Try getting on a plane/train/bus/any form of long distance travel without one. Now imagine that the no fly list database is extended to every form of travel, including your own automobile. Since the cops can ask for your ID without a justifiable reason, you can easily be stopped from going anywhere at more than the speed of a bike (until you need a license for those) or walking (Papers, please!). Would it really be surprising if it happened within 50-100 years (and that's a generous estimate)?
Because generally individual states don't have the resources to set up anything close to the level of surveilance programs that the feds can (and are getting more aggressive about) managing. True, states can be just as bad at enacting laws as Congress, but usually don't have the teeth, and even if the state tries to bring you to court, you've got more layers of appeals.
Although I suppose it also doesn't hurt that in most states it's only a few hours drive to the capital of the state, so a angry mob can assemble faster...
That and because you can't cuddle up to a computer next to the fire. Books don't take power, or have anything that can be broken besides the paper itself being ripped/smudged, and computer screens are hard on the eyes after awhile, especially with all the whitespace that would be used for books.
Which raises a good point. Why are we supporting the games that can make our kids strong? Shouldn't we be supporting computer games to the point where our kids can't even lift handguns to begin with? Give some resistance to the trigger and there won't be another school shooting, ever!
Jebus forbid that we would follow that tired old phrase "let thou without sin cast the first stone". WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN? I don't know about you, but I didn't make a choice at some age to say "boobies make me horny", and I severely doubt that there's some kid going "you know, everyone makes fun of me already, and if I say that I like guys they'll make fun of me more... but you know, I want to choose that!". People are who they are, plain and simple. No, we don't have to accept all sexual orientations (I'm looking at you, NAMBLA), but there shouldn't be some need to make two men who like eachother or two women who like eachother feel bad. If you have a problem with it, take it up with yourself.
Manditory vaccinations maintain enough immunity within the general population to prevent diseases from becoming widespread epidemics. If you want to see what happens when people don't get their immunizations, look at the mumps episode in the Midwest, the biggest in 20 years. I, for one, would rather be immunized against diseases that can cause nasty complications. No, I'm not saying that everyone should immunize themselves from the flu every year (I'm too lazy, and don't get sick often enough to bother), but have some common sense.
Ever hear of Dmitry Sklyarov? He was arrested for circumventing copyright measures, even though he did so in Russia, where the DMCA isn't applicable. How he can even be arrested for actions done outside the jurisdiction of the US is beyond me, let alone not having the case thrown out immidiately by a judge.
With the increase in the "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality, where in the world is it truly "safe"? The US has extradition treaties with nearly every country, so good luck finding a safe haven anywhere but international waters (though I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up in Gitmo if they wanted you).
It may be a big world, but that's what big brother is for, right?
That might be good, except that most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer. If they targetted this bill towards those making a profit off the works through sale of the material, then maybe I could understand (except that large scale pirating operations that could help terrorists would almost certainly be done overseas...).
What's really worrying is the addition of asset forfeiture for the devices used in copyright violation. The forfeiture laws on the books are already overreaching and often are misused. There is little chance of ever getting anything back after it's taken, and the actual "case" is brought against the object, so you are screwed by the system. Even if you are later cleared of the charges, good luck on getting your stuff back, since different agencies can shuffle the objects back and forth to get around even the courts. I only hope the revolution comes soon after the granny who only uses her computer for email gets caught up in one of the shotgun blasts of lawsuits against random people that that RIAA loves so much.
But history doesn't support that there's a problem with society. It's not uncommon throughout all of human history for 13-15 year old girls to get married (with all the nighttime activities that entail). To say that the age of 18 is the age of "sexual maturity" is bullshit. Biologicly, most females are able to get pregnant in the mid teens, yet mental maturity for the average human is reached in the mid 20s. So 18 means... what? It's an arbitry time, with no actual meaning. Why is it considered illegal to photograph a nude 17 year old girl's breasts, yet on her 18th birthday, she can be in hardcore porn? Yes, I understand the point of a limit, but why 18 instead of 17? Why not let a 16 year old masturbate on camera? Why the sudden cuttoff where it's socially unacceptable to find a woman attractive?
Would you mind the government building a large database where they can track the movement of every piece of mail, and then retain the information as long as they see fit?
Trying to prohibit virtual child porn isn't new, and the Supreme Court ruling (if they bother to follow precident) would be the same: There was no actual abuse of children, thus there's no reason to regulate it.
How the conservative shift of the court views the matter now... that's what I fear. Not nessicarily because I'm for lolicon in particular, I just don't think it's the government place to regulate acts that don't harm anyone.
