I do say it's kind of your own fault (@americans).
You keep electing these people, however small it maybe ( don't you need to win some kind of campaign to get up in the system ? )
Or can you just apply for the job of power/win it with a cereal box ?
(2012-01-17, 09:00 PM)Ansem Wrote: [ -> ]I do say it's kind of your own fault (@americans).
You keep electing these people, however small it maybe ( don't you need to win some kind of campaign to get up in the system ? )
Or can you just apply for the job of power/win it with a cereal box ?
Yes, but this was never on the agenda when they were campaigning. To my knowledge it was put forward by a single representative (texas?) and was pushed through with massive amounts of lobbying (from the big giants of film/music).
Then it was voted on by a group of people that have no idea of the implications, or the actual technicalities of inplementing such a system. They were told by the film and music industries that it would prevent millions of dollars of lost revenue from piracy. But they didn't think about the amount ofbusiness that is done online these days.
That's the problem with having a group of people with all the power. It's great, unless those with the power know nothing about the problem. They're a bunch of 50+ year olds, deciding on OUR futures. Some of them can probably barely send emails, yet they are playing with powers that let them block the WORLD from receiving content online.
That, my friends, is the problem with modern day "democracy" (which i use in the lightest sense of the word).
Actually it's quite hard to in America. If anything, it's one of the hardest in the world. They don't really accept anyone outside of the main two parties. So you have to be either the least consveritive, or the most.
Hence why I used "democracy" in the lightest sense
No point, no one would complain to Congress about it that hasn't already.
Sites like Facebook and Google have to shut down (in addition to Wikipedia and Reddit w00t!) to send a message to the retards that are the government.
I think there might be a fundamental problem with Internet websites just shutting down. True, it is demonstrative to the government that a great amount of people will be inconvenienced, just as what could very well happen if and when SOPA is passed. However, I think that there are multiple sides to this issue. Look at it from the point-of-view of the adults: this is to help protect the creative people, the filmmakers and the musicians. Because people in the Millennial generation (of or around the years 1996 to current day) are so used to the internet being uncensored, this is a great upset. I myself was outraged when I initially heard about SOPA. However, this is also an example of what is known as "spin doctoring," or twisting the facts to represent your point of view.
I, personally, think there should be a more moderate way to go about this, instead of an Internet boycott. My solution would be to send an email like the following to all the members of the House in one's own state.
Feel free to edit this any way you want.
Quote:Subject: Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
Dear [Representative],
I believe that there are several flaws in the Stop Online Piracy Act. Below, please find several of my grievances:
1) The act gives the government rights to, in a word, censor the internet. This goes against the First Amendment rights given to the citizens of the United States.
2) There are more efficient ways to shut down piracy than to shut down websites that allow for video and audio to be played or streamed.
3) The bill has harsh penalties for anyone found in violation of the bill. Five years of prison time seems to be extraneous in that it seems to be a means scare people into behaving.
However, there are some positives to SOPA, which I will spell out below:
1) SOPA does, I admit, give creators of music and other media more security in placing their content on the internet.
2) The ability to see the Internet Protocol (IP) address of offending websites is helpful for taking offenders into custody.
That being said, I believe that SOPA is too extreme. If the penalties for offenders, up to a point, were less severe than they currently are (for example, a fine such as stated in the beginnings of video films), then the bill might not be so hard-pressed against. Also, the ways in which a site is defined as "facilitating theft" are somewhat unclear in my eyes. If this were cleared up, I believe that less people would be willing to take such extreme measures to protest the bill.
In the post-script, please find a list of links that I believe would help you see this bill from the average internet-user's point of view.
All the best,
[your name]
P.S. As promised, here are the links. I hope that you will see why people are outraged:
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...-LXYMZ.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/t...story.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...firms-sopa
You miss the big picture. By big, I mean like freaking huge.
Do you think Reddit, Google, or Wikipedia will stay up if Sopa passes? No. They will pretty much shut down or have to spend thousands of dollars moving, and losing their biggest market.
They are showing what the internet will be like without SOPA.
Ah, then I misunderstood the point of this movement horribly. My bad. And, just wondering, do you mean "with SOPA?"
I say SOPA is alike naziism. Hitler Favoured his Aerian (if that's how you spell it?) race. So he killed millions and millions of people who didn't fit the description. SOPA is the same. Congress is favouring the industry fat cats of film and music. So they are passing a law that will slaughter thousands of businesses and the Internet as we know it.
The US government is corrupt. Lobbyists pay millions into the political pockets of congress and congress passes bills and laws. That's not how it should be. Your average Joe American can't afford to pay a few million bucks to get their opinion heard, so the rich guys win. A real democracy has true voting. The UK system is similar. Yes we're not controlled by a dictator, we just elect a group of them that rule for a few years. Yes, other parties can vote against things, but is that a true democracy? No. The people in a country make very little difference to how it runs. It seems not to matter what party is voted in, they all begin great and then end up doing the same stuff the last lot did.
Watch the movie RIP- A reminx manifesto. You will see what Copyright is so F'd up.