[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [vox] Regarding: "Stop Online Piracy Act" that
> everybody screams about...
> From: Brian Lavender <email@example.com>
> Date: Mon, November 28, 2011 2:17 pm
> To: LUGOD's general discussion mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:11:48AM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: [vox] Regarding: "Stop Online Piracy Act" that everybody
> > > screams about...
> > > From: Bill Broadley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Date: Tue, November 22, 2011 10:42 pm
> > > To: email@example.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/22/2011 08:41 PM, Mikies Runs Baal wrote:
> > > > Heya Bill,
> > > >
> > > > Besides me, has anyone bothered to d/l and read the actual bill to find
> > > > out IF and WHAT the hubris is actually about.
> > >
> > > I've not read it, care to summarize? I found this link but no idea how
> > > biased it is:
> > > http://mashable.com/2011/11/16/sopa-infographic/
> > Well, this viewpoint is definitely biased against the bill. It admits,
> > "An activist group organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> > (EFF),
> > Creative Commons, Mozilla, Public Knowledge, the Free Software
> > Foundation
> > and others who oppose the bill, created the infographic."
> > Opinion: This will succeed at mitigating copyright infringement.
> > (Of course, I can already feel your gears churning with
> > workarounds.) And it doesn't seem to violate the U.S
> > constitution. Maybe the devil is in the details.
> A lot of legislation these days comes from corporations. It goes
> like this. If you want to get elected, you need money to campaign to
> buy advertising and fund groups (think tanks) that will create good
> propaganda for you. And, most politicians return the favor. I find it
> ironic that TV and radio advertising rakes in billions of dollars from
> election campaigns that broadcast on the air we breath.
> Copyright now is on the Mickey Mouse payment plan as copyright law
> continually gets extended so that Mickey won't fall into public domain.
> Programming which is based upon language theory now falls under patent
> law. But, if you think patents on software is bad, wait until patents
> on biotechnology start to show their impact. That will be a doosey.
> We had a decent copyright and patent system, but as technology has
> changed the tricksters say that the laws need revising.
> Seeing how the supreme court now considers corporations people, I guess
> they ought to have an opinion too. Especially considering that they are
> the ones who contributed mostly to the bill.
Um, these devils aren't details in the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Moreover, I feel the need to dispel a rumor. The supreme court didn't
rule that corporations are people. Instead, a Presidential candidate
said "corporations are people" into an open microphone.
The supreme court ruled that Citizens United (obviously not a person)
has free speech rights under the first amendment.
The first amendment says,
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech;"
The word person is not in this clause of the first amendment.
Person doesn't come into play until the right to assemble clause.
Personally, I'm in favor of campaign finance controls. The next law
regulating campaign donations (whenever the decade it passes) needs to
be worded differently. Or more robustly, a constitutional
amendment needs pass that defines what a person is. Lawyers can't be
assumed to know biology.
vox mailing list