The deal is part of the social contract, you know the same implicit deal that keeps the government afloat. The law is supposed to be made by reprisentatives of and for the people. The theory behind copyrights (and patents, which are in the same clause of the Constitution) is that people who create things should be given a chance for just recompense, and that is written as a monopoly for a limited period of time (14 years, with one renewal, in the Copyright Act of 1790). To extend copyright further and further, each time retroactivly extending it, is creating the exact same effect as perpetual copyright.
With current copyright laws, I will be denied free use of writings made long before I was born, and in all likelyhood my kids won't even be able to use them until they're old and grey, if at all (I forsee another copyright extension in ~2016). With copyright protecting works that aren't even registered, if I write a diary now, and in 200 years, after I'm dead, a historian uncovers it, what would stop my descendants from suing the historian for publishing material of my writings?
Most books make 90% of their money long before the copyright protections are up, so why should we protect them long after they are providing an economic benefit to the author? For that matter, why should the copyrights pass on to children and grandchildren? In what way is that helping the author of the material? Why don't we look at what will create the most good for the society as a whole, and no, it isn't abolishing copyrights, at least not at the moment, perhaps in the future though.
And although a part of me wants to throw up at the idea of a chemical being patented, I realize that the complex organic molecules are invented just as much as a bicycle. However, if the chemical can be found in nature, there shouldn't be a patent. But quite honestly, the current patent system is broken anyway, and could use quite a bit of an overhaul. I can't really trust a system that lets something like the B12 deficiency being measured by elevated homocysteine levels get through the system.
And as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, I have no idea what Disney is worried about. They'll probably have the trademark till the end of time, so what are they concerned about?
How about to promote the progress of science and useful arts?
The public is entitled to the works because that is the deal made. The person/company gets the copyright for a period of time, thus giving them a legal monopoly, and when that time is up, so is the monopoly. To change that agreement retroactively should be no more legal than changing any other contract after it's been signed.
If people want to read, they can read. We always hear about how the Bible is the most plentiful book on the planet, yet how many can say that they've read it all the way through? Saying that Christians are the Devil's prime target is a cop out. If you have enough free will to be tricked by the Devil, you have enough free will to just sit down for an hour a day and read.
I don't believe for a second that it's about p2p piracy, but if we assume it's true for a few moments, who's really getting hurt? It's not the artist, because they're alreadying getting screwed over by the record companies, so what measly amount they lose from lower CD sales is a drop in the bucket. So after the 20% the artist gets (Out of which, they have to pay back a large share in advertising costs, production costs, salaries of their manager and producer, etc), that's 80% that the record company gets. So any claims of it hurting the artist is bullcrap, if anything it's hurting the record company first and foremost. If you feel bad about the peanuts that the artist is losing, mail them a few bucks, then work to lobby Congress to give the copyrights to the songs back to the artists, not the record company.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes feasable to store large amounts of information on your hard drive for quick and easy access. What if you could have the entire library of congress on your hard drive, or for that matter, what about having a fairly complete snapshot of the entire internet? I, for one, can't wait for hard drive space will eventually reach the point of being able to hold the sum total of human knowlege on a PDA. It's wishful thinking, admittedly, but the trend seems to point that way.
But science and faith are two completely opposite principles. Science starts off by saying "We know nothing. what can we prove with experiments and evidence?", but faith says "I believe this to be true, and if I keep believing it will always be true." The two are diametricly opposed, by their very definition. If you want to compartmentalize and say "I'll use science for X, and religion for Y", I can't stop you, but whatever you do, don't consider a belief in a divine being as being in the same universe of thought as "science", at least not until you have some extraordinary evidence.
Religiously lazy to me would seem to imply not reading the source material (which most people don't do) and analyzing it (which most who read their book of choice don't do), let alone follow all of it (and I'm not even talking about OT type stoning of people). How many Christians would be willing to give away everything they have to the poor as Jesus said to do? Just look at how many Christians cast the first stone while protesting outside of an abortion clinic. Heck, even Jesus' anti-authoritarianism has been twisted, leaving us with clear church heirarchies (almost invariably, at the very least on a local level, with priests and ministers). For that matter, the very idea of prayer inside churches is against what Jesus said. Look at Matthew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
Why does it take an atheist to point out what the religious should be doing?
Or use Jehova or Yahweh to describe the Judeo-Christian god. It leads to less confusion and don't put that particular god on a special pedistal above Zeus, Baal, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Slashdot Mirror
Try getting on a plane/train/bus/any form of long distance travel without one. Now imagine that the no fly list database is extended to every form of travel, including your own automobile. Since the cops can ask for your ID without a justifiable reason, you can easily be stopped from going anywhere at more than the speed of a bike (until you need a license for those) or walking (Papers, please!). Would it really be surprising if it happened within 50-100 years (and that's a generous estimate)?
