The War of The Internet Has Begun
By @edent
· NaBloPoMo Open Rights Group openrightsgroup · 9 comments · 450 words · read ~326 times.
No one would have believed in the first years of the twenty-first century that the online world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences lesser than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various blogs they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a woman with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
With infinite complacency men went twittering and facebooking over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over the Internet.
No one gave a thought to the older political classes as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of Digital Interference as impossible or improbable.
It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most online users fancied there might be government Twitter accounts, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise.
Yet across the gulf of the music industry, the film lobby and the security contractors, intellects narrow and cool and unsympathetic, regarded our Internet with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
HIT PLAY NOW!
Download the glorious MIDI file!
Please join the Open Rights Group today. They're doing great work trying to stop Parliament from destroying the Internet.
More people are being prosecuted for free speech on social media, copyright trolls are lurking and website blocking injunctions need tackling: ORG is ready to bring the fight for digital rights to the courts.
Every supporter donating at least £5 per month by direct debit receives a free copy of Rapture of the Nerds co-authored by Cory Doctorow, a member of our Advisory Council and Charles Stross, one of ORG's founding members.
ORG needs to fund a new position: a legal expert who can co-ordinate a crack-team of volunteer lawyers, perform thorough legal research, and create new case law to actively prevent potential threats to civil liberties.
Please help ORG achieve it goal:
150 new supporters will allow ORG to start our legal project.
300 new supporters will allow ORG to pay a Legal Officer full time.
Please set up a Direct Debit today.
ORG supporters usually give between £5 and £10 each month, but please be as generous as you can afford to be.
NB - the affiliate style links are for ORG's member-get-member program. If you'd prefer to join without giving me as the referrer, please use http://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/.
Dave3000 says:
Internet piracy is a basic human right, goddamnit! Give me what I want because it's my right and nothing should be able to stop that!
Hi Dave,
Thanks for you interesting and insightful reply. I'm left slightly confused though.
Which parts of the Snoopers Charter is about piracy? How does mandatory porn filtering stop file sharing? The Do-Not-Track issue also doesn't seem to have much to do with P2P. And while freedom of speech is an all-encompassing topic, it's not just about piracy. You may also be interested in Open Standards for government data. Unless the Tories insist on Bit Torrent for intra-department file-sharing, that doesn't have much to do with piracy.
All issues which the Open Rights Group is fighting for.
But, other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us, eh?
T
Dave3000 says:
Hey Terence,
Your confusion is most apparent, allow me to help :
1) Defaulting a technology to on isn't the same as mandatory. There's no proposal afaik to make such filtering mandatory or I'd be AT YOUR SIDE IN WAAARR!!!
2) DNT has been implemented by browser vendors voluntarily already, the ORG's influence on this global movement is quantum or nothing. Esoteric factors like WP8 sales will be a bigger influence than the ORG could ever hope to achieve.
3) If the government can't internally settle on standards, I fail to see what that has to do with an external body, especially the ORG.
Did you stop and read the articles from the ORG website you've cited? These are people that in the face of the "snoopers charter", question MP's about whether 39% or 54% of parents have porn filters on at home. Was that the question you would of asked at that juncture? Are these links really representative of your views on digital freedoms? It was a churlish read from here - if you get down to quibbling with an MP over 15% I'd suggest you've lost your war of the worlds already. Check out the comments section of the pages you've posted too - 6 people arguing about what causes them offence and what the punishment should be, that just about sums it up. Thanks for such a sterling demonstration of my point!
ORG members use scary language (and epic music it would seem) to fight for a world without copyright and an internet with scant/no regulation. If people want to attack the snoopers charter they'd be better off joining the Lib Dems and pressuring Parliamentarians instead of joining a group that actively seeks to destroy UK creative industries through the deregulation of copyright.
It's ironic that the ORG's scare tactics have made them look, to me at least, like the tinfoil hat wearers of the internet. This is because they rely on overblown, oppressive and dark language to prove their point. I'd suggest that people use the democratic framework to shape this type of regulation rather than calling on the Earl's of Freetardia. There are far better human rights groups, such as Liberty, that don't have these issues but are fighting against the Bill.
"The people's front of Judea - splitters!"
Ahhh, you're ChrisB from earlier posts. Couldn't work out why I recognised your style, but not your name.
1) What do you think IWF is apart from a mandatory filter? What do you think Claire Perry is banging on about? 2) Butterflies in Tokyo and all that. 3) Errr... that's the point. Thanks - in part - to ORG's lobbying, the FRAND clause has been dropped from the recent guidance.
Yes, I have to agree 100% with every article and comment by an organisation before I support them. As, I'm sure you do with whatever causes you choose to support.
You continually harp on about copyright - care to share who you are / represent? I notice that Cory Doctorow, Charlie Stross, Neil Gaiman, Steve Lawson, Graham Linehan, etc all make a living out of the creative industries - and they all support ORG.
I've sat in Government committees and seen the good work that ORG are doing. You may disagree with it, you may even think it's ineffective, but if you can't make that point without ad hominem attacks ("freetardia"?) that makes you about as convincing as an editor's appearance at Leveson.
Dave3000 says:
>care to share who you are / represent?
I represent myself, I'm not affiliated to any fruity clubs or organisations. I'm incensed by liberals that don't understand how the ideology of copyright and liberalism are intrinsically intertwined, and why. Copyright allows individuals ownership of their ideas - you are pushing towards a world where big corporations like the ISPs, Google, Microsoft and Apple automatically own and monetise our ideas without compensation. Your ability to own your ideas is one of the greatest freedoms you have, yet you're promoting a group that would rather those rights disappeared. To me, the idea of no copyright is an intrinsically far-right one, and I find the concept of liberals arguing for it ludicrous.
>I notice that Cory Doctorow, Charlie Stross, Neil Gaiman, >Steve Lawson,Graham Linehan, etc all make a living out >of the creative industries - and they all support ORG.
And? I've only heard of most of these names (asides Linehan) in relation to the ORG - this is the Dan Bull argument, and you know the parameters of that.
So, let me get this straight. You think ORG's sole purpose is to abolish copyright (it isn't) and that, somehow, will mean big business will be able to own our ideas?
I'm unsure how letting corporations exploit artists for 70 years after their death is in any way liberal. Ceding that much power over our culture to private enterprise seems like more of a far-right idea.
You haven't heard of multi-award winning novelist Neil Gaiman? Perhaps you saw two of his popular movies (Coraline and Stardust) or watched his Doctor Who episode? I realise he's not appeared on the X Factor - but he's hardly an up and coming artist trying to be "edgy" or "controversial".
I'll let you altavista the others - who knows, you may find some interesting viewpoints.
Oh, should I refer to you as Dave or Chris? I don't have any objection to you using multiple identities to comment on my site - but it does make following your "logic" rather difficult.
Dave3000 says:
That's not what I said or think about the ORG at all. I think the ORG has some sensible folk but also many members that just like piracy and don't like copyright, at all. As I said, that approach is as right wing as Daniel Hannan and Punk. You've made a lot of pro-filesharing comments on this very site. If people can't own the rights to their ideas, who do you think will use them? Whoever has deep enough pockets to make the ideas a reality.
I don't agree with 70 year copyright terms either. It is I, not any corporation, that owns the rights to my work. In the event of my death, my family would own it. Which corporations are you referring to? I don't understand your explanation, where do these corporations come from? Copyright law exists to protect me from these evil corporations, so they can't take my ideas without paying me. Copyright is an intrinsically liberal concept.
I'd like to see a much shorter term, maybe 20-30 years on copyright; I think anything more than 50 is ludicrous in normal situations (e.g. Al Johnson, who penned the New Orleans hit "Carnival Time" didn't get a penny in royalties for 40 years or so after its release due to being swindled).
I didn't see Coraline or Stardust, now you mention it I enjoyed his Doctor Who. Not a compelling argument for anything though, is it?
Ultimately, I've been most underwhelmed by the ORG's output and think there are far better organisations for protecting our online rights. If it had a sensible solution for protecting authors and dealing with piracy I'd feel very different.
As regards identity, you can call me what you like - it's the internet. Those names are the login details of the last person that used the machine - they were pre-filled for me. If I get the opportunity I'll introduce myself in person.
Dave3000 says:
P.S. I just did as you said, searched a bit on the names cited, one of the top results for Neil Gaiman was this story about his missus : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/14/amanda_palmer_play_for_beer/
Gave me a chuckle - that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. You're citing the "not free as in beer, free as in $1.2m" crowd : http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palmer-the-new-record-art-book-and-tour
Ironically, searching for Neil Gaiman for a couple of minutes delivered a sterling example of why we need a solid copyright system I've ever seen, and a glimpse into what it would be like without it. This is what living the ORG dream does for creative industries, and according to Neil's missus, that's the future of music! Also, look at the project - no wonder these folks don't like copyright, it's all made from other people's ideas!
$1.2m! Those players need to tell her : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR1LkDSgOXM
Tsk! And your work in the 网络水军 was going so well! Then you go and spoil it by pushing to hard. Your move into ad hominem is also particularly sloppy.