Category: Legal, Laws, and Regs

Categories
Copyright

What are you willing to give up?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Internet Radio is at risk due to CARP — the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel. There’s also a new bill being put forward before Congress that would make copying watermarks and holograms illegal.

Dallas News is issuing “cease and desist” orders against online sites for deep linking.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation — the main watchdog against copyright abuses is working overtime just to keep up with all the attacks against free speech.

Personally, I splurged and bought myself a CD, which I can’t afford, and then proceeded to find that I can’t play it on my computer because it’s one of the new copy-protected CDs.

Motion Picture Industry. Disney. The recording industry. AOL Time-Warner. Newspapers. Magazines. Cable. Sony. Television. Pieces of the creature we know as The Media Monster Machine.

And to fight this we’ve had a day of silence on Internet Radio, letter writing campaigns to congress, and discussions of a march on Washington.

I’m curious — what would you be willing to give up to fight for a more balanced viewpoint in regards to copyright law implementation? What would you be willing to give up to send a message to The Media Monster Machine?

Would you be willing to give up movies? Including Spider Man? Star Wars? Would you be willing to give up Radio, traditional or Internet-based? How about TV, would you give up sports and movies and Six Feet Under or Buffy or Sex in the City? Would you be willing to not buy that new CD, DVD, or VHS? Would you cancel your newspaper and magazine subscriptions?

What would you be willing to give up?

When you consider that people actively fighting any of the copyright legislative abuses add up to less than 5% of the total population of the country, marches and letter writing won’t have much of an impact on a congress whose main interest is in being re-elected to office.

However, when you consider that this same 5% of the population is made up of people representing a major purchasing power, particularly when it comes to cable, electronics, music, movies, and other items dependent on a larger than normal discretionary income matched by a larger than normal interest in entertainment and gadgets — then you begin to see the shadows of a hammer strong enough to beat against the box the media industry is trying to create.

The question is, though — what are you willing to give up?

Categories
Just Shelley Legal, Laws, and Regs

Steal this ashtray

I know it seems at times as if Jonathon and I have become weblogging’s first tag team. I can’t help it — he finds these interesting things and makes these extremely open observations, and my hands go to the keyboard and I feel compelled to add my own observations to his. I have no control over this process.

Case in point: Today Jonathon discusses a weblog posting he found where a person, Michael Barrish, describes his initial reaction to critical comments:

1. Attack the accuser
2. Minimize the wrong
3. Defend your character

It would seem that the Michael Barrish’s girlfriend wanted him to help her steal a Duck Crossing Sign. That’s not the story. He ended up not stealing the sign. That’s still not the story. He received several critical emails from readers. However, even that’s not the story.

What is the story is that the Barrish didn’t steal the sign because he didn’t want to get caught, not because stealing was wrong.

My philosophy is, I’ll steal signs with my girlfriend but I won’t get caught.

And when he received emails from people saying that stealing is wrong, he tried to justify his actions. However, he faced his own moment of truth:

It’s worth noting that I’ve never been one for the rule of law. Fact is, I respect the law only in the sense that I can be punished for breaking it. The only laws that matter to me—and these matter quite a bit—are the ones I make for myself.

One such law or rule (this may sound strange in the present context) is that stealing is wrong, particularly when one steals for what Jay Perkins calls ‘unnecessary and idiotic reasons.’ And it doesn’t matter that one’s accuser is a righteous jerk, or that little harm comes from the theft, or that one is fundamentally moral. It’s still wrong.

What saddened Jonathon was Barrish’s final statement:

Of course I’m not just speaking about duck signs here, nor only about myself. The same self-serving logic used to justify petty theft is used to justify the destruction of the planet. People do what they want, then find reasons to justify it.

Bullshit. This is absolute and total bullshit.

Yes, some people will do selfish acts and then seek to justify their actions. However, most people, and I count myself in this group, making me a “goddamn paragon of rightousness”, follow our moral codes without any equivocation.

What Barrish failed to realize is that by saying this problem is a global problem, he’s absolving himself of any responsibility for his action and his reaction to the criticism he received.

“People do what they want, then find reasons to justify it.”

