Published by:
Steve on 18th Jan 2012 |
View all blogs by
Steve
A power play is being made for control
of critical elements of the internet by a consortium of
high-level commercial entities in the US working together with
senior US government officials. Mainstream media outlets are
unlikely to report this honestly or openly as they have a
conflict of interests, most being owned by said commercial
entities.
To us, one of the many outcomes of
commercially-sponsored US
Congress action would be a loss of an incalculable number of free
internet resources based inside US borders AND beyond.
Particularly under threat would be websites just like this which
allow individuals to post information, media or even just
links.
Today,
Wikipedia is exercising a blackout to draw attention to two
particular bills. The blackout is, in effect, a protest against
high-level plans to remove one of the few remaining freedoms we
still have: the freedom to acquire and share knowledge just like
this. You can learn more about it here:
33 Comments
Karen - that's the angle that suits the political side of the power play, making the bills attractive to both private institutions and central government. There is a genuine fear at top levels that use of the internet will undermine current levels of control and power. In the first instance, growing independent news and knowledge sources on the internet can't be edited to dictate perspectives as currently occurs in the mainstream media. Secondly, social networks like Twitter and Blackberry are being used by increasing numbers of disgruntled people to organise demonstrations and even riots. The bills will give powers to the US goverment to shut down (or at least block) any internet activity or sites they choose, both domestic and abroad. Not unlike what the Chinese government currently do.
On a more light-hearted note, here's a hilarious alternative perspective:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/headache-epidemic-caused-by-having-to-think-201201184779/
Considering how many people rely on Tor or such like in China, Iran and elsewhere to get around government censorship, the fact that Tor is illegal under these acts is very worrying. If you're a charitable foundation like that, you simply don't have any money to defend yourself in court.
Here's an interesting article which also includes links on why piracy can't be tackled in this way.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120117/23002717445/updated-analysis-why-sopa-pipa-are-bad-idea-dangerous-unnecessary.shtml
I've been thinking today that if these acts passed they would simply give rise to underground versions of the internet (as found in Science Fiction), which in the end will result in punishment for legitimate customers and no more than an inconvenience to the real culprits. Seen this with all the anti-piracy measures in the gaming industry - ever more restrictive Digital rights to people who legally purchase a game and no more than a stumbling block to the pirates.
As far as wiki is concerend though- I managed to live without it for the first 25 years of my life without it- i'm sure I could live the rest of my life without it. Can't say the same for the rest of the internet though...I mean how did I ever manage before I could shop the entire market without getting of the sofa..and how did I ever keep intouch with anyone? Oh that's right I didn't. The best thing about the internet is that I feel it brings us closer together despite never having to leave the confort of our homes and meeting our 'friends' face to face.
Steve - love the Daily Mash article - this goes hand in hand with people having completely lost the function to use their initiative without the nanny state telling them what to do and when.
What's it all coming to? You're penalised if you haven't got money to afford to pay, and you're penalised if you do have money to afford to pay, because you'll have to! The internet is a lifeline to some people (including me) and communities grow and friendships form. Information should be free!
I enjoy the net for a variety of reasons, but if asked to join an organised demand for complete freedom of expression on and unregulated use of it I would be in opposition. I would say: "Be careful what you wish for." Young people are impressionable.
But the drive to push these bills through is not merely to try and protect the interests of large corporations in, for example, the film industry; the bills are Trojan horses to extend powers to the extent of being able to shut down almost any website. I view this a little bit like all the Anti-Terrorism bills and acts: government self-empowerment to do whatever the hell they like. For an individual to be held indefintely and without any rights, for example, all a goverment enforcement body has to do is say they suspect someone (anyone) of terrorist activity and they don't need any evidence or proof to do so. In the same way, almost any website could be shut down or blocked under the banner of IP/Copyright infringement OR any website with any link to a blacklisted website anywhere in the world. If the US push the bills through, The UK (and certain other nations) will probably follow with similar acts.
Will there be wrongs? Yep. But that's true of all laws...
Sticking with intellectual property and saving paedos and guantanimo bay for another time, I would like to point out the obvious here that this site is all about developing and promoting work which is the essence of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
I do not want my life's work on FREE PAGE or what ever while I am trying to earn a coin or two from it..as some 17 year old lesser spotted fuckwit has splashed my copyrighted work all over some file sharing site..
and if/when it does happen I hope they do toss the little shite in some windowless concrete hole for ten or twelve thousand years...
Do ya follow.,....?
So there IS a much wider context intrinsically, which I absolutely welcome views on here. I should have been clearer: some Republicans are currently proposing a seperate bill regarding the internet that specifically relates to child protection. In terms of politics, the two groups of bills are very different in their perceived aims and I wanted to get this across. However, the related issues are inextricably interwoven and I have no desire to focus on one bill rather than the other, other than to be clear on which bill it is that is the basis for anything stated.
For example, if childexploitation.com was shut down because sickening videos were posted on it and it contravened the child protection bill, then I would have no problem with that and would applaud the action of the shut down. But if the Word Cloud was shut down because someone made reference/posted a link to childexploitation.com on here in saying how terrible it was, and the Word Cloud post was deemed to contravene elements of either the SOPA or PIPA bills, then I would find the Word Cloud shut down to be utterly wrong.
Click here to sign up now.