backtop

Print 114 comment(s) - last by just4U.. on Apr 16 at 1:56 AM

  (Source: Warner Brothers)

Wealthy British politician, Lord Peter Mandelson once described his hardnosed political career, stating, "I had to be the hard man – and sometimes the hit man." Now, thanks to millions in music and film industry lobbyist money, he has managed to get his pet project, The Digital Economy Bill, passed. The bill was opposed by the public, police, small businesses, and ISPs for its provisions allowing the termination of filesharers' connections and DMCA-like website takedowns.  (Source: The Sun)
The citizens of Britain get to pick up the tab for their government's policing of their internet activities

On Monday, citizens in Britain received some big news.  After months of debate, the "Digital Economy Bill" was passed with most of its controversial provisions surviving.  The bill will fund government internet monitoring and service termination of filesharers.  It also includes web takedown provisions similar to America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The bill was largely opposed by British law enforcement, the public, internet service providers, academics in the field of technology, and privacy advocates.  It enjoyed the hearty support, though, of the music and film industries which lobbied heavy for the bill pouring millions of pounds in support to help override the voice of the citizens.  

Lord President of the Council Peter Mandelson, a wealthy British politician, masterminded the bill with the help of his media industry colleagues.

The bill was hurriedly passed before the upcoming election, which is expected to hurt the current dominant party, the centrist Labour Party.  Opponents from the left and the right both derided the bill and are trying to seize a portion of control of the island nation from the Labour Party.

The bill assigns many duties, including internet domain name registration, copyright enforcement, and video game ratings to a single government funded independent regulator, OfCom.  

Starting in 2012, OfCom will have the power to start terminating or throttling connections of British citizens.  OfCom and record and film companies will collaborate together to try to identify the millions of British citizens who are illegally downloading content.  Those citizens will receive threat letters.  If illegal downloads don't cease or drop a prescribed present (currently 70 percent), OfCom will have the power to either throttle the citizens' connections or cut them off entirely.

The bill will also hold businesses, universities, and other public institutions financially responsible for infringement that occurs on their networks.  This means that small businesses will be forced to either risk bankrupting lawsuits or stop offering free Wi-Fi to customers.

Clause 18 of the bill is also quite controversial as it grants DMCA-like provisions.  Copyright holders will be able to contact OfCom to take down websites they claim are hosting their copyrighted content.  In the U.S., the DMCA has been abused excessively, with organizations such as the Church of Scientology using it to remove sensitive -- but not necessarily copyrighted -- information from the public domain.  Appeals can eventually restore sites, but the process can drag out for a long time.  Similar problems will likely ensue in Britain as individuals use Clause 18 claims to take down their enemies.

The bill's advocates claim that it will pay for itself.  They estimate that £1.2B ($1.9B USD) is lost yearly to piracy.  The bills proponents say it will lead to more tax revenue by preventing piracy and raising sales.  Its opponents on the right and left, however, argue that it amounts to collusion between the majority party and big business, and will come at the expense of the citizens' welfare.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Disgusting!
By Adonlude on 4/13/2010 12:08:36 PM , Rating: 5
Big government meets big business in the back room to exchange money bags, congradulate eachother on their great wealth, and screw the citizens.

Pay attention fellow Americans. Our governement is growing out of controll, socializing massive programs, bankrupting the nation and stealing our hard earned money to bail out greedy companies or the lower 47% of citizens who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES! Thats right, only 53% of Americans pay federal tax and the top 10% pay 75% of federal tax. How does it feel to know that your success has been rewarded with a requirement to bail out banks and pay for social programs such as medical care for illegal aliens and their anchor babies?

Vote! Dont let us become Britan where the govt has over 1000 reasons why they can come into your home. They disarmed their populus by making guns illegal and crime went straight up. They are even going after knives.

There is a reason we left Britan to create America. We wrote a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and it is time we go back to following it to the letter. Reverse the infringement. Vote out the trash. Public service should not be a life long career. Rules should not be bent and broken to pass bills full of earmarks to some politician can boost his career.




RE: Disgusting!
By Gungel on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Disgusting!
By Breathless on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Disgusting!
By redbone75 on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By Gungel on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Disgusting!
By ClownPuncher on 4/13/2010 3:53:45 PM , Rating: 5
Corporatism on the national level is defined as Fascism. You can't blame all of the US's woes on a single person, a single party, or a single group, we are all responsible for our own country.

What we need is to shake up the two party system. There are a wide range of views in both the Republican and Democratic arenas which allow the weak willed to compartmentalize and polarize politics in our media. The extreme Left and extreme Right should not have party ties to Democrat and Republican parties, respectively.

While I am no fan of Palin, at least her followers are trying to distance themselves from the modern day (R), and the Libertarian movement keeps gaining ground every year.

The Democrats really need to break up the party a bit to reflect the vast differences in beliefs that lie on that side of the spectrum. I suppose the Green party fits the bill to a certain extent, but I have a very hard time taking them seriously.

Separate Moderate from Radical and the pendulum stops swinging so wildly every election year.


RE: Disgusting!
By MojoMan on 4/13/2010 9:59:05 PM , Rating: 4
ClownPuncher, you sir, a breath of fresh air. Stop blaming the other party folks! Check out this short clip to break free from the left wing vs right wing paradigm. You should like it whether you're left wing or right wing. Power to the people!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnOftybrDzs


RE: Disgusting!
By rdawise on 4/13/2010 10:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
@ClownPuncher I didn't think logical people existed on this board anymore....

Partisan poloitics is what is killing America, not one party. Nice to meet a sane person.


RE: Disgusting!
By wiz220 on 4/14/2010 6:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
Masterfully put!


RE: Disgusting!
By BansheeX on 4/14/2010 11:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Did you just put Palin in the same sentence as "libertarian". She resigned as governor to avoid a corruption probe and make $12 million selling books and giving speeches. She is a moronic puppet being told what to say and do by the neo-con movement JUST LIKE BUSH.


RE: Disgusting!
By ClownPuncher on 4/15/2010 5:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Same sentence, but I didn't mean to link the two. I could have used more punctuation there.


