Declaration of Internet FreedomAdded: Thursday, July 5th, 2012
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Right To Share
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
A few days ago, online leaders, including the EFF, Public Knowledge, Free Press, and the Mozilla Foundation, have issued a document titled “Declaration of Internet Freedom”.
The declaration stands for a free and open web and calls not to censor the Internet. Although the document doesn’t propose any specific policy, it hopes to put a line in the sand about what things should look like. Meanwhile, its principles were designed to be accepted by the political arena.
The document was mainly sustained by liberal groups like the Free Press, but the declaration was also supported by a couple political figures, who encouraged Republicans to vote against SOPA and similar bills.
In the meantime, not everyone is happy with this move – for instance, a coalition of right-of-center outfits delivered their own version with various sets of principles, which included “humility” and “the rule of law” – the list includes TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the National Taxpayers Union. They argued that the original document contained an “ambiguity which could pave the way for more government intervention”.
However, if you take a closer look on both versions of the document, you would notice that they both highlight the importance of free expression, privacy and innovation. The question is how to apply those ideas. In fact, the real issue is the ambiguity of the documents, a feature which may prove fatal to the outfits’ plans. In addition, the Congress doesn’t seem to be going to vote against free speech or creativity, but it is less likely to support vague principles.
So, to make a change the initiators must have a good plan focused on the political sector. You can recall Demand Progress’ campaign, which emphasized that the MegaUpload case had set a precedent, and pointed out that now such portals like Gmail and Flickr might be in danger as well.
Demand Progress also filed an amicus brief (with more than 50,000 signatures) with a Virginia judge who managed the MegaUpload case. The matter is that solving the cyberlocker’s problem (and other troubles that may appear soon) would demand the legislation be modified, especially the 2008’s PRO-IP Act, because it enables federal government to seize domains, servers, and everything else they may need in a copyright violation case.
July 5th,2012Posted by:
Thursday, July 5th, 2012
|The Internet already has complete freedom, it has more or less, since it was set up. It was set up in such a way as to be able to continue even after nuclear war worldwide. If any country is difficult, such as China, internet traffic is just routed elsewhere. Seizing domains is totally pointless, as there are so many countries in the world where a new domain can be set up. Seizing servers usually accomplishes NOTHING as file shares are mirrored elsewhere on numerous other servers.|
Of course at the moment free speech or creativity are almost dead in the USA, but thrive worldwide (China, Syria and Iran excepted)!!!!!
|posted by (2012-07-05 23:14:39)|
|i agree with chazzo comments...|
america doesnt have freedom of speech no more, its all been planed out 4 them what they can or cant do now...
just a shame alot of their population dont wake up to whats going on around them..
|The only freedoms are those allowed by the powers that be and to think otherwise is delusional.|
|posted by (2012-07-07 08:10:03)|
|meows and chews on internet cable:)|
|posted by (2012-07-07 13:58:46)|
|Congress not supporting vague principles ??? really , congress has no principles , morals or honor . They are the stereotypical used car salesmen who thrive on vague issues and half truths.|
|posted by (2012-07-07 21:20:27)|
|Noch is correct, but thats a generalization of politicians throughout time!|
I can attest, freedom of speech in the USA is alive and well thriving, and going places that suck but are necessary for its preserverance! (ie,westboro baptist church protesting soldier funerals...they can do it...sadly...because of F.O.S.) It is definatly more expansive and protective then the signers could have ever imagined. So we set here
|posted by (2012-07-09 11:37:49)|
|Until and unless the human species becomes genetically mute, there will always be free speech. The question has always been what happens as a result, if anything, and the answer is becoming more and more based on how much money you have. The US has the best government that money can buy, and lobbyists have all the megaphones. Corporate interests wield all the power, and the rest of us are just lucky that they're so greedy and jealous of each other, rather than united for the 'common cause'. They now use the gov resources of the tax-paying public to ensure their ability to infringe on the very people they pretend they don't need to care about, at least until the ceiling falls in and they run screaming like children for financial support. The human species is inherently defective; the result is self-destructive and most apparent among an assorted few -- the wealthy and religious. Their flawed minds generate an unwieldy, narcissistic, extremist view of their need for self-preservation which in fact threatens the very lives of everyone else because they then see everyone else as a threat to their survival. We could easily 'root out' this group of diseased humans because there behavior gives them away. The majority are so self-satisfied and resilient that they'll take quite a bit of pressure before they feel motivated to fight for their survival. That's the only reason the religious fanatics and rich get away with their excessive behaviorism's. There truly is power in numbers, but if the majority are only sheep, then as a group they will always be easily lead and fearful of change. The religious even refer to the majority as sheep, and the Republicunts manipulate them through irrational fear. No group of humans should have 'control' of the Internet; we simply can't be trusted to do anything but restrict it.|
|In the not so familiar words of Chief Tawanka, "We were free until we stopped fighting, now no one has freedom".|
Keep fighting, people!
Most Popular Stories