Slashdot Mirror
Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks ago, Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the 'Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' (COICA) bill, which was discussed here on Slashdot. The main part of the bill would allow the Justice Department to shut down websites that it deems are 'dedicated to infringing activities,' without a trial (due process is so old fashioned). Of course, in reviewing the bill, it's important to note that pretty much every new technology in the entertainment industry over the last century was deemed 'dedicated to infringing activities,' so here's a list of all of the technologies COICA would have banned in the past, including Hollywood itself, radio, cable television, the photocopier, the iPod and more."
I remember reading a story years ago about cookbook publishers being up in arms when the Xerox machine came out.
Their thinking was that the secretaries would be swapping recipes via photocopies and not buying cookbooks as a Good Citizen should.
.
Trolling is a art,
I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too.
How dare you have a better product/service than me!
Why should I listen to my customers? They have to buy it from me.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
We have 2 wars, 10-20% unemployment, poverty, bad health care system, etc. But let's deal with copyright infringement for the wealthy. Everything else can be fixed later.
Alas, that clause is already optional in the constitution. Congress has the power to scale down or revoke that privilege, if they think it no longer serves its intended purpose. If Congress really cared about the welfare of the people rather than filling their pockets with lobbyist money, they'd be phasing copyright out instead of extending it.
The individuals that comprise those organisations have rights. Corporations, unions, lobby groups, organisations etc etc don't and shouldn't have rights.
Orrin Hatch is one of the most deeply corrupt enemies of copyright reform in the history of copyright. Thankfully he has not been able to obtain a level of power sufficient to fully support his comically evil campaign of unconstitutional kickbacks to big media.
If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
i think they are treated differently and there for are different.
the individuals in the group would have the same rights as any individual - but the company wouldn't.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
Err. No.
Corporations and other such organizations cannot be charged with a crime, such charges are applied to people. The actors of the crime. If you commit a non crime killing, you'll be subject to civil charges, not criminal charges. As fines associated with civil charges are generally scaled to your wealth, the fine itself would be a lot loss.
The thing crazy people like to forget is that "imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist. Thus actions are always the acts of people. If a crime occurs, it's a person engaging in them. If a right is being exercised, it's a person engaging in them. Corporations in particular, and similarly but differently for PACs and Unions, the organizations exist as a formalized organizational structure to assist investment and decision making. When that decision making leads to illegal activity, the decision makers and actors are both vulnerable to criminal charges. In addition, the people involved -and- the corporation itself is vulnerable to civil charges.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
How about banning Government Institutions that hamper the exchange of ideas, commerce, and other items leading to a healthy economy?
>>>"imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist.
Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?
Nothing except fine the company while the specific individuals that made the decision take golden parachutes and escape without punishment for their crime. The corporation should be treated as an object and nothing more. The company can keep its immunity but it shall have no rights; only privileges which can be revoked at anytime with a mere act of Congress.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Except that they can't. A corporation isn't a large group of individuals that decided to get together. It is an organization of a company that is typically owned by a small number of individuals (as few as one) for the purposes of protecting the assets of the proprietors if the company fails and to protect the proprietors from legal responsibility if the company does something in appropriate (usually). There is no good reason for a corporation to be treated as a person, as the sole purpose of a corporation is to prevent the individuals that make it up from having liability. Granting those people rights without liability attached is fundamentally unjust.
Corporate contributions to political campaigns, for example, means that someone in a position to dictate policy for a corporation is able to spend the money of other people without them really having any say in the matter. I mean sure, they could ostensibly sell their shares, but that just means that a different group of people are getting screwed. More to the point, that wealth was acquired because of the workers that make up the corporation, yet they have no real say whatsoever in how the money is spent except insofar as some of them may also be minority shareholders. In effect, this means that the voices of a few are amplified unfairly due solely to their being in charge of a corporation. In addition to these people casting one vote through their personal financial contributions, they are able to cast a second vote through corporate contributions, whereas the average citizen cannot realistically do the same. This promotes inequality in which the people with the most money and power are able to exert undue influence, thus increasing their money and power, in a sort of perverse feedback loop. This is exactly contrary to the founding principle of democracy---the notion that all are created equal abd should have equal rights under the law.
Unions are only slightly better. In principle, people have the right to refuse to join a union and can merely pay their "fair share" dues---the collective bargaining portion of the union dues without the political portion. In practice, however, the unions stand for many things, and there is no practical way for a union member to say that they will allow their dues to be spent on some, but not all of its political goals. As such, because it is a "take it or leave it" proposition and because contributions from a union represent substantially greater weight than individual contributions, members are unlikely to deny everything merely because they disagree with some of the union's positions. This again means that the decision-making process is taken out of the hands of its members and given to its elected leaders, again unfairly exaggerating the voice of a few on many issues.
I'd be fine with all the corporate and union contributions if I could say on an individual basis that their contribution must be reduced by 0.002% to account for me withholding my portion thereof. As long as this is not the case---as long as I don't have a vote on each individual issue---then corporations and unions do not accurately reflect the will of the people who comprise them, and as such, those contributions are a fundamental usurpation of power, denying us our rights as shareholders, union members, and workers in those corporations.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
the trial is the process by which they discover if the website 'dedicated to infringing activities' and not just the subject of whining or attack by commercial rivals.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
It's amazing, every second story on /. is about how the government is trying to take away more and more Liberties and Freedoms that are intrinsic to the people and even those that are granted by amendments in a more specific way and I argue that this is what is wrong with the governments but over and over people fight me on this here, completely missing the point that they are less Free with every bill that the government passes, they are staring right at it and cannot see it, I do not understand this, but I understand that if even on /. this is the general attitude, then in the rest of the population this has to be even more pronounced, so basically nothing will change, people want to be controlled and punished and ruled by tyrants. People have decided this is what they need, it's sad.
You can't handle the truth.
that has nothing to do with the internet, that is just FCC broadcast and interference regulations. The FCC doesn't regulate desk fans, but a desk fan that puts out interference is still in violation.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.