Online censorship hurts us all | Technology Artists have lots of problems. We get plagiarised, ripped off by publishers, savaged by critics, counterfeited — and we even get our works copied by "pirates" who give our stuff away for free online. But no matter how bad these problems get, they're a distant second to the gravest, most terrifying problem an artist can face: censorship. It's one thing to be denied your credit or compensation, but it's another thing entirely to have your work suppressed, burned or banned. Since 1995, every single legislative initiative on this subject in the UK's parliament, the European parliament and the US Congress has focused on making it easier to suppress "illegitimate" material online. And that's the rub. Take the US's 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has equivalents in every European state that has implemented the 2001 European Union Copyright Directive. But takedown notices are just the start. This notion is impractical in the extreme, for at least two reasons.
Censure A censure /ˈsɛnʃər/ is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.[1] Among the forms that it can take are a stern rebuke by a legislature, a spiritual penalty imposed by a church, or a negative judgment pronounced on a theological proposition. Politics[edit] In politics, a censure is an alternative to more serious measures against misconduct or dereliction of duty.[2][3] Canada[edit] Censure is an action by the House of Commons or the Senate rebuking the actions or conduct of an individual. Louis Riel faced Parliamentary censure for his role in the Red River Rebellion, and was expelled from Parliament April 16, 1874.[4] Japan[edit] On August 28, 2012 a censure motion was passed by the LDP and the New Komeito Party against Prime Minister Noda himself. United States[edit] Censure is the public reprimanding of a public official for inappropriate conduct or voting behavior. Explanation and use[edit] More serious disciplinary procedures may involve fine, suspension, or expulsion.
Traffic – Google Transparency Report Пользователи из более чем 30 стран не могли получить доступ к продуктам и сервисам Google. Такие перерывы в работе могут быть вызваны разными причинами: от системных сбоев до блокирования по распоряжению государственных органов. Все текущие и зарегистрированные сбои приведены ниже. Список не является исчерпывающим. Подробнее... YouTube С 13 июня 2014 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 51 день Все продукты С 31 мая 2014 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 63 дня Сайты Google С 11 октября 2009 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 1756 дней Google Sites inaccessible. YouTube С 23 марта 2009 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 1959 дней Сайты Google С 7 апреля 2014 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 118 дней Google Sites partially accessible YouTube С 13 июня 2009 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 1877 дней YouTube С 17 сентября 2012 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 685 дней Сайты Google С 24 июня 2009 г. по настоящее время Продолжительность: 1866 дней
XS4ALL maakt met Ziggo vuist tegen Brein Nieuws - Provider XS4ALL mengt zich in een juridisch geschil dat Ziggo heeft met piraterijbestrijder Brein. Brein eist dat Ziggo torrentsite The Pirate Bay blokkeert. Eerder liet XS4ALL al weten Ziggo te steunen in de zaak tegen Brein. Nu laat de provider weten zich ook juridisch in de strijd te willen mengen. Daarom voegt XS4ALL zich in het kort geding dat maandag 28 juni dient bij de rechtbank in Den Haag. Brein eist dat Ziggo de Pirate Bay blokkeert voor zijn gebruikers, nadat de Nederlandse rechter de torrentsite al verboden had links naar illegale bestanden te plaatsen. Via het opleggen van dwangsommen lukte het tot nog toe niet de site offline te krijgen. Principekwestie "XS4ALL voegt zich in de zaak omdat zij principieel tegen censuur is en precedentwerking wil voorkomen", zo laat de provider weten. De providers zijn bang dat een blokkade van The Pirate Bay ook de deur op een kier zet om de toegang tot andere sites via de rechter te verbieden. Entertainmentindustie
UN report: "three strikes" Internet laws violate human rights China's not the only Internet bad boy; a new UN report (PDF) calls out even developed democracies for slapping restrictions on the Internet. An official appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has released a new report on the state of online free speech around the world. In addition to calling attention to long-standing censorship problems in China, Iran, and other oppressive regimes, the report devotes a surprising amount of attention to speech restrictions in the developed world—and it singles out recently enacted "three strikes" laws in France and the United Kingdom that boot users off the Internet for repeated copyright infringement. Dragging ISPs into the fight The report was written by Frank La Rue, whose official title is "Special Rapporteur." He's an independent investigator appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to study and report on free speech abuses around the world. Obviously, this has big implications for the contemporary copyright debate. Strikeout
Censorship Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content.
Oppose PROTECT-IP Act: U.S. Government Wants To Censor Search Engines And Browsers Oppose PROTECT-IP Act: U.S. Government Wants To Censor Search Engines And Browsers Tell Congress to Kill COICA 2.0, the Internet Censorship Bill UPDATE: Great news. "If there is a law that requires DNSs, to do X and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it," he said, according to the report. Big content is irate. ORIGINAL: We knew that members of Congress and their business allies were gearing up to pass a revised Internet Blacklist Bill -- which more than 325,000 Demand Progress members helped block last winter -- but we never expected it to be this atrocious. Senators Leahy and Hatch pretended to weigh free speech concerns as they revised the bill. Furthermore, it wouldn't just be the Attorney General who could add sites to the blacklist, but the new bill would allow any copyright holder to get sites blacklisted -- sure to result in an explosion of dubious and confused orders.
Troll (Internet) This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[7][8] Usage The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls." Application of the term troll is subjective. As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (January 25, 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. The "trollface" is an image occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture.[15][16][17] Origin and etymology
T-Mobile Germany Blocks iPhone Skype Over 3G and WiFi: Mobile Technology News « How to tell if you're a comments troll Etiquette in today's digital world can be tricky. Andrea Bartz, left, and Brenna Ehrlich are here to help. Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich are CNN.com's "netiquette" columnists Take their quiz to find out if you're an internet troll Are contributing to the online dialogue or just grunting unintelligibly? Editor's note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and soon-to-be-book Stuff Hipsters Hate. (CNN) -- So you're surfing along on your favorite website when you see something that gets your plasma boiling -- so much so that that pulsating vein above your eye is about to burst. The cause of this Web-induced stress could be an opinion that just doesn't jibe with yours. But be careful, impassioned Interneteur -- at this very moment you have the potential to transform from a perfectly pleasant person into that most loathed and feared Web dweller: the troll. Ask yourself: Are you contributing to the online dialogue or just grunting unintelligibly? a). b).
Revised 'Net censorship bill requires search engines to block sites, too Surprise! After months in the oven, the soon-to-be-released new version of a major US Internet censorship bill didn't shrink in scope—it got much broader. Under the new proposal, search engines, Internet providers, credit card companies, and ad networks would all have cut off access to foreign "rogue sites"—and such court orders would not be limited to the government. As for sites which simply change their domain name slightly after being targeted, the new bill will let the government and private parties bring quick action against each new variation. Get ready for the "PROTECT IP Act." Targeting Google A source in Washington provided Ars with a detailed summary of the PROTECT IP Act, which takes its acronym from "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property." The bill is an attempt to deal with foreign sites which can be difficult for US enforcement to reach, even when those sites explicitly target US citizens. Help us out, please