Monday, 4 April 2011
Out of the mouths of babes...
SDMumford Stephen Mumford
From William (12): calling atheism a religion is like saying off is a TV channel.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Why Is It Rocket Science That Laws Should Apply Online Too?
One of the primary demands of the Pirate Party has been that the same laws that apply offline should also apply online. I think it’s an entirely reasonable thing to demand; the Internet is not a special case, but part of reality. The problems appear when an obsolete but powerful industry realizes that this just and equal application of laws means they can’t enforce a distribution monopoly any longer.
To understand the absurdity of the copyright industry’s demands, we must pause and consider which rights we take for absolute granted in the analog world. These are rights that already apply in the digital part of reality as well, but are somehow hidden in a legal game of hide-and-seek.
Let’s look at what rights I have when I communicate through analog channels with somebody — using paper, a pen, an envelope and a stamp. The same rights should apply when using a digital communications channel instead, at least theoretically, since the law doesn’t differentiate between methods of communication. Unfortunately for the copyright industry, the enforcement of these our rights online would mean that the copyright monopoly becomes utterly unenforceable, so the copyright industry is now attacking these fundamental rights on every level. But that doesn’t mean our rights aren’t there.
When I write a letter to somebody, I and I alone choose whether I identify myself in the letter inside the envelope, on the outside of the envelope, both, or neither. It is my prerogative completely whether I choose to communicate anonymously or not. This is a right we have in analog communications and in law; it is perfectly reasonable to demand that the law applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents unless I am under formal, individual and prior suspicion of a specific crime. In that case, law enforcement (and only them) may do this. Of course, I am never under any obligation to help anybody open and interpret my letters. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, no third party has the right to alter the contents of the letter in transit or deny its delivery entirely. Shouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well?
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to stand at the mailbox and demand that they be able to log all my communications: who I am communicating with, when, and for how long. Again, to demand that this applies online as well would only be logical.
When I write a letter to somebody, the mailman carrying that letter to its recipient is never responsible for what I choose to write about (the messenger immunity). And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
All of these are under systematic attack by the copyright industry. They are suing ISPs and demanding that they install wiretapping and censoring equipment in the middle of their switching racks; they are constantly gnawing at the messenger immunity (mere conduit and common carrier principle), they are demanding the authority to identify people who communicate, they want the authority to deny us our right to exercise fundamental rights at all, and they have the balls to suggest censorship to safeguard the distribution monopoly.
All of the above stems from the fact that any digital communications channel that can be used for private correspondence, can also always be used to transfer digitizations of copyrighted works — and you can’t tell which is which without giving the copyright industry the right to break the seal of private correspondence, which is a right I’m never prepared to surrender.
These are civil liberties that our forefathers fought, bled, and died to give us. It is beyond obscene that an obsolete middleman industry is demanding that we give them up to preserve an entertainment monopoly, all while demanding more powers than we are even giving the police to catch real criminals. Then again, this is nothing new.
When photocopiers arrived in the 1960s, book publishers tried to have them banned on the grounds that they could be used to copy books which would then be sent in the mail. Everybody told the publishers tough luck: while the copyright monopoly still is valid, that gives them no right to break the seal on communications just to look for copyright infringements, so they can’t do anything about it. That still applies offline. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that it applies online as well.
The copyright industry sometimes complains that the Internet is a lawless land and that the same laws and rights that apply offline should apply online as well. In this, I could not agree more.
To understand the absurdity of the copyright industry’s demands, we must pause and consider which rights we take for absolute granted in the analog world. These are rights that already apply in the digital part of reality as well, but are somehow hidden in a legal game of hide-and-seek.
Let’s look at what rights I have when I communicate through analog channels with somebody — using paper, a pen, an envelope and a stamp. The same rights should apply when using a digital communications channel instead, at least theoretically, since the law doesn’t differentiate between methods of communication. Unfortunately for the copyright industry, the enforcement of these our rights online would mean that the copyright monopoly becomes utterly unenforceable, so the copyright industry is now attacking these fundamental rights on every level. But that doesn’t mean our rights aren’t there.
When I write a letter to somebody, I and I alone choose whether I identify myself in the letter inside the envelope, on the outside of the envelope, both, or neither. It is my prerogative completely whether I choose to communicate anonymously or not. This is a right we have in analog communications and in law; it is perfectly reasonable to demand that the law applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents unless I am under formal, individual and prior suspicion of a specific crime. In that case, law enforcement (and only them) may do this. Of course, I am never under any obligation to help anybody open and interpret my letters. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
When I write a letter to somebody, no third party has the right to alter the contents of the letter in transit or deny its delivery entirely. Shouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well?
When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to stand at the mailbox and demand that they be able to log all my communications: who I am communicating with, when, and for how long. Again, to demand that this applies online as well would only be logical.
When I write a letter to somebody, the mailman carrying that letter to its recipient is never responsible for what I choose to write about (the messenger immunity). And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
All of these are under systematic attack by the copyright industry. They are suing ISPs and demanding that they install wiretapping and censoring equipment in the middle of their switching racks; they are constantly gnawing at the messenger immunity (mere conduit and common carrier principle), they are demanding the authority to identify people who communicate, they want the authority to deny us our right to exercise fundamental rights at all, and they have the balls to suggest censorship to safeguard the distribution monopoly.
