THE BEST FRIENDS CORPORATE AMERICA CAN BUY---YOUR FREEDOM VS. HOLLYWOOD"S PROFITS
Is CISPA a New SOPA?
Imogen Reed - posted at: http://itsdanbull.com/guest-article-is-cispa-a-new-sopa/
CISPA is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, due to be put to Congress at the end of this month. Some campaigners are claiming that CISPA is as bad as SOPA, and are planning a similar day of action to the SOPA internet blackout, that successfully killed that bill. There is lots of rhetoric flying around the internet about CISPA, both from those who support CISPA and claim it is not another SOPA, and those who say it is just as dangerous. Who is right, and what is CISPA actually trying to do?
What is CISPA?
CISPA would allow the government to share information with companies, and companies to share information with the government, where that information relates to ‘cybersecurity threats’ The information would relate to either attempts to destroy or damage a network, or theft of private data including intellectual property. It creates exemptions to existing laws that prevent government and companies from accessing private information, allowing politicians to intercept all kinds of private data no matter which broadband provider
they use. The bill’s proponents say that it is aimed at fighting cyber-crime. Its detractors say that it would, in practice, have a much broader application.
The Case For
Those in favour of CISPA argue that it is essential to prevent hacking. As it stands, the government knows what it needs to do to stop hackers, but it is legally unable to take action, as sharing information about cyber-threats is illegal. They say that there are privacy measures built into the bill, and that it does not pose any threat to ordinary citizens. It is, they say, limited and only allows the sharing of very specific data: that is, data that relates to specific threats. CISPA’s proponents say that is ‘nothing like SOPA’ as has been claimed by many of those against it.
The Case Against
CISPA is nothing like SOPA, in the sense that it is a different bill aimed at a different group of people. The problem with CISPA comes not in what it does say, but in what it does not. That makes it very much like SOPA in some ways. What CISPA does is give the government significant control over the internet. The actual wording of CISPA says that it is aimed at protection against ‘efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.’
The difficulty with that wording is that it is very broad and vague. While it might be aimed at preventing breaches of security, the wording actually used in the bill does not exclude it being used much more broadly. In theory, CISPA would mean that the government could spy on any kind of private data. Private communications including emails could be intercepted if the government could make a claim that they were doing so in order to combat a security threat. Companies could choose to monitor private data wholesale, collect it and give it to the government, provided they claimed that they believed that doing so would help combat a security threat. That is the problem with CISPA: it is just not specific enough.
To work out exactly how CISPA might affect people and companies, we need to look at how a ‘security threat’ might be defined. The government is not likely to claim that something is a security threat without being able to provide some basis for their claim. However, it is not hard to see how they would be able to make such a claim against a website like Wikileaks for example. File-sharing websites could also be under threat. In other words, it is possible that CISPA could be used in exactly the same way as SOPA had been intended to be used: to target websites that are thought to breach intellectual property rights.
We do not know exactly how CISPA will be used in practice, if it is passed. It does not give the government the extensive powers to shut down domains that SOPA would have done, and it is not specifically targeted at online piracy. However, it does seem to be very flawed. If it is really only intended to allow the government to catch hackers, why is the language it uses so broad? CISPA is certainly one to watch, and one to fight against.
Cash Flow with James Martinez
World's Biggest TV Show "In Touch" delivered by FOX sued in world biggest copyright lawsuit in television history.
Related: Lawsuit Claims FOX writer stole plot of "Touch"
OffPlanet Live- 02-22-2012-Holographic with Everett Hallford
Everett Hallford, a personal friend, and author and screenwriter, interviewed by James Martinez on Cash Flow---the blockbuster copyright lawsuit that details Hollywoood's corruption in the wholesale stealing of creative works.Remember SOPA? Recall how THEY want to throttle the public's access to content on the internet? Remember how they SUED moms and little kids for "piracy"...and how they want to shut down The Pirate Bay...remember that when you hear this story. This is the game: high roller writers and producers sign global marketing deals on the backs of screenwriters who are lured into sharing their work---even their lives!
Download Cash Flow - 03-20-2012-Everett Hallford
Exclusive Interview by Screenwriter Everett Hallford tells his story.
"The Medium is the Message." Marshall McLuhan Marshall McLuhan theorized that the medium is the message, that society is shaped by the way in which we communicate rather than what we are communicating. The Internet, the emerging online community, have given the world unprecedented access to information via light speed online. Today are we confirming McLuhan's hypothesis? Unfortunately, the information environment has launched a civil war within copyright law. Congress has periodically, but consistently modified copyright laws to respond to the introduction of new technologies affecting copyright. Although Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976 to cope with emerging technology, no one anticipated the explosion of digital technology which has marked the digital age.
