Antipiracy bill targets VCR?

raid517

What do you guys make of this?

http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+...l?tag=nefd.top

It seems to me that government really is working to destroy your freedoms.

GJ

Nacht

The problem is lawmakers attempting to rectify problems that they do not understand. They dont understand the technology, and thus make huge errors in the way they word bills..so they end up having massive impact. This is just like that law passed in a couple of states that basically makes it illegal to have a firewall on your computer...hardware or software. It's ignorant.

raid517

Erm... Did they really do that? That's frickin nuts man...

GJ

raid517

But anyway yes you are right. A lot of these guys probably still don't know how to program their VCR's (a lot of them probably think the damn things are the work of the devil no doubt) let alone understand the implications of computer technology.

Why the hell should they be allowed free a free run to do as they please to the legislative process?

GJ

BWX

And to think you would vote against the people trying to protect our freedoms...

raid517

The guy proposing that bill is a Republican man.

GJ

Nacht

Well, the thing with the firewall was only in certain states, not a federal thing...I'm not even sure if it passed or not. Thankfully, this bill will probably not pass.

BWX

That guy must be a RINO or something.....
In general Dems are for more control, bigger gov.. And repubs. are for smaller gov. less control-- in general anyway..

dj_stick

notice potentially
just like alcohol can potentially kill, but they don't ban that
just like a car can potentially be kill someone, but they don't ban them
just like a gun can potentially be used for murder, but they don't ban them

they have no idea what they are passing laws about, they need qualified neutral technicians to explain what these products do

Nacht

No no...he may be a republican, but the operative term in this case would be "moron".

JavaFox

The attack on our personal liberties in small ways like this is in no way monopolized by one party. To suggest otherwise, as you're doing, is silly.

raid517

Well I don't happen to think it's silly at all. Sorry.

And we are talking about the incumbent party in power.

If it was some kind of power sharing deal as has been discussed in other threads then maybe we can talk about some kind of collective responsibility. Until then, no.

GJ

Nacht

Trying to contort these events to somehow justify that it is republicans invading our personal liberties is moronic, and stereotypical.

raid517

Well like I said, the guys a republican. Pretty much every RIAA, MPAA loving bill in recent years have been introduced by republicans. The Patriot act and Guantanamo (aka locking people up without charge) are all Republican inspired entities (despite whoever for their own personal political gain later claimed to support them). All the recent legislation allowing the authorities almost unlimited access to your phones and your PCs are republican sponsored policies.

In many ways far from removing government from people's lives, this government has decided that its role is to have it's nose firmly rammed up peoples butts.

Ultimately I don't really care. It doesn't affect anyone in my country. And if it ever did, then I would probably feel inspired to go out and get a gun and make my dissatisfaction quite plain.

But hey, you believe what you want.

GJ

Nacht

You attacked ZD when he made the comment about dems/libs having a more "swinging" (as he put it) lifestyle, you claimed he was making generalizations...which he was. As are you, now. I am a republican...I support the guantanamo bay policies for reasons I'm not going to discuss now..but that doesnt mean that people that believe about the same things as me are solely responsible for the disolval of citizens personal liberty. That is a very childish and shortsighted assumption.

BONEHEAD

If this passes I will host all of my movies,cd's etc. What a load of crap. I beat all the people who created this has copied or copies.

JavaFox

You mar your typically reasonable posting record with posts such as these. Posts such as these demonstrate only a cursory understanding of American politics and issues. Which is fine, you're neither an American nor live in America. But if you're going to pick a position anyway, at least know what you're talking about. Again, I reiterate, that it is silly to suggest that only Republicans take such steps against our own Fair Use freedoms. It is silly because it isn't true.

