oh hey, you know what would be awesome? if our respective governments started doing something about inequality, poverty, oppression, hunger, disease and stop blowing the shit out of countries in the name of oil and act with some fucking humanity instead of trying to control what people do on the internet because they’re all in the entertainment industry’s back pocket. yeah. that’d be AWESOME.
Ireland’s trying SOPA.
It could be in Law as early as Friday.
It will be passed without a vote, it is NOT going to the Oireachtas.
It will be signed directly into law.PLEASE, ANY SANE IRISH FOLLOWER I HAVE. RING YOUR TD, EMAIL THEM. SIGN THE PETITION ON http://stopsopaireland.com/
FOR YOU OWN SAKE AND MINE.
(via wirstead)
this is exactly why i barely buy music, and i think that companies have wayyy too much power.
I barely buy music because it mostly sucks and isn’t worth listening to. But there’s also this part too.
I support small labels and self-distributed music and this is why
Support Self-Distro.
gee, i wonder why record companies are so supportive of SOP… OH WAIT
(via mammoth-you)
Global petitions:
Act against ACTA (to the U.S. Congress)
Citizens of Europe:
Contact your representatives!!!!!!
Go to http://www.europarl.org/, select your country (left columb) and then find the contacts of your representatives under “Parliament”, “Your MEPs” or something like this. AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!
and for more/quick information on acta, here.
Hey y’all, if you thought the whole SOPA/PIPA was intense, you may want to check out ACTA (and also check out the fact that filesonic and uploaded are kaput).
As someone just said, we all should have known World War III was going to be fought on the internet.
(via sapphirefire)
[M]any SOPA opponents were confused and even shocked when they learned that the very power they feared the most in that bill — the power of the U.S. Government to seize and shut down websites based solely on accusations, with no trial — is a power the U.S. Government already possesses and, obviously, is willing and able to exercise even against the world’s largest sites (they have this power thanks to the the 2008 PRO-IP Act pushed by the same industry servants in Congress behind SOPA as well as by forfeiture laws used to seize the property of accused-but-not-convicted drug dealers). This all reminded me quite a bit of the shock and outrage that arose last month over the fact that Barack Obama signed into law a bill (the NDAA) vesting him with the power to militarily detain people without charges, even though, as I pointed out the very first time I wrote about that bill, indefinite detention is already a power the US. […]
There are two points worth making about all of this:
(1) It’s wildly under-appreciated how unrestrained is the Government’s power to do what it wants, and how little effect these debates over various proposed laws have on that power. Contrary to how it was portrayed, the Obama administration’s threatened veto of the NDAA rested largely on the assertion that they did not need a law vesting them with indefinite detention powers because they already have full power to detain people without a trial. […]
That’s more or less what happened with the SOPA fight. It’s true that website-seizures-without-trials are not quite as lawless as indefinite detentions, since there are actual statutes conferring this power. But it nonetheless sends a very clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the Government a power it seeks — the power to shut down websites without a trial — only for the Government to turn around the very next day and shut down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites. Whether intended or not, the message is unmistakable:
Congratulations, citizens, on your cute little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular websites without a trial.
(2) The U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine. That is not hyperbole. Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient.And now here is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website shuttered, its assets seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based solely on the unproven accusation of Piracy.
(via adistinguishedvillain)
My panic is coming up again.
People, ACTA is horrible. And why WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT IT??
Remember SOPA: everybody was screaming about it. ACTA IS EVEN WORSE.
ACT! PROTEST! SIGN PETITIONS! DO FUCKING SOMETHING!
Information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ56UNL5zeo
Petiton:
UM FUCK THIS SHIT.
(via wirstead)
Six GOP Co-Sponsors of PIPA Ask Reid to Cancel Vote
In an incredible turn of events, six Republican Senators have asked Majority Leader Harry Reid not to hold a vote onPIPA, the Senate version of SOPA.
They write, “Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration. That resolution has not yet occurred.”
And as an amazing validation of the grassroots response to SOPA, led by groups like Fight for the Future, EFF, Public Knowledge, and Demand Progress, they write, “Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.”
Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, and Tom Coburn signed the letter.
Here’s the text of the letter. PDF is here.
January 13, 2012
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
We write to express our concerns with your decision to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the PROTECT IP Act (S, 968), We strongly believe that the theft of American intellectual property is a significant problem that must be addressed to protect property rights. However, for both substantive and procedural reasons, the process at this point is moving too quickly and this step may be premature.
As you know, on May 26. 2011. the Senate Judiciary- Committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote. Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration. That resolution has not yet occurred.
Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights. Moreover, in light of potential cybersecurity implications, we believe hearing from the Administration and relevant agencies is imperative, As always, our current fiscal crisis demands we carefully consider legislation that would cost taxpayers up to $48 million according to the Congressional Budget Office, These are serious issues that must be considered in an informed, deliberative and responsible manner. This underscores the need to resolve as many outstanding concerns as possible prior to proceeding to floor consideration.
Furthermore, we want to ensure that S. 968 will be afforded full and fair consideration on the Senate floor. It is important that the bill be fully debated and amendments not limited. We would like a firm commitment that once the Senate considers S. 968, the amendment process will be open, with senators being able to offer their amendments without the filling of the amendment tree, and that cloture will not be prematurely filed on the bin.
We are all in agreement that the online distribution and sale of pirated content and counterfeit goods impose a huge cost on the American economy in terms of lost jobs, lost sales, lost innovation and lost income. We also believe, however, that we need to arrive at the right solution in the right way on this important issue. To do so, we must have adequate time to properly analyze and resolve these concerns to the best extent possible prior to proceeding to the bill.
While we remain fully committed to addressing outstanding issues with S. 968, we believe that, at this point, the scheduled consideration of the bill on January 24, 2012, may not permit Oslo work through many of the concems that have been raised.
Sincerely,
Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn
UPDATE: And Sen. Ben Cardin [D, MD] adds his name to the list of co-sponsors walking back their support. Full up-to-date vote tally here.
UPDATE 2: Welcome, Reddit! We love you!
[via opencongress]
Today I called a Senator’s office for the first time.
First, let me say how fantastic it is that when you call the office, a real-live human picks up the phone and can speak to you. There’s no annoying menus, no transfers, no answering machines. Washington, please don’t ever change this.
I was calling mostly to find out why the Senator supports (and co-sponsored!) S.968, aka the PROTECT IP Act aka PIPA. Perhaps there was an argument I was missing — I know how myopic the tech world can be sometimes.
What I got was a reminder of how dangerous this legislation will be, for people who care about:
- the internet
- technology innovation
- creativity
- freedom of speech
- startups and job creation
- facebook, tumblr, youtube, reddit, 4chan, and any other major site that touches user-generated content
OK so back to my phone call. The first question I asked was “why does the Senator support this legislation?”
The guy on the other end of the phone said: “well, he’s a co-sponsor so he’s not changing his position.”
He must have known why I was calling.
Asked the same question again. This time the reply I got this time was different: “Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet.”
….whhhhhhat? Up until now, most of the statements from congresspeople have done that neat thing politicians do where they say words but don’t actually answer the question. They do the “censorship” dance very well – never say it out loud, but vote for the bill nonetheless. From what I can tell “anti-piracy” and “pro-censorship” are actually the same thing here, though politicians usually argue the former so as not to seem anti-first-amendment. No one has been brazen enough to drop the C-word without hesitation. But this dude apparently had no problem with it. I said again: “So you’re saying Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet?”
“Yes.”
“Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet.”
i’m in favour of punching senator schumer in the balls.
(via camembertlylegal)
