Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

The Privatization of Copyright Lawmaking 213

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "The biggest misperception about [the Stop Online Piracy Act] is that it is somehow unprecedented or extraordinary. It is not. SOPA represents just the latest example of copyright law defined and controlled not by the government but by private entities. Copyright owners will deploy SOPA in the same way they have behaved in the past: to extend out their rights. They will disrupt sites that do not infringe a copyright, interfere with fair uses of copyrighted works, and take other steps that evade the limits that the Copyright Act sets on a copyright owner's actual rights."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Privatization of Copyright Lawmaking

Comments Filter:
  • by Reality Master 301 ( 1462839 ) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @06:29AM (#38040142)
    In swedish, SOPA means garbage.
  • by Caesar Tjalbo ( 1010523 ) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @07:28AM (#38040340)
    The politico-media complex at its finest. Sometimes also called the political-legal-media complex. I propose to call it: the Berlusconi complex.
  • by Tastecicles ( 1153671 ) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @07:54AM (#38040424)

    ...Applies to every satellite State of Britain, former and current. The specific section implies the obligation upon Law-abiding citizenry to Lawfully disobey bad Law. This is the only way in which it will get changed. If we sit there and take it up the arse every time our basic civil rights are infringed those who make black-letter Law will carry on until we are deprived of the freedom to make our own choices. That said, it is up to you: will you argue for your rights in a public forum, even if that forum consists of thirteen men and women, even if it means the total loss of liberty for an unspecified period? Will you take that argument to a wider audience, for example by way of media, considering that this action is not without personal risk? Will you risk your life for your freedom as your grandparents did and your great grandparents did (I ask as a Gen. X-er)? Or will you bend over and take it up the arse like a good little sheep?

    Lawful Rebellion doesn't mean asking permission to protest. If you have a grievance, make a peaceful and nonviolent show of obstructing a public space and broadcasting your grievance. Let the Corporate Enforcement Officers (AKA Police) make the first violent or unlawful move, and make sure you have the video camera running when they do. And when they do, the Court of Public Opinion shall judge them.

  • by inasity_rules ( 1110095 ) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @08:26AM (#38040518) Journal

    I have lived in a "Civil war torn African country." I have never lived in America, I must admit, but I have a hard time believing the level of corruption is anywhere near comparable to say, Zimbabwe. In fact I seriously doubt you understand what "total corruption" really means, until you actually experience it. I know exactly what it means. And after a long chat with my brother in America, you don't have it. Not even close.

    And btw, this is not an argument, this is abuse. You want room 12b. :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13, 2011 @08:37AM (#38040552)

    It's probably not a good idea to put your hope in a medium that can be shutdown by the government at any time they choose.

  • by blahplusplus ( 757119 ) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @09:27AM (#38040692)

    "What we see now are interrelated systems of global mercantilism "

    No what we're seeing is the true face of the free market, the free market has ALWAYS had the nanny state to protect it, only morons use linguistic obscurantism like yourself to protect your favored ideal from any kind of rational criticism.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @10:25AM (#38040844) Journal

    This isn't due to any flaw in democracy; it has nothing at all to do with democracy.

    Au contraire, it has everything to do with the most fundamental premised of Democracy. The greatest enemy of Democracy is, apathy. Not communisim. Not terrorism of Wahhabis and Quereshis[*]. Not even the reasoned argument, "there is nothing to stop people from voting themselves benefits they call ill afford and refuse to pay for it. The debt will accumulate and destroy the system from within". No sir. Once people lose interest in the functioning of the government, stop paying attention, stop trying to separate the misinformation from the correct information, once people are deluded enough to believe in policy statements that fit into a bumper sticker or a 30 second sound bit, that would be the time Democracy stops working for the people.

    It is far easier to steal a penny from million people than to steal $10000 from one person. Every dollar wasted by the government is an ill-gotten undeserved revenue for someone. That someone will fight tooth and nail to continue the waste. Those will engage in all sorts of misinformation campaigns. If people are not vigilant they will lose. If people don't see that they lose something when fair use is constrained, when ??AA engage in legal extortion etc, the people will lose it.

    ----- [*] We should avoid using overly broad terms like Islamic Terrorism, or Jihadism. Such terms unify Muslims against external threats, and using the same terms plays into the hands of the terrorists. Use the minimal group label to tie terrorism to a smaller group. There is no point in antagonizing a larger group than necessary.

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...