doctorow at March 8th, 2014 21:01 — #1
boundegar at March 8th, 2014 21:27 — #2
Those ISPs need a lawsuit in a big hurry, and meanwhile everybody who liked those sites knows how to use a proxy anyway. Does the EFF have an Italian wing?
iquitos46 at March 8th, 2014 22:51 — #3
How Odd! A politician who purports to be different from the status quo turns out to be more of the same. So who could see something like that coming?
anuran at March 8th, 2014 23:01 — #4
Goodbye Web as a source of alternative views or anything upsetting to the status quo.
That was the "irresponsible" and "Wild West" Web
Web 2,0 is business-friendly, respects National Security without having to be asked. It's safe, sanitized and supports Responsible Speech.
lucio at March 9th, 2014 03:46 — #5
You said "Matteo Renzi, a young politician who is trying to set himself apart from the autocratic Berlusconi regime, which used tight media control as part of its corrupt governance strategy". Are you ironic? Your affirmation looks really like Renzi supporters propaganda. Maybe in your recent trip in Florence, where Matteo Renzi ruled as mayor, your hosts misrepresented the history and features of this "young politician". Renzi, who has more then 15 years of experience in politics, has been frequently criticized for his strong relations and affinities with Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi loves him and Renzi rise to the chair of prime minister, without an election, is mainly due to the backing of Berlusconi with whom Renzi is planning plenty of "autocratic" reforms.
euansmith at March 9th, 2014 05:00 — #6
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up electing a politician.
zai at March 9th, 2014 05:05 — #7
This kind of crap really is forcing my withdrawal from the Internet.
I'm going to get involved in one of the meshnet projects and wean myself off the internet, I think.
djhbaw1 at March 9th, 2014 08:51 — #8
It's a mistake to use the word "censorship" in this case because it's like crying wolf. If you start using the word "censorship" to describe any action by the police, it devalues the word and makes it much less likely that people will care when a real case of censorship comes along.
Like it or not, infringement is against the law and there are many artists who see it as a threat to their income. Is it censorship when the police put a rapist in jail? After all, he won't be able to talk up women in the bars any more. Save this word for real cases when the government shuts down the original artist-- not some plagiarist.
anuran at March 9th, 2014 13:29 — #9
ISPs are complying, even though no complaint had been lodged against the sites, nor had any judge issued any order related to them.
funkdaddy at March 9th, 2014 14:12 — #10
a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
No bro, it is not a mistake to use the word censorship in this case. It is not crying wolf. It just happens that you support this act of censorship is all. Maybe you think it is good censorship.
You relate piracy of video by people who never would have paid for it anyway to a horrible violent crime, so you probably think all sorts of pleasant, positive things.
djhbaw1 at March 9th, 2014 14:36 — #11
Choose your poison. Would you rather I say that it's censorship to take a gun from someone convicted of felony assault? Or would you prefer saying that putting some Wall Streeter in jail for fraud is censoring them?
Telling people how to commit crimes is not protected by the First amendment. It never has been and never will be-- unless the pirates or their apologists end up in charge. Stopping people from acting as accessories to a crime is not censorship. It's just good common practice. It's called stopping crime.
funkdaddy at March 9th, 2014 15:14 — #12
No, you can't (you can, but it's incorrect & looks stupid) say that it is censorship to take a gun from someone convicted of felony assault. Censoring is exclusive to media, mediums, like printed word, broadcast etc.
& You can't take that gun without due process, demonstrably in your sentence the -convict-ion of the courts. You can't jail someone for fraud before convicting them of fraud in a court. This is just one of the reasons that censorship in this instance isn't comparable to violent crimes but I thought I'd point that out to you since you seem to think these things are equal in some way by your examples.
I understand that taking out the middleman of due process is an expedient way to protect your masters business model, but it just won't do.
lionelag at March 9th, 2014 22:30 — #13
I'm extremely skeptical that it's Renzi. In Italy, the prosecutors are part of the judicial branch of government, not the executive, and have an almost inconceivable amount of independence (by UK/US/Canadian standards). Berlusconi's fall is proof of that..
