's terrifying that this combined with the fiscal budget provisions that essentially suspend all constitutional rights are both being discussed in the first place.

Dart said:
I'm betting that Obama will try to use these two laws to suspend next year's elections. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...
I really really doubt that. This is terrible for constitutional rights, but you're overestimating Obama's involvement in both bills (it was pretty much limited to signing the fiscal budget into law as I understand it) and the power these bills actually give the executive. Obama's a smart guy, he knows suspending elections would be ineffective and disastrous. I don't think he wants to and I don't think he can.
 
mariorulezman said:
He can't suspend the elections...yet. Who knows what is going to happen for the next year till elections.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Yet. The fiscal bill gives way too much power over the American People by the military. But there is a glimmer of hope; the U.S Supreme Court has consistently been upholding laws that undermine the Obama Administration's efforts to undermine the Constitution.

As for a Revolution, although the U.S Military is the most advanced out there, it is comprised of people who are citizens first, soldiers second. That and the amount of armed private citizens outnumber the military 100 to 1. The 2nd Amendment will in the end trump anything politicians try to do. Because We The People hold the keys to the real power.
 
Dart said:
Exactly. Yet. The fiscal bill gives way too much power over the American People by the military. But there is a glimmer of hope; the U.S Supreme Court has consistently been upholding laws that undermine the Obama Administration's efforts to undermine the Constitution.

As for a Revolution, although the U.S Military is the most advanced out there, it is comprised of people who are citizens first, soldiers second. That and the amount of armed private citizens outnumber the military 100 to 1. The 2nd Amendment will in the end trump anything politicians try to do. Because We The People hold the keys to the real power.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why Obama would never suspend elections. The military would never ever ever ever ever back him. It wouldn't get him anywhere even if he wanted to become some kind of dictator.
 
Insanity.

I can't even believe this is still an issue. Media giants should have recognized that they were going to need to change their business models when Napster emerged. They didn't, and they lost out big time, and now they're sour and don't want to admit it so they're going to sue everyone who saw what they didn't and did what they couldn't. They missed out on the biggest opportunity their industry has ever seen and now they want to take it out on everyone but themselves.

Their antiquated, and quite honestly reprehensible, ideas about intellectual property are just insane. They are the kinds of ideas insane people hold to be true. And they're going to spend all their money and influence and lobbying power trying to legislate them into existence instead of simply responding to the demands of the free market, and they're going to lose. They've already lost. They lost over 10 years ago when Napster hit it big and everyone saw the digital future happening. They lost, and they know it, and they're too stubborn and big and complacent to adapt and so they're going to stomp over the rights of citizens as many times as they can until they pull the whole temple down on top of them.

Just plain insanity. The idea that some corporation has the right to tell me what to do with my own property is %^&*ing bananas.
 
Stealth, this may seem the same ol' same ol' on the outside, but it isn't. The Obama Administration somehow got all the big news agencies to blackout a ton of political goings on. The Military fiscal bill was one of them. Nobody knew about the clause to declare the U.S as a war zone until after the House passed it, and the Senate was in voting session. SOPA is the same thing on the surface, yet with a different intent. It is one way to legitimize political censorship, as well as an attempt at gaining complete control over something they have never been able to control before.

I do believe that after the next elections, and if the law is challenged (which it will be), we will see SOPA as a thing of the past as well as the fiscal bill that was before it.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't live in the States, so I don't always understand how it works there), but doesn't this give more power to the RIAA, MPAA, and IP owners than the government?
 
stealth toilet said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't live in the States, so I don't always understand how it works there), but doesn't this give more power to the RIAA, MPAA, and IP owners than the government?
Click to expand...

From a civil point of view, yes. But in the long run the criminal nature can be used (or abused) by the government to criminalize information that's political in nature because it contains a smidgen of copyrighted material. As in, it would be a felony to shoot a Youtube video, and have a radio playing in the background. And it doesn't matter if it was accidental, intentional or purely coincidental. It would be simply illegal.
 
Ok, then I think what I said originally is valid, haha.

I understand that there could be some political censorship or whatever, but isn't the major concern here that corporate entities have abused the political system to further their own profit-making ends at the expense of civil liberties, like property ownership?

Now some record label or publishing house can "sell" me a product without having to transfer the rights of ownership to me, making it illegal for me to do what I want with my own property?

As far as the political angle goes, I would suspect this passed mostly out of political ignorance than out of some sort of power grab. I.e. powerful lobbying groups (owned by record labels, publishers, etc.) told politicians to pass it, and they did because they didn't understand what it meant, and now the corporate entities represented by those lobbying groups have the law on their side when they want to prosecute Johnny-music-buyer if he wants to share a song with a friend, put it in a youtube video, etc.
 
stealth toilet said:
Ok, then I think what I said originally is valid, haha.

I understand that there could be some political censorship or whatever, but isn't the major concern here that corporate entities have abused the political system to further their own profit-making ends at the expense of civil liberties, like property ownership?

Now some record label or publishing house can "sell" me a product without having to transfer the rights of ownership to me, making it illegal for me to do what I want with my own property?

As far as the political angle goes, I would suspect this passed mostly out of political ignorance than out of some sort of power grab. I.e. powerful lobbying groups (owned by record labels, publishers, etc.) told politicians to pass it, and they did because they didn't understand what it meant, and now the corporate entities represented by those lobbying groups have the law on their side when they want to prosecute Johnny-music-buyer if he wants to share a song with a friend, put it in a youtube video, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. However, the nice thing about boneheaded laws is when they are passed, the opposition can sue to have it stopped. In the end, the question of whether it is Constitutional will have to be answered. And as you said, the ownership, or license, should be granted when a product is purchased.
 
Yeah, that's what I find ridiculous about this whole thing. Not only is this a move in the wrong direction, but it's the latest move in a series of moves that have been going in the wrong direction since Napster. 10 years ago everyone, except these media mega-giants, realized that things changed. The internet changed distribution forever, and these traditional distributors should have adapted to the new landscape 10 years ago. The fact that they haven't yet is a testament to their insanity as institutions.

They can't win by criminalizing everyone in the United States, and people are not going to go back to the way things were just because some distribution kings can make more money that way. The last time I checked, horse-breeders couldn't legislate cars out of existence. It's just like watching a train wreck get worse and worse because the engineer still has his foot on the gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top