http://prisonplanet.com/articles/no...106shutdown.htm

"U.S. government supports legal case that would criminalize making any files available on the world wide web"

Yes, I'd agree that the title is, or sounds, sensationalistic (in that it's doubtful this will 'shut down' the internet), but it is still an interesting bit of news that should be looked into, especially because this indeed could push the 'Internet 2' agenda further ahead. I thought that this should make for a good discussion, and that its fairly relevant.

It also might help to read this as well: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/node/404

This, too: Spanish judge rules file sharing legal http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/1...nloading_legal/

And if you're not too bored already, this: A look at the RIAA'S actions towards its own consumers http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-...s-own-consumers

Draw your own conclusions.

"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable" - Louis D. Brandeis

Remember: 'When you pirate mp3's, you're downloading communism!' (or if you prefer a different, more modern term, terrorism).

__________________

So are you for or against downloading mp3s and so on and so on?

__________________

as for mp3 downloading, for me, I download albums, if they're decent I buy them, I'm not a total cunt, I want to support the bands, I'll buy the cds, t-shirts etc, but I think downloading the albums beforehand is a nice way of finding out wether you like the band or not rather than listening to ashitty 10 second clip of just going into a record store and buying something you later dont' want.

__________________

holy shit, can you imagine all the faggotnerds mySpace/Messenger/IRC/etc users coming out of their basements and try to have an actual social life under direct exposure of sunlight?

i'll headbutt the first who says "LOL" during a conversation.

Sure, why not, I'm for many aspects of file sharing.

File sharing was how I first dicovered a lot of the music I listen to now, and if it weren't for it I wouldn't have found death metal as readily as I did then (back in like 2000/2001). Also, as a spinoff of that I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have picked up a guitar if it weren't for an interest in the music that I found via filesharing. One of the first was Iniquity, then Nile etc. I don't download music that often anymore, unless its to preview an new album or whatever, because now I own a large portion of the music I downloaded in the past (although I have like 2100 songs on my ipod, some cd's some shit I haven't been able to buy).

So even though I download shit, most of it is stuff I plan to buy or want to buy; for instance I have songs by sleep terror right now that were downloaded, but I intend on (as soon as I find a place I can buy Sleept Terror at) buying sleep terror's albums, because they are a good band and I do want to support such acts (also by buying shirts, etc which I do as well). It makes sense to me, previewing music before hand. Also, buying the cd makes me feel a little better as the I have a tangible object to point to. I have a list of albums I need to get but can't find at the moment, so I still use mp3s I've downloaded. I'm sure this isn't a foreign concept to people here; at least I hope. Also being strapped for cash sometimes doesn't help; + cd's are over priced, especially metal cds which are usually $22.95 cnd instead of say a mainstream artist's album which is like $11.95 to $15.00, due to the low demand for large amounts of metal cd's I asume.

It's the same for comedy series in .avi or .mpg. For ATHF (Aqua Teen Hunger Force), I wanted to watch a lot of the episodes without having to wait till friday every week, so I downloaded most of the episodes, and ended up really liking the show. Eventually I went out and bought all 4 volumes of ATHF, and I dont regret it. Same thing for Harvey Birdman, when the new season is released on dvd I'll buy it, because before hand I've downloaded almost all of the second season epidsodes. I may not do this for EVERYTHING I download, but a significant section of what I download I eventually buy.

Ofcourse it depends on the music you download, I think. If you're only downloading mainstream, cookie cutter 'artists' that make a fair amount of money through means other than just cds (like their clothing lines, posters, maybe even dolls), then I don't see a huge loss to the 'artist', especially because most of the people downloading that shit most likely do go out and buy it anyway. If its something that may take some actualy talent, say death metal or other forms of metal, or hell even classical music, than it may be more harmful to those artists than the mainstream. But I'm pretty sure most underground artists don't have a big problem with file sharing, as they know how useful it can be, especially to reacha broader audience (although I have no concrete examples come to mind at the moment).

Just to clarify, I'm against the 'Internet 2' agenda that the article points to.

