Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AFL-CIO and Big Content Advocate For SOPA

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-piracy-for-you dept.

Censorship 295

Weezul writes "Today's House Judiciary Committee meeting on the Stop Online Piracy Act excluded any witnesses who advocate for civil rights. Google's Katherine Oyama was the only witness to object to the bill in a meaningful way. In particular, the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079716)

Laying all that fibre, installing servers, manning phones at the offices of *AA attorneys, etc.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (5, Informative)

Weezul (52464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079788)

It appears the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) is an AFL-CIO union [aflcio.com] . Any members should apply some pressure against their support for this madness.

I'd hope the AFL-CIO would shape up if enough members threatened to quit.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079832)

Can you quit the AFL-CIO?

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (4, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079908)

Sure, but it'd be a shame if your legs got broken, and you didn't have their worker protections. A real shame. You should think about how nice it is not to have your legs broken. Maybe you don't want to quite the AFL-CIO?

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079942)

Yes. You can quit when you die.

In states where an ID is required to vote, you are required to bequeath your drivers license to them, though.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (4, Insightful)

will_die (586523) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080122)

Republicans have been pushing to have laws passed that makes it easier for you to that and provide protection if you do. There are still a few states where depending on where you work and what you do the answer would be no.
Even if you cannot quit them you should be able to get back any monies that do not directly relate to the union and benefits they can provide. Such as, to use the occupy wall street terminology, payoffs to politicians.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080152)

Can you quit the AFL-CIO?

Some of the biggest unions around -- SEIU, Teamsters, UFW, and UFCW -- did in 2005.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079836)

You can't quit union in non-right to work states. So they don't care, they still get your money.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079888)

You can't quit union in non-right to work states. So they don't care, they still get your money.

You can drop AFL-CIO as your union and switch to another by a vote. It's not unpossible. Probably more effective to just get a letter writing campaign going, though.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080038)

It's not unpossible.

G. Dubya, is that you? It's great to have you back. Let's kick that pinko-commie liberal's ass clean outta the Whitehouse!

On a more serious note, why can't you leave a union? That sounds very un-free to me.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080086)

On a more serious note, why can't you leave a union? That sounds very un-free to me.

You CAN quit a union.

However (there's always a however), in non-right-to-work States, union dues are deducted from your paycheck and sent to the union whether you're a member or not.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080112)

I'm so glad we live in a free country.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080118)

Because the company you work for has agreed to only hire union workers, i.e. you can't keep your job if you leave. Your union dues are probably deducted from your paycheck before you get it.

It does sound "unfree" but it's probably the only way that collective bargaining can work (or at least the most efficient way). Same with healthcare, the best risk pool is a pool of everyone, period.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080124)

AFl-CIO isn't a union, per-se, it's a Federation/Congress of unions. Union Member -> Union -> AFL CIO. Like Musician -> Record Company -> RIAA.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080228)

So, I vote to quit. 1 Vote for quitting, no votes for no.... I quit!

That's the way it SHOULD work. For some reason, my coworkers can tell me I have to belong to a union. And even if I don't want to belong, my employer will collect dues for the union

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079814)

The root of the recording industry came from distribution.

That was trucking.

It's why the same gangsters ran these concessions: recording, publishing, pressing and distribution. This is a "legitimate business" that grew out of racketeering - and has never dispensed with the original ethos - they just went "legit" and lawyered-up.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079874)

Oh, and the gangsters weren't Sicilian.

You know, Meyer Lansky, that lot.

Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (4, Insightful)

bl968 (190792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080388)

But that's just it. He sees people getting content electronically online as taking (Stealing) things out of his members trucks.He doesn't care if you bought a legal electronic copy or not. Even if you buy a physical copy his members deliver it. He's speaking solely out of self interest. He doesn't like anything that lets you get delivery electronically.

Correction, it's afl-cEo. (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080272)

AFL-CIO no longer represents the workers

Ever since the mid 1980's, AFL-CIO has changed into AFL-CEO

LOL! American Freedom! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079722)

LOL! American Freedom!

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079756)

we set the standard. your shithole just bends over and takes it like a woman

LOL! American Denial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079864)

LOL! American Denial!

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079938)

While I am knowingly replying to two trolls, it makes for a poignant comment.

The rest of the world isn't too worried about this I think. With actions like this, America is just making itself more and more of a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. The credibility of America has been in decline for decades and eventually it will write itself out of the world stage that it so desperately want to stay in.

I am not saying that everyone in the US is to be painted with the same broad brush, but the folks at the top certainly seem to have free reign to write their own legislation and rules. With that sort of playing field, it is only a matter of time before all the other teams stop turning up to matches.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080162)

The "LOL! American Freedom!" comment is actually the most insightful and intelligent of the 40+ comments currently posted under this story.

Using just three words, the author managed to make the following points:
1) That American citizens and organizations claim to hold freedom in high regard, but then hypocritically practice the complete opposite.
2) That the American government claims to hold freedom in high regard, but then hypocritically practices the complete opposite.
3) That most Americans are oblivious to the sad state of "freedom" in their nation.
4) That most Americans are oblivious to being oblivious to the sad state of "freedom" in their nation.
5) That the rest of the world does not respect America, and finds American attitudes regarding freedom to be laughable.

It's too bad that it's at -1. It's the best comment posted here yet.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080174)

The rest of the world is worried about the extent that this will spread outside your borders. The US is a very imperialist nation and will try very hard to press other nations into similar situations. They have to, because if they're the only draconian nation they're at an economic disadvantage, to say the least.

So yes, we're worried about NAFTA, ACTA (and PATRIOT as it relates to cloud services). Beyond that, we couldn't care less. You're deluding yourself if you think the US has any credibility left. We're just looking for a bigger stick.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080362)

The rest of the world SHOULD be worried. If SOPA (etc) passes it will effectively make a good chunk of the internet subject to US law. The remainder of the internet will either be willingly subject to US law, or risk exile outside of the "Great American Firewall"

If this gets rammed through your government, it WILL change the internet.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080260)

I've done the math, looked at the direction shit is headed, and decided to immigrate to China. Yes, they're communist, but they understand capitalism better than we do. Criticizing the government will get you killed, but criticizing our government is ineffective and China isn't implementing shit like SOPA or the TSA. Tiananmen square? LOL - that should have been our reaction to Occupy Wall Street! Also, I've got yellow fever and they've got plenty of hot asian pussy ready to give itself up to a well-hung (compared to asians!) white cobra. The one-child policy means I don't have to worry about birth control, either, cause she'll have to get an abortion.

So what do we do about it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079774)

Seems like the only legal option is to vote these jackasses out of office... but IMO we seem painted in a corner: people won't vote for third party candidates, and both major parties are clearly deep in the pocket of the *IAAs and industry.

Re:So what do we do about it? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079804)

You have to keep voting for the less-evil of the two big parties, or the most-evil will get into power. The system sucks, but a duopoly on power is almost as stable as a monopoly. I can't see it being broken short of one of the big two suffering a severe internal split - but that seems unlikely. The democrats don't have enough internal ideological disagreement, and the republicans - while they certainly have plenty of that - have a skilled and powerful leadership that ensures party loyalty.

Re:So what do we do about it? (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079918)

Heh, yeah, this "democratic republic" isn't about giving power to its citizens. It's just about preventing revolutions by making people think they can get some sort of change once their group size tips slightly over 50%.

And it does a damn fine job of it :-P

How did the Roman democracy finally fail? Decayed from within. So we don't even really have to do anything about it, just let the powers-that-be proceed on their present course of action :-D

Re:So what do we do about it? (2)

Casper0082 (2274124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079932)

I keep hearing everyone say that your best bet is to vote against the worst candidate since third party does not have enough votes. As long as the media has enough people thinking this way, the duopoly wins. Why not vote for who you want rather than the lesser of two evils? If enough people start voting for who they want, you will start to see the top two parties lose percentage points to lesser known parties. Yes, this might not make a difference this election, but it has the potential to in the future.

It is up to you to be part of the solution to the duopoly. The more you vote for the "lesser of two evils" the more you are contributing to keeping our current system alive.

Re:So what do we do about it? (2)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080100)

Exactly. The "Wasted Vote" argument can continue to be extrapolated reductio ad absurdum to say, "If you didn't vote for the winning candidate, you wasted your vote."

Third Parties (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080116)

Why not vote for who you want rather than the lesser of two evils?

Every now and then we try that. The most recent example was in 2000, when enough people voted for Ralph Nader to decide the election.

I will point out that the "lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy. If you wait for November next year, yeah, that's what it comes to. If you want more choices, get active in the parties -- the people who actually put in the work year in and year out have a lot more leverage than those whose whole involvement amounts to checking a few lines on a ballot.

Re:Third Parties (5, Interesting)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080454)

It's known as the Spoiler Effect and it got both Clinton, via Perot and Bush, via Nader elected. Somehow, it got stirred up into anger at the "third party" candidate, when the real problem is that the US uses a simple plurality voting system that is extremely biased towards a two party system since voting any other way risks throwing your vote away on a spoiler. The fundamental problem is that simple plurality is the best functional system for choosing between exactly two options. For all numbers other than two, it's the worst functional system (there are other, worse, systems, but I wouldn't consider them functional). All of the known single pass systems have paradoxes, but the one that the US actually uses has the worst paradox in the Spoiler Effect.

Then, of course, the Democrats and Republicans, realizing they have a duopoly, work together to ensure it stays that way. For example, the so-called "presidential debates" are a purely Democrat/Republican media affair. There's no invitations for other parties to participate and no established mechanism for other parties or independents to join. Real presidential debates would last about a month and be either arranged tournament style like an actual debate competition, or in some format that allowed every candidate to debate every other candidate. Instead, there's just a polished media event between members of the traditional duopoly arranged by power brokers. I'm not going to say that voting in the US is a sham per se, but I would like people to think about how many US elections have been decided based on a difference in votes that was actually smaller than the margin of error in the voting system (which the debacle in Florida a while back that was sorted out in part by the brother of one of the candidates makes abundantly clear).

Take over the democratic party says Prof. Domhoff (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080178)

using Democratic Egalitarian Clubs: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html [ucsc.edu]

He suggests to run progressive candidates in the primaries.

His big picture:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_freshstart.html [ucsc.edu]
"The failures of the American left are not in its egalitarian values, but in the means it uses to realize those values. This document suggests the strategies the left could follow in the United States if it took the findings of the social sciences more seriously than it currently does. There are links throughout to other documents on this site that provide greater depth on specific topics, and an annotated bibliography at the end."

Re:So what do we do about it? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080226)

If enough people start voting for who they want, you will start to see the top two parties lose percentage points to lesser known parties.

This is the problem. Those points are coming from the party which is closer to your position. Sure, if enough people join in you may be able to get someone even closer elected (though they may turn out to be just as bad once they're in power). The odds of that happening in any given election, however, are minuscule, so you'd just be hurting your own interests. If your candidate doesn't win, you've had no more positive effect on the election than if you'd stayed home. Rather than voting for third-party candidates in your own district with little other support, you'd do better to move to a district where a candidate you like actually has a chance of winning. As a bonus, the policies in that district are probably already closer to those you would prefer. Demonstrate that your policies are better, even if it has to be somewhere else, and it may just have a positive effect on the other districts.

The real solution is a better voting system, one that rewards candidates for offending the fewest voters—having a broad support base, even if some supporters like other candidates more—rather than achieving a simple plurality of voters' first choices. Almost any reasonable system would be better than the current first-past-the-post arrangement.

