US Gov't Thinks Censorship Is Bad, Unless It's Paid For

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Aaron DeOliveira sends over an amusing statement summarizing the US government's views towards "censorship" on various issues:
Person: Hey, there are child porn sites everywhere!

Government: We are working on it.

Person: Hey, there's these pro-anorexia sites telling young girls to starve themselves!

Government: W/e. (editor's note for the old people: this means "whatever")

Person: Hey, registered hate groups like the KKK have websites!

Government: Well we can't stop them.

Person: I downloaded a movie from ThePirateBay.

Government: PIRATED MOVIES HARMING NOBODY? Time to censor the Internet!
It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how copyright conflicts with the First Amendment, but one big difference (of course) is that it's only that last situation that has a group of legacy industry players with strong lobbyist ties to DC pushing for such censorship to protect their outdated business models. And, suddenly, the rest of the chat makes a lot more sense.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 5:33am

    Not only lobbying activity. We have an administration filled with industry attorneys and "former" lobbiests. It is a perfect example of regulatory capture.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:35am

    It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how copyright conflicts with the First Amendment

    It's such a huge conflict that it took almost two centuries before anyone even noticed. LOL! Keep selling your B.S., Mike, I'm sure your dimwitted fans are buying it.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:43am

      Re:

      Copyright today isn't the same as is was 200 years ago.


      Nice try, but you get an F

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:06am

        Re: Re:

        Copyright today isn't the same as is was 200 years ago.

        And neither is the First Amendment. It means way more today than it did when it was written. So what?

        Nice try, but you get an F

        And you haven't added anything to the conversation.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Old that the era of digital information and digital products has only existed recently. Perhaps that might have some bearing on what you said? No, of course not. You just wanted a flimsy excuse to slam Mike, we know.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 3:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, it is. Our interpretation may have changed, but the words of the 1st have not.

          I can't say the same for copyright law.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), May 22nd, 2012 @ 5:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, now we have more freedoms via the first amendment (it applies to more people, for one) but less via copyright. I wonder which is respected more?

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:44am

      Re:

      2 centuries? Oh no, these were concerns raised at the very beginning of copyright law.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 6:57am

        Re: Re:

        Can you point me to any case law or commentary before 1970 recognizing a conflict between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act? I don't think any exists.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          halley (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The beginning of copyright law" is long before 1970 or the Copyright Act or the First Amendment.

          Ben Franklin was a bookseller and author, and yet also opened the nation's first subscription library, hired the first librarian, and talked at length about how these things had to be balanced.

          Balance is the whole point of the Constitution's phraseology.

          I just finished reading Don Quixote, published in two parts in 1605 and 1615. The fictional characters start volume two by becoming aware that someone wrote of their exploits in a fictional volume one (ostensibly the same as the real volume one). And part of the plot of the second volume is that the characters have to contend with a rogue who rushed to market with a volume two. Don Quixote visits the bookmaker, notes the production of the "apocryphal" volume two, and has a peaceful inner dialogue on the topic of the copyrights and the balance between the bookmaker's livelihood and the facts. (This from a character who will work himself to a froth if you suggest the merest hint of un-chivalrous notion.) In the year 1615!

          Older discussions of how copyright conflicts with expression surely exist, but law around copyright started to form more rigorously a hundred years later, so I didn't want to dig too hard.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 9:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So, no, you can't find any case law or commentary before 1970 in the U.S. That should tell you something about this "huge conflict." When Nimmer posited the idea that the two might conflict, it was provocative.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Liz (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 11:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm not sure how a published work from 1615 (re: Don Quixote) doesn't count as "commentary."

              But since you seem to want a clearer opinion of the people who actually initiated copyright in the United States, I give you the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In it you can see that Jefferson was opposed to such monopolies while Madison couldn't foresee the the abuses that would come about.

              Luckily, others have already done the work for us:

              http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=1999&post=1999-02-11$2

              Thom as Jefferson:
              The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.


              Here we see a limit on government granted monopolies which was applied to patents to 14 years. This matches what the law had been at the time.

              If you read the article I've linked, you can see that Jefferson felt that protection of the people from monopolies was so important, that it be included into the Bill of Rights along with "...freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..."