RE: Disgusting!
By cmdrdredd on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By MojoMan on 4/13/2010 10:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh... See my above post to free yourself. Oh, and you're the one that looks like a moron for being so mean. You're not convincing anyone with that language. I'm a conservative, and I'm calling you on this.


RE: Disgusting!
By seraphim1982 on 4/15/2010 10:05:26 AM , Rating: 1
They didn't use 12 billion dollars a month and say "just put it on the tab (debt)".

Think what 12 billion dollars / mth in investment in US could do to the economy and living standards?? People might actually see that Universal Health Care isn't expensive, especially when you aren't blowing money away on guns & occupation.


RE: Disgusting!
By wiz220 on 4/14/2010 6:49:43 PM , Rating: 1
Are you any different? You blame problems on liberals. Also, there were plenty of independents, moderates and even conservatives that were extremely displeased with Bush since he rarely followed true conservatism.


RE: Disgusting!
By clovell on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By clovell on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/13/2010 1:44:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Its called progress and it's sad that it will take more than double the time to fix what the Bush administration destroyed in 8 short years.


Ok, be specific. What did Bush screw up so bad that Obama has to fix.

You can't use the bailouts because Obama voted for it AND expanded it.

The economy can't be fixed by government action, but government in-action works pretty good, look at the depressions of 1920 vs 1929.

War, well Obama said one thing but is doing another, i.e. using Bush's plan more or less.

So...


RE: Disgusting!
By Lerianis on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/13/2010 2:45:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Let's see...... two wars based on lies, taking almost all regulation off Wall Street, allowing corporations to take jobs and flee overseas.... I could keep on going here, but I'm already getting bored of this, because people like you will NEVER admit that Bush really screwed up this country in his few years in office.


The wars, you opinion and that's fair, I don't entirely agree.

As for repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1932 that was signed by Clinton. Those are the rules that would have prevented the banking meltdown. Bush failed by not screaming louder to correct it, he did point out several problems in that arena, guess he was a little distracted.

Bush's spending was atrocious and Obama has only done his best to out spend someone he (Obama) claimed spent too much. Yep Bush screwed up really bad there and so has the new guy. Both are bad but I think Obama has done much greater financial damage in just over a year than Bush did in 8, my opinion.


RE: Disgusting!
By encryptkeeper on 4/14/2010 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
As for repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1932 that was signed by Clinton.

It's also noteworthy to say that the bill passed by a margin large enough to withstand presidential veto. Why he signed it is beyond me, but it's important to note that this was going to become law whether Clinton was for it or against it. You can thank the heavily Republican congress at the time for securing enough votes. It's also important that a Republican and a Democrat (John McCain and Maria Cantwell) have recently proposed to re-enact the bill. Basically, you can't really blame the whole thing on Clinton.


RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/14/2010 5:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also noteworthy to say that the bill passed by a margin large enough to withstand presidential veto. Why he signed it is beyond me, but it's important to note that this was going to become law whether Clinton was for it or against it.


Nothing more than an excuse. If Clinton had been a leader and thought it was so bad he would have stood up to what appeared to be overwhelming odds and would have vetoed it. Frequently it is much harder to override a veto than what the vote passing the bill suggests, it takes 2/3rds. The Republicans did not have a 2/3rds majority on their own.


RE: Disgusting!
By wiz220 on 4/14/2010 6:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton was a pretty free-market type of guy actually. He was working with Alan Greenspan who had the same mindset, so his decision (while misguided) to repeal Glass Steagall wasn't all that surprising.


RE: Disgusting!
By cruisin3style on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By cruisin3style on 4/13/2010 4:33:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nice lie. Tax cuts do NOT lead to increased government debt. This has been proven time and time again. Tax cuts ALWAYS lead to higher government tax revenue because people can afford to pay taxes then. They can afford to hire more people. They can afford to BUY MORE goods. Look at the lowest periods of tax revenue in this nations history, notice something ? They all coincide with HIGHER tax rates.


As far as I know, states collect taxes on goods purchased (at least most goods), not the federal government. Maybe the lowest periods of tax revenue correlate with recessions also? Just curious.

quote:
Public opinion in other countries about the US is no more favorable now


That's definitely a positive: the new President can't get opinion higher in the previous President's wake.

quote:
Speculative. Highly.


I'm blown away by the amount of info you support this with.

quote:
You are an IDIOT. I wish I had read this first so I didn't waste my time being rational with you. We're spending our way to an economic COLLAPSE. With money we NEVER had.


Funny how only when our debt is so high borrowing is leading us to economic collapse. Not when the Bushs were in office, or Reagan. Only when things look bleak with a recession and whathaveyou. Are we really blaming the guy that's been in office for less than 2 years versus the previous debt-lovers pizza party. This is like you're dying of cancer, but you're blaming the chemotherapy because it makes you more sick than without it.

quote:
Ok let's accept your premise for a minute that Bush left Obama with a problematic economy and mild recession.


Is this even in question?? First you say we're on verge of economic collapse, now we're accepting premises?? I applaud your rhetoric, sir.

And as far as "mild" recession, I believe I have heard democrats as well as republicans call this the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Also, I'm fairly certain our overall troop levels will decrease with the coming drawdown in Iraq, but I could be wrong.


RE: Disgusting!
By wiz220 on 4/14/2010 7:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
The national debt doubled while Bush was in office. It went from 6 Trillion to over 12, just curious how you explain that away? And also, correlation does not prove causation. The only way your argument regarding taxes could be justified is by long term study. There would be a lag in government revenue after tax cuts because what you are describing sounds like trickle down. However in the short term the deficit would take a hit because you immediately have less tax revenue.


RE: Disgusting!
By cmdrdredd on 4/13/2010 8:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well Bush did a lot of crap too, but the difference is the other side didn't agree it needed to be done at all.


Actually you're wrong. The democrats signed off on the invasion of Iraq.

Everything else is liberal spin and conspiracy theory that doesn't fit at all.


RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/14/2010 9:23:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added nearly a trillion dollars of debt in their first five years of becoming law.