__________________

Government regulated internet?
I will not stand for this.
"Internet 2 - a completely controlled, surveilled and autocratic cyber police state similar to the Chinese model, whereby website owners have to obtain government permission to run a blog, be approved by a biometric thumb scan just to turn their computer on, and immediately get their Internet access shut off if they misbehave."
I don't know the validity of this but I don't doubt it at all.
Better not commit any thought crimes.

__________________

Check out Alex Jone's/ Paul Watson's discussion of the above article(s) on his radio program now, here (recently added to the site): http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/291106watson.mp3

Also, recently Newt Gingrich has made statements about 'rethinking' the first amendment of the bill of rights ( details here: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=681 ), talking about limiting free speech on the internet to stop terrorists spreading there views. Keith Olbermann's dicussion with constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley has some fair questions about Newt's comments: "When you talk about closing down internet sites, who is the one who is going to decide which those are?"

http://www.corvuswire.com/olbermann-clg.htm

__________________

Limit to freedom! LIMIT TO FREEDOM!

Wouldn't affect me much since I don't download mp3's.

In my opinion, this whole issue with file sharing is ridiculous. Yeah, it's evil and corrupt the way the RIAA is suing people for downloading songs through file sharing, but it's not the end of the world.

And one question. Call me an idiot if it's needed, but last time I checked, if you buy an item, keep the receipt, and are unsatisfied, you could return it for either store credit or your own money. So the only thing you'd be wasting buying a cd you don't like is the time it took to get up off your ass (excuse the bluntness), go to the store, and get the cd.

__________________

alex jones is a 9/11 conspiracy theory hack and prison planet sucks. the guy is seriously fucking up leftwing politics with his prophecy/nutcase bullshit.

as for the topic,i dont think they could even if they want to, the music industry is dying and the internet goes way beyond the borders of the US.

__________________

A more potent threat to the internet comes from the U.S.A. trying to exert control under the guise of stopping online child pornography/exploitation. This is ridiculous as the internet is instrumental in revealing these types of people. Remember Justin Berry? As if he wasn't being exploited by certain organizations...


And yeah, Gingrich is wonderful. He talks about limiting free speech at a fucking awards ceremony celebrating it.
mms://youngturks.vo.llnwd.net/o1/11-29Newt.wmv

Its alot more complicated than you and others make it seem.

I don't PLAN on getting too involved into this topic, but to simply regard file sharing over the internet as.. nothing but something negative, would literally be telling almost every fucking band you listen to, to go fuck off. Seriously. I would venture to say THOUSANDS of bands have flourish and EXIST as a result of the internet and file swapping.

Its a known fucking fact artists don't make their money on cds. Thats a fact. I've read it again and again and again. They make off of merchandise at shows and through their own stores. To sit here and say "i'm so righteous because i actually bought the cd" well i say you can go fuck yourself (not so much attacking you CTL, but just saying it in general).

There has been a BEYOND bigger impact to the music scene (especially as WE all know it, NOT pop stars and FAMOUS people) as a result of file sharing. The only reason this is even a fucking topic is because of greedy ass whiney bastards like Metallica and the RIAA want to manipulate and twist the facts to suit them.

Side tangent from purely music but onto the aspect of video games and applications. I've been downloading warez for over 10 years now. Over 10 fucking years. I've seen the entire thing progress from random websites to what it is today. To say that these companies are LOSING money as a result of American piracy is complete and total bullshit. Sure they might lose "SOME" profit as a result of somebody not buying. But they would like to twist the facts just like the RIAA in order for them to seem like the poor and defenseless. Now there is a HUGE difference between your standard american or swedish piracy and..... Chinese piracy. Piracy in china is RIDICULOUS. First of all there is substational markets for selling the merchandise. That highly leads to lose profits, because it creates it brings the same product to the consumer at cheaper prices. As with american piracy its not brought to the consumer and sometimes is hella annoying to get.