              Now it's easy for someone to dismiss this argument since it talks about patents and not copyrights. It wasn't until 1790 that Congress passed the first copyright law which gave a limited monopoly to creators. Before that it was considered a legal issue for individual States. Copyright protection in the United States was first championed by a group of authors, including Noah Webster and Joel Barlow. (source - Warning: PDF) http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/files/nachbar_constructing_copyright.pdf

              The Copyright Act of 1790 was an altered, rewritten version of England’s 1710 Statute of Anne.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

              Legislation conferring exclusive rights upon the author of books not yet printed or published for a period of 14 years and for a further 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first period. The legislation also provided the same rights for the authors or owners of books already in print for a single 21 year term.

              As with each extension to Copyright Law in the United States, there was discussion for and against it by representatives in congress and those who would benefit from it the most. This includes the 1909 Act which rewrote Copyright law. A response by the then music industry against player pianos of all things. Then there's the Renewal Acts of 1962 and 1974 which continued the posthumous copyright extensions and removed the registration requirements. Congress commissioned multiple studies on a general revision of copyright law, culminating in a published report in 1961. A draft of the bill was introduced in both the House and Senate in 1964, but the original version of the Act was revised multiple times between 1964 and 1976.

              To try to suppose that none of these changes and extensions to copyright before 1974 were without debate is absurd.

               

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 5:45am

      Re:

      Citation please, as to how its B.S.

      Otherwise, you don't add anything to the discussion.

      For the record, the reason it took almost two centuries was because the methods of publication that were used for copyright infringement, were out of the hands of ordinary people.
      Now that we have the internet, and anyone can publish anything, its now that there are huge conflicts between copyright law and the First Amendment.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:52am

        Re: Re:

        Please, don't feed the troll.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:03am

        Re: Re:

        Now that we have the internet, and anyone can publish anything, its now that there are huge conflicts between copyright law and the First Amendment.

        What are the conflicts? How does copyright law conflict with First Amendment values?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          From the 1920's onwards, it was only movie studios that had the capability to produce movies. Thus, any cases of copyright infringement were limited to either movie studios or those who could afford the bulky and expensive equipment necessary to copy movies illegally.
          Now, its the year 2012 and anyone with a computer and internet connection can publish anything they desire. Video cameras are cheap and plentiful, as is editing software. So is storage, a la Youtube.
          Yet, copryight law, in the form of the DMCA, allows anyone to claim that any video is infringing. Youtube, not wanting to be sued, will pull that video down.
          There you have it. A clear case of a conflict between the First Amendment and copyright law.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 9:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sadly, this DB won't respond. The trouble with the typical trolls (nice alliteration) is that they like to lob grenades and then bolt. They have no interest in accountability for their statements if they end up being wrong.

            It's the best way for them to maintain the facade of their sad delusions.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 9:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yet, copryight law, in the form of the DMCA, allows anyone to claim that any video is infringing. Youtube, not wanting to be sued, will pull that video down.
            There you have it. A clear case of a conflict between the First Amendment and copyright law.


            They don't just claim it to be infringing, they attest that it is so "under penalty of perjury." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

            And there is also a counter-notification process, that probably, I think, saves the statute from a prior restraint challenge.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So how many perjury convictions have there been for false DMCA takedowns? Honestly curious here, would feel a lot more comfortable about the situation knowing a few people were languishing in jail for false statements. I don't remember seeing any, but then I've only been watching for a few weeks, maybe some of you who've been here longer know?

              Really though, the perjury conviction should be automatic in the case of a false takedown. I mean, it is a criminal offence, not a civil one, so should not need a complaint. Just as soon as material has been restored, the DMCA notice is forwarded to the prosecutor. It is a signed statement that has already been proven false, slam dunk. It sounds like this should be happening frequently enough to be noticable.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I can tell how important it is for you to put anyone who makes a false DMCA takedown notice. Just like anything that can be abused, the abuser should be punished. But I'm guessing too that you couldn't care less if any infringer actually gets prosecuted. I mean, how many takedown notices are 100% accurate? How many infringers just get their infringement taken down by a notice, and they aren't prosecuted at all. They just get away with it. Not even a slap on the wrist. I'm suspect you're rooting for all those tortfeasors. Am I right?