Sorry that is incorrect. Look up the Hauser Curve. Ironic name because its a relatively flat line that remains at around 18%. What it identifies is that no matter what the TAX RATE is TAX REVENUES stay at around 18% of GDP. He took these numbers from the government.

The only way to increase tax revenues is to increase the GDP. The only proven way to increase GDP is to simplify the TAX CODE, keep it low and stable, and CUT spending, particularly entitlement programs that ARE NOT funded and pay down the debt. To not do so WILL crash our economy much like Greece.

So what it really shows is the public's willingness to pay exorbitant tax rates, that is, the higher the rate the more those who have money hide it. So a "tax the rich" campaign ends up placing the burden on the middle class and poor. Both party's have failed at this, just one fails more than the other.


RE: Disgusting!
By NesuD on 4/14/2010 10:35:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added nearly a trillion dollars of debt in their first five years of becoming law.


Actually Tax revenue increased from nearly 1.8 Trillion dollars in 2003 to 2.52 trillion in 2008 peaking at 2.57 trillion in 2007. Conversely spending growth outpaced revenue growth 2.16 trillion in 2003 to 2.98 trillion in 2008. The problem wasn't the tax cutting but rather the tax spending. Here's where you need to remember your basics about how our government works according to our constitution. The president does not have the power to spend a single dime. Constitutionally that power is reserved for congress. The president can ask for money or suggest a budget but ultimately congress must craft the legislation and approve the expenditures. Whoever controls congress basically holds the purse strings. If the president vetoes a budget congress can override his veto. The president has very little control over spending. He can negotiate some spending but usually has to compromise or be made irrelevent by the party in power which is sometimes his own party. It is congresses responsibility to be responsible custodians of the countries tax revenues. Unfortunately they aren't and we don't have the spine to show them the door and elect someone who is.


RE: Disgusting!
By blargsoup on 4/13/2010 10:05:31 PM , Rating: 1
Truth is, you guys may never recover from it. It's just too hard for a politician to raise taxes, it's too risky to stop spying and torturing on people because you don't want to be the guy who fell asleep behind the wheel, you'll have soldiers in some number in Iraq indefinitely, and you have a large number of true believers brain washed by a 24 hr news station.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2010 10:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Disgusting!
By OUits on 4/13/2010 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 1
The two party system can't fix this.

You're naive if you think "voting out the trash" wont just vote in more trash, regardless of the D or R behind their name.


RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/13/2010 1:49:17 PM , Rating: 4
Try finding out what they plan to do and then hold them to it regardless of D or R.

Look back at political history, this isn't the first time this lunacy has occurred. Voters scream and shake up the parties to get them back on the path or they get replaced like the Whig Party.

Throwing your hands up doesn't fix anything.


RE: Disgusting!
By funkyd99 on 4/13/2010 3:50:20 PM , Rating: 3
At what other point in history has the government, media, and corporations been so intertwined?

Our D's and R's have been cooking up something much worse than this for years now (ACTA). I bet they'll actually be able to spin it off as something that benefits the public once big media starts pouring in the advertising dollars to support it.

The ones with the most money are the ones that make the most noise and generate the most attention, while the screams from voters are lost in the fray.


RE: Disgusting!
By rdawise on 4/13/2010 10:49:34 PM , Rating: 3
Again another sane person.

It doesn't matter if it's the right (FIT and Reclaimer) or the left (various others), the problems won't stop until the senseless "gang mentality" does.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2010 11:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Under your point of view no one will ever get elected because you need that "gang mentality" to make someone win an election. Who wins an election? Whoever has the biggest "gang".

This is why people like me support true conservatives who run. People who want the federal government to be less involved in the people's lives.

Many people don't seem to realize that these things the federal government now lays claim to belongs in the hands of the states. We should be paying more in taxes to state governments than the federal government. Because they're the ones who have the authority to pass health care bills, Medicaid and Medicare programs, etc. If you really look at the power the federal government has, it's budget should be under $1 trillion dollars today with the military being its biggest expense.


RE: Disgusting!
By rdawise on 4/14/2010 4:07:47 AM , Rating: 3
You are the biggest example of what I mean by "gang mentality".

Under the system I propose, you are not defined by left, right, conservative or liberal. State what you stand for and make a decision based on that.

I find it highly funny that you state you support "true conservativies" because there are so many things that entails. For instance. are you a social conservative? Do you feel that marriage is only between a man and a woman? If so, you support an expansion of federal government that would disallow things that are "taboo". That's not very conservative...

Are you a religious conservative? Do you believe people who have abortions shall burn for eternity? If so, you support an expansion of federal government that would "police morality". Not very conservative...

I could keep going, but my point is simple. If you are 100% conservative or 100% liberal, then you are part of the "gang mentality" that has failed this country.

Most logical people realize that there's some things to be conservative on, there's some things to be liberal on.

Besides, have you ever wondered why the colors for the Dems is blue (crips) and the color for the Repubs is red (bloods). It's all gangs and you a willing participant.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2010 8:19:24 AM , Rating: 3
Wrong and wrong.

A true conservative does not push for a federal ban on gay marriage. That is a power left to the states. States have the power to legally marry people. Not the federal government. I support states having the right to choose whether or not to adopt gay marriage. Now our constitution is written that if a state passes a law, other states must abide by that law unless they had a law against it on the books before the new law was passed.

As far as abortion, ones religious beliefs do not force the federal government to do anything. My belief on abortion stems from the fact that murder is illegal in this country. Killing a person not born yet is no different from killing one who is. Our courts even give precedent for this because people have been tried for a double homicide in cases where someone killed a pregnant woman. Again though, this power belongs in the states. Not in the federal government.

One day people are going to wake up and realize that the states have more power than the federal government. Not the other way around. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare, etc should all be per state programs with no funding from the federal government. If a state doesn't want them then they shouldn't have to have them. We should be paying more in taxes to our state governments than the federal government by a wide margin.


RE: Disgusting!
By rdawise on 4/14/2010 11:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
You say I am wrong, but further prove my point.

