What do they need SOPA, for, again?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| BernardSwiss Feb 16, 2012 8:11 PM EDT |
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/secret-servi... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/police-downl... It looks to me like Law Enforcement has too much power, rather than not enough. + + + + + PS: Is this a little too far off topic for LXer? |
| tuxchick Feb 16, 2012 8:16 PM EDT |
We need SOPA for washing our handsa. |
| jezuch Feb 17, 2012 2:38 AM EDT |
And then there's this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/12/pirates-of-... |
| BernardSwiss Feb 17, 2012 4:18 AM EDT |
And ain't that just typical! |
| jacog Feb 17, 2012 5:08 AM EDT |
I suggest you all watch the excellent doccie "Everything Is a Remix" by Kirby Ferguson. It covers music, movies, software, patents, copyright etc. All that fun stuff. http://www.everythingisaremix.info/ EDIT: patents, not parents |
| skelband Feb 17, 2012 12:18 PM EDT |
@jacog: What a powerful and to-the-point video. Every politician should watch that. |
| helios Feb 17, 2012 12:24 PM EDT |
Every politician should watch that. Apparently, once they receive their first campaign contribution, they are restricted to what they can watch and listen to. That's the only way I can make sense of it. |
| flufferbeer Feb 20, 2012 7:47 PM EDT |
@tuxchic, The ITC is trying to SANITIZE foreign innovation, and ultimately, U.S. innovation, now that we see that SOPA failed to clean up some of the big corporations' DIRTY secrets :D -fb |
| Khamul Feb 20, 2012 8:03 PM EDT |
Hopefully everyone will learn from JotForm the dangers of using GoDaddy as their domain registrar. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 20, 2012 11:45 PM EDT |
As long as the thread sticks to what it means for FOSS, I won't close it. Scott |
| tracyanne Feb 21, 2012 1:06 AM EDT |
Pretty much where any legitimate business can be taken down at the whim of the Secret Service, the FBI or Homeland security, or any corporate competitor also has meaning and concerns in a FOSS context. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2012 7:08 AM EDT |
> Pretty much where any legitimate business can be taken down at the whim of the Secret Service, the FBI or Homeland security... Yep. The saying “America is a nation of laws, not men" grows less true every day. The web is only the most visible example of this. |
| Fettoosh Feb 21, 2012 8:40 AM EDT |
“The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.” Frank Zappa |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 21, 2012 1:02 PM EDT |
SOPA, because "Protect Our Large Campaign Contributors" sounds too much like "bribe". |
| Khamul Feb 21, 2012 1:23 PM EDT |
America is going down the tubes fast, and I predict it's going to break up within 20 years, somewhat like the Soviet Union did. However, this would be a great thing for FOSS I think, as while some of the newly-formed countries will probably be horrible, others will rapidly recover and could become beacons of freedom, without so much corruption and stifling laws written for certain corporations that want to eliminate FOSS. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 22, 2012 12:57 PM EDT |
Khamul, from your mouth to some god's ear. May the breakup be soon. The sooner the better. |
| skelband Feb 22, 2012 1:06 PM EDT |
@Khamul: "...others will rapidly recover and could become beacons of freedom..." For a while at least. I can't help but make an analogy with large corporations that exist for a long time, but fall subject to rot and complacency. It seems to be the destiny of any large successful group that they attract the kind of people that like the idea of glory but lack the insight and a sense of the greater good that formed that organisation in the first place. I despair that it will ever be so. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 22, 2012 1:24 PM EDT |
Skel, Actually that is relatively easy to explain. Like most "simple" things, the complexity comes from its interactions, not from the principle itself. The first simple principle is that there are only two means by which a bureaucracy is capable of measuring "success": Larger staffs and bigger budgets. A large bureaucracy is, by definition, a "success". A bureaucracy which actually accomplishes its original goal, and is then disbanded, is (by bureaucratic standards) a failure. The second simple principle is that within a bureaucracy, those who are promoted are those for whom the welfare {i}of the bureaucracy itself{/i} is their priority. People who run successful companies are always fighting the "bureaucracy" within them, with lots of tools like "subsidiaries", "divestitures", "in-sourcing" and such, all to try to provide some means of undermining the tendency toward bureaucratic bloat. This tendency is much like cruft in any long-term software project (see, it is Linux related). Government bureaucracy has a double-dose of these perverse incentives, due to the fact that govt itself has no "profit and loss" calculation process. Without competition, there is no way to know if the service being provided is actually wanted, or is achieving the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to have been constituted to accomplish. All Empires fall. Sadly, in their failure lots of people tend to get hurt. |
| skelband Feb 22, 2012 1:56 PM EDT |
@Bob Presumably that is why in-coming governments always want to change things, the "brand new budget", "reforming the "NHS", "reorganising the school system", "cracking down on criminals", and the same old tired excuses for spending money to justify their existences. It never seems to be politically expedient to just do nothing. :D === Not seen you around for a while Bob? Could have done with your wisdom during the recent 6-monthly bashing of the copyright laws a little while ago. I can't say that the debate has changed much from the previous one though..... |
| skelband Feb 22, 2012 2:00 PM EDT |
