February 21, 2012 at 9:00 am
Jeff Moden (2/21/2012)
Heh... if you think your blog is yours, tell me what would happen if your host changes 'the rules". 😉
I suppose the host could change the rules, but it's still my blog. Copyright still applies. If I violated it, they could remove a post (or the blog), but it's still mine. I have regular backups, for that specific reason.
Worrying about rules changing is out of my control, it's too "conspiracy theory"-ish for me.
I suspect most people don't think about, or care about the implications of SOPA. They think it sounds good, prevent piracy, without understanding the potential drawbacks or issues.
I would prefer better enforcement overseas of copyright, but more reasonable copyright terms. I personally think that 14 + 14 years are plenty. You can earn royalties for that term, and if not, let someone else build on the creativity. I dislike "lottery" winnings (outside of true gambling) in business. I continue to go to work every day, and I expect that authors, movie makers, musicians, etc. to do the same.
February 21, 2012 at 9:02 am
Grant Fritchey (2/21/2012)
As far as the apathy goes, most people are apathetic about almost all their basic rights. I'm pretty sure a healthy majority of people would be willing to sacrifice freedom for security, just based on the last 30 years of history.
Most people are apathetic, heck, I am in many ways. Certain things are my "cause".
I don't think most people want to trade security for freedom, but most people don't think it through, and react to the latest news. Or they don't pay attention.
I also think most people know courts get bound by precedent, but would hope that common sense and the spirit of the law would prevail over the word, which rarely seems to happen.
February 21, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Jeff Moden (2/21/2012)
Heh... one thing I've learned is that there's a whole lot more apathy on the subject than all the fanfare on by Google, WikiPedia, and folks on various forms of media would have you believe. Shifting gears a bit, I guess the people who wanted to push SOPA weren't willing to put their money where their mouth is. The only ads that I heard on the radio were against SOPA (I don't watch much TV). Because SOPA included websites pertaining to the copy-catting of certain very popular drug types, you'd think the drug companies would have spent a bit more on advertising support for SOPA.
Be careful as to whom you believe. The other side of the coin seems to allege that the primary reasons for the Drug companies to support this is to get Canadian pharmacies to stop cutting into their profits by selling to american clients (Canada has government-mandated price controls, so they get the SAME drugs we do for quite a bit less then we do).
I don't know if that actually happens to be why they were supporting it, but I do know they've been looking for ways to crack down on that practice for some time now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 27, 2012 at 11:37 am
Grant Fritchey (2/21/2012)
... I'm pretty sure a healthy majority of people would be willing to sacrifice freedom for security...
It comes to my mind when we (at my town) started to put bars at the windows to avoid thieving.
Today its unsafe to walk around in late hours and in a sense we are in a sort of domiciliary prison due lack of security.
And that's not good. I like security but (at the internet at least) I like freedom a lot more.
And I ill dont support SOPA just because some billionare j*rk thinks is losing money for piracy.
j*rk = someone dont knows about internet, freedon and is spending millions in a lobby at the US congress.
P.S.: IP Filtering over all connections at the ISP is impossible.
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply