When freedom of speech gets stolen

J Anderson · Post by **J Anderson** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 5:16 pm

Oh, I have no doubt Bush secretly sees this as his personal holy war. But between Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, you weren't dealing with utopias. Of course, we could also go after Saudi Arabia(a huge terrorist funder) if we weren't so reliant on their oil.

I don't think the online petition will work. I know 2 such petitions have been successful... out of the roughly 1.3 million of them that pop up a week.

Akarui Kibuno · Post by **Akarui Kibuno** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 5:26 pm

Bah, we're not sure it will work at all, but the Internet is so large that, who knows ?

At least, it was not chain mail. Not spam. I hate spam and chains mails and everything of the like. So if I see a petition on a board like that, I think I'll sign it :p

Post by **Tiff** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:10 pm

I didn't bother signing it, becuase it asked for email and regular address, and i'd rather not be overwhelmed with spam.

Akarui Kibuno · Post by **Akarui Kibuno** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:20 am

Bwah, this is why I always have several e-mail addresses :p

When you sign or sign-up to something online, you'll always be sure to have to put an e-mail somewhere. That's why it's good to keep a valid address only for that, and then poof, no problems on your personal address :p

(end of off topic)

Post by **Tiff** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 2:05 pm

Akarui Kibuno wrote:Bwah, this is why I always have several e-mail addresses :p

When you sign or sign-up to something online, you'll always be sure to have to put an e-mail somewhere. That's why it's good to keep a valid address only for that, and then poof, no problems on your personal address :p

(end of off topic)

Yes, I have three or four email addresses.
But I still don't like the idea of having to put my address down for this.
So I didn't =P

yoshmaster5 · Post by **yoshmaster5** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:48 pm

Tiff wrote:
Akarui Kibuno wrote:Bwah, this is why I always have several e-mail addresses :p

When you sign or sign-up to something online, you'll always be sure to have to put an e-mail somewhere. That's why it's good to keep a valid address only for that, and then poof, no problems on your personal address :p

(end of off topic)
Yes, I have three or four email addresses.
But I still don't like the idea of having to put my address down for this.
So I didn't =P

I put down an address I USED to live at.

the people who bought our house were jerks to us... so...

The fact there are about 5 skunks living under the house since they moved in...

Jed-kun · Post by **Jed-kun** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 6:09 pm

Awwwwwwwwghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Sorry, I'm kinda eritated at the moment, but not at anybody here. The thing is, that they have now come up with a NEW bill that they wan't to pass that supposedly gives us back the rights that the Patriot Act took away (i.e. Free Speach), however, it doesn't really repeal it, so PARTS of the Patriot Act are still in effect! Anybody else think that, well, here goes a list...

1)Use horror to advantage and pass crazy ass uncostitutional bill to grab hold of control of country...
2)When people regain there sences make an NEW bill to make up for the old "bad" one and act like it was all just because of the heat of the moment.
3)Now you have a bill that still takes away peoples rights, but to a now "acceptable" degree and everyone praises you for seeing the error of your previous way's.

It's all POLITICAL BULL SHIT!!! ::END OF RANT::
Edit: I believe that this new "wonder bill" is called the "Safe Act". Safe my ass! More like the "Faulse Sence of Security Act".

J Anderson · Post by **J Anderson** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 6:59 pm

I still find it odd that the Patriot Act has yet to affect the lives of either myself or anyone I know though, considering how many people make it out to be such a big thing.

Jed-kun · Post by **Jed-kun** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:13 pm

It's not it's effect on people right this moment so much as the fact that it exists and SHOULDENT! Just 'cause the killer bees arn't stinging me right this moment dosn't mean that it's not a problem.

Akarui Kibuno · Post by **Akarui Kibuno** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:17 pm

Yeah, that's what's the problem.

You know of a minor law that seems harmful. You don't really know what it does but you don't care that much, cause it didn't affect you when it was made.

Then, one day, you have a problem that you can't resolve. You happen to find out that you can't resolve the problem because of the damn law that you found so harmful.

What is dangerous is that it exists for a reason. If it doesn't affect you now, it will affect you in the most difficult times.

That's my feeling anyway ^^;;

J Anderson · Post by **J Anderson** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:19 pm

I'd be more worried about the DMCA. Thanks to that, companies can sue us for anything we may do online that is only now illegal under that law. The RIAA is trying to ruin so many peole right now, I'd gladly take the Patriot Act over the DMCA, which is just a corporate friendly law policy.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:53 pm

J Anderson wrote:I'd be more worried about the DMCA. Thanks to that, companies can sue us for anything we may do online that is only now illegal under that law. The RIAA is trying to ruin so many peole right now, I'd gladly take the Patriot Act over the DMCA, which is just a corporate friendly law policy.