Re:So what do we do about it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080488)

Maybe there needs to be some planning to Occupy The Vote in 2012. People need to come together to research non-democrat and non-republican candidates and start getting word out which ones would best support the issues not currently being addressed by the existing duopoly regime.

All this yelling and banging drums and camping out is one thing, but now it's time to get serious and plan ahead. The Office of President may be a rigged game (electoral college and such), but at least there are still congress-critters and state representatives which you have a fair chance of showing the door if people bother to get their political will into gear right now. Thus there is supposedly still at least one way to throw a wrench in the works of a flawed revolving-door system, provided the votes at local levels aren't being rigged to some extreme.

If you want actual change, voting for the lesser of two evils out of the two mainstream parties is worse than "wasting" a vote on something like an independent running for office. Even if that "third party" fails to win, if it takes a sizable enough chunk at the polls - people will begin to notice that there are more options.

Re:So what do we do about it? (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080308)

The wrong lizard might get in.

Re:So what do we do about it? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080536)

No, jackass. Vote for who you think should be in office. Not "the lesser of two..." or other voting strategies. This is the surest way to keep things from changing.

Dear AFL-CIO, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079776)

What is your position on Captain Picard stationed on the Enterprise replicating the Earl Gray Tea leaves off of your trucks?

Thank you.

Re:Dear AFL-CIO, (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079858)

What is your position on Captain Picard stationed on the Enterprise replicating the Earl Gray Tea leaves off of your trucks?

Thank you.

Sorry, dude, but the Enterprise is a tool of the government. Did you actually not think about that all these years? Earl Grey Tea supplier, which provided the original pattern for the replicator probably got a big payoff.

28th Ammendment.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079794)

The right to download a car.

I Agree (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079812)

>
> the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'"
>

Why should one be allowed to steal stuff ?

Re:I Agree (4, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079860)

It all depends on whom gets to define "steal".

Re:I Agree (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079902)

It all depends on whom gets to define "steal".

+1

Re:I Agree (3, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079866)

SOPA has nothing to do with theft. This is a completely flawed analogy.

Re:I Agree (5, Insightful)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079870)

Why should **AA be allowed to steal stuff from the public domain by means of so-called "copyright term extensions" ?

Re:I Agree (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079880)

Exactly. Why should the record companies be allowed to steal art from the public domain by eternally extending copyright?

Re:I Agree (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079966)

The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.

Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.

Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.

They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.

Which does this constitute?

A) stealing

Or,

B) competition

The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?

Re:I Agree (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080078)

According to Monsanto, it's theft.

Re:I Agree (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080104)

Well, if you're Monsanto, the answer is obviously (A).

Re:I Agree (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080154)

Quite right, quite right.

The rest of the question though:

"Why is it theft?" ;)

Re:I Agree (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080290)

Sorry, forgot that part...

Again, if you're Monsanto, it's theft because they have more lawyers....

Re:I Agree (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080414)

Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.

From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?

(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)

If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permitting the new distributor to operate undermines the motivation of other producers of novel products (remember, *I*, personally, domesticated the wheat, and before that it was just a weed.), and as such his actions steal from me that implied reward, your argument is essentially one against *all* forms of competition, as that power (the power to solely dictate unit price) is automatically negated by other vendors operating in the market. The other person could have independently domesticated the wheat himself, just as I did. The result is still the same.

The answer of A) can only really be given if you logically link competition with stealing, in all cases.

Re:I Agree (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080202)

Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.

"We think that Volkswagen over there might have had stolen candy in it, Volkswagens are hippy cars. Confiscate it. And that van over there... you can see those people in the van are singing and I'll bet they haven't licensed the song they are singing for a public performance. Confiscate the van. And that pickup driven by my competitor? Must be something stolen in there. Confiscate it."

Re:I Agree (4, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080346)

Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.

You're aware that this is already legal, right?

That's how the police can confiscate a drug-dealer's stuff and keep it without any inconvenience like warrants, trials, verdicts, that sort of thing.

