On 01/05/2012 23:35, William Anderson wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Paul Cairney
<paul.cair...@eu.equinix.com> wrote:
(Please excuse the From: line, the folowing diartibe is mostly my personal
oppinion)
If only there was some sort of legal entity who could lobby on behalf of the
views that consensous of this list has concluded to be a sane reaction to
the currently proposed legislation...
Idealy this would be an entity that doesnt exist soley to represent the
interests of comercial entities, either those who have self identified as
'ISPs' to form some sort of Association or joined a 'not-for-profit' entity
in which the membership consists soley of comercial entities without any of
the natural persons our elected politicians are apparently here to represent
:)
Err, you mean like ISPA?
Nicholas Lansman, who 'is' ISPA, was on Radio 4 a few days ago on this
subject. He was rambling and not persuasive in any way. There are other
more effective organisations:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/what-they-want-is-control
However the reality is that copyright holders, politicians, police, the
media, and censors like IWF and the Whitehouse tendancy all benefit from
being seen to "do something" and they don't really care if it's
effective or if it damages civil liberty.
Read the above article, which clearly makes the point that the internet
is a communication tool not "the media". It should no more be censored
than your telephone conversations. It is not a broadcast medium, it is a
personal one and rights of free speech should be upheld.
Those who profit from control of the distribution channels of music and
film need to change their business models, because we are witnessing the
death of such control, and the death of much of the "media".
Steve