DMCA? Is that where people using kazaa can get sued? Cause, as much as I like to download music, it IS illegal. I can understand them cracking down on people. We are technically STEALING their music. And I'm not saying I haven't done it. I just understand why its illegal.

J Anderson · Post by **J Anderson** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:34 pm

Basically, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it easier for corporations to sue and to get more money for internet piracy. Technically, under it, a good percentage of internet users, not just MP3 downloaders, are breaking the law. And the penalties can be worse than the penalties for certain violent crimes, especially at $150,000 per "violation".

Essentially, thanks to the DCMA, even fan sites that use any copyrighted images without permission could be sued. Thankfully, most companies aren't that cold.

Basically, it was a industry-friendly law that's tying up the already tied up court system. And most of these so-called illegal activities are so minor they shouldn't even BE in the courts. Unless you believe the RIAA, who makes MP3 sharing out to be a worse offense than murder.

So I don't fear the Patriot Act one bit.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:36 pm

J Anderson wrote:Basically, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it easier for corporations to sue and to get more money for internet piracy. Technically, under it, a good percentage of internet users, not just MP3 downloaders, are breaking the law. And the penalties can be worse than the penalties for certain violent crimes, especially at $150,000 per "violation".

Essentially, thanks to the DCMA, even fan sites that use any copyrighted images without permission could be sued. Thankfully, most companies aren't that cold.

Basically, it was a industry-friendly law that's tying up the already tied up court system. And most of these so-called illegal activities are so minor they shouldn't even BE in the courts. Unless you believe the RIAA, who makes MP3 sharing out to be a worse offense than murder.

So I don't fear the Patriot Act one bit.

But is it the downloading mp3 thing? I'm not saying I support everything, nor do I think mp3 sharing is really a bad thing. But it is illegal, so I understand that they want to punish the people doing it.

J Anderson · Post by **J Anderson** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:50 pm

Trust me, the RIAA isn't out to uphold the law. Their sales aren't even down. They just come up with "expected earnings" for the year and when they don't earn that, then they complain that MP3s are causing it. They ignore the other causes(lack of interest in certain artists, old artists have been purchased to the point there aren't as many new buyers).

Basically, they see it as a cash cow. Regardless of the general belief, the artists make zip off CD sales. Possibly 5 cents per. If that. They generally receive a lump sum to record, and then another cut after that. Most of their income is through touring, and whatever royalties they can gather. So the RIAA pockets most of the cash.

I wish I could dig up the quotes, but the RIAA has publically stated that MP3s spuuort terrorism, and that any artist who refuses RIAA representation doesn't deserve money.

But the DMCA is a much larger law than just MP3s. Seems its protectin on games took a big blow-

"In response to a filing by Brewster Kahle of The Internet Archive, Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons, and others, the Librarian of Congress granted exemptions from copyright protection measures in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to obsolete videogames. The exemption applies to games that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, and it determines a format obsolete ?if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.?

According to the original filing, the exemption was proposed in order to migrate degraded and obsolete works to modern storage systems, and enable ?archiving, future scholarship, and commentary.?

But I'd expect the gaming industry to appeal this.

And yes, MP3s are technically illegal. But as with most bootleg laws, it's illegal to produce or sell, but not to own or obtain. At least, they were. Unless you're downloading to burn and sell, then it's internet jaywalking. And we don't send people to life in prison for jaywalking, last I checked.

Jed-kun · Post by **Jed-kun** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 10:03 pm

J Anderson wrote:I'd gladly take the Patriot Act over the DMCA, which is just a corporate friendly law policy.

Ok, First, one has NOTHING to do with the other. Second, you shouldn't have to take ANY unjust law... whether the DMCA is unjust or not I dunno, parts seem to be taking away rights, however other parts seem pretty fair.

Brak · Post by **Brak** » Wed Nov 05, 2003 10:10 pm

i think this may be straying from the topic too much, someone may want to make a topic about the DMCA/RIAA/mp3/etc

Post by **Tiff** » Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:21 am

Make a new topic if you're going to discuss the RIAA and such.
And calm down

J Anderson · Post by **J Anderson** » Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:31 am

Okay, while I don't necessarily distrust the Patriot Act itself, I don't believe Ashcroft is the man that should be in charge of it. If anyone's going to misuse it, it'd be him.

Jed-kun · Post by **Jed-kun** » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:41 pm

I completely COMPLETELY agree! However, that is one of the main reason's I fear it so much. In the wrong hands it is completely misused and I just don't trust another human being, ESPECIALLY a politician, to have THAT kind of power. Which is why, I feel, it would be better to just do away with the thing entirely.