I loved Nick Ross's "The Case for Piracy", about commercial media treating viewers with contempt, mutilating films, ruining series, monopolizing sports events and wrapping them in exorbitant packages, and so on. But this open letter doesn't sway me.
First Murdoch broadcast The Simpsons. Whether I paid for that is arguable; he leased the spectrum from the government (or the public) and paid for it, and then broadcast a good show, The Simpsons. He kept up his end of the bargain. If I didn't watch it at the time, that's no fault of his. ("Well done...")
Then I chose to get DirecTV for the same content but with some better features. I paid, and Murdoch kept up his end. I could have recorded The Simpsons on DVR, but I didn't; no fault of his.
Then I chose to get Hulu Plus, which gets some shows from Murdoch and others. ("It’s been well worth the $7 per month...")
Then Murdoch didn't give a certain episode to Hulu Plus to offer at a certain time. Nobody ever promised me that he would. So I went to the Simpsons web site and watched the episode free.
Yes, an ambassador is plenipotent; she can speak with the full authority of her government and sign a treaty that binds her country.
But that cuts both ways: what she says in her official capacity is on her country's behalf, so she should express her government's position, not her own. When her conscience won't allow her to play that part any longer, she should put her objections in a letter of resignation.
1) Would it be enough to bar Europeans, if information about Europeans is what must be redactable? That is, can the EU law (and US-EU agreement) force an American site to delete an American's post about a European doing something embarrassing?
2) If posts by Europeans are what must be redactable, would it be sufficient to not verify user identities? That is, if whether a comment must be deleted depends on whether it was posted by a European, and there is no way to prove that the user UK PM David Cameron is actually UK PM David Cameron (or was at the time of posting) then can the comment stay up?
If the rapists were in the majority, our society would have bigger problems than legislative reform.
The rest of your post looks like straw man arguments, ending with "this new approach will never work".
Is it my imagination, or are a lot of anonymous posts like this cropping up on this site since we humbled the old-school political system with our new approach a couple of weeks ago?
You're advocating the old "bandwagon" style of politics, when broadcasting was everything and loud beat soft. A couple of weeks ago we demonstrated a new kind of politics, and knocked the bandwaggoners back on their heels. In this new style, based on communication, true beats false, and reputation is vitally important: ruin your reputation by lying and you might as well leave the table and go climb onto some bandwagon.
They are better at disinformation. We are better at fact and reason. If we abandon our home ground to fight on theirs, we'll be like an army marching into the sea.
I always had a vague suspicion that something like this was possible. When I was involved in student activism, I felt that I was just adding one to the power base controlled by the student activist leaders --more of the self-promoting windbags I was trying to oppose-- and that my own thoughts and opinions counted for exactly nothing once I was standing under a banner written by somebody else. Political parties were just the same. I grew slowly resigned to the idea that reason didn't count for much against well-funded and well-advertised campaigns, but I couldn't stop imagining a better way, a system in which one reasoned argument --from anyone!-- could somehow defeat a million repetitions of an idiotic slogan. I didn't know how to bring anything like that about, but I knew it wasn't mathematically impossible.
Since I've been involved in the SOPA/PIPA fight, I feel for the first time in my life that I have political power.
Um... walk me through this, would you? Yes, Veoh (or perhaps I should say Shapiro) has the legal right to reject any settlement offer that involves... well, anything. Either party in any suit can reject any settlement offer. As for the "legal power" that you say Veoh has, what exactly is it and how is it threatening?
Committing an act of perjury, perhaps. But they'll have a hard time convicting you if they can't prove you're lying, and to do that they must decrypt the file, which brings us right back to where we started.
I'm actually opposed to this idea, for two reasons:
1. Returning the money is tantamount to saying "your legislation enacted or your money back!" To keep the money and not vote for these bills is a much more effective way to discourage future bribery.
2. Returning the money is almost an admission that it was accepted as a bribe, with the understanding that it would buy a vote that would otherwise go the other way. I would stand my ground and say "I vote as I think best, that's what you get when you elect me, that's what you pay for when you support my campaigns; if they thought they were buying my vote they were wrong, and if you think so you're wrong too, either way I will not give back the money". (Of course, that attitude is exactly why I will never be elected to any kind of high office.)
Better still: when you put in your (incorrect) key, the software tries to retrieve a non-existent file from the locker, and complains about the failure.
You are volunteering to be a martyr, to educate the authorities in basic cryptography theory at your own expense. A slightly less costly approach would be to carry a 500MB file of random bits called "OneTimePad.txt", along with some simple scripts to use it, and maybe a couple of innocuous encrypted letters and the one-pages you carelessly forgot to delete.
And if that doesn't get you locked up, you can then do the same thing but with a random-looking 500MB file containing all of your juicy secrets.
Even if I thought you were sincere, and even if I thought you were right, you'd still be missing the point. The anti-SOPA/PIPA movement was a demonstration of a new kind of political power. Even if it were mainly made up of unintelligent people exhibiting mob psychology, the power would still be real. If a handful of intelligent demagogues gave the mob direction, they can do so again.
If you want to wash your hands of this new kind of activism, go right ahead. We'll try to protect your rights along with our own.
"...hopefully those on Capitol Hill have learned a big lesson about trying to mess with the internet... and what happens when you cut backroom deals to help one industry at the expense of the public."
What does happen? You get delayed by a few months?
