American Censorship Day

[chartube12]

Well our the U.S government does owe China nearly 30 trillion u.s dollars.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

The People's Republic of China does have a communist government. It's even in the country's name..
People's Republic = Communist State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic

Whereas Taiwan, or the Republic of China is actually a Republic.

Not even Russia was communist. It's like absolutism. Everyone wanted it but no one actually fit the definition.

Also, I really suggest you watch the Koppel on Discovery special about China. It's called "The People's Republic of Capitalism". Not saying this as a demeaning thing, I'm suggesting it because it's a really good documentary. Guess I'm a bit off topic here but if I get you to watch it, you won't regret it. Very interesting look into China and Ted Koppel makes me hard.

 

[Gahars]

And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.

And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.

Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.

 

[Midna]

The majority of the world view people like TheAmazingAthiest the same way we view southern preachers telling us we're all going to hell. Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't act like a prick to everyone else because of it.

 

[1234turtles]

so what is the status on the censorship hearing?

 

[Bobbyloujo]

I betcha Anonymous will have something to say about this if it gets passed.

I see that Mozilla is supporting this... good bye Firefox. It's been nice knowin' ya.

Show me proof. Then I will switch over to Safari .

Wait... I had that backwards. Mozilla is against it. I was confused by the list of organizations at the bottom of the OP's source.

 

[Deleted User]

And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.

And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.

Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.

I'm guessing you never even watched his videos?

 

[worlok375]

And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.

And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.

Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.

So it's essentially ad hominem time.

I actually didn't even notice it was TheAmazingAthiest until halfway through, the video has absolutely nothing to do with religion, why bother talking about it? Why say the person who posted to this site doesn't know what he's talking about when he's posting relevant information.

 

[xxNathanxx]

Everyone, listen to brandonspikes and Zetta_x. They are the only ones that actually know what they're talking about. The rest of you clearly don't and should stay silent.

Reminds me of a nice quote from someone whose name I can't remember: "If only closed minds came with closed mouths."

 

[Gahars]

And all I have to say before going too off topic, brandonspikes, is that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religions offer people hope in a seemingly uncaring universe, as well as answers to the great mysteries of life that we all struggle with. Blinding people to the truth? Ignorance and corruption can exist in any institution; whether or not you believe in God, gods, or something else entirely isn't going to change human nature. Sure, some people take their faiths too far, but extremism can exist anywhere as well.

And before you say something like, "Well, you believe in religion, so of course you say that," I don't. I'm agnostic (I believe that the universe is so impossibly complex and grand that there is probably a lot about it that is beyond our understanding - for now, anyway), but insulting people for their beliefs gets us nowhere. You need a foundation of mutual respect to get anywhere.

Guys like TheAmazingAthiest, whether on religion or this, make that process all the more difficult.

I'm guessing you never even watched his videos?

I'm guessing you haven't given them much thought.

 

[ferofax]

and America was supposed to be the Land of the Free... no more.

 

[YayMii]

And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).

 

[Midna]

And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).

There is so much wrong with this post.
I say this as a Canadian.

 

[Oveneise]

Even my anti-pirate friend is against this bullshit. Hell, I think we all are. And whoever isn't needs to wake the heck up and smell the mutant dandruff.

 

[WolfSpider]

I really hope that this doesn't happen; if it does then it'll be one step closer to the government ruining people's privacy.

 

[CarbonX13]

And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).

There is so much wrong with this post.
I say this as a Canadian.

Actually, what he stated is true. The Copyright Act of Canada, amended in 1997 with the introduction of Bill C-32, includes an exception to the distribution of illegally obtained software. Copyrighted music is able to be downloaded legally under Canada's federal law, because Bill C-32 gave the exception to copying copyrighted music as long as it was "copied for personal use". As compensation for the music industry, the Canadian government levies a tax on all blank recording media to accomodate for the potential losses in profit. In other words, all blank media in Canada like CDs and DVDs are all taxed because of Bill C-32, but it is because the Canadian government created a loophole in federal law to allow for downloading copyrighted music. What's commonly mistaken, though, is that it is still illegal to pirate movies, video games, and TV shows; Bill C-32 only applies to music.

Of course, all of this occurred before the era of file-sharing and digital media. Our federal government expressed its concern over the out-dated laws and introduced the Copyright Modernization Act just two months ago through Bill C-11, which will obviously fix this loophole in federal law and set new barriers to piracy. Bill C-11, I don't think, has not passed through the House of Commons and the Senate yet, so it has no effect on Canadian law at this point.

This is also from a Canadian.

 

[DarkLG]

We already lost our privacy lol.This would just be adding another way they ruin it

 

[Deleted-236924]

And here I am in Canada, where downloading copyrighted music for free isn't illegal. Hell, we used to have a tax on MP3 players (IIRC it was $10/purchase) because the government confirmed it was legal and was trying to compensate (the tax was abolished around 2004/2005 because I assume people forgot it was legal and started buying on iTunes).

There is so much wrong with this post.
I say this as a Canadian.

Actually, what he stated is true. The Copyright Act of Canada, amended in 1997 with the introduction of Bill C-32, includes an exception to the distribution of illegally obtained software. Copyrighted music is able to be downloaded legally under Canada's federal law, because Bill C-32 gave the exception to copying copyrighted music as long as it was "copied for personal use". As compensation for the music industry, the Canadian government levies a tax on all blank recording media to accomodate for the potential losses in profit. In other words, all blank media in Canada like CDs and DVDs are all taxed because of Bill C-32, but it is because the Canadian government created a loophole in federal law to allow for downloading copyrighted music. What's commonly mistaken, though, is that it is still illegal to pirate movies, video games, and TV shows; Bill C-32 only applies to music.

Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4580265

 

[CarbonX13]

Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?

Under Section 29.22, Subsection 3 in Bill C-32, it is stated that:
"In the case of a work or other subject-matter that is a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, subsection (1) does not apply if the reproduction is made onto an audio recording medium."

The cited Subsection 1, of Section 29.22, states that:
"It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy; the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced; the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; the individual does not give the reproduction away; and the reproduction is used only for private purposes."

Basically, Section 29.22 (3) states that as long as the copy of a performer's work, the music itself, is copied onto an audio recording medium, it is exempt from 29.22 (1) which requires ownership of said work to make the copy. A famous court case from 2004, under the citation BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe (F.C.), 2004 FC 488, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 241, had the judge rule that "the downloading of a song for a person's private use does not constitute infringement," citing this very section. Since Bill C-32 was introduced in 1997, it does not specifically indicate what an "audio recording medium" would be in the era of today with HDDs, media players, etc., thus allowing Canadians to exploit this section as a legitimate reasoning to legally downloading copyrighted music. There have been disputes to this, but since it is not solidified in law, it is considered to be "legal" (although it should be defined as in the grey area).

 

[YayMii]

Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?

http://www.parl.gc.c...x?Docid=4580265

Section 29, clause 22.

EDIT: Gah, CarbonX13 beat me.