All of the above stems from the fact that any digital communications channel that can be used for private correspondence, can also always be used to transfer digitizations of copyrighted works — and you can’t tell which is which without giving the copyright industry the right to break the seal of private correspondence, which is a right I’m never prepared to surrender.
These are civil liberties that our forefathers fought, bled, and died to give us. It is beyond obscene that an obsolete middleman industry is demanding that we give them up to preserve an entertainment monopoly, all while demanding more powers than we are even giving the police to catch real criminals. Then again, this is nothing new.
When photocopiers arrived in the 1960s, book publishers tried to have them banned on the grounds that they could be used to copy books which would then be sent in the mail. Everybody told the publishers tough luck: while the copyright monopoly still is valid, that gives them no right to break the seal on communications just to look for copyright infringements, so they can’t do anything about it. That still applies offline. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that it applies online as well.
The copyright industry sometimes complains that the Internet is a lawless land and that the same laws and rights that apply offline should apply online as well. In this, I could not agree more.
Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other weekend. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at http://falkvinge.net focuses on information policy.
Follow Rick Falkvinge on Twitter as @Falkvinge and on Facebook as /rickfalkvinge.
@'Torrent Freak'
Afghanistan: Koran protests in Kandahar and Jalalabad
US President Barack Obama described the killings as "outrageous" and the Koran burning as "intolerance and bigotry".
Ten people died following protests in Kandahar on Saturday. Dozens more were injured.
Protests spread On Sunday, demonstrators in Kandahar city - the birthplace of the Taliban - marched on the main UN office. There were also reports of smaller protests in two other districts of Kandahar province.
The protests have now spread to the eastern city of Jalalabad, where hundreds of protesters peacefully blocked a main road for three hours on Sunday.
The crowd shouted for US troops to leave Afghanistan and burnt an effigy of Mr Obama, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.
The UN's chief envoy to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, blamed Friday's violence in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif on the Florida pastor who burnt the Koran on 20 March. "I don't think we should be blaming any Afghan," Mr de Mistura said. "We should be blaming the person who produced the news - the one who burned the Koran. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offending culture, religion, traditions."
The UN would temporarily re-deploy 11 staff members to Kabul while their office in Mazar-e Sharif was rebuilt, he said, but there would be no evacuation.
Mr de Mistura insisted that Friday's attack "should not deter the UN presence, activities in this country in this delicate and particularly crucial period".
In a statement published on Saturday evening, Mr Obama extended his condolences to the families of those killed by the protesters in Afghanistan.
"The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry," he said. "However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity.
Condemnation
The controversy began in Florida on 20 March, when Pastor Wayne Sapp soaked a Koran in kerosene, staged a "trial" during which the Islamic holy book was found guilty of "crimes against humanity", and then set it alight.
The incident took place under the supervision of Pastor Terry Jones, who last year drew condemnation over his aborted plan to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
The authorities in both Kandahar and Mazar-e Sharif have blamed the Taliban for the violence. However, the Taliban has rejected the accusation.
Pastor Jones has said that the Dove World Outreach Center's congregation does not "feel responsible" for the attack.
Witnesses said the protest in Mazar-e Sharif, which began outside the central Blue Mosque after Friday prayers, began peacefully but suddenly turned violent.
The crowds moved to outside the UN compound, where a small group broke away.
Several demonstrators were killed by guards at the compound, who were then overpowered by the mob.
Munir Ahmad Farhad, a spokesman for the governor of Balkh province, said the group seized weapons from the guards and stormed the building. Four Nepalese guards, a Norwegian, a Romanian and a Swede were killed.
@'BBC'
LCD Soundsystem final show. What a gig!!!
Setlist: (via)
Dance Yrself Clean
(with “I’m Not In Love” by 10cc intro)
Drunk Girls
I Can Change
Time To Get Away
Get Innocuous!
Daft Punk Is Playing At My House
Too Much Love
All My Friends
Tired
(with “Heart of the Sunrise” by Yes snippet)
—
Set 2
45:33 Part One
45:33 Part Two (w/ Reggie Watts)
Sound of Silver
45:33 Part Four
45:33 Part Five (w/ Shit Robot)
45:33 Part Six
Freak Out/Starry Eyes
—
Set 3
Us v Them
North American Scum (w/ Arcade Fire)
Bye Bye Bayou (Alan Vega cover)
You Wanted A Hit
Tribulations
Movement
Yeah (Crass Version)
—
Set 4
Someone Great
Losing My Edge (With “Da Funk” by Daft Punk snippet)
Home
—
Set 5
All I Want
Jump Into the Fire (Harry Nilsson Cover)
New York, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down (with “Twin Peaks Theme” by Angelo Badalamenti intro)
@'CoS'
I can't think of anything that feels appropriate to listen to following #LCDMSG, except Screamadelica
JPBarlow John Perry Barlow
Prescription drugs account for almost 2x more deaths in the US than *all illicit drugs combined.* http://bit.ly/fw3GCS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
