'They're doing it in China, and it's not working there so there's no harm doing it in the UK as well'?
Really? That's supposed to help the pro-filter argument?
Heck, even if, for the sake of argument I agree that the Chinese filter/firewall is useless(and I have indeed heard that it's fairly easy to bypass for those determined enough), the fact remains that such a system is a huge blow to free speech, causing people to always worry about what they post, what they discuss, lest someone in power decide to use it against them.
It also requires a system in place to constantly watch what people are doing online, what sites they visit and whatnot, causing even more damage to free speech, and being insanely open to abuse by anyone with access to the system.
It's still free content they're dealing with, the broadcasters weren't getting paid by the viewers before Aereo came along, why should they suddenly deserve to get a cut out of a service another company came up with just because the other company found a way to get the transmission to even more people?
Maybe, and this might sound crazy but hear me out, maybe that's because the 'content' they're using is a free broadcast.
Aereo isn't charging for the content, they're charging for the service, the ability for people to access the content when things like poor reception, houses/hills/trees blocking the transmission, and similar things would otherwise make it impossible for them to watch it.
Whether the filters work or not was never the point, the idea was to get the system in place, get people to accept having things blocked 'to protect the children', 'for national security' and various other rubbish excuses. Once such a system is in place, then history shows quite clearly that it's just a matter of time before it starts expanding, covering more and more.
Also, while the ISP's may be doing the filtering, they're doing it because the government told/'suggested' they do so, the government is hardly innocent in this.
A company makes a concession, to try and appease those trying to shut them down rather than fighting back, and the sharks immediately swarm in, claiming that it's not nearly enough, and they need to do 'more'.
Yeah, I'm sure Dish has got to be completely shocked by this, I mean, it's not like that sort of thing has ever happened before when dealing with parasites like those. /s
On the contrary, they understand it quite well, and they also understand that such a system has no need for parasites like them, hence their repeated attempts to impose out of date, tv-style 'we create, you consume' systems/thinking like this.
'This draws into question if their true motives behind pushing internet filters, is really about child pornography or if they're simply using child pornography as an excuse to hide their true goal. To censor the internet in any way the UK Gov sees fit.'
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who actually think about it know full well that a filter like this has nothing to do with 'protecting the children', and everything to do with control.
Large, expansive censorship is bad, but since it's so obvious, it's actually not as threatening, as it's very visible, so people can fight against it.
No, the real problem comes when it's done more subtly, in pieces, where an entire category isn't blocked, just a 'part' of it. Currently.
And maybe down the road another 'part' is blocked. And then after a while yet another 'part' is blocked, each step gradual, each time letting people get used to the 'small additional change' before the next one is brought about, yet ultimately leading to the same result as the large, obvious censorship.
Was thinking the same thing. 'So you're updating your machines due to safety, does that mean you're going to be ordering a recall of your older machines, and replacing them with the newer, safer ones? No? Then it's obviously not a big problem, is it?'
No, a better idea would be to make politicians, like employees in any other field, take competence tests before they're allowed to work on or rule on a given subject.
So if a politician wants make or vote on a law affecting some field or piece of technology, they first have to take a competency test, geared towards the average knowledge of a person in that field or someone familiar with the technology in question. If they fail it, they cannot write, propose, or vote on legislation dealing with the field/tech in question.
Likewise for judges, if the defense or prosecution feels that knowledge and/or familiarity with the field/tech in question is likely to have a significant impact on the case, they can ask that the judge take a competency test regarding it.
Should they pass, case continues on as normal, but should they fail, they can either order a stay, in which they have 2-4 weeks to study up on the field/tech and retake the test, or they are forced to recuse themselves from the case, and it's passed to another judge, who also has to take the competency test before being able to preside over the case, with the process continuing until a judge knowledgeable in the field is able to pass the test, and has shown to have enough understanding of the field/tech in question to rule on it.
Oh the judge could have had so much fun with that one, were he so inclined...
'As facts and historical data are not eligible for copyright protection, either your books are factual non-fiction, in which case while the books themselves may be protected by copyright, the facts in them are not, or they are not factual, and are instead fiction, in which case the 'facts' can indeed be protected by copyright. Pick your argument gentlemen, and keep in mind that whichever you go with will be made publicly known as soon as anyone is curious enough to check.'
Foreign companies and interests all but demanding that the Supreme Court rule a particular way, in order to 'fulfill US obligations' to the various 'trade agreements' and similar treaties...
Yeah, whenever any of the liars start going on about how 'trade agreements have no binding effect on US law', I can't help but admire their skill, to be able to tell something that completely and utterly wrong, something so blatantly a lie, all without cracking a smile or snickering, that takes some real control.
Now I hope the SC rules on the side of sanity even more, just to see the executive whine about how much 'trouble' it's going to cause them, what with actually having to put US laws above foreign 'obligations'.