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'm sorry.

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Lowestofthekeys (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 11:02am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It's strange that in previous posts you seem to support the law, but yet here you are trying to justify the lack of penalty for the bogus DMCA takedowns by claiming the "infringers" never get punished properly.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 4:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    The pirates never get punished properly.

                    You know, the ones with eyepatches, go "Arrrr", and plunder sites, destroying them for personal gain in lawsuits?

                     

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

        •  
          icon
          Lowestofthekeys (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 7:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=lsfp

          The Golan v. Holder case was somewhat of an interesting conflict between copyright and First Amendment.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 9:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            And the Court there said that as long as a copyright law doesn't alter fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy, then that copyright law doesn't conflict with free speech.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Lowestofthekeys (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 9:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              How is there no conflict?

              The URAA attempted to charge one of the plaintiffs for using a song that would have been considered public domain in the U.S. for his own derivative work with a high school band.

              That classical song would have been much more difficult to obtain in the era before the internet,hence why it has caused conflict.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 4:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But copyright law is constantly used to attack fair use. Have you read anything on fair use at all?

               

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

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 8:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          How does copyright law conflict with First Amendment values?


          I can list numerous examples. Did you know that because of copyright law, it is illegal for me to describe certain algorithms to you? The algorithms themselves are not copyrighted, understand. There are even numbers that are illegal for me to recite.

          Besides that, we already have legitimate first-amendment speech being suppressed through overly aggressive copyright takedowns. In at least a couple of these cases, the sites were taken down not because they engaged in copyright infringement, but because they irritated major corporations.

          Even besides that, we see copyright law being used to outright destroy legitimate and useful-for-noninfringing-purposes internet services such as file lockers.

          We see certain forms of art that is historically considered legitimate and allowable (collage, for example) that is legally impossible to do today because of copyright law.

          I can go on and on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 6:04am

      Re:

      It was noticed at the time by one Silence DoGood. So nice history fail.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 6:27am

      Re:

      Mike, I'm sure your dimwitted fans are buying it.


      Don't be silly; we pirate it.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      bratwurzt (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 6:31am

      Re:

      Mike, you have fans? You're using CwF + RtB so there's a model that works! ;)

      My darling anonymous coward, copyright changed a LOT in these 200 years. And so did society; for example:

      It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how slavery conflicts with basic human rights

      It's such a huge conflict that it took almost [more than 2] centuries before anyone even noticed. LOL! Keep selling your B.S., Rosa Parks, I'm sure your dimwitted fans are buying it.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 6:48am

        Re: Re:

        "It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how slavery conflicts with basic human rights"

        It's such a huge conflict that it took almost [more than 2] centuries before anyone even noticed. LOL! Keep selling your B.S., Rosa Parks, I'm sure your dimwitted fans are buying it.

        Not to nitpick but the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          ltlw0lf (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 7:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not to nitpick but the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865.

          And Rosa Parks and the freedom riders were arrested for failing to give up their seats to white passengers in 1955. Thus showing that the government of Alabama did in fact have a massive blindspot to how slavery conflicts with basic human rights and it took nearly a century and two decades to fix that problem. Not sure what pointing out the 13th Amendment being ratified in 1865 was meant to prove, but there were a number of states that ignored the 13th Amendment until well into the 20th century.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not that it matters terribly, but there is a big difference between slavery and segregation that you seem to be ignoring. Human being stopped being property in 1865. Alas, segregation persisted much longer.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              ltlw0lf (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 11:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Human being stopped being property in 1865. Alas, segregation persisted much longer.

              Slavery and involuntary servitude...Slavery may have ended in 1865 (though that is arguable.) But involuntary servitude still exists, even in the US today. Just ask anyone who is familiar with trafficking in persons.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Jonathan, May 21st, 2012 @ 12:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Legal recognition and support of human beings as a *market commodity* ended in 1865, and slavery as an *institution* ended in 1865.

              The belief that one class of person is fit to rule another and own their productive and creative output is still thriving. Anyone with money can still employ slaves, minus some of the sharper edges, through employment law. It is telling that adherents to the effectively one-sided absolute "freedom to contract" are generally of slave state heritage.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 6:25pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Slavery soon turned to Jim Crow which has now lead to a massive incarceration of minorities based on indifference. Human beings persist in being property thanks to making them animals for under minimum wage and taking away all of their rights when they come out of prison.

              Our prisons are overflowing with minor drug crimes. And what's even worse, we have allowed private prisons to profit from that labor.

              So don't tell me that segregation doesn't exist. It was never eliminated. Thanks to Nixon and Reagan in particular and their "war on crime" it soon became a war on minorities that has had a devastating effect on the politics of the US in a severely negative fashion.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 2:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The 13th Amendment also didn't stop the government from drafting people into the military, did it?

             

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

            •  
              icon
              ltlw0lf (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 2:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The 13th Amendment also didn't stop the government from drafting people into the military, did it?

              Or making them work on chain-gangs either.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 4:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Ah, no. I have to step in here.

            The 13th was not literally ignored; the 14th and 15th were. Please get those straight - they're very important.

            However, your point stands anyway, since African slaves were introduced to Virginia in 1619.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              ltlw0lf (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 9:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The 13th was not literally ignored; the 14th and 15th were. Please get those straight - they're very important.

              All three amendments are important, and all three are ignored in places.

              13th Amendment ended slavery, yet there are places and times when the 13th Amendment has been ignored since it was ratified. See Chain Gangs.
              14th Amendment gave all people in the US, regardless to citizenship, equal protection under the law, yet there are places and times when the 14th Amendment has been ignored since it was ratified.
              15th Amendment allowed all male citizens, regardless to race, to vote, but yet Jim Crow laws prevented certain people from voting as late as 1965.

               

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:10am

        Re: Re:

        My darling anonymous coward, copyright changed a LOT in these 200 years.

        I know what you mean. The First Amendment means so much more today than it did 200 years ago. And yet copyright is still just about giving an author a property right for a limited time. It's amazing how much the First Amendment has changed while copyright is basically the same.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you think copyright duration being extended from 15 years in the statute of Anne to being the life of the author plus 70 years is remaining the same, you have some strange definitions of the word "same."

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Marcel de Jong (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 8:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I need to correct you, MrWilson, on one important aspect, that often gets overlooked. It's not 'the life of the author + 70 years', but 'the life of the copyright holder + 70 years'.

            And given that it's possible to sell copyright to someone else, and apparently companies can buy copyrights (because according to US law, companies are people too). We have a defacto eternal copyright:
            - "Eep, I'm dying, better sell my copyrights."
            - "Eep, the deceased had a lot of debts, but also owned a lot of copyrights, better sell those."
            - "Eep, when exactly does a company die?"

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 9:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Err, no. I really would like to know where you heard that. I, on the other hand, can't seem to find anything that agrees with you. I'll only post one link, because I'm lazy, though.

              http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

              Or to quote it: 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              MrWilson, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The AC already mentioned this, but you're definitely wrong.

              "§ 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784

              (a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death."

              http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#302

               

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 11:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's amazing how much the First Amendment has changed while copyright is basically the same.

          Can you explain what you mean that copyright is "basically the same"?

          When it originated, it covered only books, maps and charts (and nothing else). The works had to be registered, and it lasted only 14 years (renewable for another 14).

          Today, copyright applies to everything new that's fixed, it does so automatically, and is life + 70.

          To claim that's "basically the same" is ludicrous.

          The First Amendment, on the other hand, hasn't changed. While it's true that it's taken on greater importance over the last century, the fact that it didn't really come up as an issue for a little over a century does not diminish it's importance. It was the very first amendment, after all...

           

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 6:40am

      Re:

      "It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how copyright conflicts with the First Amendment."

      It's such a huge conflict that it took almost two centuries before anyone even noticed. LOL! Keep selling your B.S., Mike, I'm sure your dimwitted fans are buying it.

      hahahahahaha.... true that! +1

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:08am

      Re:

      Hilarious...ignore a widespread issue with ad hominem attacks.