Lets look at your first example..

quote:
A true conservative does not push for a federal ban on gay marriage. That is a power left to the states. States have the power to legally marry people. Not the federal government. I support states having the right to choose whether or not to adopt gay marriage. Now our constitution is written that if a state passes a law, other states must abide by that law unless they had a law against it on the books before the new law was passed.


You are technically right about marriage, but I hope you realize thet fact that you can married in another country means marriage is also a federal issue (whether or not you agree with that is another issue). It (as it currently stands) is not simply a state issue. Also, where in the Constitution does it say the laws of one state most be followed by another?

In all of you examples, you seem to support one form of government expansion over another.

Another quote:
quote:
ones religious beliefs do not force the federal government to do anything

Got a dollar? Does it say "In GOD we trust".....

quote:
My belief on abortion stems from the fact that murder is illegal in this country. Killing a person not born yet is no different from killing one who is. Our courts even give precedent for this because people have been tried for a double homicide in cases where someone killed a pregnant woman. Again though, this power belongs in the states. Not in the federal government


You support the military, who kills. Then you say killing is wrong. Kind of hypocritical.

You have yet to address my arguement in any of your posts. You simply say you "support true conservatives" (which I would say you views are more libertarian, but whatever). That implies you support conservative ideals at the federal and local levels. In your previous post you want to let the states decide. Ok, states decide "true conservative". SO now you have a "moral police" and a forced religion (prayer in school is a "true conservative" issue).

Again I say, anyone is 100% conservative or 100% liberal is a fool.


RE: Disgusting!
By NullSubroutine on 4/13/2010 1:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Big government meets big business in the back room to exchange money bags, congradulate eachother on their great wealth, and screw the citizens. Pay attention fellow Americans. Our governement is growing out of controll, socializing massive programs, bankrupting the nation and stealing our hard earned money to bail out greedy companies


Agree 100%

quote:
or the lower 47% of citizens who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES! Thats right, only 53% of Americans pay federal tax and the top 10% pay 75% of federal tax. How does it feel to know that your success has been rewarded with a requirement to bail out banks and pay for social programs such as medical care for illegal aliens and their anchor babies?


Don't agree fully. I do certainly believe that we should get rid of all entitlement programs and nearly all discretionary spending except for the military, state department, and only a few other things actually directly related to the commerce clause...

However, those rich greedy companies neither of us wanted bailed out...got to be rich greedy companies on the backs of many of the workers. Workers who don't get adequately compensated for the actual amount of work they make/produce. I am not in favor of wealth redistribution certainly not by the government, but corporate big wigs do whatever they can to increase pay of themselves and reduce the pay of the people actually do the work and produce. All the while running companies long term health into the ground for the sake of making quarterly reports.

Quarterly reports driven by investors, who not only include the top tier of income earners, but much of the middle class who have been told without investing your money into wall street schemes you will have no money for retirement.

If you ask me there is one thing the governmental could do to stop all this and that is to have as you pointed out fiscal responsibility. No national debt and get rid of the Federal Reserve and actually go back to a (or many) precious metal standard for our currency. That way instead of having to rely on the Ponzi scheme of Social Security or wall street for retirement funds, people could actually...*shocking*...SAVE their money!

If you put away 10k in 5, 10, maybe even 20 years it may actually be worth about 10k. Retirement would not need to be done by the government should people be actually able to live non-debt lives and save without risking it in the stock market.


RE: Disgusting!
By OUits on 4/13/2010 1:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you put away 10k in 5, 10, maybe even 20 years it may actually be worth about 10k. Retirement would not need to be done by the government should people be actually able to live non-debt lives and save without risking it in the stock market.


What? If you don't want to risk your money in the stock market there are plenty of other ways to put your cash to work with almost no risk, ever heard of a savings account?

If you've got some magical system where people can earn 8-12% annually with little risk then please go ahead and send me a link.


RE: Disgusting!
By Lerianis on 4/13/2010 2:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Savings accounts make EXCEPTIONALLY little interest when it comes down to it.

What we really need is for the stock market to be "person with smallest amount of stock in company gets paid back first".... big name, rich people can afford to lose some money in the stock market.

My parents and myself? No, we cannot.


RE: Disgusting!
By OUits on 4/13/2010 2:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Savings accounts make EXCEPTIONALLY little interest when it comes down to it.


I know this, my point was illustrating risk/potential gain.

quote:
What we really need is for the stock market to be "person with smallest amount of stock in company gets paid back first".... big name, rich people can afford to lose some money in the stock market.

My parents and myself? No, we cannot.


Then don't. Want to be paid back first? Buy a bond.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2010 11:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
So go start a company that has that provision for its stock. See how much investment you get.

If you don't like the terms of stocks, don't invest in stocks. The rich get paid back first many times because they buy preferred stock which has as a part of the contract of buying it, that in the event of a liquidation, they get paid first. You are free to buy it as well provided you have the money.

There is risk in investing. If you don't want to take that risk, don't invest. What you are speaking of would require the government to mandate it which it has no power to do.

And we've already seen how much our current government values legal contracts. The preferred stockholders of GM were legally robbed when the government seized the company, declared their stock null and void, then handed ownership control of the company over to the UAW and itself. A blatantly illegal and unconstitutional act.

Liberals like to say Bush and Cheney need to be brought up on war crimes charges. Well then Obama and Biden need to be brought up on grand theft charges.


RE: Disgusting!
By dark matter on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2010 11:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Would rate you up if I could.


RE: Disgusting!
By knutjb on 4/14/2010 9:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
Why Thank You


RE: Disgusting!
By Adonlude on 4/14/2010 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is a tech site and I am an engineer not a writer so I made my points short and sweet and chose not to write a dissertation on the matter. I will not waste my time addressing all of your nonsense as I am sure little will come of it. I will however address the following statement:
quote:
I bet you a years wage you couldn't produce reliable information on just 20 reasons why they could come into your home.
Here is a current list of the 1,207 reasons: http://www.techeye.net/business/government-has-120...

Please reply with contact information so that I may collect 1 years worth of your wages.


RE: Disgusting!
By Ananke on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Disgusting!
By Nutzo on 4/13/2010 5:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the best would be 100% tax on inheritance, so people's wealth will be based on own skills.


