Read more.Calls for approach that does not compromise free expression, privacy, security and innovation.
Read more.Calls for approach that does not compromise free expression, privacy, security and innovation.
In the words of Tythus, "Hell, Its about time"
+1 on this.Mr Murdoch also lashed out at Google, "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying." A rich sentiment, coming from a man who's own subsidiary firm, News of the World, often broke the law, committing acts of phone hacking as it saw fit.
As far as I can tell* a summary of SOPA seems to be to censor(/block?) everything unless you can prove that you shouldn't be. On the other hand Google's rebuttal to the comment above is that they'd be happy to censor/block stuff that's shown to require it
(* and I'm quite content to be told I've picked them up wrong)
If I've got this correct then I'd go with Google's approach as technically better, if not also more in line with the principal of being "innocent until proved guilty". I also have doubts that it's necessarily about protecting intellectual property and more about suppressing unfriendly information and opinions - but then again, maybe I'm getting paranoid in my old age...? Maybe the Obama govt's time would better be spent in arranging some kind of reciprocal/speeded-up legal arrangement with the main internet players - e.g. so warez sites identified by the US could be blocked by all ISP's in US, EU, China, MEA, in one fell swoop?
Nope, you're quite right, it also removes the requirement of due process, as it cuts the courts out of the picture entirely. In other-words, the content corps are after court-level powers which they can execute on an arbitrary whim. And we've already seen where that gets us by Youtube and the like giving them the delete button to arbitrary content.
Blocking doesn't do anything. More sites pop up every day, technical countermeasures pop up every day, this is all a complete waste of tax payers money for the benefit of power mad big content corporations.
SOPA and Protect IP should just be taken out the back and shot. DMCA revoked, shorten the period to 50 years, that's plenty, and leave it to the courts to go through copyright claims as is proper procedure.
Pot / Kettle? Or is he just complaining that Google can spend millions on it whereas he has to do it on the cheap by just having meetings with politicians? a very quick google came up with "Revealed: Cameron's 26 meetings in 15 months with Murdoch chiefs", Alex Salmond had 25 with members of News International in 4 years, that Tony Blair is godfather to Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, etc...Originally Posted by Rupert Murdoch
As for SOPA itself, there is already lots of evidence that the big content companies can't be trusted - the one that springs to mind is Warner Bros issuing automated DMCA take-down notices for anything and everything with "the box" in the description (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-looked-at.ars)
Hmm, maybe the Adam Smith Institute (or similar) could do a learned study on the Return on Investment of "back door" lobbying such as RM does, versus the more overt kind.
Love that Arstechnica article - I was ROFL. Good point made though, if the studios (and it would appear that they are the sole beneficiary of SOPA) are heavy handedly abusing their current powers (and I notice that ArsTechnica also fingers Universal for similar stupidity) then only a complete psychotic would willingly give them more control!
Don't you just love the way that a few unaccountable corporations in the US can exercise so much global power...?
They did come late in the day seeing as the bill has been effectively killed now anyway :-
http://www.examiner.com/computers-in...use-kills-sopa
Last edited by Jonj1611; 16-01-2012 at 07:22 PM.
They've been well paid for this bill.
NDAA is a bigger concern.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)