Worse Than China? U.S. Government Wants To Censor Search Engines And Browsers

[Knewz]

Check This Out
Obama Should Resist Sarkozy’s Quest to Regulate the Internet - Gary Shapiro - The Comeback: Innovation Economy - Forbes

 

[TheBrit]

Check This Out
Obama Should Resist Sarkozy

 

[drewsg]

You give a little, they take a lot.. Nothing like this should ever be passed

 

[OutofDate1980]

whereby the Department of Justice could force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites, and scrub the American Internet clean of any trace of their existence."[/I] ...

"A radical new approach to thwarting Internet censorship would essentially turn the whole web into a proxy server, making it virtually impossible for a censoring government to block individual sites. The system is called Telex ..."

New anti-censorship scheme could make it impossible to block individual Web sites

Anyone heard of this and is this feasible ?

 

[noah way]

"A radical new approach to thwarting Internet censorship would essentially turn the whole web into a proxy server, making it virtually impossible for a censoring government to block individual sites. The system is called Telex ..."

New anti-censorship scheme could make it impossible to block individual Web sites

Anyone heard of this and is this feasible ?

Watch for these guys to suddenly die in car crashes, inexplicably commit suicide or end up in jail in child molestation charges.

 

[Crude]

Whether it gets as bad as China or not isn't the problem. Why should ANYTHING on the net be censored? It is absolutely unacceptable.

Pirating of digital media is problematic. Let the owners figure out a way to deal with it. Giving the government censorship power is not the way. It all starts by imposing on your rights for the greater good and evolves into a beast that eventually becomes to great to control.

The greatest issue I have with piracy is that there is no proof of how much companies are actually losing. How many people that pirate content would actually go out and pay for it? They have it because it's free. If it wasn't free, they wouldn't have it. Make content worth paying for, and people will pay. It's a pretty simple concept.

qft, I'm tired of the RIAA saying they are loosing money. I'll be honest, I pirate in my own special way....but I only keep what I own. If I couldn't listen to a song a few times first I wouldn't ever buy it. The other thing the MPAA and the RIAA need to get in their heads, if I buy it I own it. I will copy it to any device I own there are no DRMs in my library.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Watch for these guys to suddenly die in car crashes, inexplicably commit suicide or end up in jail in child molestation charges.

To late, cat is out of the bag.

"They will present it Aug. 12 at the USENIX Security Symposium in San Francisco."

 

[Isthmus]

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to set up an unfiltered proxy service in a friendly jurisdiction.

 

[Stuntman]

The copyright on the vinyl White Album is different from the copyright on the cassette White Album which is different from the copyright on the CD White Album.

Funny, even though the content is exactly the same, I've paid three times for the identical copyrighted content ...

Part of the cost that you paid is for the delivery of the content in the particular media. At the time, it is not that easy to take content on vinyl and then transfer it (without degradation) to another type of media. Also, those particular types of media are physical in nature, so there are costs associated in delivering the media itself regardless of what content it contains.

Today in the age of the internet and wireless, delivering that same content to customers is a lot less cost intensive. I can download a song or album onto my computer from a server at very little cost in the delivery. I can then transfer that song or album onto a portable, digital music player very easily and also cheaply. Look how easily it is to download an app or wall paper.

The music/media industry still wants to charge today's customers the same prices or more than in the past. They also want to make as much money as possible. I think that with today's technology, the delivery system available will ultimately change the cost of purchasing the content and should make it less expensive than before. I also think that people are less willing to pay the same higher prices when there are a large amount of free content available at their finger tips. I personally used to subscribe to a newspaper. Now, I just don't want to shell out the same amount for a newspaper when I can get similar news stories for free from the internet that is not already a day old. When I buy a newspaper, I feel like paying today for the same thing I got for free yesterday.

I think the media industry will have to find new ways to generate revenue and new pricing models in light of the changing technology and changing attitudes of consumers. I don't know if I really want to pay $20+ for an album of songs like I did when CD's were the latest and greatest. I still might, but may not buy as many anymore.

I do think that downloading content for free from unofficial sources is the proper way to do things. It seems this bill is to prevent people from getting content for free which the content owners want compensation for. I don't think this bill alone is going to make people happy and pay extremely high prices for content. There has to be more changes in the industry before illegal downloading of content becomes minimised.