Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Matt P (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 10:46pm

  
  

  Oh the government was definitely warned of this. I listed it as a possibility in the submission I sent to the "discussion" committee last year, as did many others.
  
  They knew. The issue is, as the Wikileaks cables show, our government has no intention of letting things like public outcry or technical hurdles get in the way of pleasing the US lobbyists.
  
  The other half couldn't find the "Start" button in Windows XP.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2011 @ 11:12pm

  
  

  Re:

  These consequences are intentional. Governments have no intent of serving the public interest, and that is especially true of the U.S. government (but of most governments in general).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), May 19th, 2011 @ 11:30pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  And yet, Big Media is the only one whose "Trade union" is influencing things way outside their intended sphere.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Derek Kerton (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 9:49am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  Really?
  
  Never heard of the Military Industrial Complex?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  mike allen (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 12:59am

  
  

  Same thing will happen the world over most governments do not want the public to actually have access to information on the scale of the internet. They fear they may be found out to be the fools they are. er sorry to tell you politicians we already know.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Violet Theviolet, May 21st, 2011 @ 10:20pm

  
  

  Response to: mike allen on May 20th, 2011 @ 12:59am

  In cases such as this.....amateur radio will foil them as a method of sending and receiving "questionable" material. It's possible for them to jam one or more frequencies......but not all of them.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Darryl, May 20th, 2011 @ 1:57am

  
  

  How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  apparently the US International Trade Commission held hearings where it heard from a bunch of folks explaining how inaccurate industry reports on "losses from piracy" are....
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/0228329860.shtml
  
  "This is a ridiculous and unfortunate result, but it's what happens when you have politicians making decisions based on economic and technological cluelessness, driven by specific lobbying interests."
  
  Unless you happen to agree with those specific lobbying interests, as you clearly indicated that you were in regard to the US ITC !
  
  This is the two faces of Mike !
  
  You play the same game as they do Mike, but you are not nearly as good at it.
  
  So you are a hero if you lobby the US ITC about 'losses from piracy' (a bunch of folks). And that for you is something you keep as a reference to explain your arguments and refer back too.
  
  When you read what the facts are, most (thinking) people can work it out that you are bi-polar, something (anything) is good if it supports your mantra, but that exact same thing (anything) can be bad if it disagrees with your, what I consider to be a very narrow, self centered and biased world view.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 3:07am

  
  

  Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  And you're an Aussie. How is that any different?[/sarc]

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  martyburns (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 3:08am

  
  

  Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  I'm sorry, can you please point out the contradiction more clearly, I re-read both articles and still don't see one.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 6:02am

  
  

  Re: Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  I also cant find any contradictions there...
  
  Darryl seems to be insane.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Greg G (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 6:34am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  Darryl is insane. I've read his posts before and he does the very thing he accuses Mike of, which is "...something (anything) is good if it supports your mantra, but that exact same thing (anything) can be bad if it disagrees with your, what I consider to be a very narrow, self centered and biased world view."
  
  Seems like Darryl lives in that narrow, self centered and biased world himself.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Squirrel Brains (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 5:30am

  
  

  Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  Your point is inane. People are able to make credibility judgments. We should be skeptical of self-serving industry data. When an industry goes to Congress and presents numbers in order to benefit themselves, the default judgment should be that they are lying unless they are back their claims up rigorously with good data and proper methods (which Big Media never does).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Derek Kerton (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 9:56am

  
  

  Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  Darryl,
  
  Please send me a link to a single post, in 13 years, where Mike didn't support:
  
  - More open, more free, more democratic, more universal access to information, connectivity, and the body of human knowledge.
  - equal access to government, and equal influence for citizens rich and poor.
  
  Also, for bonus points, please explain to me how the above is a narrow, self-centered world view. If you succeed, then you are not a crazy idiot.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 11:47am

  
  

  Re: How bout some consistency Mike ?? Please.

  Can you please rephrase your point in an understandable fashion?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  darryl, May 20th, 2011 @ 2:07am

  
  

  "held hearings" = "Lobbying"

  But for you Mike, if you agree with them, they hold hearings and are 'industry experts' and if you dont agree with them they are clueless lobbyists with specific lobbying interests.
  
  Nothing like putting lipstick on a pig, or a touch of spin doctoring, to fool the blind masses, and get page clicks.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2011 @ 2:59am

  
  

  Re: "held hearings" = "Lobbying"

  I agree, the public's poor shouldn't be able to access the internet in a library.
  