IN a Worldwide First, the new 20th Century Fox Drama "Touch" will launch in more than 100 countries worldwide with global marketing support and a Global advertising sponsor. Touch, the intriguing new drama series from Tim Kring (Heroes) and starring Kiefer Sutherland in his first television project since the Emmy-winning 24, will receive an unprecedented global launch for its March series premiere that includes coordinated worldwide distribution, marketing and advertising sponsorship. In a television first, Twentieth Century Fox Television Distribution, Fox Broadcasting Company, FOX One, 20th Century Fox Television and FOX International Channels are collaborating on a worldwide launch for the series, which will premiere nearly simultaneously in more than 100 countries. To kick off the series’ global marketing efforts, Sutherland will embark on an international media tour, stopping in several major cities across Europe and culminating in a global media event in New York City on March 18 – a date that figures prominently in Touch’s pilot episode. In another industry first, Unilever has come on board as the series’ global advertising sponsor in a one-of-a-kind partnership designed to bring Touch to a worldwide audience.
Twentieth Century Fox Television Distribution has secured deals in over 160 markets with some of the world’s leading broadcasters and pan-regional platforms. The global launch will make the much-anticipated drama available on channels all around the world, including Global Television in Canada, Sky 1 in the United Kingdom, ProSieben in Germany, Yes TV in Israel and Channel One in Russia. FOX International Channels will launch the series in 64 countries throughout Latin America, Asia and Europe.
Now, for the first time we will discuss the truth about the origins of this series as well as the media ecological ramifications of copyright, law and justice in world where theft of property in Hollywood occurs everyday. Under digital circumstances can ownership of property exist? Does the average writer, artist and musician have a claim in there original works and will justice prevail?
from the and-it-shows dept
There have been a ton of post mortems about the whole SOPA/PIPA fight, with many trying to figure out where and how the MPAA "went wrong." After all, this is a group that is very used to getting its way inside DC. And it got slaughtered. We've already discussed our thoughts on why the MPAA failed, but what stuns me is how every time someone from the MPAA opens their mouth, they seem to make the situation worse by demonstrating just how tone deaf they are to the online community and what their concerns were. Whether it's just blaming Google or thinking that the solution is more backroom dealing, each response just sounds like a group of people who are playing a different game, and still don't realize the rules have changed.
The issue is NOT Piracy---The entertainment industry wants to use FORCE, rather than MARKET-DRIVEN CHOICE
Make THEM work for their $$$BILLIONS---not force you to give more of your freedoms.
Wikipedia, Reddit and BoingBoing are just some of the sites that went dark Wednesday to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). It appears the online forces opposed to the legislation have the upper hand, even though supporters like big Hollywood studios spent millions of dollars lobbying for its passage.
According to the Los Angeles Times, three co-sponsors have publicly withdrawn their support of the antipiracy bills in reaction to the massive internet backlash. Florida Senator Marco Rubio is one of several lawmakers who’ve dropped their sponsorship. Did Hollywood blow it? How could people who make their living creating engaging narratives fail to sell the public on a plan they say is so important to their survival?
Hollywood studios remain firm, arguing piracy is causing workers in the industry to lose jobs. Marty Kaplan, professor of entertainment, media and society at USC, said their moral argument is ineffective. According to Kaplan, a recent study found that neither the notion of job loss nor increased police enforcement decreased the amount of illegal downloads. "The idea that this somehow would be a magic bullet seems enormously optimistic," he said.
Kaplan said that many opposed to SOPA and PIPA want to get content that's legal, and are willing to pay for it. They object, Kaplan said, to the restrictions Hollywood places on when, where and how they can use that content. He went on to say that Hollywood's failure to capture sympathy of the majority comes from its stubbornness to change.
"The example of iTunes demonstrates that if there is a way to get content that seems to be fairly priced to consumers and it allows consumers autonomy, in terms of when, where and how they consume content, that people are willing to do it," Kaplan said. What they resent, he thinks, is the notion that Hollywood is holding all the cards.
Kaplan's solution? Hollywood should change the way they make films. He said that producing
fewer major blockbusters won't hurt the industry that badly.
"I think it's conceivable that Hollywood can reset the price point of what they're doing and still put out quality entertainment and have people watch it," he said. "It just might not be based on the business model that they're clinging to so desperately."
If Congress passes SOPA, the Internet will be permanently censored.
YOU HAVE CHOICES:
Join the fight against it!
Continue to site.
Although SOPA advocates claim it targets foreign pirates, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that “broad definitions and vague language” allow the bill to shut down legitimate US websites without due process. Among these sites: Etsy, Flickr, and Vimeo.
What You Can Do
It is crucial that we demonstrate our opposition. Let Congress know you oppose SOPA. Look up your senators’ numbers and call them. Or send a message announcing your opposition. Working together, we can protect your First Ammendment rights.