And if the police take your stuff under those laws, you have to bring suit against them to recover the stuff, after PROVING that you are not, in fact, a criminal....

That's it. It's over. (5, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079846)

I'm tired of trying to follow the law within reason. They don't want to play nice, neither will I. I'm off to the store to buy a couple of boxes of DVDs and blurays and I'm going to start giving them away to people I know and ask them to pass more forward. I'm going to pirate like there's no tomorrow because even when I try to play nice they want to screw up the internet. We gave them all the tools to do away with what they deemed inappropriate use of their works and now they want more. No more Mr nice guy. You asked for it. I hope you guys do the same. Pirate for people you know. Money is the only language these idiots understand(the *AAs, not your family).

Re:That's it. It's over. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079982)

I'm off to the store to buy a couple of boxes of DVDs and blurays

Yeah, that'll show 'em

Re:That's it. It's over. (2)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080016)

Blanks

Re:That's it. It's over. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080262)

Ignore the idiot AC. He would rather bitch about somebody _doing_ something then post their "brilliant" plan, because it is far easier to be an arm-chair critic then get off his/her ass and do something.

Your idea of "private libraries" is a great idea. Everybody pools in, and takes turn watching the movie(s). Could even do something like DKP and/or some software match up wish-lists amongst everyone.

Re:That's it. It's over. (1)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080422)

I agree whole-heartedly. I may suggest that you get the dirt cheap, hi cap SD cards and fill those with data, then trade em with your friends through the mail. For the big folders.

Well (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079854)

the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'

He's quite right. It has fuck all to do with SOPA and its associated discussions, but he's right.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080172)

the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'

He's quite right. It has fuck all to do with SOPA and its associated discussions, but he's right.

That's Chewbacca defense, right? (it's actually offence, but you get the gist).

Re:Well (4, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080266)

That's part of the ploy. You call your offense a defense to further confuse your opponent.

Great Firewall of America (4, Informative)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079872)

There was also an op-ed by Rebecca MacKinnon in the NY Times: "Stop the Great Firewall of America [nytimes.com] ". Unfortunately behind their paywall, but may be accessible through a Google search?

Re:Great Firewall of America (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080094)

Unfortunately behind their paywall - I hope they see the irony.

Quick and dirty activism (5, Informative)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079876)

Here's a site to quickly push a complaint to those who need your votes:

American Censorship.org [americancensorship.org]

Think we can Slashdot it?

Classic Quote: +4, Inflammatory (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079886)

"'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'" .... by AFL-CIO members !!!

Yours In Ashgabat,
K. Trout

Stealing Off Trucks (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079896)

In particular, the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'"

That's ok, we're stealing off Tubes, not Trucks. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Stealing Off Trucks (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080006)

"...the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks..."

Unless of course you also happen to be affiliated with the Mob.

Re:Stealing Off Trucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080144)

That's ok, we're stealing off Tubes, not Trucks. [wikipedia.org]

I think you misspelled "copying."

What about the right to fair trial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079920)

The governance may not punish imprision or fine a person or entitity without a trial.
so long as the everybody on the blacklist has been found guilty of illegal copyright violation in a trial by jury I'm ok, with that, otherwise the law needs to go.

Re:What about the right to fair trial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079964)

That is the whole point of the law. Before 2000, it would take due process to get a website yanked. After 2000, it took a DMCA note, and the target of a takedown notice can respond.

This law makes the burden of proof of copyright violations rest on the website owner. Of course, we all know the difficulty of proving a negative. It is a way to take people's property and silence critics without ever having to hit the courts.

Whores (2)

behindthewall (231520) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079924)

The AFL CIO leadership has show itself in the last few years to be little more than a group of high-priced whores.

I support the unions. But they suffer from the same leadership crisis our broader society labors under.