May I introduce you to Senator Fritz Hollings, Democrat from the lovely state of South Carolina? If you don't know his name, then you probably shouldn't be talking about what we're talking about here. Hollings is known as the "Disney" Senator, and is probably most responsible for their infinite --and probably unconstitutional-- copyright protection. He also drafted the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (luckily never saw the light of day), a follow-up to --and beefier version of-- the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. He also proposed the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. Between Hollings and Hatch, it's tough to say who has hurt Fair Use more. Perhaps Hatch takes the cake, but it's a close call.

I could list example after example of Democrats proposing anti-Fair Use legislation but what would that matter anyway? I don't think Democrats are any more sensitive of Fair Use issues than Republicans, and I don't think they are any more apt to harm Fair Use either. And regardless of who introduces it, Republicans and Democrats both have to vote for it. Can you produce evidence that Republicans are more apt to vote for such legislation? I suspect not. Why do the research --and that would involved a considerable amount of research-- when you can make pot-shots and hope they go unchalleneged! Am I on to something here?

This sort of idiotic legislation stems from a) senators and representatives uninformed on matters pertaining to technology, b) corporate lobbying, and c) a slowly eroding sense of what was intended for copyright law in the United States by our Founders. These things combined produces some really dumb legislation from both the Rs and the Ds.


Indeed?

I thought you lived in England, anyhow. What are the gun ownership laws like there, by the by?

The_Neon_Cowboy

Morpheus is kazza with out the spyware, it the same program rofl....


either way this is totally retarded....


how about the bill that makes it an executable offence to take money from the riaa and similar groups?

I want to see that one

dj_stick

then you would habve no senate

raid517

Java I don't have time. I confess to an outside observer it often seems that the Conservative element of American society is often more sympathetic towards the corporate and business interest of the recording and film industry in America.

Twist my arm and I will dig up examples. But really as I noted this isn't my fight. In this instance I don't think it applies anyway - as this bill is so far out there it should probably be laughed straight back out of the Senate.

I don't think it's something to take seriously. It is just some senile old senator who doesn't understand technology being pushed by some lobbyists to do something they have managed to convince him would be a good thing. I mean he appears not to even be aware that this would decimate millions of jobs in the US - and in a stroke wipe out much of the existing technology you now enjoy, so that the US would be forced to go back and live in the stone age. But then may be as a Mormon that might be something he would see as a good thing, who knows? I have little understanding of what Mormons believe.

As for guns in the UK - well they can be had. You need to know how to look, but they can be had. Illegally of course, but there you are. I think we are a long way off before it ever comes to that anyway.

GJ

JavaFox

Raid, you don't need to show me examples, I am familiar with Hatch's voting record and I don't like it. There are plenty such examples, and that doesn't contradict my post in the slightest -- I already said that it occurs on both sides.

What I am saying is that your post amounts to little more than inflammatory hyperbole. First you say that Republicans are more sympathetic to such laws, but then you cover your ass by saying "it doesn't matter to me, I'm not an American" and then by saying "I don't have time to prove it." If those are the case, you shouldn't be taking a position on this matter at all. Drive-by debating, where you post something and then refuse to back it up because "you're too busy" isn't just annoying, it's dishonest. It doesn't make for a good debate. So if you aren't intersted in debate, don't do it.

You then go on to say that if similar things were to happen in your country, you'd be on the streets fighting it with your gun. Pretty much every country except for Canada has yet to figure out digital copyrights. There's still a significant debate over what to do. It looks like the European approach --if you checked the link-- might not look all that different from the American one. Again, your post about fighting the infringement in the street with your guns --in a country where it is difficult and requires considerable effort to acquire one-- is obviously nothing more than hyperbole and rhetoric.

If you don't want to have a debate, don't start one. It's really that simple.