  Because jobs! The economy. America! And freedom.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chargone (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 4:01am

  
  

  Re: Re: "held hearings" = "Lobbying"

  yes... America...
  
  good grief. can't they at least keep their stupid on their own side of the pacific?
  
  freakin' politicians.
  
  worst part is the same government will probably get back in because, gasp, earthquake.
  
  somehow people are too dim to realise that 'oh, there was a big disaster and they didn't screw up following the preexisting contingency plans and their general massive increase in direct power didn't imeidately cause my house to burn down' is a good reason not to replace them, despite repeated screw ups of this nature (and outright failure to deliver on promisies, lies, general sneakery, and acting against the public interest)
  
  here abouts we have a left wing who screw up due to mistaking the map for the teritory (ideology vs reality) but at least mostly try to do right by the people usualy (with varying degrees of success) and right wing who screw up due to little more than greed and insist on enacting policies that benifit a Very few rich people here and a whole lot of over seas investors/forigen corporations... and no one else. (policies that don't even benifit the former in the long run :S)
  
  wonderful choice really.
  
  (actually, go a little further around the seating layout and you get to some Really interesting nutjobs... and some compleatly inefectual centerists (not that centerists are inherantly ineffectual, just that our centerist parties suck.)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Greg G (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 6:44am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: "held hearings" = "Lobbying"

  good grief. can't they at least keep their stupid on their own side of the pacific?
  
  Actually, I wish we could ship our stupid out of America to some unwitting country, like say, Canada. It's close and they could all live in Nunavut, and if that's still too far south, keep moving them up to the Queen Elizabeth Islands or Ellesmere Island.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  BigKeithO (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 12:48pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: "held hearings" = "Lobbying"

  We've got enough stupid as is up here already, you keep your stupid where it is!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Squirrel Brains (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 5:33am

  
  

  Re: "held hearings" = "Lobbying"

  Again you miss the point. Sure, the people who debunk industry numbers naturally agree more with Mike. But Mike is able to make a credibility judgment. I am sure that Mike has enough integrity to point out when Big Media has produced a good study with a valid method. Plus we can make credibility judgments for ourselves. If your so hot and bothered, why don't you present your own analysis of the issue?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, May 20th, 2011 @ 4:48am

  
  

  The law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time. This will receive little attention and less corrective action because it does not affect rich people. Funding for public libraries is already under attack, soon they will be no more. This will work out well for those looking to "take back america", for an ignorant population is easier to rule.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chargone (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 2:41pm

  
  

  Re:

  ... which would be far more relevant if the article were actually talking about America.
  
  New Zealand is a compleatly different country on the other side of the pacific.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, May 20th, 2011 @ 4:51pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  "New Zealand is a compleatly different country on the other side of the pacific."
  
  And who do you think attempts to write their laws for them?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  DannyB (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 5:59am

  
  

  It doesn't break the Internet

  Of course, we'll hear from the usual anonymous crowd that draconian laws that break the Internet don't actually break the Internet.
  
  I just don't see it.
  
  I just don't get it.
  
  This is one more example of an outcome, that was easily predictable, that results from these insane laws.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Vic, May 20th, 2011 @ 9:13am

  
  

  Mike,
  
  I would like to clarify something. That sentence:
  
  That is, if three people in a library use the internet connection there for infringing purposes, the entire library may lose its internet access.
  
  Is it really necessary for those three people to infringe using the internet connection or just get ACCUSED of doing so?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Atkray (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 10:43am

  
  

  Re:

  Sadly,
  
  you are correct sir.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chargone (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  well, get accused and the library doesn't go through the legal process of fighting it.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Vic, May 20th, 2011 @ 3:40pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  Right, except for time frame involved. To go through legal processes - takes time, some time, often long time.
  
  Three strikes law strikes right away. Three accusations = click the switch!
  
  So, in real life all that follows "and" in your response asymptotically disappears.
  
  Really sad...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chahk Noir, May 20th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

  
  

  It was only a matter of time.

  First the libraries, then what? Internet cafes? WiFi hot-spots at Starbucks? Pretty soon any and all public Internet access will have to close down.
  
  How's that "encouraging innovation" going for ya, NZ?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chargone (profile), May 20th, 2011 @ 2:45pm

  
  

  Re: It was only a matter of time.

  about as well as you'd expect in a country who's international trade policy usually amounts to 'how can we screw over all our internal industries except dairy, and either raise prices or destroy quality for the consumer?' *sigh*
  
  (well, ok, that may not be Quite true, but it usually looks like it.)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2011 @ 9:06pm

  
  

  Mike supports more democracy, but only when he agrees with the judges decision

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment