a bill designed to expedite the pursuit of everyone but actual infringers at the expense of free speech and online anonymity.
Like pretty much any other 'anti-piracy' bill/law, this will affect everyone but the actual pirates. Pirates are already breaking one law, why would they care about doing so for another? They'll either ignore the law completely, or simply put in some bogus contact information(might I suggest the home address and phone numbers for the idiots proposing this law?).
Meanwhile, with how vague the wording is(what qualifies as a 'substantial part'? What about 'commercial'? How about 'directly or indirectly'?), lots of legitimate sites will be all but forced to put personal contact information on their sites, but hey, I'm sure that couldn't possibly lead to unpleasant results by people who may happen to disagree with the content on the site, or those who enjoy making the lives of others miserable. /s
When the action is seen as more serious at it's 'base' level, then there will generally be more attention paid to it to keep things in check.
When the action however is seen as less serious at it's base level though, there will be less attention paid to it, as it's not seen as nearly extreme, even if the inevitable abuses of it can, and often do, make it's impact even worse than the 'more serious' option.
'Borrow'? As in for free? Without paying the author every single time someone reads it? For shame you filthy pirate, why with an attitude like that, it's only a matter of time until people stop writing books altogether and culture itself dies off.
If an author isn't paid every time someone reads their books, then what's the point of writing?
Assuming the conversation wasn't simply the two of them having a hearty chuckle over their respective plans to undermine security, the Chinese president almost certainly pulled a muscle or two not laughing in Obama's face(or likely over the phone) when Obama delivered the 'Now if you keep doing the same thing we're doing, there's going to be problems' ultimatum.
Really, it's no wonder it's so rare to see a politician with a sense of humor, not bursting out laughing at such hypocritical demands has got to take either utter self-control, or a complete lack of humor.
Government officials, or other 'public servants' who use personal email for official business on anything more than an extremely rare occasion should be forced to turn over that email account, and have it treated as though it's their 'official' email.
Try and use your personal email to dodge accountability? Congrats, that account is no longer considered a personal one, and is instead to be treated as an official one with regards to both archiving, and FOIA requests.
Ludlam: So it's okay if foreign spooks have hacked every mobile handset in the country because you don't have anything in particular...
Richardson: It's possible some might try to.
Ludlam: It's possible some just have.
Richardson: [shrugs] Well, it's possible.
If they weren't before, I'm sure they are now, a statement like that, from the Secretary of Defense... other than personally calling other government spy agencies and hacker groups, I cannot think of a quicker way to have his phone bugged and compromised.
It's easy to ignore risks when it's someone else's money on the line
We have never lost an ISDS case because of the strong safeguards in the U.S. approach. And because we have continued to raise standards through each agreement, in recent years we have seen a drop in ISDS claims, despite increased levels of investment.
This sounds to me like the logic of someone playing Russian Roulette. 'Hey, I've pulled the trigger 5 times now, and since I have yet to be shot, clearly this game is completely safe, and your worries about it are utterly unfounded.'
The difference of course being that the 'gun' in question isn't pointed at his head, oh no, rather it's leveled at the heads of the everyday citizens of the country.
Moreover, the gun doesn't even have to be used to be effective, the billion dollar lawsuits are just the more obvious results, while the laws that are never passed, or the challenges or changes to laws already in place in order to avoid those billion dollar judgements, those show the real impact, and intentions behind corporate sovereignty 'agreements'. The ability for a corporation to dictate laws to an entire country, that's not something that anyone should be supporting or defending.
So I really want to know, what reality is he living in that a stable connection, all the time, and across large areas, is even remotely possible? Because it's not this one, and it's certainly not the US.
And the reason for this has nothing to do with preventing cable company fuckery or the lack thereof, and everything to do with the absolutely abominable improvements to the internet infrastructure in the US, caused by the cable companies preferring to just add the tax-breaks and government subsidies they receive to their yearly paychecks, rather than using it to build out, improve, and maintain the networks.
On one side, you've got an AG who was exposed for having his 'investigation' paid for by a third party with an axe to grind, and his legal documents written by the same third party. And who also tried, badly, to bluff his way out of it and act as though he had never even met or talked to the people writing his press releases and legal filings.
On the other hand you've got a judge who sees something off with the AG and his request, and refuses his fishing request.
And the judge is the one you imply is acting suspicious.
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that those commenting who don't agree with you are pirates, please, by all means share, because I don't know about other posters, but even completely free, legal or not, I still could not care enough about the rubbish the *AA's put out to bother with it.
Really, don't you lot have any better arguments other than the tired 'Everyone who disagrees with me must be doing it because they're a criminal!' line?
Re: Re: That's some mighty fine paranoia you've got there
Had the issue been dealt with via legislation, and considering how in the pockets of the cable companies the ones who would be writing that legislation are, the resulting bill would have basically been little more than 'The cable companies can do anything they want, and no one is allowed to do anything about it. Also the billions in tax-breaks and subsidies they currently receive will be doubled, because money.'
Should The Punishment For Falsely Accusing People Of A Crime Match The Punishment For The Crime Itself?
It should be worse.
If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, then you'd better be damn sure that they actually did it, given the potential consequences they face should you be wrong.
If you are going to knowingly lie about them committing a crime(or in the case of bogus DMCA claims, not care in the slightest if you lie), then the punishment for doing so should be severe, at the very least as bad as the punishment for what you are accusing them of, and ideally significantly more, along the lines of doubling the punishment the accused was facing for the crime in question.
I like to call it a 'self-fulfilling prophecy', and it goes like this:
1. Police are trained to see everyone around them as potential threats and enemies. 2. In response to this trained paranoia/'Us vs Them' mentality, police treat everyone around them as potential threats and enemies. 3. The public, upon being treated as potential threats and enemies, ceases to be on the side of the police, and instead see and treat them as likely threats and enemies. 4. The police, now being treated as they treat those around them, use this to justify their training/mentality, and further enshrine it in their training and how they act.
"We will not stand by idly as the White House, using the FCC, attempts to advance rules that imperil the future of the Internet.
I love how they still insist that Obama's behind this whole thing, as though he's just got to be the cause.
As a scapegoat, he seems rather lacking, but I suppose the alternative, admitting that the main driving forces behind the shift were the actions of the ISP's showing how needed the change was, and the massive support on both sides for said change, wouldn't fit the spin they've decided on.
As the White House said [link to WH statement], the Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the new Congress to implement the changes the President has called for
I know both parties fully support government spying, and would sooner vote collectively to link their pay to the current minimum wage than agree to end mass spying, but I can't help but think how funny it would be if they called his bluff here, and crafting a bill or two designed to destroy the programs in place.
Watching the WH panic and desperately backpedal, and start calling for extensive 'studies' and 'examinations' before shutting down the programs would be pretty hilarious.
Of course, because clearly a government agency spying on americans and grabbing every bit of their data they can get their hands on is exactly like another government agency putting into place rules to if not eliminate, at least lesson cable company fuckery(and thanks to John Oliver for such a catchy, and accurate way of putting it).