Okay, not Net Neutrality, how about censorship?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee | Epicenter | Wired.com

Do we really want to give the Fed another power to regulate something

civil courts should be doing? It may not be much to some, but I doubt

the rules would be very internet friendly with people like Mark Lloyd and

Eric Holder in charge of this. Call it Net Neutrality with a political twist

for progressives. Censorship!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Any random forum which allows hot-linking of images could be zapped under that law, depending on the judgment of the govt officials. The copyright law is of the form where any creator has implicit copyright ownership of his creation, without sending copyright forms or registration or whatever. The copyright registration only provides a slightly better paper trail for lawsuit purposes if you get infringed.

So any hot-link of an image is in theory copyright infringement unless the creator has GPL'd the image or otherwise placed it in the public domain. Or given written permission.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's why I think it should be left up to the courts, notwithstanding the political abuses by

said government officials. It would apply to not just forums, but any web based content,

wouldn't it? Well, except the dear left leaning media. It's just another red flag to me.

[Guest mikedwood]

Any random forum which allows hot-linking of images could be zapped under that law, depending on the judgment of the govt officials. The copyright law is of the form where any creator has implicit copyright ownership of his creation, without sending copyright forms or registration or whatever. The copyright registration only provides a slightly better paper trail for lawsuit purposes if you get infringed.

So any hot-link of an image is in theory copyright infringement unless the creator has GPL'd the image or otherwise placed it in the public domain. Or given written permission.

I'm wondering the same thing.

If I go shooting with my wife and she takes a picture of me wearing a Nike tee shirt or any brand for that matter. And I post the picture on here for all to see, I'm pretty sure that a copyright or trademark infrigement has happened.

All the car and motorcycle pictures the same way, if you can read the emblem.

Will they just use this to help take care of the movie and music industry (if so I could care less as I don't really like many of the new movies and no music I haven't had for 20 years) or will they use it to shut down sites they do not like for other purposes????

Edited November 19, 2010 by mikedwood

[JayC]

This is a very bad bill... it will be abused if turned into a law... The government should not have the right to shutdown a website... not even the courts should have the right to shutdown a website... Courts should be able to order the removal of copyrighted material from the website, but not shut it down.

We'd never even consider a law that would allow courts to shutdown printing presses at newspapers... why on earth would be consider a law that allows websites and web servers to be shutdown?

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

I'm wondering the same thing.

If I go shooting with my wife and she takes a picture of me wearing a Nike tee shirt or any brand for that matter. And I post the picture on here for all to see, I'm pretty sure that a copyright or trademark infrigement has happened.

All the car and motorcycle pictures the same way, if you can read the emblem.

Will they just use this to help take care of the movie and music industry (if so I could care less as I don't really like many of the new movies and no music I haven't had for 20 years) or will they use it to shut down sites they do not like for other purposes????

I am in no way supportive of this bill, but the scenario you just explained above does not, in any way, fall under copyright or trademark infringement.

[DaveTN]

It’s not something I would want to see.

How would this help stop piracy? They can’t shut down the sites that are not in this country?

I guess Photobucket will get zapped the minute this law passes?

[JayC]

It’s not something I would want to see.

How would this help stop piracy? They can’t shut down the sites that are not in this country?

I guess Photobucket will get zapped the minute this law passes?

They're not going to shutdown the websites... they're going to force all US ISP's to block those websites... Here comes the great firewall of the united states.

[DaveTN]

They're not going to shutdown the websites... they're going to force all US ISP's to block those websites... Here comes the great firewall of the united states.

We can’t even stop criminals from crossing our borders, but they some think they can stop internet traffic. Good luck with that.

[JayC]

We can’t even stop criminals from crossing our borders, but they some think they can stop internet traffic. Good luck with that.

It won't stop it completely... but it will make it a lot harder, and when the catch you, you get a free trip to a reeducation camp

How do you think the government in China keeps it's people under control? By limiting their ability to get information outside the official government controlled news media... and it works very very well.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, there was also a bill last year, sponsored by Lieberman, to give the President

a "kill switch" to the internet in an emergency. I don't remember what happened

to it, and I didn't understand what was defined as an emergency.

I think we are seeing overt tyranny and are in denial. No more soft tyranny.

Dave. They can do a lot more about the border, instead of suing a state. The gov

is intentionally withholding resources for the border war. And it is a war.

Maybe this bill was intended for helping the Hollywood types, for copyright infringement,

but it is a power the gov has no business getting. Copyright infringement is something

to be dealt with in a court, anyway. Just because a bill has a cute name doesn't mean

that's it's intention. The "Employee Free Choice Act" has nothing to do with free choice,

but it does allow you to join a union. What protections are in the "Firearms Owners

Protection Act"? Wasn't the Obamacare bill named the "Affordable Health Choices Act"?

Nothing "Affordable about it.

Anyway, the FCC is planning to Title II the internet without legislative authority. I hope

those who think "Net Neutrality" was about bandwidth finally catches up. It is about

government control and censorship. Laugh all you want, but if Rush got taken off the air

because of some government policy, or Fox, or MSNBC for that matter, got the ax, I

would be mad as hell.

[Smith]

I would be happy if they would concentrate on stopping China from hi-jaking our government network systems.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, that last post of mine came true much quicker than I expected. The FCC already announced it.

There will be challenges from right and left over it, also. The beatings will now begin!