Anyway, your views on religion increasingly paint you as a bigot. I'm no Mormon, but strawmanning Mormons as you did just reeks of intolerance and ignorance. By your own admission you know nothing about them, so why even bring it up? Orrin Hatch's positions on intellectual property have little to do with his religion, and a LOT to do with the fact that he is a singer and makes quite a bit of money off of his CD sales and royalties. You might know that if you were familiar with this issue. Again, you are not. If you didn't say anything about it, I wouldn't expect you to be. Why should you be? But if you're going to start a debate, and take a position, you should probably at least know what you're talking about. Increasingly it looks like your insight in this area is only cursory.

raid517

Oh for cripe's sake stop raving will you. I brought up this one example and invited comment - exactly because it was so extreme. That is a fair point for debate under any circumstance. I am not going to voluntarily censor my own feelings on the subject just because you don't like it. You appear to be doing as someone else did here before and got told off for it by one of the senior moderators, which is telling me when I should and shouldn't post and what I should or shouldn't say. That isn't going to happen. Not now and not ever.

As for the issue of the Mormon faith, it was only raised in the context that as far as I'm aware Mormons tend to be a pretty traditionalist bunch with a more than healthy mistrust for new technology. I always get the impression whenever I meet any that they want to take the world back into the 1950's anyway. I have nothing against Mormons whatsoever. As far as things go, they appear to be one of the more innocuous branches of the Christian faith. I have no doubt however from what I understand of the morality of the Mormon faith - and of Christianity in general (though shalt not steal etc. etc) that this in some way almost certainly IS informing this person's opinions on this matter.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you got off my back. I'm really not in the mood for it today. If anything as I said, this was a simple piece of silliness meant to lighten the mood somewhat on the political debate forum, not for you to fell free to step into other forum members shoes and turn it into some kind of personal tirade against other forum members you don't like. I'm tired of this crap.

If you want to debate the issue then sure lets do that, but quit telling me what I can or cant post, or that just because I so happen to mention a particular branch of one religious faction in the US, that this somehow makes me a bigot.

Keep it up and you may well have a political debate forum, but you may not have very many people worth very much left to debate on it. I'm getting pretty frickin bored with it.

GJ

Nacht

The two assumptions you made show that you view people with stereotypes. End of story. That is an ignorant and misinformed position to take. Also, mormons are no more "traditionalist" than any christians. (BTW, the only people that consider the mormons part of the christian faith are the mormons themselves. I have many mormon friends and have attended many events at mormon churches). It has nothing to do with the fact your brought up him being a republican to lighten the mood or as a point for debate. Him being a republican is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT...which is why it met with such opposition.

raid517

Well that wasn't my impression, OK? My impression of the Mormons I have met was that they rejected many of the modern values and technologies that we have. Blood transfusions and organ transplants are things that spring immediately to mind) on ideological grounds. They always struck me (I'm not asking what they struck you as, we are all entitled to our own opinion) as more traditionalist, clean living, highly moralistic than other branches I have encountered. But by no means all of them could be stereotyped as rightward leaning republicans. I am aware of probably just as many Democrat Mormons as I am of Republicans. Those I have met have seemed on the whole to be very pleasant and kind people. I still think they are misguided, but hey that's another issue. It hardly makes me a bigot.

Anyway although I think link throwing isn't very productive. Give me a little while and I will dig up some links.

What I objected to was JavaFox's tone. For a brief while I imagined the forum had calmed down and that maybe we could for once indulge in some genuinely rational debate without every debate descending into a ritual insult match.

It seems that perhaps that hope was a little premature.

GJ

raid517

Well there we are, it's a matter of perspective then I guess. You think I'm making generalizations based on no experience of the people I'm talking about - but in reality I have met several Mormons in my lifetime - and as I said this was the impression I formed of them.

But you bring up other examples of restrictions on rights to which I was making a wider reference to. Guantanamo, The Patriot Act, The Patriot Act two and so on. You from your perspective agree with these, whereas I from my perspective view them as an attack on civil liberties.

I don't think we are going to find any middle ground on that, but there you are.

This is something we have gone into in quite some depth in the past.

What I don't have time for is any more of these stupid, petty personal squabbles.

That is what I was telling JF I didn't have time for.

But anyway, back to Google. For all the use it will be, lets play this silly game.

GJ