Also Back on what i was going to say about false lost profits. Its almost painfully obvious to see that just because somebody downloads something doesn't mean that they were going to buy then now or ever, yet they still constitute as "money taken." Thats just twisting the reality to suit their most desired needs. To honestly sit here and say that the current system of consumer/producer buying software is just fine and dandy, is completely and total bullshit. Its just the same thing as everything else. It needs progression. What i mean by this is for instance i watched some CHEESY ASS anti-piracy video from 1992 or somethin earlier today and it pissed me off, because it said.. that (in mid RAP.. ha..) something like buying a game tells the maker you want more.

What if i bring it home and its just horrible? Fuck them. I dont' want them to make more, or even approve of it. Its the kind of relationship where they put stuff out and you take chances on it. They put it at high fucking prices that its not worth taking "chances" with.


Annnnnyways. let me step off my rant horse.. ha.
In short. For much more things than i've said here, (i've only scratched the basic surface) file sharing, and piracy effects have (in my opinion) done much more and continue to do much more good than negatives.

__________________

You're about half right. Although you do make a very good and solid point about revealing the shit bags in society. The internet is a good but dangerous tool for this.

__________________

There has been so many threads on this..and all of them are closed.

I sold the Pokemon rom(w/emulator) to kids at my school when it came out.

$2 well worth it, they supplied the blank floppy.

__________________

Yeah i know right (about threads)

And.. coming from a pro-piracy person.... you fucker!

__________________

I guess I didn't see it like that. You have a good point.

And I agree about the whole "righteous" thing most people have. The biggest reason I'd say I prefer to buy the cd's as opposed to file sharing or even burning them off of a friend (I have done it before, and some of them don't come out right) is.... as far as musical quality, how good the music is, you may not know, but you are more than likely guarenteed that it will actually work. With file sharing, you may end up getting a shitload of spyware programs along with whatever you intended to get. KAZAA, which I mainly used to download anime music videos and not actual songs, completely destroyed our old computer . You can't open so much as a folder without it freezing on you. And with burning CD's from friends, you don't know if it will come out right. My Metallica S&M album was burnt off of a friend, and his copy of the second disc was so scratched up that half the songs skip or won't play.

__________________

Fucking right.

Tmfreak: Artists do make money from albums: the record deal advance they receive is basically cash for future sales of their albums. The record company claw some of it back by taking a larger cut of the ensuing royalties in the early stages of an album's release to guard against poor sales and not breaking even. Once the break even point is met, the royalties then begin to flow to the band (less the label's cut, of course).

But you are correct in saying that the money that generally sustains a band derives from merchandise bought at shows - although most bands struggle to break even from tours once sustenance and essentials are paid for.

__________________

i used to sell porno filled CD's for $5. actually bought a PS2 with the money i made.

So now you can watch what you have been making?
A great job anyway.

__________________

I should have been slightly clearer. Sure they make "money" but generally its enough to substain cd production.

And to CTL. Other than the fact that thats not neccesarily the case anymore you're still right. Its part of the way it goes. If you want to attempt to go through the wickens to download a game, be prepared for the side effects that could happen as a result, especially if you have no idea what you're doing. And personally to me if you don't know what you're doing.. stay the hell off a computer. k?
I don't want to teach your dumbass how to attach to emails.

__________________

I probably bought a small bag of candy. haha.

__________________

The only thing i've ever gotten for "sharing warez" is somebody to play online with!!

Its been a really long time.......

__________________

All they need to do is shut down myspace. Then everything will return to normal.

__________________

What was "normal"? haha

I remmeber when nobody knew about myspace and my exgirlfriend kept telling me to get it. But i kept refusing because the website was so fucking ghetto.

To this date.. even with the MILLIONS that website probably pulls in daily, its still the shittiest programmed website ever. Its so fucking buggy its ridiculous.

I only have it now because others have it. I use facebook 1000x more than myspace now that i'm at a "Real college"

__________________

i love the 1984 reference, good job.

i dont buy this shit for a second, the uprising that would occur if the internet was "shut-down" would be enormous, and i would be one of the uprisers.

__________________

Exactly. I don't even think its possible to "shut down" the internet anyway, unless removing providers, but even then. eh.

Anyways. way.... WAY too much has become dependant upon it, to the point that pulling the plug is just beyond irrational.

