Wow. The guy who claimed to "get" the internet ready to let his Hollywood buddies get a good shot at ruining it.
There are risks involved in living in a free society, but the ability to live free makes it worth it. There are risks involved in having free flowing information on the internet, but the ability to have the worlds knowledge at your finger tips makes it worth it.
Now that I think about it. This post may violate copyright law.
According to this proposed treaty I'm pretty sure forums.hannity.com would need to have someone pre-approving all posts before they hit the boards for such things or the site itself would be legally liable.
After the fact action like a moderator coming in and deleting it after its already posted wouldn't be enough.
I can't imagine that they'd give sites like this any leeway at all.
Oh boy.
ps. I was an on the fence net neutrality supporter. After reading the EFF's position on the issue combined with this I'm going to have to withdraw my support until these two things start making sense with each other. To me this treaty does some of the things that NN was supposed to prevent, while making it worse.
Something tells me that the NN I thought I understood a year ago, is a completely different thing now. I actually had a heated convo or two with posters here about NN and now feel I should admit that I was way too confident on an issue that only seems to get more gray by the day.
Last edited by hwyflier; November 4th, 2009 at 8:35 pm.
So what are they gonna do? Bring down the Internet until everything already out there is checked to meet copyright? Or are they just going to make everything already out there part of the Public Domain?
__________________
"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abraham Lincoln
So what are they gonna do? Bring down the Internet until everything already out there is checked to meet copyright? Or are they just going to make everything already out there part of the Public Domain?
If you were the government or a corporation where would you start? My guess is the competition.
One of the many problems with this is that with merely and allegation of infringement, you can get content removed and people disconnected.
I personally don't understand turning the internet into mid 90's AOL as a way to appease an entertainment industry that refuses to bring its business models out of the 90's.
In September 2008 a number of interest groups urged parties to the ACTA negotiations to disclose the language of the evolving agreement. In an open letter the groups argued that: "Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited.The interest groups included:....../snip
......Knowledge Ecology International also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in the United States but had their entire request denied, with the United State Trade Representative's FOIA office stating it was withheld for being material "properly classified in the interest of national security." However, a recent leak has shown that the Obama administration intends to start an undisclosed internet chapter.
The "national security" they're talking about is people literally getting their pitchforks and torches and going to washington to face off with obamas new "national police force"
This is why the Founders made it so that the President, acting in secret on his own, cannot bind this country to a treaty.
Don't all treaties have to be approved by the Senate?
__________________
Krauthammer's corollary to Occam's Razor:
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenom, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning.
Obama's copyright treaty kept secret for 'national security", leaks
Linear Mode