Bullshit.

Yes, I am not always law abiding. I walk against a red light when no car is around. (In Boston, the cops are suspicious of you if you don’t.) And I have been known to exceed the speed limit. And I’ll fib if someone asks me if I like their new dress and I think it’s the worst piece of crap.

But I don’t steal. I don’t cheat on my taxes. I screw up my taxes, constantly, but I don’t cheat.

I don’t break things, except by accident. I have found things and returned them, intact, to their owners. I point out billing errors even if it benefits the store. I’m kind to small children, pets, and don’t throw garbage out the window. I conserve electricity, I bought a small car with good gas mileage, I recycle.

I respect and value my friends, including my weblogging friends.

“People do what they want, then find reasons to justify it.”

Bullshit.

Time to tie this one back to an earlier topic: This might surprise you all when I say this, but there is no “justification” for the suicide bombings or for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. My seeking to understand the reasons behind these acts is NOT the same as seeking justification.

Somehow, the two — justification and understanding — got tied together. I’m extremely glad that this issue arose because I just now realized that I needed to say this. I needed to say the words, “There is no justification for the suicide bombings”. But I’ll still seek to understand.

Justification. There is no justification for not following your own moral code. None. To say otherwise, is nothing more than a justification for your justification, and is equivalent to not having any moral code at all. Just a few rules that you conveniently “forget” from time to time.

Self-righteous paragons of the world, stand up and be counted.

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs

Religious Freedom 2

From Dave I found the references to news stories about the Church of Scientology’s use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Google to pull links to pages of well known anti-Church of Scientology web sites, such as Clambake (Xenu), from the Google databases.

Regardless of my feelings about Scientology, this one act puts them beyond what is reasonable and right for a church within this country. Sorry, let me re-phrase this — within any country filled with people who supposedly value personal liberty over the dictates of an organized religion.

No one person can solve all the problems of the world, it’s true. All individuals can do is take a stance, and hope that enough others will join with that person, to make a difference.

I’ve put the link to Clambake prominately above my Plutonian list, and it will remain there until the politicians in this country finally realize that they don’t have a clue in how to work with the Internet and fix this law, or until Google comes to its senses and realizes that it has a moral responsibility to the greater needs of humanity — the right of any organization to be heard!

P.S.In the meantime, the route will be indirect, but Clambake will hopefully still get hits for the word “Scientology” from Google, via my weblog. Might not place as high in the ranks, but they’ll be in the database.

Update: 3/22/02 Google has restored most of the Clambake pages, including the front page. ZD Net. I’ve removed the link to Clambake since they are now back in operation.

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs

Religious Freedom

How not to deal with direction confrontation about religion in this country.

John Robb has the following to say:


Google forced to remove anti-Scientology links. I don’t agreee with the Germans on many things (although I lived there). But, I agree with the Germans when it comes to Scientology (by saying this I am being listed in some Scientology database in the sky). Germany treats Scientology like a cult and they outlaw it under the same laws that prevent distribution of Neo-Nazi propoganda. Scientology is a cult of the worst sort: one that can afford to hire lawyers, manage propoganda, intimidate opposition, and train absolute leaders. They work within the system. Very Nazi. Avoid it. Outlaw it. Denounce it. Besides, anyone who starts a cult based on the thinking of a writer of bad science fiction, should get a life.

I don’t have to tell you the flaws in this, do I? I don’t have to tell you the danger of this, do I?

Outlawing a religion (it’s still classified as a religion in this country, and there has been no successful legal charges against Scientology that would refute this claim) or any other personal belief other than those that advocate violence is against the Constitution on the United States. I know this document has been bashed and battered lately, but I still support it.

I hope you do, too.

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs

Lawsuit abuse

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dumbest warning labels from SF Gate.

Through this excellent article I found the Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch web site. Within these priceless web pages I found out about the arsonists who sued their insurance company because the fire they set spread to surrounding area, and the insurance company didn’t want to cover this damage. Or the prisoner who sued Michigan state because he farted.

And these are just absurd lawsuits in Michigan — I can’t even imagine what kind of lawsuits are floating around a somewhat flamboyant state such as California