Fallacious (5, Interesting)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079934)

the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks

Yeah, true. But there are several points to consider that I feel make the quoted statement utterly fallacious. First, an accusation of theft isn't immediately punished; guilt has to be proven first. Second, theft of a physical object means that the original owner loses the object. In the case of a piece of digital property, the original holder hasn't lost possession of anything. The content-creation industry's obsession with immediate punishment before investigation doesn't make sense. It violates the due process rights of the accused for no legally-sound reason. It allows for corporate actions to replace proper review by the judicial system....and it's a short-sidedly, seemingly-logical extension of a content-holder's desire to maximize revenue.

Re:Fallacious (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080042)

The ironic thing about this: I mailed the Congress-critters in my district. One replied to not bother him , that he did not care what thieves and scofflaws thought. Two things... SOPA will do little to stop IP infringement. The warez hounds will use the usual sources, even if they use a proxy or send TOR to a flaming grave.

SOPA is meant to silence critics and dissidents, pure and simple.

Re:Fallacious (2)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080198)

Then post the whole contents of his reply email, with his name. A reply at all was more than I would have expected.

Re:Fallacious (1)

SammyIAm (1348279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080436)

Agreed. Any Congress-critter that calls one of his constituents a "thief and scofflaw" should be outed (and consequently never voted for again). At least that's how it should work...

Re:Fallacious (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080048)

Your problem, of course, is that you think logically, and are therefore banned from participating in American politics.

Thanks for playing, and here's a lovely parting gift: 2 locking steel bracelets connected by a short chain!

Congratulations, citizen!

Poor analogy (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079952)

the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks

Does anyone else think this was a poor analogy? I thought everyone knew by know that the internet isn't a big truck. It's a series of tubes. Maybe she can come back with an analogy that includes those tubes at the bank drive through or something.

Good thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079978)

the internet is not a truck. It's a series of tubes.

How to stop this law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38079998)

Solution. Use a botnet to spam every member of congress with pirated pr*n links.

Property or License (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080068)

Make the buggers pick one and stick to it. The media should be having a field day with how often they flip backing and forth when it suits their need, but I suspect they are picking sides. Only once that has been defined can a real discussion about how media should be treated could possibly begin.

Property and License (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080184)

A license gives you bounded permission to use someone else's property. Someone has to have a proprietary interest before they can provide someone else a license, so the "property or license" dichotomy you suggest that someone needs to "pick one and stick to it" is nonsense. For their to be a license, there must be property.

Re:Property and License (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080468)

Can you steal a license?

US gov and the Media corps need each other (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080126)

The Media companies NEED the US gove to pass laws that help them stay alive at the same time the US gov NEEDS US made music and movies to keep the masses entertained while they sneak in censorship laws with each anti piracy bill that is passed.

First Amendment doesnt allow spineless bastards (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080142)

either. yet paul, you are there, blabbering and whoring for your leash holders.

Re:First Amendment doesnt allow spineless bastards (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080204)

I'm sorry to go against the general flood of hate against this guy (not that I disagree with it either), but how specifically does the first amendment ban spineless bastards? Yes, I agree they aren't generally good, but nowhere I know of is being a spineless bastard banned (it's supported, in fact, by the current system, but that's neither here nor there).

Do something! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080170)

Remember the proposed legislation mandating DRM TCPA chips on all computers years ago? Someone on slashdot linked the senate's website and contact info. It died. :-)

So instead of whinning let your senators know how you feel?

Their website is here [senate.gov] for the American Slashdot readers. Don't know who your senators are? There is a list here including an email link [senate.gov] .

Calling your senator is effective as well [senate.gov] .

When contacting your senator do not mention you want to dowload illegal material or that you are just angry and think it is unfair. Mention you work in the I.T. field and are worried about negative implications and liabilitiy risks for non copyrighted or infringement uses that this bill could be abused. Mention it would harm Google's youtube service costing American jobs as they would move overseas. This bill would be costly and could cost American innovation and jobs. Mention we already have existing copyright laws in force and sites like youtube already remove copyrighted or infrindged material in a timely manner and this is nothing but a power grab.

