Slashdot Mirror
Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out On SOPA
natecochrane writes "Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA, laws he says violate human rights and are unfit for a democratic country. Sir Tim's condemnation came on the day an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to U.S. interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
"an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to US interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
The laws were written specifically for that purpose. They have clauses that (supposedly) prevent them being used on US sites and site owners. What's left? The rest of the world!
That's why it disgusted me every time I saw someone overseas saying to get this junk off their news sites because it didn't apply to them.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Father of the web? Wait 'till Al Gore hears about hears about this poser!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I hope it does pass, I waste far too much time on the Internet.
Right to a fair trial, etc. More like legal rights than human rights, but still important.
Freedom of communication, speech, association, congregation are not human rights?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
All these voices coming out against these Bills, yet the Congress and Senate still push as if they really have a shot.
All that money spent on paying of politicians says one thing to me. We don't want to give people access to movies and music. If this wasn't the case the movie studios and music companies would have used that money to develop online distribution websites. How hard would it have been to take all the works you have copyrights to and set up a site where people can buy them and download them.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Increasingly, "democracies" are passing all sorts of stuff which is repugnant the tradition of liberty:
-Panopticon street cameras in England
-Patriot Act in the US
-Web censorship and the RIM affair in India
What's needed is an emphasis on "liberal democracies", democracies that promote (classical) liberal values.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Meanwhile, Fox network stations were spinning the blackout to make it sound as if SOPA protesters were "misinformed".
This is an extremely fitting description of why the bill shouldn't passed, considering that it will put us under the same umbrella as Iran, China, and Syria...at least when it comes to the DNS blocking part of the bills and internet censorship in general if SOPA/PIPA are passed
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
The problem is The Internet is rapidly becoming the best way to get The Word out.
i can see in our lifetimes as different government services go online it becoming almost impossible to do anything of real value without being online somehow.
we are even now seeing places that have job applications only online and some jobs also require you to already have a phone with text messaging.
wanna be forced offline (because you have been blackballed due to being a dirty thieving pirate) in a world where business offices either 1 have 5 hour lines just to see anybody 2 are only open Mon-Wed from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (with a semi random 45 minute Lunch) 3 some combo of both
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This just came out yesterday......
"For the past several months, Sen. Rand Paul has opposed and led the charge against both the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yesterday, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
"The Internet, as we know it, has had a profound impact on job creation, the global economy and prosperity. It has accelerated wealth creation and facilitated a more connected world. But the Internet's development is based on the free flow of information, innovation, and ideas, not central government control," Senator Paul said.
"Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet. These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws. While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else's problems."
Sen. Paul concluded, "I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet.""
Libertas in infinitum
A limitation on the means of exercising a right is a limitation on the right. Saying you have the right to free speech, but not the right to exercise that right is silly.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice. It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, and in concept all devices and methods of spreading speech. That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
...is his first mistake. Once you realize that the country is run by corporate overlords, it all makes perfect sense.
I expect this round of the bill will get shot down. Then someone will attach it as a rider to some BS terrorist or child pr0n bill later in the year with little media coverage.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Why *shouldn't* the internet be a right? Is there some compelling reason we should restrict our civil liberties instead of expanding them to meet the reality of today's world?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
http://weknowmemes.com/2012/01/lamar-smith-is-a-copyright-violator/ that man is ridiculous
So is the News Paper, or a Cell Phone! If you limit some people from using these tools, while allowing others, your limiting people's free speech! The Government doesn't own the Internet, no more than they own my Computer, so they need to get their greesy hands off!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
So all you would have to do is begin hunting each and every one of them down (while keeping out of the hands of every TLA in the world since the FBI CIA DOD BSA ARC and their international counterparts would all be looking very hard for you).
Bonus points if you do some sort of prayer before you "redact" one of the critters.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Who said USA is democratic country?
Last time i checked, actually in the only legal document that has the right to do it, the Constitution, it says REPUBLIC.
Your rights end where mine begin is why you can declare nukes free speech. What's more, money was deemed to be speech by the supreme court. That's why PACs can collect and spend as much as they want on campaign adds etc.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
ok your right, the basic human right to not be a child sex salve while also being mutilated or in mass genocide based on race or religion is equal to not being able to watch spoony riff a movie
apparently you people dont know the difference between human rights and rights of citizens
The .com, .orgs etc will get moved out of US control.
Let them block .us all they want.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
"Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?"
No rights were violated, they just took the means to exercise them...
