Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tracking Censorship Through Copyright Proposals Worldwide

Posted by timothy on from the whack-a-mole-is-played-with-real-hammers dept.

jrepin writes "Global Chokepoints is an online resource created to document and monitor global proposals to turn Internet intermediaries into copyright police. These proposals harm Internet users' rights of privacy, due process and freedom of expression, and endanger the future of the free and open Internet. Our goal is to provide accurate empirical information to digital activists and policy makers, and help coordinate international opposition to attempts to cut off free expression through misguided copyright laws, policies, agreements and court cases. Scroll down to see a list of countries currently featured for threatening free expression through copyright censorship."

5 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Good Start, Needs Further Support by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is a nice concept, linking the various laws etc that we know bits about.

    However it needs more countries.

    Based on Slashdot entries, France and Australia are notable missing entries.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Good Start, Needs Further Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Based on globalchokepoints.org entries, France is not a missing entry:

      http://www.globalchokepoints.org/countries/france

  2. DMCA... by TypoNAM · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not sure what Digital Music Copyright Act is under United States of America country section, but I've heard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If they can't even get that part right then why should I bother with the website at all?

    --
    This space is not for rent.
  3. Another inaccuracy by geezer+nerd · · Score: 4, Informative

    After complaints of sloppy inaccuracy over the DMCA meaning, I took a look at NZ. The writers seem to have it backwards about the "notice fee". As I remember the arguments at the time the law was passed, the rightsholders are charged BY the ISP a fee to help compensate for their work in determining the offender and the delivery of the notice. The text on the website says the rightsholders charge the ISP, which makes no sense at all.

    I was quite perturbed when the act was passed "under urgency", which means debate and committee consideration of the bill are curtailed somewhat. There was really no "urgency" for the matter that I could detect.

  4. Re:globalchokepoints eh.... by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bottom of the screen, hosted by the EFF. Now as for operating costs... Who knows.