If your senator is a democrats mention your worried about the power grab by the media companies will harm competition. If your senator is a republican mention this would increase government intervention and regulation as it would cost well into the billions of dollars of tax payer money to fund this etc. You all can be creative.

Someone mod this up for the links. I just made it easier for everyone to spend 5 minutes telling your representative how you feel. Remember if you do not pick your voice the RIAA/MPAA will. If all they hear is the RIAA/MPAA then they will vote for the bill as it shows we don't care and like being fucked over. Do your duty.

Re:Do something! (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080188)

Mod parent up!

Let your representative know. Many senators are clueless and if they start getting calls and emails into the hundreds they will quickly notice and re-exam the bill. Trust me even if they are corrupt many are having a tough fight with a 9% approval rating and maybe willing to cater.

Contact your representatives (3, Interesting)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080180)

I'm just gonna throw this one out there... mostly because it's obnoxious.

http://www.reverserobocall.com/ [reverserobocall.com]

Politicians robocall you. Now you can robocall them.

Welcome to the Robocall Revolution. We believe that voters should have access to the same technology political groups use to get their message across; so we built a simple web-based robocall tool to literally give citizens back their voice in the political discourse. What better way to exercise your rights to to speech, than to actually speak truth to power?

ReverseRobocall.com provides voters an easy way to communicate with one or hundreds of politicians or political groups using the same technology politicians use, the robocall or automated phone call.

internet=truck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080254)

Are they still running with the internet is a truck metaphor?

pinhead unionist. not stealing off trucks. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080312)

if media piracy was stealing off trucks at red lights in traffic, the law and cops could stop it. like they could stop the Chinese copy shops if China got on board.

the issue is the hearts and minds of the public in the face of a continuous history in recorded media of all kinds of the corporations ripping off the artists, and changing up formats all the time to rip off the customers.

at base is this... a customer can buy a license to use a work for their own purposes... and under fair use provisions of the copyright act, convert that to any other format, as long as they don't sell the copies, and destroy them all if the genuine licensed original is transferred. greedheads want to take that away, and even prevent you from using your licensed copy after X amount of time.

stop that nonsense, and things might change.

NostrilDrippus Predicts! (tm) that artists are going to go on the Internet themselves to peddle their works, and the MafIAA is going to wither and die for their sins.

Wait, wait, wait... (1)

Signum Ignitum (1560529) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080318)

I thought Ted Stevens established for Congress a long time ago that the internet wasn't a big truck?

Re:Wait, wait, wait... (1)

SammyIAm (1348279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080528)

Yes, thank you. Somehow even Ted Stevens is coming off as significantly better informed about the Internet than these guys.

Fell off a truck (1)

jishak (571556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080352)

...In particular, the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'" Isn't this guy just incriminating himself of a crime? Isn't that how the Syndicates operate? "Oh, it just fell off a truck". I remember when I lived in a free country where rights and liberties were protected. It is a sad shame our society is heading in such a wrong direction.

The Press (1)

HandleMyBidness (848635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38080424)

It's worth noting that the press (right now) seems to be running headlines to the tune of "Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) sparks backlash from Facebook, Google". Average folks online get a lot of 'news' from Facebook and the Google news aggregation.

As I understand it... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38080526)

As I understand it, I need only send a "take-down" notice indicating a site is infringing on my trademark. The DNS must then be blocked and the site owner must be notified of the blockage. The site owner may then send a counter-notice claiming it should remain unblocked. If the site owner sends a counter-notice the site is unblocked and the matter is referred to the courts. If the site owner does not respond with a counter-notice the site remains blocked.

If I am correct, what is stopping me from drafting a "take-down" notice stating that I own the trademark for MPAA.org? RIAA.org? whitehouse.gov?

Would this not automatically force the specific site off-line until they produce a counter-notice?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?