People who continously argued over the years that game DRM services like Steam (or SecuROM, or EA newcomer "Origin") were "harmless" anti-piracy measures or even - gasp - "just great, so easy to use!" can now rejoice. Once SOPA/PIPA, and then SOPA/PIPA 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 get passed, using the ENTIRE INTERNET will VERY MUCH become like being permantently trapped in a walled garden like Steam, or iTunes. Today's "wild" internet will then, over the years, become a distant memory, like 8 track tapes or Polaroid film. Of course 50% or so of the internet's population will then walk away from the NET entirely, because there's nothing interesting on it anymore. And content companies/dotcoms/stock markets will now PANIC that people are LEAVING the internet. But that shouldn't stop a nice bill like SOPA or PIPA and EVEN STRICTER LEGISLATION THAT WILL ALMOST SURELY FOLLOW THEM. Go on. Pass these stupid bills. See what happens to the Internet as a result.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
They just want a very expensive, very desirable carrot, when each time it lands in your hands it can be snatched away. They want this carrot to be so desirable that you want to try and get it again anyway. It doesn't matter what this particular carrot represents, music, TV, whatever. Even if your favorite indie production became massively popular overnight, someone would pop up and try to exploit it. Once something becomes popular enough, someone will try and turn it into such a carrot.
It's easier to buy up the content producer's rights than try and control the content producer, and it's easier/cheaper to do that than to put time, effort, and thought into coming up with something people will want. It's just clear that this method of making money is reaching an extreme point.
If you just wanted to set up a content directory and distribution medium, where any of the content could disappear and show up on a competitor's directory and distribution medium if they didn't like the terms, then they would have to be truly competitive. If they can perpetually retain some exclusivity on popular content, then it's a much more stable profit bearing resource.
Twinstiq, game news
So if we shut down television, radio, and all digital networks - we haven't violated free speech, because people can still speak. If we ban printing presses, we haven't violated free speech because people can still speak. If we ban all writing and recordings, because recorded information allows piracy, we haven't violated free speech because people can still speak. If we ban words and ideas, we haven't violated free speech, because people can still speak. If we ban speech entirely, we haven't violated free speech, because we can still use grunts and gestures. We don't need to be more advanced than dolphins, that's why we should only use grunts and gestures.
This SOPA/PIPA is only a symptom of a deeper underlying problem we have in the world today. There is a massive disconnect between the people who pass the laws and the people they're supposed to represent. They have been bought many times over by the private interests who changed the laws for their selfish benefit at the expense of the people.
Sure, I am against SOPA as much as you are, but SOPA is only a symptom. SOPA isn't what will kill you: it's the underlying disease that's ravaging your world. The disease is eroding your freedoms and soon you will be too weak to fight back.
Do I have the right to THINK? I mean, what's the point in Free Speech if you can express yourself freely. If the Government Censors the Internet, we might as well be living in Iran. Isn't this why our Founders created the Bill of Rights? If the Government could have limited the Internet, they would have done it Long Ago! It's obvious they are looking for loopholes to get around this.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
I'm sorry but I don't think I'd group Steam in with SecuROM on the scale of things that people thought were harmless anti-piracy measures. Even Origin, which is shitty, is basically a copy of Steam with shitty customer service. SecuROM is a shitcake topped with diarrhea. Ubisoft always on is shit. Steam and Origin are actually pretty fair compromises. I get to download my games anywhere, I can share my Steam account with trusted friends for them to try out games, and all I have to do is get online once in a while to activate the games (it has offline mode if you need it).
The only bumps I've hit usually have nothing to do with Steam and have everything to do with the shit that the publisher puts there on TOP of Steam...such as *cringe* Games for Windows Live or...hey...SecuROM.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
So as long as you have one method of exercising a right, all others can be removed? Then I can deny you the use of a specific method of communication, and not have that considered a limitation of your right to free speech and/or association. What's to stop me throwing you into solitary confinement. That's not an infringement of the right to free speech, as long as you are allowed to scream your protests ... where no one will hear. Sorry, but you not only need to be free from interference in exercising your rights, but also in exercising them effectively, i.e. you have to be allowed to scream where others can hear you. In the modern age, that means the right to publish on the internet. I too am not saying internet access is a right. But I am saying that selective or discriminatory limitation of access to the internet is a violation of the right to free speech.
Ugh... I really hope this was meant sarcastically. Sir Tim Berners-Lee is not a "celebrity". He is the current director of the W3C. He works as a professor at MIT and he was the first to get HTTP protocol to deliver documents across servers on the internet (i.e. the "world wide web".) Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
People keep referring to the USA as a democratic country. Sure, you've got a president 'n' all, but with things like DMCA, FTA and now SOPA and PIPA ... when will you admit that it's nothing more than a commercial oligarchy?