So if I die, the govermentment should take everything I've worked for and leave my family pennyless? If I work hard and build up a farm or a family business, the government should just come in take it after I die?

You really do want to turn this into a 3rd world country.


RE: Disgusting!
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/2010 5:22:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think the best would be 100% tax on inheritance, so people's wealth will be based on own skills.


Hmmm.. In the immortal words of Duke Nukem ; Eat shit and die.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2010 11:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
You really are an idiot.

If they have no income then they would owe no taxes.

This speaks to people who earn an income and have a net tax liability of zero or even a negative number, thus earning money off the income tax system instead of paying them.

I think the best would be you jumping off a bridge to help clean the gene pool up a bit.


RE: Disgusting!
By sprockkets on 4/13/2010 8:08:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Our governement is growing out of controll, socializing massive programs, bankrupting the nation and stealing our hard earned money to bail out greedy companies or the lower 47% of citizens who pay NO FEDERAL TAXES! Thats right, only 53% of Americans pay federal tax and the top 10% pay 75% of federal tax.


And that 10% who pay 75% of the tax also make ~90% of all the money earned that year. Don't expect anyone to shed a tear for them.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2010 11:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
So that justifies those who actually use all the social programs that 10% pay for having actually no "skin in the game" as Obama likes to say?

And you'll be crying when they decide they've had enough and take their money elsewhere.


RE: Disgusting!
By StevoLincolnite on 4/14/2010 12:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
. They disarmed their populus by making guns illegal and crime went straight up. They are even going after knives.


They did that here in Australia, and really no one is complaining about it, if anything I feel "Safer".

However statistically there have been a massive reduction in gun related deaths and suicides, so that in itself is good news, I don't believe in citizens having guns for protection, that's what the Police and the Army are there for, to protect us citizens.

That and I would rather not have some crazy old drunk living next to me having a double barrel shotgun!

Still America is a different demographic than here, violence is more prevalent for starters, so I do see the point in having a gun over there, just not here.


RE: Disgusting!
By jabber on 4/14/2010 6:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
Errm about the bit where you say the Govt disarmed the nation of Britain?

Thats not exactly true.

You see we didnt have the guns in the first place. I didnt know anyone with a AK47/M16/Glock/Ruger etc. We just never needed them. The only folk with this kind of hardware were in gun clubs and a very very small minority.

Anyone I knew that had a gun was either a shotgun or hunting rifle.

When that madman broke into a school in the early 90's and slaughtered twenty 5 year old kids, the Govt at the time felt (and to be honest quite logically) that no one required hand guns. They just dont in the UK.

So handguns and semi-auto weapons were banned.

You can still legally buy and own shotguns and hunting rifles with a permit, just not .44 magnums and Desert Eagles.

So we havent been disarmed at all really.

Plus we can pick up a 9mm quite cheaply in most inner-city pubs if we want to and no paperwork or three day wait involved.

I live in the county of Norfolk and I reckon if we had to we could pull out quite a bit of firepower from the locals if we had to.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2010 8:58:25 AM , Rating: 3
So you openly admit gun control doesn't stop people from owning guns with your 9mm comment. What it does do is stop law abiding citizens from having the ability to protect themselves if attacked. You can't concealed carry a shotgun.

And no tragedy is excuse for the government seizing what is not theirs.


RE: Disgusting!
By jabber on 4/14/2010 9:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
So how often do you (ahem)...'pack heat'?

Cant say I've ever felt the need where I live and I go all over the UK.

I wasnt refering to being able to carry a weapon. I was just refering to the fact we in the UK can have firearms if we want to. Most of us choose not to though as we dont need them.

I dont buy stuff I dont need or will ever use.

I just feel I have to point out a general misconception our US cousins often have with regards to the UK and firearms.

I cant say either that I've ever sat in a pub or at a meal discussing or bemoaning the fact we cant legally 'pack heat' or 'pop a cap in that guy's ass' because he looked at us 'kinda funny!'

Sure I'll agree that most forms of 'control' dont work. But the main point again is we are perfectly able to own firearms in the UK and most of us never owned any at all before the handgun ban came in.

No great loss.

The situation here in the UK means that at the age of 40 I dont know anyone persoanally thats been killed or injured by firearms. I'm happy for it to stay that way.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2010 10:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have my concealed carry permit and carry a gun any time I go out on the road (highway travel). Of course in south Carolina I don't need a concealed carry permit to do that.

Its not about necessity always. Its about having the freedom to excercise rights we here in the US are guaranteed under our constitution.


RE: Disgusting!
By jabber on 4/14/2010 10:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well good for you.

It's just a shame that you feel you need to do that.

Best of luck!


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2010 3:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
It is the reality of the world we live in. Not the Barney episode liberals like to pretend exists. We learned in Boy Scouts. Be prepared.


RE: Disgusting!
By just4U on 4/16/2010 1:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
FIT, I agree with many of your posts but on guns not so much. I can think of 5 episodes in my life that would have ended very very badly for someone (perhaps myself even) had I been carrying a gun. Being prepared means different things to different people I suppose.

All in all, I do think that people should be allowed to own firearms but I don't think people should be able to go about armed unless they are in some related job that requires it.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2010 4:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know anyone who's ever been killed or injured by a gun either. But there are thousands of people killed or injured each year by home intruders. And in many places, politicians try to make people unable to or afraid of defending themselves with a gun. They also have prevented an untold number of crimes from happening.

And again, your admission that handguns can easily be obtained shows its not unreasonable to assume that an intruder in your home there has a weapon. I don't protect myself off maybes. If I wake up in the middle of the night to glass breaking or otherwise hear someone breaking into my home, I assume they're there to harm me and prepare accordingly. And where I live, if you're in my home, I have every right to blow you away. And I won't hestitate to do so the day an unfortunate soul breaks into my home. They'll have one opportunity to lie on the floor and stay there until the police arrive. If they choose not to take it, good luck to them.


RE: Disgusting!
By jabber on 4/14/2010 6:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
I dont worry about it. I'm not afraid. I quit listening to politicians and interested corporates long ago. What will be will be.

