Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jan 2012 09:26 UTC
Legal "Though a deeply divided Congress is currently considering Internet website censorship legislation, the US has no such official policy - not even for child porn, which is voluntarily blocked by some ISPs. Nor does the US have a government-backed 'three strikes' or 'graduated response' system of escalating warnings to particular users accused of downloading music and movies from file-sharing networks. Yet here was the ultimatum that the US Embassy in Madrid gave the Spanish government in February 2008: adopt such measures or we will punish you. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have the text of the diplomatic cable announcing the pressure tactics." Isn't it funny that one of the main driving forces behind the push for more stringent copyright laws, Disney, has built its empire almost entirely on appropriating European public domain stories? As a European, that's just insulting.
Thread beginning with comment 502434
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Darkmage
by Darkmage on Fri 6th Jan 2012 21:54 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

Surely, SURELY, Mary Bono's own words should be taken into a court somewhere and be used to strike down the legislation as unconstitutional? What the hell ever happenned to the spirit of the original document? It's quite clear that big companies, and government are acting against the original intent of the constitution on these matters.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Darkmage
by tylerdurden on Fri 6th Jan 2012 22:58 in reply to "Comment by Darkmage"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

To get back to the "original intent" of the US constitution, you are gonna have to strip women, minorities, and non-land owning white males of their rights. Which is going to be awkwaaaaaaaaard...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by umccullough on Sat 7th Jan 2012 00:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

To get back to the "original intent" of the US constitution, you are gonna have to strip women, minorities, and non-land owning white males of their rights. Which is going to be awkwaaaaaaaaard...


Especially when "minorities" are now white people in certain parts of the country.

Bah, copyright law has LONG since stopped being what it was intended for... now it more-or-less provides the exact situation that it was originally designed to prevent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by zima on Fri 13th Jan 2012 23:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

To get back to the "original intent" of the US constitution, you are gonna have to strip women, minorities, and non-land owning white males of their rights. Which is going to be awkwaaaaaaaaard...

Going further - how much, really, those rights were there mostly to shield big owners? (essentially corporations of the past; we do have historical record of XIX century, times of massive corruption and profiteering (pretty much everywhere, of course) - and you know, I believe our times will be remembered similarly "glorious" & more in the sphere of myths; it's happening before our eyes, for example the "~50s were awesome" myth while http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html ...inaccurate memories of the past, seeing it as much better than it really was, is probably at the core of populist ~conservatism)

Reply Parent Score: 2