The Parallel Politics of Copyright and Environment 128
zumaya100k writes "In recent months, Slashdot has covered the rise of
the Pirate Party and the battles in Europe over iPod
interoperability. Canada's Hill Times has an insightful
column from Michael Geist
that links these developments as the growing importance of copyright as
a political issue. He argues that copyright is now tracking the
environment as a mainstream political issue." (Geist is talking about Canada here, but much the same can be said about the U.S. and other places.)
This about sums it up for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Complexity is anathema to politics in most countries.
Civil rights...not environment... (Score:5, Insightful)
And similarily, landmark court decisions and not legislation will probably determine the direction that copyright will take us...back to the slave owning days, or to a future of equal opportunity.
Re:This about sums it up for me (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it seems people will only notice things are becoming a police state when its a bit to late. Most
US Economy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that for this to work, the rest of the world has to adopt USA IP laws, and most countries know it goes against their best interest, so they are not very enthusiastic about it.
Re:This about sums it up for me (Score:4, Insightful)
You still overestimate the average person. They will say that the police would only do it to criminals, so they have no reason to fear the police having that authority. Seriously, I've tried to use this exact explanation. Somewhere along the line, people stopped believing that they themselves were the fundamental source of authority, and have come to believe that governments have inherent power. They believe that the government is always looking out for them, and beyond criticism. Somehow, they just don't get the fact the government is just a big group of people who are lazy, stupid, and power hungry as everybody else. Often, more so.
I find some IP/Copyright Arguments Confusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Without copyright, maybe even Microsoft might come up with a protection scheme that works.
Most People Want A Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's look at the history of humanity. For most of human civilisation, and even before that, humans lived in societies without rights, equality, freedoms or justice. The powerful ruled, and if you objected, you would either be brutally beaten or killed outright. Not only that, your extended family could also be expected to suffer as well.
So with that in mind, lets consider the human "liberty loving" gene, the one that bristles when your rights are infringed upon. Do you think that is now a common gene? Do you think most human beings have retained a strong expression in genes like that one. Or do you think that rather, it is those humans who expressed more "quiet sheep" genes that proliferated throughout most of history.
Most people are descended from a long, long line of quiet, contented serfs. Ergo, most people will naturally act and behave like quiet, contented serfs. You are surrounded by them daily, choked by their suffocating apathy. They are individual only in the individual ways that they acquiesce to other humans who exude the "master" pheromone. Ultimately, democracy collapses under the dead weight of their inborn complacency
Re:This about sums it up for me (Score:3, Insightful)
So it is the government and not her that gets to decide what is right and wrong. One day, they will decide that for whatever reason, they need to sniff her e-mails, or sniff her underwear drawer for drugs or bombs. And that day, there will be something "wrong" with her e-mail or whatever (e.g. thats not a picture of your 1 year old cousin taking a bath, that is kiddie porn). Then she is in prison mumbling, "first they came for my e-mail and I did nothing, then they came for my underwear and I did nothing, then they came for me..."
I wonder what she, and the rest of you, would say about that.
Re:This about sums it up for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Change "making the threat seem real enough"
to "making the threat seem personal enough"
The quickest and easiest way to do that is to ask [Whoever] personal questions you know they aren't going to answer.
When [Whoever] refuses, ask them "As long as you didn't do anything wrong, why shouldn't you answer?"
The answer they give you is the same answer to the question "As long as I don't do anything wrong why should I worry?"
Once you change the way those people look at the issue, you can change the way they feel about it. To do that, you have to go after their fundamental assumption that Bad Guys != Their Community.
Re:This about sums it up for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the old days, the speed limit on the NYST was 55mph, like other limited-access highways. But NOBODY went 55mph, and in fact it was quite common to drive past police cars at 70mph, assuming they weren't driving right beside you at that speed, or faster.
In essence, EVERYONE was breaking the law. That also meant that had they wanted to, or if they had to fill a quota of some sort, they could stop ANYONE for at least a speeding ticket. Beyond that, they could probably add reckless endangerment, etc. But the reality is, since everyone was breaking the law, they could adopt alternate criteria for stopping you, say they don't like your looks, or your car's looks.
To be honest, I don't know that the system was ever abused in this way. I never heard of any abuse, that that doesn't mean that there was or wasn't any.
But the possiblity was there.
Now to bring it home to your wife...
Do you KNOW that you're not breaking any laws? When was the last time you sat down and read ALL the laws, to sort out which ones are applicable to you? How about Blue Laws? I've heard that some places have laws on the books that the Missionary Position is the only legal method for sexual intercourse. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I do remember some time in the past few years, a high court ruling that upheld a law against sex toys in your own bedroom. There was recently a rider forbidding mail-order purchase prescription drugs from Canada, and it was tacked onto a completely unrelated bill. It turns out that sometimes these riders are added late in the process, too late to be in the version of the bill given to legislators for review. Things can sail right under the radar, leaving room for "selective enforcement."
In these days, I'd mostly fear not knowing enough about who I'm doing business with. In a completely innocent fashion, it's possible to "make material contributions to terrorist organizations," by simply buying something from the wrong people.