Because generally individual states don't have the resources to set up anything close to the level of surveilance programs that the feds can (and are getting more aggressive about) managing. True, states can be just as bad at enacting laws as Congress, but usually don't have the teeth, and even if the state tries to bring you to court, you've got more layers of appeals.
Although I suppose it also doesn't hurt that in most states it's only a few hours drive to the capital of the state, so a angry mob can assemble faster...
That and because you can't cuddle up to a computer next to the fire. Books don't take power, or have anything that can be broken besides the paper itself being ripped/smudged, and computer screens are hard on the eyes after awhile, especially with all the whitespace that would be used for books.
Which raises a good point. Why are we supporting the games that can make our kids strong? Shouldn't we be supporting computer games to the point where our kids can't even lift handguns to begin with? Give some resistance to the trigger and there won't be another school shooting, ever!
Jebus forbid that we would follow that tired old phrase "let thou without sin cast the first stone". WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN? I don't know about you, but I didn't make a choice at some age to say "boobies make me horny", and I severely doubt that there's some kid going "you know, everyone makes fun of me already, and if I say that I like guys they'll make fun of me more... but you know, I want to choose that!". People are who they are, plain and simple. No, we don't have to accept all sexual orientations (I'm looking at you, NAMBLA), but there shouldn't be some need to make two men who like eachother or two women who like eachother feel bad. If you have a problem with it, take it up with yourself.
Or how about engineering in general.
Manditory vaccinations maintain enough immunity within the general population to prevent diseases from becoming widespread epidemics. If you want to see what happens when people don't get their immunizations, look at the mumps episode in the Midwest, the biggest in 20 years. I, for one, would rather be immunized against diseases that can cause nasty complications. No, I'm not saying that everyone should immunize themselves from the flu every year (I'm too lazy, and don't get sick often enough to bother), but have some common sense.
Ever hear of Dmitry Sklyarov? He was arrested for circumventing copyright measures, even though he did so in Russia, where the DMCA isn't applicable. How he can even be arrested for actions done outside the jurisdiction of the US is beyond me, let alone not having the case thrown out immidiately by a judge.
With the increase in the "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality, where in the world is it truly "safe"? The US has extradition treaties with nearly every country, so good luck finding a safe haven anywhere but international waters (though I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up in Gitmo if they wanted you).
It may be a big world, but that's what big brother is for, right?
That might be good, except that most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer. If they targetted this bill towards those making a profit off the works through sale of the material, then maybe I could understand (except that large scale pirating operations that could help terrorists would almost certainly be done overseas...).
Except that laws passed through Washington have to go through Bush to get passed, so if this passes, yes, we can blame Bush and we can blame Congress.
What's really worrying is the addition of asset forfeiture for the devices used in copyright violation. The forfeiture laws on the books are already overreaching and often are misused. There is little chance of ever getting anything back after it's taken, and the actual "case" is brought against the object, so you are screwed by the system. Even if you are later cleared of the charges, good luck on getting your stuff back, since different agencies can shuffle the objects back and forth to get around even the courts. I only hope the revolution comes soon after the granny who only uses her computer for email gets caught up in one of the shotgun blasts of lawsuits against random people that that RIAA loves so much.
But history doesn't support that there's a problem with society. It's not uncommon throughout all of human history for 13-15 year old girls to get married (with all the nighttime activities that entail). To say that the age of 18 is the age of "sexual maturity" is bullshit. Biologicly, most females are able to get pregnant in the mid teens, yet mental maturity for the average human is reached in the mid 20s. So 18 means... what? It's an arbitry time, with no actual meaning. Why is it considered illegal to photograph a nude 17 year old girl's breasts, yet on her 18th birthday, she can be in hardcore porn? Yes, I understand the point of a limit, but why 18 instead of 17? Why not let a 16 year old masturbate on camera? Why the sudden cuttoff where it's socially unacceptable to find a woman attractive?
Would you mind the government building a large database where they can track the movement of every piece of mail, and then retain the information as long as they see fit?
Trying to prohibit virtual child porn isn't new, and the Supreme Court ruling (if they bother to follow precident) would be the same: There was no actual abuse of children, thus there's no reason to regulate it.
How the conservative shift of the court views the matter now... that's what I fear. Not nessicarily because I'm for lolicon in particular, I just don't think it's the government place to regulate acts that don't harm anyone.
But what about the corporate income tax, which indirectly comes from consumers?