This order by the Prosecutor of Rome disturbing on many levels, not least of which that Italian judges are some of the least equipped in Europe to deal with technical questions, but without more evidence, I really don't think that this is actually the Italian government at work.
djhbaw1 at March 10th, 2014 07:12 — #14
Horsemanure. Are you saying that dancers aren't expressing themselves? Are you saying that protesters aren't expressing themselves by walking in the streets? Expression is not just people typing comments on the Internet. It's not just links to where to pinch content without paying. Expression takes all forms.
You're just looking for any excuse to support theft. Face it. You're an artist hater who wants to steal from their mouths and make it impossible for them to feed themselves or their families without getting day jobs.
howaboutthis at March 10th, 2014 10:06 — #15
“At present it seems that the action wasn’t carried out at the request of copyright owners associations..."
If Industry and Government in Italy bed down together like they do in the U.S., the copyright owners associations ARE the government.
funkdaddy at March 10th, 2014 11:58 — #16
Dancing is expression that can be repressed but not censored except by medium. Protesting is expression that can be repressed but not censored except by repression of mediums used to broadcast it by any means.
Please explain again how a convicted felon being prevented gun ownership or having their weapons seized & being charged is censorship again?
Please explain how fraud engaged in on Wall St., often by those you defend, that when prosecuted is being censored?
You're an apologist or a shill who knows too well that piracy never hurt a corporations pocketbook & is only used an as excuse to screw artists, the weakest entity in corporate distribution of programming.
teapot at March 10th, 2014 23:53 — #17
I agree with everything you're saying, but you need to include visual art in that definition. Art suffers censorship as much as anything because powerful people know that artists are the gurus of modern taste and opinion.
@djhbaw1 You're rely on straw man arguments and irrelevant comparisons to make your point. The point is not that sites posting infringing content are the things being censored but that the content itself is being censored, since there's a lot of legal content that is distributed through the sites that are blocked.
I really hope you do work somewhere that is upset by piracy because then this next part will hurt: I download everything, all the time and I do it without giving a shit. The rights holders of music and film are multimillion dollar corporations who have been leeching from the artists since day one. I have no feelings of responsibility to those entities. If you want to support the artists you're much better buying merch from the band's website than buying their CD from the record company, since an artist's cut from CD sales is minuscule and they get the bulk of their income from signing the deal.
[mod edit: removed insult]
peregrinus_bis at March 11th, 2014 10:15 — #18
Man, artist-haters just suck the big one.
I picked up the guitar 30 years ago - 30! - and after a while, got pretty good at singing and strumming. I've written a ton of songs, and was all getting ready to go for a recording contract when this stupid internet thing kicked off, and I stood back in sheer terror.
It was obvious - people all over the world were going to copy my stuff, give it to eachother for free - and I couldn't face the awful consequences. Millions of people, anywhere at all, hearing and seeing my stuff, my face all over the place, and no control or fees - no way! The recording industry was just like me, a panic, and no solution, ever.
I tell you - having read "How Music Works" by David Byrne, I'm so totally validated. He points out just how the model changed over the years, just how the revenues are shrinking for the music corporations.
I read about Iron Maiden's tour last year in Central and South America - man, they showed them suckers! Their "social media" guy (whatever the fuck that is - do you know???) figured out just how much of their music was being stolen, like, all over the South of The Border, and so IM went on a tour and RAKED IN THE CASH - turning the tables on the thieves, huh?! They went into the viper's den, and came out with it's head!
Rock on! Rock the fuck on!
I'm still refraining from release though. I want this all crushed before I dare go public in any way.
I want corporations I can rely on to give me contracts I can believe in, have faith in, that they'll protect me legally, and just like in the old days (the good old days!), will fairly and with integrity, give me every share of my due.
Then I'll release.
teapot at March 11th, 2014 19:40 — #19
Hey man if you ever wanna go public with your stuff, I'll give you a deal twice as good as the record labels: You'll earn a whopping 2% of sales revenue if you sign with me!
peregrinus_bis at March 12th, 2014 03:45 — #20
Dude finally after these dark years the good people are steppin' forth and givin' me the love! Don't overbalance man - I wanna make sure the contract I sign is the contract I live, forever - so keep those books balanced!
next page →