Generally all you require to stop home invasion is a good door lock..thats actually locked. I bet you check the police reports and many victims didnt even lock their doors.

Plus you are told by the media (and maybe the NRA) that there are thousands of home invasions and murders through that but really.....probably not that many.

Still you've made your constitutional bed, now you gotta lie in it, afraid and with a gun under the pillow.


RE: Disgusting!
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2010 9:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
There were over 3.6 million home invasions in the US last year. Oh right they're just lying.

My parents house has been robbed before. Their car has been stolen. Or were we just imagining that?

Willful ignorance of the realities of the world is absurd.


RE: Disgusting!
By glennc on 4/15/2010 1:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
america and their BS out of date constitution. you might as well follow the bible. it was written in different times you bunch of idiots. but then again, what do i care, i don't have to live on that sinking ship.


RE: Disgusting!
By jabber on 4/15/2010 5:09:08 AM , Rating: 2
So maybe as a nation you should be doing something about it other than just getting a bigger gun than the other guy?

Maybe a better door and a bigger lock?


RE: Disgusting!
By otispunkmeyer on 4/14/2010 8:02:27 AM , Rating: 1
most disgusting off all was that:

1) it was rushed in the wash up, meaning the knobs who voted on it probably didnt really have a grasp of what its going to mean in the future

2) only a 3rd of the 640 odd MP's turned up to vote it in

3) of that 3rd, only 20 bothered to debate it... the rest simply turned up with time to spare to just cast in a vote.

and these are the very same fuckjobs that turn around then expect us in the public to get off our arses and vote. if they cant be bothered, then i cant be bothered.

what our government needs really is to start over... and i mean properly. sack every single motherfuckingcunt in there and get in some fresh blood, with fresh ideas...so far this round of manifestos has been the same old tired bullshit, its like floggin a dead horse.


RE: Disgusting!
By CorwinOfAmber on 4/14/2010 11:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vote!


LMAO.

Really? And whom may I ask is there to vote for?

The fact is Americans are addicted to Democrats and Republicans, both of which are the direct cause of the political decline in our country.

Vote. Bah, vote for what? How do you vote when there is nothing to vote for except one extreme or the other (the status quo)?

Oooooh lookie, now we a new party - the Tea Baggers - led by the biggest bimbo I have ever come across in my 55 years following politics. A bimbo who has delusions of being the leader of the free world even though she (and we) knows she's nowhere near qualified. She thinks though, all she has to do is convince enough gullible (read dumb) Americans and she's in like Flynn.

You know what? She's right.

America is full of uninformed, gullible people that just need to hear the right words and BINGO ...

Personally, I subscribe to the philosophy of "stop the world I want to get off". I would have been one of those people on the roof of the building in Independence Day were they were carrying signs and shouting "get me outta here" right before the aliens fried my azz.


Political bull#!*#
By jadeskye on 4/13/2010 11:45:59 AM , Rating: 4
Mandelson has been pushing everything out of his way to get this through, it's a huge loss for democracy, the people very clearly didn't want this.




RE: Political bull#!*#
By Iaiken on 4/13/2010 11:57:40 AM , Rating: 5
Not even the people who are supposed to enforce this wanted this. This is another case of the special interest minority winning out over the voting majority.


RE: Political bull#!*#
By Motoman on 4/13/2010 12:43:57 PM , Rating: 5
Which is why lobbying should be illegal. In any country.


RE: Political bull#!*#
By bubbastrangelove on 4/13/2010 12:29:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Mandelson has been pushing everything out of his way to get this through, it's a huge loss for democracy, the people very clearly didn't want this.


Sounds a lot like a bill that's been passed in USA recently.


RE: Political bull#!*#
By jabber on 4/14/2010 9:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I'd say 99% of the population didnt even know about it to be honest.

Was kept very much on a need to know basis. Always nice to get stuff like this through when bigger stories such as hmm let's see..an election divert attention.


Voter Beware...
By knutjb on 4/13/2010 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 3
All should be wary of ANY law slipped through without proper scrutiny by both legislators and voters, i.e. the recent education bill slipped into the massive health care bill. Even if politicians mean well this fails to pass the smell check. If it's so wonderful why are they hiding it? Can't it stand on it's own?

The power-grab this law gives the media industry in the UK through law enforcement is a big problem. Very counter productive for the consumer.

FCC Net-Neutrality ring a bell? They hide behind some tear jerking story to get buy in but hidden in the fine details is some form of power grab. The more governments meddle, the worse it becomes.




RE: Voter Beware...
By redbone75 on 4/13/2010 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
FCC Net-Neutrality ring a bell? They hide behind some tear jerking story to get buy in but hidden in the fine details is some form of power grab. The more governments meddle, the worse it becomes.

Do you even understand the concept of net neutrality? This is the one area you should want the government to step in. They're not trying to grab power, but are trying to prevent companies from affecting consumer use of the internet through corporate favoritism. Jeesh. Some of you people lean so far to the right you just fall over yourselves. Pick your heads up out of the dredge and actually listen to the facts before you sound off.


RE: Voter Beware...
By knutjb on 4/13/2010 2:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you even understand the concept of net neutrality? This is the one area you should want the government to step in. They're not trying to grab power, but are trying to prevent companies from affecting consumer use of the internet through corporate favoritism. Jeesh. Some of you people lean so far to the right you just fall over yourselves. Pick your heads up out of the dredge and actually listen to the facts before you sound off.


Apparently better than you. If the government DIDN'T pick winners and allowed ANY company to enter a market, in this case the internet, consumers would be offered better deals and those who only offered restrictive plans would go out of business. When the government starts to regulate they tend to lean to the overly cautious side and OVER REGULATE. That over regulation creates an anti-competitive market place. That is what we have today, how many providers are available in your area, 1 maybe 2 for most?

I did not imply "no" regulation, just much less than we have. Markets are, by nature, self leveling. Government regulation is inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of customers by means of it's massive bureaucracy. I spent over 20 years in it and that is how I formed my opinion of government regulation.


