The headline is highly inflammatory, though the content is mostly just the same quotes I saw elsewhere.
The idea that putting a censorship framework in place even if it's "only for IP infringement" is a slippery slope. Once the framework is in place, how long do you think it will be before there are all kinds of 'me too' additions that get attached as riders to other bills floating through Congress? All so that some Congress-critter can get re-elected and/or attempt to impose his (or her) morals on others.
Censorship is even more inflammatory IMO, it's not mentioned but the headline suggests it. It's a pretty cheap rhetoric if this is what he actually said, it's like saying that the U.S is like China in regards to Copyright if it's not blocked.
* The US sets an example for the world. If the US decides that it's a-ok to practice censorship, then we're implicitly giving the rest of the world permission.
* Censorship is a slippery slope, and at the bottom of that slope is China.
Are you referring to the article linked here? It doesn't mention censorship once. Which is good since this has nothing to do with censorship, that is my point and why it's a cheap rhetoric trick. And then comparing it to China, well all I can say is, does Godwin's law apply to public statements?
Yep, just like the Patriot Act wasn't to be used for anything but terrorism suspects, but it's being used for everything now. In 2008, 3 of 763 were terrorism related. More:
I think it's important to ask if laws and the justice system are meant to punish those who have broken moral codes or if they are meant to maintain and protect society.
Where you fall on that gradient is going to effect how you view things like rehabilitation programs, issues of human sexual abberations, fidelity, drug abuse, and so forth.
Both the LA Times story here and the Ars Technica story that anchors the conversation you linked to both repeatedly refer to reporting by the Guardian. I wish that their report was the one driving discussions!
This freedom exists in pretty much all 3rd world countries. I mean, you can buy all kinds of movies and software from computer shops. There are even companies (with a public address) that compiles these CDs/DVDs of pirated software.
Yes, but the scale of IP infringement plus labour force in China is unparalleled. From idea to fruition, you could cheaply build the next thing. Why else would Apple risk the 'good' reputation from dealing with such cheap labour?
Yeah they are. I just checked the Pirate Bay, ISO Hunt and a number of smaller torrent sites. Each of them is blocked when my vpn is off. I'm in Beijing and getting my internet service through one of the major providers.
27 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 66.0 ms ] threadThe idea that putting a censorship framework in place even if it's "only for IP infringement" is a slippery slope. Once the framework is in place, how long do you think it will be before there are all kinds of 'me too' additions that get attached as riders to other bills floating through Congress? All so that some Congress-critter can get re-elected and/or attempt to impose his (or her) morals on others.
* The US sets an example for the world. If the US decides that it's a-ok to practice censorship, then we're implicitly giving the rest of the world permission.
* Censorship is a slippery slope, and at the bottom of that slope is China.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/patriot-act-provision-used-fo...
It will be the same with this.
You may disagree with the rightness of that particular law, but both conform to the abstract type of 'morality'.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2562371
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/google-eric...
The question is, is the US Government revoking free speech? Is it becoming a tool of the AA orgs to implement the AA policies?
And, further, will these laws be redirected to purposes more malign then their creators supposed...