      That's a good sign you're a lazy American, you can't even voice an opinion on what the government is doing wrong.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      The same concerns were raised during the debate over the Statue of Anne in the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the England before it was passed. The hope was to mitigate it by insisting that the Act was designed to promote education among other things.

      The same or similar concerns were expressed again during the drafting of the United States Constitution where some felt, Jefferson if I remember correctly at this hour among them, who felt that copyright and patents should have been left out entirely.

      I freely admit to being a dimwit at this hour of the day before my first carafe of coffee but not enough of one to buy into your BS. Mike, on the other hand, makes well reasoned sourced arguments something I notice you seem deficient in.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:44am

        Re: Re:

        i wish the statue of Anne were still standing. :-)

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, May 21st, 2012 @ 7:44am

        Re: Re:

        i wish the statue of Anne were still standing. :-)

         

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

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 3:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          As I said have frequent "dimwit" moments before my first carafe of coffee in the morning. ;-)

          The statue of Anne doesn't stand anywhere anymore. It's off cowering in a dark dusty cobweb filled corner of the Parliamentary Library in Westminster where even the British Museum can't find it!

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Spaceboy (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 9:49am

      Re:

      At least he has fans. And he makes money without enforcing copyright on his works. So yeah, I do admire him for that. I also admire him for not censoring (except in cases of child porn) the comments. I can't even post on the MPAA or RIAA blogs. Not that I would. So yeah. Mike has fans.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 5:40am

    If you're confused about the intricacies of "internet slangs," let this site clear up those pesky abbreviations with its apparently outsourced team of experts.

    http://www.smhmeaning.net/moreslangs.html

    Here's an example:

    HB- Hurry Back
    Warner- Hey, have you not finished you packing for the journey yet?
    Sam- No, not yet, doing
    Warner- HB, dude!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:41am

    Pirate freetard mike thinks we should have speech without paying for it

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:55am

    Corruption, thy name is...

    The US Government.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 5:56am

    'suddenly, the rest of the chat makes a lot more sense.'

    when money talks, everyone of law making and political power and position listens. for everything else there's the delete button!!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, May 21st, 2012 @ 6:03am

    The Gov't doesn't seem to care about any ammendment

    It may seem quite amazing that the government seems to have a massive blindspot to how copyright conflicts with the First Amendment

    They have a massive blind spot to the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments. In fact, that whole constitution really seems to be in their way right now. Though it doesn't seem to be too much in their way since they are doing pretty much whatever they want to and nobody can stop them.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 9:19am

      Re: The Gov't doesn't seem to care about any ammendment

      Well, the American Public can, but then they'd be decried as terrorists and locked up indefinitely without trial.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 21st, 2012 @ 9:50am

      Re: The Gov't doesn't seem to care about any ammendment

      Just like the Bible, they pick and choose what suits them.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Jonathan, May 21st, 2012 @ 12:10pm

        Re: Re: The Gov't doesn't seem to care about any ammendment

        In both cases, the question is not so much *whether*, but *to whom* a particular privilege or encumbrance applies.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 2:17pm

        Re: Re: The Gov't doesn't seem to care about any ammendment

        Well, thank goodness nobody does that with the Koran, Talmud, or the book of any other religion, huh?

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    quawonk, May 21st, 2012 @ 10:53am

    You forgot this:

    Person: Someone is exposing the truth about the government';s doings around the world on a site called Wikileaks.

    Government: CENSOR!!! And throw that bastard in jail and persecute the other bastard who thinks he can hide from us overseas.

    If content is detrimental to those in power, censorship is good. If it's detrimental to society at large, it's free speech, First Amendment, etc.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2012 @ 11:05am

    Grumbl

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Hypnosis Blogger, May 21st, 2012 @ 1:05pm

    Surprised?

    How does this surprise ANYONE?

    Our leaders are for sale... sure, they may not outright take money... but how many dinners, contributions, trips, etc. do they take on the lobbyist dime.

    And you know, whatever lobbyist "donations" they report... they're probably getting twice that under the table or passed through some loophole.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Reynald.L (profile), May 22nd, 2012 @ 12:19pm

    Haha , we have the same governmentin france !

     

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This