RE: Voter Beware...
By superkdogg on 4/13/2010 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 3
If the government DIDN'T pick winners and allowed ANY company to enter a market, in this case the internet, consumers would be offered better deals and those who only offered restrictive plans would go out of business. When the government starts to regulate they tend to lean to the overly cautious side and OVER REGULATE. That over regulation creates an anti-competitive market place. That is what we have today, how many providers are available in your area, 1 maybe 2 for most?

I did not imply "no" regulation, just much less than we have. Markets are, by nature, self leveling. Government regulation is inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of customers by means of it's massive bureaucracy .

Yes, regulation is bad. Government does nothing right, nothing to protect citizens, and is generally a bad idea except for re-privatizing the pooled purchasing power of the citizens back into major corporations.

Signed,

World Financial Institutions pre-2008


RE: Voter Beware...
By knutjb on 4/14/2010 6:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Are you illiterate or just blinded by ideology? I never said zero regulation. I said clearly we don't need as much as we currently have, particularly with the internet.

You missed my pointing out that the repeal of parts of the Glass Stegall Act was a bad idea. That was a key part enabling the banking melt down. I don't think freeing up the internet would cause a global financial meltdown, next time try a better analogy.


Trivial Bashing...
By dflynchimp on 4/13/2010 11:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lord President of the Council


Serious? the level of oxymoron in that title is epic. Gotta love the Brits for retaining their archaic nomenclature.

On topic, this move is so technologically backwards I can't even be bothered to argue it logically, since I'd be playing tennis against a wall of pure f4il.

As to the throttling of bandwidth, I've noticed that AT&T has already started doing that on a monthly refresh. My top non-spike dl speed (disclaimer: all legit) on the 1st is 250kb/sec, but by the fourth week it's fallen to 50kb/sec. I'm pretty sure that when I signed up for the service there wasn't a clause stating their right to throttle my bandwidth, but then again I'm a sap that never bothers to read the full EULA so I guess I'm shafting myself there.




RE: Trivial Bashing...
By Yawgm0th on 4/13/2010 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Serious? the level of oxymoron in that title is epic. Gotta love the Brits for retaining their archaic nomenclature.
President simply means one who presides. No where in the definition is democracy or representation implied; it's just that that is usually how it is used. Lord and president are not, by definition, inherently contradictory terms.

That sounds, I won't disagree that British titles are beyond ridiculous for having lasted into the 21st century.


RE: Trivial Bashing...
By superkdogg on 4/13/2010 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 3
The person who presides is a president and a lord is also a formal title but not necessarily a Lord in the sense it seems you're thinking of. They're not contradictory, but it's sometimes funny to see all the crap you have to say before you get to a guy's name....

The bill's advocates claim that it will pay for itself. They estimate that £1.2B ($1.9B USD) is lost yearly to piracy. The bills proponents say it will lead to more tax revenue by preventing piracy and raising sales. Its opponents on the right and left, however, argue that it amounts to collusion between the majority party and big business, and will come at the expense of the citizens' welfare.

So....I'm missing how the government gets the money...and also the part where all the content that used to be downloaded is now suddenly going to be sold at the same pace....and also the part where everybody who dowloaded something to preview/trial it and then bought it will now buy two copies.

Other than that it seems....well, it's still moronic but at least it will provide the context for why other nations should not do this. Sorry to my British friends.


RE: Trivial Bashing...
By Ticholo on 4/13/2010 3:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's like the Arthur C. Clarke quote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So there. The bill pays for itself with magic (AKA, some really advanced system of profit that we just don't understand).

PS: I really love it when I ear "My name is Doctor Joe Something". Really? Your parents named you Doctor?


RE: Trivial Bashing...
By gamerk2 on 4/13/2010 12:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, the same thing is going on in the US. Gotta love it.


Biased reporting
By MrTeal on 4/13/2010 12:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
This bill is garbage, and a horrible idea. I think most people can figure that out on their own, and don't need a completely biased article full of weasel words to persuade them.

quote:
It enjoyed the hearty support, though, of the music and film industries which lobbied heavy for the bill pouring millions of pounds in support to help override the voice of the citizens.


quote:
Lord President of the Council Peter Mandelson, a wealthy British politician, masterminded the bill with the help of his media industry colleagues.


I'm sure many members of the House of Lords are rich. That hardly means they're beholden to special interests.




RE: Biased reporting
By CPLGDR on 4/13/2010 4:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the article used a lot of weasel words. If you want to slur Mandelson for the sake of making a point, might I suggest:

quote:
Lord President of the Council Peter Mandelson, a wealthy British politician and self-confessed homosexual , masterminded the bill with the help of his media industry colleagues.


That said: Peter Mandelson is a loathesome reptile.


RE: Biased reporting
By Reclaimer77 on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Biased reporting
By rdawise on 4/13/2010 10:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
Way to lose all credibility.... @Reclaimer77


RE: Biased reporting
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2010 4:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
lol come on, get a sense of humor already sheeesh.


Reminds me a Quote
By clovell on 4/13/2010 12:51:18 PM , Rating: 3
from the old PC game Alpha Centauri (a Sid Meier turn-based strategy):

"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."




RE: Reminds me a Quote
By cubby1223 on 4/13/2010 5:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't imagine you will find anyone who would consider a Britney Spears album as vital information necessary for the benefit of humanity.


RE: Reminds me a Quote
By clovell on 4/13/2010 6:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
lol, wut?


Amazing
By Abrahmm on 4/13/2010 12:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing to watch countries in the so called "free world" take backward steps like this.

Can this law be repealed if the party in power loses that power? I'm not familiar with British law.




RE: Amazing
By arazok on 4/13/2010 12:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course. But it rarely happens. Unless there is rabid uproar by the public, there is an unwritten rule in politics that you don’t immediately reverse laws passed by the previous party. The government can’t be seen to constantly be implementing and then reversing laws, so the parties tend to say what they must to get elected, and then ignore it once elected.


RE: Amazing
By Lerianis on 4/13/2010 1:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that is sheer stupidity. The fact is that if something is a BAD LAW, it should be immediately repealed by the new people in office.