@me: "...attract the kind of people that like the idea of glory but lack the insight and a sense of the greater good that formed that organisation in the first place." I would heartily recommend anyone that has not yet to read Ken Follett's excellent and entertaining book "World Without End" (which is the sequel to Pillars of the Earth) to see this process in action in the form of Prior Godwyn. Currently working my way through it at the moment for the second time. A right good read. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 22, 2012 2:26 PM EDT |
Skel, I doubt the debate on copyright has changed at all. Those convinced of its need remain convinced, those convinced of its destructiveness remain convinced. When faced with contradiction of a cherished belief, many human minds react with retrenchment and even more fervent "faith" in that belief, rather than entertain the idea that they may have been wrong. Thank you for the welcome back. I've been distracted. Losing my kids put me into a long, serious depression. It only occurred to me yesterday that I hadn't checked out LXer in a very long time. |
| skelband Feb 22, 2012 2:56 PM EDT |
@Bob Well we're glad to have you back! |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 22, 2012 3:05 PM EDT |
You are too kind. THank you. |
| Khamul Feb 22, 2012 4:17 PM EDT |
@Bob: "All Empires fall. Sadly, in their failure lots of people tend to get hurt." Frequently, but not always. The Roman Empire's failure was probably generally a bad thing, because it set back civilization 1000 years; it took that long for western civilization to get back to the levels of technology, learning, and quality of life that existed during Roman times for their citizens. However, the Soviet Empire's failure was generally a good thing as far as I can tell; it was mostly just holding people back anyway, there was no bloodshed in its failure (unlike the Romans where their city was sacked), and many parts of that empire bounced back very quickly and advanced to western standards extremely rapidly after getting out from under the Soviet oppression: Poland and Czech Republic are two big examples, as well as Latvia; most of the eastern European countries have been far better off since the Soviet system failed, the big exception being Yugoslavia which fell into civil war. The British Empire's failure was rather bloodless too, though it was much, much slower, with one country after another slowly separating itself from the Crown. The Ottoman Empire's failure was rather bloody, but that's because a bunch of outside countries went to war with them, they lost, and the outcome was the dissolution of their empire; I don't think there's any parallels there for the USA. Instead, I think it's going to look more like a cross between Britain and the USSR. The general trend, in both government and business and most other human endeavor, seems to be that humans really suck at forming large organizations and keeping them effective and efficient. |
| skelband Feb 22, 2012 4:21 PM EDT |
@Khamul: "The British Empire's failure was rather bloodless too" I beg to differ. The retreat from India was very bloody and very acrimonious. The end of Rhodesian occupation and from Africa in general has been frought with blood and war. I seem to remember that withdrawal from the US was pretty nasty. :D |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 22, 2012 4:47 PM EDT |
Khamul, I agree, the breakup of the Soviet Union was an excellent example of dissolution without massive destruction. One reason the failure of the British Empire in much of North America was also not massively destructive, was that there was never a power vacuum. The individual British colony's existing institutions remained largely intact through the transition. It's been my opinion that the British deliberately carved up Palestine and India before they left in order to make sure that the people there were busy fighting each other, so they couldn't threaten Britain. My biggest concern is not continuity and "power vacuum" issues. It is simply _control_. The War of Northern Aggression, 1861-65, when the Empire solidified it's hold in North America, may very well be used as a model for dealing with future dissolution of the American Empire. There's no question it will happen, only how many tanks will roll and for how long. |
| jdixon Feb 22, 2012 10:17 PM EDT |
Welcome back, Bob. > Those convinced of its need remain convinced, those convinced of its destructiveness remain convinced. Has anyone seriously argued that copyright is "needed"? The classical argument (at least in the US) is that it is useful, not that it is necessary. And that only if maintained for a limited time. We seem to have drifted a long way from that concept. > II don't think there's any parallels there for the USA. As Bob points out, we have a fairly recent example from the US itself of what is likely to happen here. We can hope otherwise, but the odds aren't in the favor of a bloodless dissolution. |
| BernardSwiss Feb 23, 2012 12:10 AM EDT |
Quoting: Has anyone seriously argued that copyright is "needed"? All the time -- even going so far as to say that without copyright, no-one would be making art any more (usually not stated quite so baldly, but essentially saying that without copyright no one could make a living producing art, therefore no one would make it). Moreover, not only do they say copyright is "needed", but that we need more of it, more rigorously enforced, and supported with more draconian measures both legislative and technological. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 23, 2012 9:44 AM EDT |
JD, Thank you. Indeed, as Bernard points out, there are many who argue a need for copyright. If my sector errors are not too awful, Caitlyn and I dueled over the issue for quite a while on exactly those terms, she arguing "need" and me arguing "destructiveness". (I'm certain I have violated several grammatical rules in that last sentence, but such is life) Several such threads were deleted due to the heat of battle. Just goes to show how deeply such beliefs can be held. Anyway, if the history of the last few years is any indication, things will be getting worse before they get better, from anyone's point of view. |
You cannot post until you login.