The deal is part of the social contract, you know the same implicit deal that keeps the government afloat. The law is supposed to be made by reprisentatives of and for the people. The theory behind copyrights (and patents, which are in the same clause of the Constitution) is that people who create things should be given a chance for just recompense, and that is written as a monopoly for a limited period of time (14 years, with one renewal, in the Copyright Act of 1790). To extend copyright further and further, each time retroactivly extending it, is creating the exact same effect as perpetual copyright.
With current copyright laws, I will be denied free use of writings made long before I was born, and in all likelyhood my kids won't even be able to use them until they're old and grey, if at all (I forsee another copyright extension in ~2016). With copyright protecting works that aren't even registered, if I write a diary now, and in 200 years, after I'm dead, a historian uncovers it, what would stop my descendants from suing the historian for publishing material of my writings?
Most books make 90% of their money long before the copyright protections are up, so why should we protect them long after they are providing an economic benefit to the author? For that matter, why should the copyrights pass on to children and grandchildren? In what way is that helping the author of the material? Why don't we look at what will create the most good for the society as a whole, and no, it isn't abolishing copyrights, at least not at the moment, perhaps in the future though.
And although a part of me wants to throw up at the idea of a chemical being patented, I realize that the complex organic molecules are invented just as much as a bicycle. However, if the chemical can be found in nature, there shouldn't be a patent. But quite honestly, the current patent system is broken anyway, and could use quite a bit of an overhaul. I can't really trust a system that lets something like the B12 deficiency being measured by elevated homocysteine levels get through the system.
And as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, I have no idea what Disney is worried about. They'll probably have the trademark till the end of time, so what are they concerned about?
How about to promote the progress of science and useful arts?
The public is entitled to the works because that is the deal made. The person/company gets the copyright for a period of time, thus giving them a legal monopoly, and when that time is up, so is the monopoly. To change that agreement retroactively should be no more legal than changing any other contract after it's been signed.
*head explodes*
If people want to read, they can read. We always hear about how the Bible is the most plentiful book on the planet, yet how many can say that they've read it all the way through? Saying that Christians are the Devil's prime target is a cop out. If you have enough free will to be tricked by the Devil, you have enough free will to just sit down for an hour a day and read.
All I know is that if I saw that cheerleader squad, I'd pay quite a bit of attention to their pom-poms.
And then the rest of the world splits off a new internet, and it hurts everyone (especially anyone who wants to go to those Amsterdam porn sites).
I don't believe for a second that it's about p2p piracy, but if we assume it's true for a few moments, who's really getting hurt? It's not the artist, because they're alreadying getting screwed over by the record companies, so what measly amount they lose from lower CD sales is a drop in the bucket. So after the 20% the artist gets (Out of which, they have to pay back a large share in advertising costs, production costs, salaries of their manager and producer, etc), that's 80% that the record company gets. So any claims of it hurting the artist is bullcrap, if anything it's hurting the record company first and foremost. If you feel bad about the peanuts that the artist is losing, mail them a few bucks, then work to lobby Congress to give the copyrights to the songs back to the artists, not the record company.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes feasable to store large amounts of information on your hard drive for quick and easy access. What if you could have the entire library of congress on your hard drive, or for that matter, what about having a fairly complete snapshot of the entire internet? I, for one, can't wait for hard drive space will eventually reach the point of being able to hold the sum total of human knowlege on a PDA. It's wishful thinking, admittedly, but the trend seems to point that way.
But science and faith are two completely opposite principles. Science starts off by saying "We know nothing. what can we prove with experiments and evidence?", but faith says "I believe this to be true, and if I keep believing it will always be true." The two are diametricly opposed, by their very definition. If you want to compartmentalize and say "I'll use science for X, and religion for Y", I can't stop you, but whatever you do, don't consider a belief in a divine being as being in the same universe of thought as "science", at least not until you have some extraordinary evidence.
Religiously lazy to me would seem to imply not reading the source material (which most people don't do) and analyzing it (which most who read their book of choice don't do), let alone follow all of it (and I'm not even talking about OT type stoning of people). How many Christians would be willing to give away everything they have to the poor as Jesus said to do? Just look at how many Christians cast the first stone while protesting outside of an abortion clinic. Heck, even Jesus' anti-authoritarianism has been twisted, leaving us with clear church heirarchies (almost invariably, at the very least on a local level, with priests and ministers). For that matter, the very idea of prayer inside churches is against what Jesus said. Look at Matthew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Why does it take an atheist to point out what the religious should be doing?
Or use Jehova or Yahweh to describe the Judeo-Christian god. It leads to less confusion and don't put that particular god on a special pedistal above Zeus, Baal, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.