This internet censorship thing

[victoriavictrix]

So with that long long ramble out of the way my question are these
1. What do you think about this? I think if it could be implemented it would be awful and would slowly shut down the internet. But it's just not possible to police the internet that closely. I'm not saying it's not a serious issue and a serious threat but whoever thought up the idea is a fool.

2. would this affect us taking pictures of our dolls? (any dolls BJD, Monster high, pullip, obitsu ect)
Most likely yes, unless we wanted the site shut down. Many of the images would breach copyright .
or is this just a internet scare?I wish.

1. It is a fallacy to think that is is "not possible to police the internet that closely." Companies like Time Warner and Disney have entire departments dedicated just to searching out copyright infringement and sending cease and desist letters. That is all they do. All the time. And this is aided by AI assisted search bots. The entire process is automated to make it require as little supervision as possible. Right now, it is a LOT harder to "punish" you, the burden of proof is on them. So they don't bother to go after anyone much now.

The bill changes all that, and puts the burden of proof on YOU (you have to prove you are NOT guilty.). This means that...let's take doll photos as an example...the AI is looking for the words "Monster High" and a photo. Bingo, off goes a letter to your ISP. If you are lucky, you get a warning first. If, however your ISP is Time Warner, you might well wake up the next day to no net or severely restricted net. So good luck getting onto your email to find the warning letter in your email. Good luck presenting your case to your ISP to get your net back. The point of this bill is that the shutdown is TRIVIALLY easy. Getting your net back, however, could take days to weeks.

And that's just with arguable "copyright infringement." Let's say that Time Warner doesn't want you to see a gay rights site...or a political site...or a site telling about how awful Time Warner is. They can keep you from ever going there under this bill. Period. They can also pre-filter your email to keep you from getting email from sites they don't like.


2. BJDs probably not. Branded USA originated dolls, yes. Especially anything involving Mattel, Disney, or other francise dolls.

[DollyKim]

Something like that passes things like my website and blog could be gone. While most companies are fine with my site, it's like a commercial for them, I can't get a response from Mattel. They wen't after the guy who did pictures of Barbie in a blender and while he eventually won people like me couldn't afford to fight.

You have to ask what corporation(s) are behind the bill. Warner music is so uptight Led Zeppelin couldn't even show their own videos on their own You Tube channel. For fooks sake if I like what I hear on something like You Tube I'm off to buy it.

[zirconmermaid]

Here's another point for you - I have actually had pictures deleted from Photobucket because they were naked dolls. DOLLS! Not because they were a brand, but because the doll had no clothes on. It was mistaken for a person. And that is light censorship. This is an extremely dangerous law. If it is possible for people to abuse it, they will. That's history. As VV says, tell your congressperson.

[Trethowan]

This subject has bothered me since I first heard about it. I'm so disappointed in the whole notion of censorship and information control. There's definitely an Orwellian feel to it all.

It reminds me of the deal with music back... oh, when was that big legal hearing over music censorship & labeling records with parental advisory warnings. 1984 or 86? Dee Snider, Zappa, and others spoke before Congress about their lyrics. I think a group of bored D.C. housewives needed a pet project. ha!

In attempt to NOT discuss politics, I'll just state that this is the kind of junk that happens when powerful companies/corporations get political/governmental backing. Like Monsanto with control over farmers and seed supply. Private companies shouldn't have that level of governmental backing. I can understand one wanting to protect one's assets and rights, but it goes beyond reasonable limits when companies can crush anything it deems as competition. Again, like Monsanto and the seed washers.

What is the root issue underneath all of the fluff and seeming intentions to merely protect one's interests? I think they're worried about losing a few dollars. I think it's all about profit and they're trying to strong-arm providers into being the police.

I could be off base (it is very late and I'm sleepy). That's just how I see it right now.

[DollyKim]

I thought we were heading towards a Huxley future where we were amusing ourselves to distraction?

When ever something like internet censorship pops up you need to look in to what it might be distracting you from. Everyone gets upset about that while a new tax bill is passed.