Unless his title gives him an extra vote, I'd say it has no more bearing on a democratic country than, say, a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice.
Incorrect. Freedom of the press was guaranteed because a responsible press is a requirement for an informed electorate. They were intended to be a watchdog on the government that the remainder of the document created. This is why they are sometimes refered to as "The Fourth Column". The first three being the three official branches of the government.
It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, ...
No, it doesn't. It refers to "freedom of ... the press". "The press" is not a reference to a specific device, it is a reference to the job and function of those who report the news. It makes no distinction at all regarding the physical medium that is used by the press to communicate.
That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
Since the first amendment has nothing to do with any specific medium, this argument is false. "The press" is not the same as "medium of mass communication". You're using the wrong clauses to argue your case.
No, the press was viewed as an institution, not a device. Freedom of the press applies to dissemination of original thought expressing opinion and fact.
This is why freedom of the press applies to TV, radio, printed word, internet, etc.
However there is no such thing as an absolute freedom. Publication of content created by others is subject to copyright. There are also restrictions on slander, libel, child porn and so forth.
But President to denote your god-king is fine?
Don't have a god-king... (you're probably assuming I'm American)...
Ugh, I just got my email response back from senator Dianne Feinstein (CA-D). She was apparently un-phased by her email and phone line being utterly crippled with traffic yesterday in opposition to SOPA/PIPA. The train wreck watcher in me half wants this thing to actually pass. We would have solid proof and precedent that we are not in the least bit represented. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people screaming at congress and they just don't care, the money's already in the bank.
If SOPA/PIPA were put to a national referendum, would it pass? If not then does that mean that we have hard proof that congress' actions no longer represent the will of the people? If that's true, then could we actually get popular support for a political revolution? Would we do a recall in every state and completely clean out the government? If we do that we could end up just installing V2.0 of we currently have in place. Could we get popular support for radical changes in the way the officials are elected and the way the government is ran? A lot of people scoff at the idea of such changes. They tell you to "get a life" or to take the tin-foil hat off. At what point do even those people say, "Okay. What. The. Fuck."?
For those who are interested here is the contents of senator Feinstein's email that I assume she mass sent out this morning:
Dear Mr. Didn't Give a Campaign Contribution:
I received your letter expressing opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.
The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.
The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.
America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.
I understand you have concerns about the "PROTECT IP Act." While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others. I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.
On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" for consideration by the full Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation. As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Wishing you a happy 2012.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
HUMAN RIGHTS not the CONSTITUTION
Internet is but a passing technology. It shouldn't be a right any more than other communication tools such as megaphones or banners. Your rights to free expression and association should be sufficient to allow you to use Internet in productive ways, for politics as well as for business. This is not to say that we cannot demand a state to provide us with cheap and neutral Internet access, but this would just be pragmatism, not an ethical imperative. States should subsidize Internet just like they subsidize other critical aspects of the society: roads and other means of transportation, energy production, general health. And they should do it just in case if the end results are better (cheaper, more fair) than what we would have in a pure capitalist utopia. As indeed they are.
Great video, thanx for the info!
"Responsible" is not a term that most people would use to describe the press around the time of the passage of the Constitution.
Then it is a good thing I wasn't trying to describe any specific instance of the press. This does not change the fact that the founding fathers had a notion of what was required to have oversight on the federal system they were creating, and something with constitutional guarantees of freedom to do that job is what they intended.
...but don't project your modern notions on historical figures in a nationalistic appeal to the supposed sagacity of the Founding Fathers.
No projection necessary. They were pretty smart folks. Smarter than modern whippersnappers want to give them credit for.
and rights which we think inhere to Internet access. We know it's a good idea, ...
You think it's a good idea. Don't project your opinions onto others.
A bill still wending it's way through the corrupt halls of Congress would require anyone registering (and I bet renewing) a domain to provide a real, meatspace-verified identity so they can be easily found by the MAFIAA and the State's security organs (some duplication here).
You can't have a free society without privacy and we're still on track to prove it.
Freedom of communication, speech, association, congregation are corporate rights.
I'd forgotten about that for a moment. That would also challenge the SOPA clauses regarding stopping payments, as Congress can make no laws infringing on free speech, and as money is free speech, they can now make no law abridging the usage of money. Clearly we next need to challenge the IRS on First Amendment grounds...
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
So to quote Mod Flanders, "Will someone please think of the children!"
Helen Lovejoy, Moe once. I don't think Maude ever said that.