The following story appeared recently in The Times of London, (sent by Bernard) although it also applies to the US (and France). My primary question is who and what actually watches and monitors the downloads?
“People who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week.
Internet service providers (ISPs) will be legally required to take action against users who access pirated material, The Times has learnt.
Users suspected of wrongly downloading films or music will receive a warning e-mail for the first offence, a suspension for the second infringement and the termination of their internet contract if caught a third time, under the most likely option to emerge from discussions about the new law.” (Click for the full story and comments)
Internet service providers (ISPs) will be legally required to take action against users who access pirated material, The Times has learnt.
Users suspected of wrongly downloading films or music will receive a warning e-mail for the first offence, a suspension for the second infringement and the termination of their internet contract if caught a third time, under the most likely option to emerge from discussions about the new law.” (Click for the full story and comments)
The secret words are Police State
.JPG)
5 comments:
I present:
The MARGARET THATCHER center for FREEDOM.
Lest you think I joke,
http://www.thatchercenter.org/
Bob Lefsetz of Rhino Records on why the record industry is in trouble. (Hint, it's not illegal downloads)
http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?StoryID=1066
That's why the internet is scary. You can cut people off in regards to communicating. That's why print is important. Online you can just erase certain documents and its as if they've never existed.
And the thing is that you don't know that they ever existed, if you google something, you assume all of the info is coming up, and that's not the case.
What if major blogging software got together with Rupert Murdoch and decided to keep the internet pleasant by banning certain voices?
What if blogger did that? Or Typepad? Or Wordpress? They are private companies, they could just decide they don't like what you're saying and you'd have no way to communicate.
I got banned from LAist, because I pointed out that something they were writing wasn't true and was labelled a trouble maker.
We are already a police state.
Browne
Bob Woodworth, editor of The Match (a very long-running anarchist rag—not Anarchy, or any of that crap—of considerable substance despite his crabbiness) portended this very thing some twelve years ago. Mr. Woodward made the argument that the considerably reduced conduit, controlled in the same manner that allows for such ease of use, would also grant those in charge the ability to monitor and eventually starve dissidents of any stripe.
Too, as UK appears to be for US what Aberdeen (US, not UK) is for the military, it is only a matter of time before the practice is exported to US. It is akin to cutting off one's mail were one to have received pornographic materials, in the 1960s. Would anyone have allowed that then? Why would people stand for that now?!
Browne,
It's happening exactly as you've postulated. Here's an example, reported on Fox News, of all places:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331106,00.html
Headlined.... Journalist [Matthew Lee] Who Exposes U.N. Corruption Disappears From Google
"Lee is the editor-in-chief, Webmaster and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press, a pint-sized Internet news operation that's taken on Goliath-sized entities like Citigroup since 1987.
Click here to view the Inner City Press Web site.
"Since 2005, he's been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stories online almost daily.
"....But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.
"...It began with an innocuous-sounding yet chilling form letter from Google to Lee, e-mailed on Feb. 8: 'We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users,' it said. 'When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News.' "
Post a Comment