This is ridiculously cynical and on the whole rather nonsensical.It's the one area where the 1% hasn't got full control yet so no great surprise.
It is certainly the thin edge of the wedge. If it wasn't piracy they would find another excuse to censor and control the web whether it be child protection or terrorism. China has plenty of experience in the field so all the tools are there and once in place many people will not even notice it.
Just about the only place where you can search out truth behind the media corporation headlines will slowly dissappear before your very eyes.
It seems to me the music and movie business are still making big bucks and live music hasn't been so healthy for a long long time. Maybe Lady Gaga, Madonna and Bono are running out of islands to buy.
Try going to the UAE on holiday, after a nice day out in the sun, the only thing that brings you down is the Internet censorship, from lottery results to FaceTime, no chance...shoestring25 said:i dont like the idea of censorship i should be able to view any site out there.
If the ISPs are asked to control access to certain sites I see that as no different to the Post office refusing to deliver or send my letters to certain addresses and if the Governments started monitoring you to make sure you don't use certain sites then surely this is tantermount to the post office reading all my mail. (Still it would give GCHQ some more work) If there is a site that is acting illegally according to the government then surely the government can act and close it down. The burden sholud be on the government to prove the site or yourself are acting illegally.This is ridiculously cynical and on the whole rather nonsensical.
I will ignore your speculative claims in paragraph 1 (for obvious reasons), but do you really believe paragraph 2? I think censoring websites which give access to illegal content (music, games and other such copyrighted material) is quite a different kettle of fish to the totalitarian internet censorship seen in North Korea and China.
And as for paragraph 3, well, I heard John Lewis did rather well over Christmas this year so I felt no guilt whatsoever in pinching a couple of TVs from their stock room! Seriously? What has the success of the music industry go to do with the definitively illegal activity of sharing and downloading pirated material? It doesn't make the problem any smaller at all.
PS I should also add, the claim that this proposed bill 'infringes upon our freedom of speech' is similarly ludicrous. If I stood in the middle of town shouting racist remarks to passers by, no doubt I would be in trouble with the police. Can I claim that I was simply exercising my right to free speech? No, because what I was doing is illegal. The same applies to the matter at hand.
Wikipedia will voluntarily shut down for 24 hours this week in a protest against internet piracy laws in the United States, leaving tens of millions of users worldwide cut off from one the web's most popular sources of information. The English version the website will be inaccessible from 5AM GMT on Wednesday until 5AM GMT on Thursday (...)
Wikipedia to shut down for 24 hours in piracy protest - Telegraph(...)The legislation has been backed by an intensive lobbying campaign by major media owners, including Rupert Murdoch, and opposed by the giants of Silicon Valley, including Google and Facebook.
On Friday the White House said it would not approve key parts of the bills, however, effectively sending them back to the drawing board. A statement from President Obamas internet advisors said the provisions for blocking foreign websites pose a real risk to cybersecurity.
"Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small," a White House spokesman said.
Mr Murdoch complained on Twitter that President Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters.(...)