SOPA is back and it could make video streaming a punishable felony

[Darren]

Day by day I lose respect for the law because I see ineffective & futile attempts which go wholly in the wrong direction. Ultimately the web is being seen as a means to control, not liberate and I find it the most saddening thing happening in the world today. I think people need to remember, just because something is legal or illegal, it doesn't make it right. Too often people don’t think or feel enough for themselves. They're not driving their own actions.

Copyright law in it's current guise is proving ineffective, with current attempts made to integrate & embed it further only serving to embarrass, complicate and worsen matters. It's original purpose was to incentivise & reward entrepreneurial spirit but today it doesn't fit because of whom it serves and how it effects. It's used as a tool for a different purpose now and as it stands it's not fit for the digital age. To understand how & why, and to consider progressive changes consider watching some of this video. The first half hour is really enough to explain the problem we face today and why efforts taken from Government are counterproductive for their cause.



P.s. Apologies about Stallman, he speaks slowly and he has his quirks but what he says makes sense & he is worth hearing out.

An excerpt from the speech before 30 min mark. Explaining the influence of the ease of digital copying.

The result is to change completely the effect of copyright law. Even if the words of copyright law were exactly the same now, it's effect would be diametrically opposed. Because now they try to apply copyright to the readers too. To the users of work, not just the publishers. They want to restrict everyone. Even the ways the laws were written, it wouldn't restrict everyone if we used computer networks for what they're capable of doing.

The result is copyright law is no longer industrial regulation on publishers controlled by authors to give benefits to the public. It's now a restriction on the general public controlled by the publishers principally in the name of the authors. This means that the reasons we used to consider it 'good' are no longer relevant. We're dealing with a completely different social phenomenon. And because copyright law is being applied to the readers, it's no longer uncontroversial, it's no longer easy to enforce & it's no longer beneficial.

It's no longer uncontroversial because now they're trying to restrict everyone & 'everyone' doesn't like this. People are starting political parties to fight against it. It's no longer easy to enforce, because it's no longer only being enforced against publishers. Now it's being enforced against everyone and that requires invading peoples, homes, computers and internet connections. It's no longer beneficial because the part of our natural rights which in the past we didn't mind trading away, or having the government trade away for us because we couldn't use it anyway.

Now we can exercise those natural rights & we want to. Therefore we want the government to bring us back the rights of ours we naturally deserve that they traded away. What a democratic government would do is bring us back the parts of these natural rights that we really need. It would reduce copyright power. We can measure the sickness of democracy around the world by the tendency of government to do the exact opposite. They're extending copyright power as never before.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

Awesome man! Yeah I think awareness is the biggest issue here.

Awareness is a big issue but understanding more so. You can be aware something is not right but it's not till you understand why that you can take action and influence things. Millions everyday willingly give up freedom in a nonchalant manner & it hurts them. How many readers are running non-free software right now? You may be on open-source but open-source means squat. Just because you can see how something works doesn't mean you can legally modify, share or control. If I was to guess I'd say 99%. Now however instead of the threat merely existing on local software applications you also have big Industry pushing for DRM to be included directly into HTML5 on the web.

LOL they still believe they can control or even handle the internet, that´s hilarious.

While you can't truly control, as with people you can limit. That is what laws ultimately do. There is an underlying physical network which not many appreciate when it comes to the net and this can be restricted as necessary.



Of course the battleground is moving to encryption, the stakes are being raised. Fights are being waged even there 'unlawfully' I must add. Political pressures abound to close down services which while legal, on a technical level neuter the effort of the law to monitor. The recent closure of encrypted email service Lavabit a prominent example, with the founder stating upon closure.

If You Knew What I Know About Email, You Might Not Use It

I've mentioned before but I fully expect encryption types to be outlawed in the future. Ultimately you can't achieve control while the hardware is under pervasive influence. You need a free net essentially. Efforts are under way though fragmented and poor at the time of writing.

Want an example of just how bad things are getting? Did you know this law got passed recently in this US?

Court Rules Accessing a Public Website Isn't A Crime, But Hiding Your IP Address Could Be

So proxies, VPN, DHCP etc. illegal if you're served notice...
__________________________________________________ ________________________

Further reading & related articles

US law over IP changes=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/0...dress-could-be
Lavabit closure=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh...ht-not-use-it/
DRM information & campaigns=http://www.defectivebydesign.org
Free Network Foundation=http://thefnf.org/
Submarine Cable Map=http://www.telegeography.com/telecom...map/index.html