What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
126 Comments
- madh4tter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+43But what ever happened to the land of the free? :-(
- ripstuntz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35ripstuntz wants ISPs and Congressman to mind their own ***** business.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33Perhaps our Congresswhores should focus on protecting this country, allowing it to enforce its laws and other parts of their actual jobs instead of being lapdogs for big media. Just a thought.
- Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29Corporations have enough administrative powers as it is. Giving ISPs the power to regulate and censor the internet is akin to giving landline phone companies the power to decide who can call you and who can't and what words are prohibited and what words are allowed. This Congressman is an idiot.
- MavRevMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28If this passes, everyone should just torrent more, and overload the ISP's copyright staff, their servers, and resources. Then they'd have an "Oh *****" kinda moment.
- hardcorerikki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29This guy better shut up and check his kid's computer, he surely has a few gigs of warez and music himself.
If this is passed, whatever money he was given, he'd end up restituting it to the copyright thughs - jason469, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19We no longer are free, we are all looked at as criminals or U.S. Citizens waiting to commit a crime. We no longer get the benefit of the doubt, they must keep you in check at all times.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I believe the phrase "unfunded mandate" comes to mind. Our Congresswhores think all we have to do, and all we would want to do, is sit around and do paperwork for the government all day. Here's an idea, Congressman. Do YOUR job for a change.
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17It's been slowly dying ever since people were put in direct competition with corporations for the ear of their representatives.
- alricsca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15The term I like to use for democrats who serve the big media's interest over their constituents is Media Whores. After all, they are selling themselves for profit, most often illegally, to themselves or their fellow business pimp associates. People like this need to be damned from politics forever, whatever party they are in.
- Hermmunster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15This congressman doesn't seem to understand the idea of privacy. He'd have someone watching everything we did in our homes if he could. This is like saying that the property owner from whom you rent has the right to be inside your home to monitor to ensure that you are not committing crimes.
Get this through your ***** HEADS, your computer is an EXTENSION OF YOUR HOMES. You allow them to monitor you and you are doing the same thing as allowing someone to monitor the activities in your home. This is not a highway where you are driving your car. Even so, we have police that do that and those police have very strict rules to follow on what they can and can't do.
This is clearly a subversion of the rules behind the laws that we have put in place to curtail the inappropriate behavior of the police authorities. Only with civilian agencies monitoring the population without constant checks on their own behavior we'll have the worst degrading of our privacy we've ever seen in the history of the world.
Get it straight. Your computer is an extension of your home. You would no more allow a civilian organization enter your home than you would allow the police. This is the very reason you should not be buying Vista. It is a clear violation of your privacy rights.
This congressman should be voted out of office. Make your family and everyone else aware that your computer is an extension of your home. If they want to keep this guy in office they are responsible for the degradation of the rights of every citizen even that of their children, grandchildren and generations to come. - dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Why is that so many idiots get into positions of power?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Howard L. Berman is Democrat.
- franksands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I have a great sugestion: why don't you leave the ISP only to Provide Internet Services and leave the policing copyright to the Police? How about that?
- evi1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12evi1 ***** concurs.
- oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I agree.
Does anybody really think that the internet would be nearly as popular if there weren't that shady side to it?
Even my father, who knows nothing about bittorrenting, P2P, or piracy, has told me that one of the reasons that the internet is so appealing to him is that it has a raw, dangerous side to it. I'd imagine this is the same for others; if they were to (effectively) get rid of that, the ISPs would lose a lot of money, and regret their decision to do this immensely. - grawity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9(This comment was blocked by *insert your ISP name here* because its author said ungood things about censorship)
- toomuchpete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9ISPs already have that power. This would give them the RESPONSIBILITY to do it. Huge difference.
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Sometimes a body of laws is more destructive than the crimes they are meant to combat.
- Matjock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If our government continues our country will be a combination of George Orwell's "1984" and Nazi Germany in 20 years's time
- ShawnHunt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And a good one at that.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I agree that turning the Internet into a form of cable television would destroy its value. Heck, every website is copyrighted, so how do they expect monitor everything. Monitoring requires records, too. They would have to ban encryption, for everyone would go black on day one of this law.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Hey Mr. "witty remark"
Its not about democrat or republican, they're just two sides of the same coin. Its about our representatives, um..representing us, which is why they're called representatives. Otherwise they should just be called lobbitarians. - davidjunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8QUICK! Make it a law for employers to be required to check their employees' iPods for pirated music!
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Brings to mind the "tax" Microsoft pays Universal for every Zune, because the record companies assume that everyone pirates music.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Damn Democrats! What the *****! They are ***** everything up!
- lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Radio was raw and dangerous once... look how that turned out. The Internet is a different animal, though, and harder to control. There are legions of kids growing up never having to pay for music, tv shows or movies, never really experiencing censorship online, never being told what they can and can't research, learn about or see and they will not tolerate the Internet being turned into yet another useless TV channel. Surely, the ISPs know that the reason they are so popular and can offer expensive broadband services is, in part, because of the "raw, dangerous" stuff? Take away video sharing sites, Pr0n, music trading, torrents, P2P and what's left?? E-Commerce sites? Linux distros? Email and a bunch of text files?
I suspect a lot people would quickly downgrade their services to some basic DSL package for email, light web-surfing if they could only access a sterile, sanitized Internet. There's no reason to pay $50-100 / month for that. - Matjock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Belive me there are PLENTY of evil Democrats our there!!!
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You won't like it: Focus on the bootleggers and those who sell unauthorized copies of protected work for monetary gain and leave the casual infringers alone. Music piracy seems to function like free advertisement, and while I feel true sympathy for the predicament of software developers, it seems that all their efforts to combat piracy do is alienate consumers and render the official product inferior to the pirated version of the same. It doesn't make much sense to me.
- lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You need to have at least 10 million in the bank to be eligible to read the fine print
- lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5There is already a society of snitching established where common people enforce each other. This is just one more step deeper into fascism for you.
- aadnk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I see the Internet as a catalyst, a force that initiates a paragdime shift in information flow, just like during the arise of the printing press and the introduction of libraries, which de-monopolize the receiver and the sender (the latter especially with the Internet), shifting the power of control and decision from corporate, government and institutionalized (the church) bodies of their time - all seeking to censor the public opinion to their own interest - to the individual itself. Due to these revolutions, the men in power, intending to at least retain SOME their previous control and censorship over the populace, responded by establishing concepts such as copyright and patents, getting away with it, admittingly in a quite brilliant way, by arguing that it were for the benefit of the consumer and the creator, fully knowing that that's not the case (unlike the politicians, which this article clearly shows). Today is no different.
But the Internet is more than a efficient distribution system. It, more than anything before it, empowers INDIVIDUALS across the globe to express themselves freely with their OWN options and discoveries, privately and anonymously if they so desire, and participate in this emergent, self-organizing social environment/accepting atmosphere ensuring a free flow of information - potentially the sum of human knowledge - to the benefit of understanding, development and true democrazy.
The very idea of trading away this achievement, just for the interest of a small subset of parasitic distributors engaging in crumbling monopolizes, is preposterous and insulting. Let them fall. The privacy of a nations citizens, the fundamental rights of civil liberty (Rick Falkvinge: "the postal secret, whistleblower protection, freedom of the press, and the very right to an identity"), is far, FAR more important. - marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I now turn your attention to the idiots voting them into power. A federation of idiots, by idiots, for idiots.
- SilentJay74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Howard L. Berman's KAZAA Library: Bert Bacharach sings his hits!
Carpenters Weve only just begun
Rocky Mountain High
Mel Torme's greatest hits
Sinatra and Garland!
Girls Gone Wild: Huntington Beach - marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You think there's a huge difference between democrats and republicans? Get past the blame game and take your mind out of the two party system.
- grawity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Will this apply to Zunes?
- cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Alright, hit the fec.gov site and check out his contributors. Sony, Adobe Inc, EMI, AOL, Amazon, HP, Intel, Microsoft, XM, and Time Warner Music.
I can't seem to locate the actual congressman, can every corporation please turn out their pockets? - hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Then just like a police, they should be required to obtain a warrant for every single person that they wish to accuse of obtaining copyrighted works.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have to say, at first I do feel that making ISPs being another form of police can really crack down on downloading (most would be intimidated because of their lack of CPU knowledge), but would that actually benefit the ISPs in the long run? If I'm an ISP, there is no way I'm cracking down on people downloading, since that IS one of the main reasons people use the internet. In fact, I wouldn't give a ***** what they are doing as long as I'm getting my money
- jus10y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3*Filtered*
- grawity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Encryption.
- neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's great. Now let's get rid of him.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Interesting phrase. Do you honestly believe that this has happened because of the politics of one party? For all that everyone screams about Bush, the Democrats haven't exactly shown their best face in these issues either. Still waiting for someone to explain the difference between democrats and republicans. In policy issues, I see very little difference.
- marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3On the bright side, a doubleration of chocolate next week. That is doubleplusgood. What a wonderful time to be alive!
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't disagree with that, but in trying to get the big guns they're going to hurt the little guy the same way they are now
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm sick of the new fascist US.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It makes me sad that you're right. Republicans and Democrats have no real difference between them. It's all about who has the power
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That died off long ago when people started looking for the letter D and letter R when voting.
- marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Getting big government into micromanaging the lives of individuals (for corporations, by corporations) does get us closer to 1984. Having every entity and service keeping a watchful eye on us in the name of IP laws, terrorism, child porn, what have you, and reporting it to the government does get us closer to 1984. Having such harsh punishment/fines inflicted on the middle class individual so that the upper class and collective corporations can benefit should be a crime in and of itself.
- noctu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3its time to make a fast wireless dark-net.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is