Bad Timing
By Vagisil on 4/13/2010 3:39:20 PM , Rating: 3
The worst part of this is the fact the bill wasn't given the attention it should have.

The bill was revised and forced through at the last second when they knew all parties would not have time to debate or object to the revisions, We've been stitched up.

It's a shame, but now the UK could loose public WI-FI completely and many of the sections defy logic.




RE: Bad Timing
By CPLGDR on 4/13/2010 4:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. This is the first I have heard of it - and I'm British!


Blog Error
By yomamafor1 on 4/13/2010 12:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm I don't want to be a troll or anything but...

quote:
They estimate that £1.2B USD is lost yearly to piracy.


So is it £1.2B, or 1.2B USD?




RE: Blog Error
By The0ne on 4/13/2010 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
Being the perfect spelling and grammar journalist that Jason Mick has always been, it's actually £1.2B USD RMB Pesos


So how do I get around this!?
By parge on 4/13/2010 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
So Dailytechies! Help me out! How do I mask my IP to get around this?




By geddarkstorm on 4/13/2010 2:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
Tor


Clause 18
By toyotabedzrock on 4/14/2010 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest when Clause 18 comes into effect that all British citizens request take downs of all music company and politicians websites.




RE: Clause 18
By just4U on 4/16/2010 1:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
In reading the article I was sad about this part

"..to help override the voice of the citizens."

That's got to tick off alot of people no matter if they file share or not. I go out to the movies all the time even though I know that I could/can download every last one of them.. I buy CD's (occasionally) because I like the overall album and want my own branded copy.. even though I can get it all for free in file form.

Would I spend more if these free alternatives were not a option? No. I know a few people who uses the file sharing sites religiously.. If that option were no longer open to them most would just do something else as things like that just are not something they want to spend their money on.

So, I dunno how a bill like that helps.


Logic Anyone?
By Motamid on 4/13/2010 1:04:22 PM , Rating: 3
If this bill will more than pay for itself in increased tax revenue from the music industry (a small fraction of the increase in profits they claim they will make), why don't we have the music industry shoulder the cost of the policing? By their logic, policing would bring the music industry more revenue then the cost of policing.

If their claims were true, there would be no need to pay for this with tax dollars to begin with. This is just plain ridiculous.




Boycott the big UK studios
By gorehound on 4/13/2010 4:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
"It enjoyed the hearty support, though, of the music and film industries which lobbied heavy for the bill pouring millions of pounds in support to help override the voice of the citizens."

Now it is our turn to support the people of the Uk not their greedy companies by not buying any of these greeedy companies products.




Freedom of speech
By drycrust3 on 4/13/2010 5:04:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In the U.S., the DMCA has been abused excessively, with organizations such as the Church of Scientology using it to remove sensitive -- but not necessarily copyrighted -- information from the public domain.


Please excuse me for asking, but either that statement is true or it isn't.

My observation is there is a progression from free speech to mass killings that goes something like this: 1) "you can say what you like" speech -> 2) "must be true" speech -> 3) "for public safety" speech -> 4a) "actively censored" speech -> 4b) censored search engine results -> 5a) imprisonment or killing of opponents -> 5b) mass killings.

I realise there is a bit of a fine line between "3" and "4", but it basically is the same as the difference between the police investigating a crime that has happened (e.g. a robbery) and the police monitoring your email. Yes, I realise there are "holes", e.g. monitoring of drug dealers and spies and such like, but I'm sure you can figure out what bit fits where. And, please don't jump up and down saying do I agree with this or don't I appreciate my freedom or some such thing. This isn't about that, I'm just making an observation based upon historical events such as the rise of Hitler and so forth. If you can't see that, then you will do well in the future (as the next stages in the regression take place).
If my gauge is about right, then it isn't just a gauge of how "free" your country is, it is also an indicator of what will happen next.
As you can see, actively censored speech (whether by a government or a private company) is not just one step behind censored search engine results, but that lies after that is imprisonment or killing of dissenting voices.




By NicodemusMM on 4/13/2010 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
I realize it's effective, but isn't that a little harsh?

Seriously, though... Maybe it's just perspective, but it seems like the public opinion is being ignored more than usual.




Hilarious...
By jonmcc33 on 4/13/2010 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
I get all my pirating from Google. Are they going after Google?




disgusting
By frozentundra123456 on 4/13/2010 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because it is a blog, but this article does seem one sided to me. I can agree that the way the bill was passed was wrong, but there seems to be no acknoweledgement that piracy is wrong also and needs to be stopped or greatly reduced.
I do not agree that you have a right to pirate something to "try" it. Piracy is still wrong even if you eventually buy the game or music or whatever. Those who make a game or movie or album do have a right to be paid for the use of the item.




Interesting...
By croc on 4/13/2010 9:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
I for one, am very concerned about the levels of scrutiny that 'free countries' are starting to impose on their 'free citizens'. First, the US with their DMCA act, now the Brits with this bill. Australia is likely to be next, with their 'great firewall of Australia' if Senator Conroy gets his way.

Now, who gets to utilize these tools? Well, in the first instance it seems that the music and movie industry will be the prime initiators of actions that ISP's will then have to enforce. In the second instance, it seems that the same will hold true. However, in Australia's instance the Government itself will be the judge and the jury of who has done what, via a SECRET blacklist of websites that the government has deemed to be not fit for Australian's eyes... All for the 'children' of course. (And I thought that was what parents were for... Silly me.) All of these schemes seem to me like putting a dingo in charge of the chooks...

If I want to see a movie, then I can either pay the outrageous sums that the theatres charge, wait a bit and rent it (still over-priced, in my opinion) or wait even a bit more and go out and buy it. Not an option, at least in Aus., is downloading it, not with our draconian bandwidth caps. Music? I only ever go to the record store, and I usually have to order what it is that I want, and wait for delivery. Maybe I could download some of these, but I whinge enough about the CD quality (lack of) VS. vinyl quality now. Adding another layer of loss into the mix will just make me see red...




1984
By Litt on 4/13/2010 11:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
This is 1984 in real life. The screen in the room is watching you.




Stealing
By mgilbert on 4/13/10, Rating: -1
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki