Byte Rights: While You Were Out

13

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Architek9

We need teddy roosevelt to come back from the dead and punch these corporate fat cats in the throat

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

I see lawsuits happening over this. And it's not on the behalf of the MAFIAA or the ISPs. Somebody will just take the longer road and use the court system instead of the MAFIAA/ISP "judicial system", maybe making a "little" cash on the side. I'm sure that even though the TOS takes away constitutional rights, they can be just as quickly restored with a somewhat large amount of money changing hands in the process after a whole lotta bickering.  Let's face it: no one buys CDs and tapes (Oh! The HORROR!) anymore, and Hollywood is mass-producing sh*tty movies that are recycled over and over again (all with VERY similar plots, just different people and a different set), so piracy isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all factor in their so-called slipping profits.

avatar

warptek2010

I am not in the least surprised. I would not put anything past these scumbag attorney's and corporate trash (isp's).

Here's a thought: Why do Americans hold entertainment, music and media elites in such high regard anyway?

Actors, musicians, even journalists and celebrities have very high opinions of themselves (not all have inflated ego's) like they're in the same league as the true hero's of society like cops, firemen, pilots, doctors etc... Plus, the activist personalities aren't just happy being paid millions for PLAYING a role, they have to hit you over the head with their dumb uneducated opinions too - like anybody gives 2 shits what Chris Mathews, Johnny Depp or Bruce Springteen's thinks.

What exactly is it that they do besides make crap movies or record some crap music? Americans go out of their way to either pay for something that is over valued and over priced or find some means to nefariously get it. Since having a kid I have not seen any new movies (besides Thor) in 3 years. Since Rush released their last studio album in 2007 I have not bought a new CD. MOST of this crap is just NOT WORTH IT so let's try to just boycott as much of it as possible and only pay for what you truly must see or listen to. The various industries (the corporate side) also think very very highly of themselves and see US pions as the problem as to why they're not making money. Let's show them what we could really do for their economic circumstances.

avatar

neros1x

I stopped downloading pirated movies and music off of file sharing networks a couple years ago when DRM-free music became available, and I personally felt that I should try to meet media companies halfway, as it were. You know what this agreement has accomplished? I'm going to download torproject, and pirate the shit out of all the media I had planned on buying. Congratulations, RIAA, MPAA, and any other smug-faced, self-righteous entertainment conglomerate, you just turned an honest constumer into a willing thief.

avatar

fellowleo

All this bickering is pointless, in the end you'll agree to all of this in the fine print of the service agreement which they may amend at leisure. And if you object afterwards? Welcome to binding arbitraton in a system where arbitrators who rule against them are promptly blacklisted and become unemployable.

avatar

kris79

RIAA, Sony-BMG, MPAA etc. are simply paying for their own form of "justice" in bought and paid for courts and congress. Too bad that most of our citizens are simply clueless to this threat to their freedom as well as the raping of their pocketbooks. This is far worse than a few artists potentially losing a few bucks that they might have earned. We stand by while our lawmakers sell out to these self serving few who own forever-rights to things that they never even made themselves. We have become nothing more than indentured servants who work to pay our masters - who are laughing at us...

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

Actually, this can still be taken to court. Because ISP's are monopolies for the most part (with a few duopolies) they are under the thumb of the government for regulation. If you appeal (using the Silence of Congress as your reasoning) that the government won't let this happen but did not regulate because such a simple thing did not need to be mandated, it can be tried in court.

 

avatar

Eoraptor

Yeah... Sure. What color are the skies in this world where Congress acts in the favour of the little guy and the courts act in protection of justice, and not who has the most expensive laywer?

You know, the same congress that created the H1B visa system that allows companies like Microsoft to bring people here from india, train them, and then send all that knowledge right back to India where it can be used to take more american jobs away. Or the congress that said it's perfectly legal for these very companies to act in the manner which they do by actively blocking the FCC from enforcing regulations like real internet neutrality because "it hurts competition."

And the courts, like the Supreme court who said, Sure, it's PERFECTLY acceptable for coporations to raise and distribute as much political capitol as they would like either directly or via PACs while individual contributions are hamstrung.

Of course I could go on. but yeah... Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, and don't confuse what's written in a civics text book with what happens in reality.

avatar

chop_slap

America, where the dollar is boss hog.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

First this would bypass Congress and go straight to the courts (ironically enough, this is the very same motion the ISP's are using [The Silence of Congress] to justify this as legal, by saying that the lack of a mandate was meant to mean companies self-regulate). If something like this goes to the courts, what they try to do is figure out which way would Congress swing, which realistically means which way is the best way for the United States. And seeing as how PAC's can't do anything for a Supreme Court Justice (as they don't campaign, since they already have a life term) and that any other means ISP's could take to bribe the judges would be highly illegal and very easy to follow, I doubt they'd be able to pay them off.

 

Second, this wouldn't be even remotely close to the first time shit like this was defeated/supported by the same notion in reality. I am not a lawyer of any kind, the only reason I know about this is because of how common place it is has forced me to read about it so that I can conduct a normal business.

 

Lastly, as greedy as some politicians are, do you think they are stupid enough to ignore the 75% of the US pop. who will be pissed at this; but at the same time, smart enough (and trustworthy enough) to collude with other political parties to keep any of them from using this massive issue to grab a huge chunk of the popular opinion? Right before a presidential election?

 

 

avatar

Eoraptor

I hate to say it... but this is EXACTLY what they did during the Default crisis this summer. ignored the cries of 75% or more of the american populace who said "make the freaking deal" in order to play politics as usual.

And sadly, since SCOTUS said that corporations and pacs are entitled to unlimited campaign finance, the american people will never hear from someone not backed by a corporation during election time; they'll simply be squeezed out of air time in any media outlet.

avatar

nealtse

Toaster, I like what you're saying, but I think you're making the presumption that they see the average voter as any kind of a political threat.

avatar

GenMasterB

yes

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.