This wont be the end of the MPAA and RIAA's attempts to pass this legislation, and when the issue is finally tied to national security and chinese hackers it will go through
also, google had no qualms working in the oppressive chinese system until hackers targeted them directly, sort of funny to see them as a bastion of free speech here...
Originally posted by Peach
Untrue. Both may still be pretty far to the right in terms of politics, but there is in fact quite a lot of differences between the two, and to say there's no actual difference is pretty damn ignorant.
not really...
sure, to someone inside the American political culture there are still things that are important on which they differ, for instance, abortion rights, state rights, health care, gun control, etc. However, for anyone who comes from another Western or developed nation, these are not simply local policies, but represent issues that are long settled. The fact that Dems and Reps differ on health care or abortion really doesn't seem salient in nations where such practices are not only resolved issues, in some cases (like public health care in Canada) they are considered part of the national identity. Because of this, it seems more silly and anachronistic that this is even being debated than otherwise, and frankly, given Obama's stance on gay marriage (he is against it), there is a lot of agreement on these types of issues between parties.
Of things that matter to foreigners watching your spectacle, issues of human rights, war, foreign policy, personal freedoms, financial issues, etc, there are few differences, and often Obama seems further right of even where the republicans are.
Like sym said, it is a matter of perspective, but for people for whom debates about state rights versus federal power don't really resonate, the differences aren't really that stark. You have crazy person and other crazy person who sort of accepts some of the things, but not all the way, that all other western nations already take for granted.
Originally posted by inimalist
[B]Because of this, it seems more silly and anachronistic that this is even being debated than otherwise, and frankly, given Obama's stance on gay marriage (he is against it), there is a lot of agreement on these types of issues between parties.B]
So you don't think SOPA type legislation would get very far in other Western nations?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you don't think SOPA type legislation would get very far in other Western nations?
Outside of some hand waving press releases, I haven't seen Obama take much of a position against the bill, certainly not in a way that would prevent him from signing it (re: NDAA), so I don't think SOPA stands as something we could say there is meaningful partisan differences about in the first place.
That being said, I think it could. the bigger problem, at least in Canada, would be getting anyone to talk about it in the broader media. I don't think our citizens would support it, but then, I also don't think our citizens would support how much money we are getting from China so that they can claim our oil infrastructure. It would be more a matter of what becomes public discourse.
However, our RCMP have stated many times that they have no interest in spending their time investigating things for the RIAA/MPAA, so there really might just be no political motivation for it.
EDIT: oops! I see the confusion, the line "this type of thing" refers back more to issues of health care and abortion that are a staple of American politics but seen as issues long settled in most Western nations, not to the SOPA legislation itself. Rather than being one of the differences outsiders don't understand, SOPA seems to be the type of thing that makes it appear to outsiders that there really are no distinctions between the parties.
As inimalist has stated in the past, these petty intellectual property wars will be a thing of the past. To me, this seems like the last desperate attempt from a failing system.
The worst way to stop piracy is to become totalitarian against the millennials. This will only result in a backfire. Prepare for cyberwar to be waged if these get passed in any atrocious form.
to someone inside the American political culture there are still things that are important on which they differ
Exactly. That's the whole point. To someone in another country, it's just like "why are they even arguing about that in the first place" (I think that about a lot of stuff that comes up myself), but to us living here? Those differences are pretty big.
Originally posted by Peach
Exactly. That's the whole point. To someone in another country, it's just like "why are they even arguing about that in the first place" (I think that about a lot of stuff that comes up myself), but to us living here? Those differences are pretty big.
I actually do not get inimalists point at all.
There are major differences and both parties seem to lean to the right on SOME issues.
On some issues, republicans are further left (regulation, social programs, etc). On some issues, democrats are further left (abortion, marriage...or pretty much any "social" issue). This is not all-inclusive, either. You have things like blue-dog democrats and liberal republicans.
So it's back to what Marius said: they seem the same to outsiders because it is hard to get a single party to unite on "party lines" anyway. They both do seem to favor corporations so what Mairuzu said was correct, as well.
What were we talking about again? 😕
Originally posted by dadudemon
As inimalist has stated in the past, these petty intellectual property wars will be a thing of the past. To me, this seems like the last desperate attempt from a failing system.
I'm pretty sure I've maintained that something like SOPA is an eventuallity... like, that's been a position I've held since before I joined these forums iirc...
I certainly dont think it is possible for the state to end piracy, but I am in no way optimistic about IP laws. I might see value in setting the system up in different ways, but I don't think monied or powerful interests will do it. I also support universal disarmament, obviously I don't think it will happen.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm pretty sure I've maintained that something like SOPA is an eventuallity... like, that's been a position I've held since before I joined these forums iirc...
We talked about this before. You did say it would escalate but it would subside as we experienced a social change in how we handle "intellectual property". I only "invoked your name" as to not steal your ideas. I give credit when I can remember. I just don't feel comfortable claiming it as my original idea: seems dishonest.
Originally posted by inimalist
I also support universal disarmament, obviously I don't think it will happen.
I like hunting and eating what I've killed. Not in some sort of morbid "I want to kill" kind of way...but in a self-subsistence kind of way.
Meaning, I don't support universal disarmament. I support getting rid of weapons of mass destruction for sure.
This is an example of one of the few things I agree with libertarians on, an example wherein Big Business writes legislation to regulate their industry, using the rationale of preventing crime and theft of intellectual property with the intent of booting out smaller competition and engaging in extortion and theft from individuals.
Every time the MPAA or RIAA comes up in a thread I have to ask the same question. Why hasn't anyone utilized the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and/or RICO?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They split along party lines on the issues most people are most passionate about. When people say "there's no difference" they just mean that "they don't care about my pet issues and I don't care about their pet issues", it just the disingenuous version is just better for manipulating people.
Originally posted by Peach
Untrue. Both may still be pretty far to the right in terms of politics, but there is in fact quite a lot of differences between the two, and to say there's no actual difference is pretty damn ignorant.
Obviously it's somewhat hyperbolic, but there's little denying that on some of the most important issues there is tremendous bi-partisan support for screwing over the people.
Republicans seem more radical, and as a party seem to work together much better, but at least some democrats are definitely complicit in some of the worst decisions.
But again, it's not supposed to be an accurate statement, rather an expression of annoyance with the way politicians seem to often sell out the ideals their parties are supposed to have to screw over their citizens.