They haven't learned their lesson yet, not while Reid, Smith and the rest of the pro-SOPA/PIPA gang are still in office. If we don't want these Acts to come back in a few months, we must follow through. Reid and Smith must never win another election, and the corporate backers should suffer for years. Ideally, all politicians who voiced strong support for these Acts should lose their next elections, and I'd like to cull the late-changers and fence-sitters too. And if I could have three wishes, there'd be a boycott waiting for whoever hires Reid or Smith when they leave Congress.
On the post: Rather Than Bitching About The Failure Of SOPA/PIPA, Rupert Murdoch Should Take A Closer Look At His Own Policies
complain, complain, complain
First Murdoch broadcast The Simpsons. Whether I paid for that is arguable; he leased the spectrum from the government (or the public) and paid for it, and then broadcast a good show, The Simpsons. He kept up his end of the bargain. If I didn't watch it at the time, that's no fault of his. ("Well done...")
Then I chose to get DirecTV for the same content but with some better features. I paid, and Murdoch kept up his end. I could have recorded The Simpsons on DVR, but I didn't; no fault of his.
Then I chose to get Hulu Plus, which gets some shows from Murdoch and others. ("It’s been well worth the $7 per month...")
Then Murdoch didn't give a certain episode to Hulu Plus to offer at a certain time. Nobody ever promised me that he would. So I went to the Simpsons web site and watched the episode free.
...I dunno, I'm just not feeling the rage.
On the post: Slovenian Ambassador Apologizes For Signing ACTA [Updated]
Re:
But that cuts both ways: what she says in her official capacity is on her country's behalf, so she should express her government's position, not her own. When her conscience won't allow her to play that part any longer, she should put her objections in a letter of resignation.
On the post: Why Can't Europe Just Forget The Ridiculous Idea Of A 'Right To Be Forgotten'
logic makes an unwelcome appearance
1) Would it be enough to bar Europeans, if information about Europeans is what must be redactable? That is, can the EU law (and US-EU agreement) force an American site to delete an American's post about a European doing something embarrassing?
2) If posts by Europeans are what must be redactable, would it be sufficient to not verify user identities? That is, if whether a comment must be deleted depends on whether it was posted by a European, and there is no way to prove that the user UK PM David Cameron is actually UK PM David Cameron (or was at the time of posting) then can the comment stay up?
On the post: Can Reddit Write Legislation, Too? Proposes The 'Free Internet Act'
Re: Re:
The rest of your post looks like straw man arguments, ending with "this new approach will never work".
Is it my imagination, or are a lot of anonymous posts like this cropping up on this site since we humbled the old-school political system with our new approach a couple of weeks ago?
On the post: Please Keep The ACTA Debate Fact-Based
Re: Re: So?
On the post: Please Keep The ACTA Debate Fact-Based
Re: So?
On the post: Can Reddit Write Legislation, Too? Proposes The 'Free Internet Act'
O brave new world!
Since I've been involved in the SOPA/PIPA fight, I feel for the first time in my life that I have political power.
On the post: Can Reddit Write Legislation, Too? Proposes The 'Free Internet Act'
Re: I am optimistic
On the post: Entertainment Industy Back To Demanding That Search Engines Censor The Web... Through 'Voluntary' Measures
Re: Re: Re:
It's not a legal concept, it's an engineering concept. And lawyers didn't build YouTube, engineers did. Stick to your last.
"The arguments of lawyers and engineers pass through one another like angry ghosts." -- Bohm, Gladman, Brown
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re:
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re:
Now if UMG wins, that precedent will actually change things.
On the post: Entertainment Industy Back To Demanding That Search Engines Censor The Web... Through 'Voluntary' Measures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re: Re: Re:
Committing an act of perjury, perhaps. But they'll have a hard time convicting you if they can't prove you're lying, and to do that they must decrypt the file, which brings us right back to where we started.
On the post: Elected Officials Asked To Return Hollywood Money Following Dodd's Threats
I owe you nothing
1. Returning the money is tantamount to saying "your legislation enacted or your money back!" To keep the money and not vote for these bills is a much more effective way to discourage future bribery.
2. Returning the money is almost an admission that it was accepted as a bribe, with the understanding that it would buy a vote that would otherwise go the other way. I would stand my ground and say "I vote as I think best, that's what you get when you elect me, that's what you pay for when you support my campaigns; if they thought they were buying my vote they were wrong, and if you think so you're wrong too, either way I will not give back the money". (Of course, that attitude is exactly why I will never be elected to any kind of high office.)
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Says Americans Can Be Forced To Decrypt Laptops
Re:
And if that doesn't get you locked up, you can then do the same thing but with a random-looking 500MB file containing all of your juicy secrets.
On the post: The Internet Begins Discussing What To Do With Its New Found Powers
Re:
If you want to wash your hands of this new kind of activism, go right ahead. We'll try to protect your rights along with our own.
On the post: Ownership Mentality: Art Gallery Prohibits Sketching
Re: Re:
On the post: The Internet Wins: PIPA & SOPA Delayed
follow through, or it's all for nothing
What does happen? You get delayed by a few months?
They haven't learned their lesson yet, not while Reid, Smith and the rest of the pro-SOPA/PIPA gang are still in office. If we don't want these Acts to come back in a few months, we must follow through. Reid and Smith must never win another election, and the corporate backers should suffer for years. Ideally, all politicians who voiced strong support for these Acts should lose their next elections, and I'd like to cull the late-changers and fence-sitters too. And if I could have three wishes, there'd be a boycott waiting for whoever hires Reid or Smith when they leave Congress.
Next >>