__________________

As for you guys arguing bands make money off of CDs. They do, for a 15 dollar cd they make 1 dollar or less. For a 4 member band that is shit. 25 cents a piece if that. Alot of people might go o hey if they sell 700,000 records thats alot. NO! Most bands rarely sell 50,000 copies of a cd. I mean thats still decent money and all but the bands main market is live convers, dvd's, and promotional shit(tshirts etc). The majority goes to management and label. But the band isn't the main argument here management and label want their money.

Edit:
As for them shutting down the internet no way. It's a monster and just think of the poor my space kids, blogers, gamers who havent seen sun light in the past 1-2 years. My god i could imagine all the new people i would see and speaking in L33t0 form. Anyway, the internet is not going to get shut down. Also, as for people getting caught online downloading mp3s, how in hell do they do that? By I.P. spoofing or some shit and then tracking them down from that? I download music all the time for like old shit i cant find mainly thrash and real early albums by current bands like there lps and shit. I also download warez but i mean damn i cant fork out 1,000,000 dollars for certian programs i like to use.

As for my space i have no use for it. Come on why do people want to show off there stupid lives? I mean if you have time to update that shit you have no life. Myspace was suppose to be made so you could re-unite with old friends who moved away and they could find you. All i see people doing now is adding people they know at this momment in time, ridiculous. I use photobucket just to upload photos and thats about as far as i take it. Wouldn't give 2 shits if some Newbie hacked the shit and dropped it .

__________________

what the fuck is warez?.

im still an internet noob.

__________________

Update

"At no point in our article did we suggest that the ruling definitely would shut down the Internet, we highlighted the fact that hundreds of transnational corporations like Amazon.com who solely rely on Internet trade would scream bloody murder. But what the ruling would grease the skids for is the move towards a strictly regulated Internet whereby government permission would be required to run a website and that website would be subject to censoring and deletion if it violated any 'terms of use.' "

Earlier this year under the headline, The End of the Internet?, The Nation magazine reported,

"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."

"Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."

"Internet 2 is being billed as the next generation of the world wide web and it has already set global speed records in terms of data transfer, far outstripping the old Internet."

__________________

Warez is at least what they USED to call pirated games, moves, music, applications and so on. Wares.. you know Like show me your wares. hah

They just tacked on a Z i guess for extremeness. Just like Gamez and Appz.

__________________

Oh, and this is what Newt Gingrich has recently said (getting back to that topic, which is related to the internet free speech article):




This article goes into some detail regaurding his history (notably, he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations), as well as Newt's (and all people in relation to Newt) political views and what school of philosophical thought they come from.

From said article:

"Gingrich, a regular attendee of the annual Summer camp at the Bohemian Grove, and long term CFR member, has previously openly referred to anyone who oppose Bush-Republican Neo-Conservative madness as being part of an 'insurgency' "

"The level to which this traitor is twisting reality to fit his own crazy notion of the way the world operates is indicative of the Straussian global outlook that we have come to see so clearly adopted by the so called neoconservative movement."

"Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, "some are fit to lead, and others to be led", according to Shadia Drury, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior"."

"Leo Strauss was also a strong believer in the "Realism" form of International Relations made prominent by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought that human nature was intrinsically aggressive and could be restrained only through a State formed via a powerful military industrial complex . "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. 'Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people.' "

"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. This is what Henry Kissinger was referring to in that often quoted statement he made about creating external future threats in order to guard the world order he wishes to see become more prevalent and powerful, the system we often refer to as the 'New World Order'. "


I'm taking several political science courses right now, and although I'm not completely educated on the matter, I have read a fair bit of Hobbes' views and his idea of the 'Social Contract' we all must sign (figuratively ofcourse) when entering a civil society, giving up certain natural rights: "If human society is to be possible, individuals must agree to surrender certain of their natural rights to one ruler, to whom they owe a kind of contractual obedience." He believed liberty was given to individuals by the sovreign.

__________________

I have no idea why you posted 99.9% of that post. Seemed really irrelavant and or just a really boring read.

What the hell does social contract have anything to do with a global free internet? Also this "social contract" isn't written in stone, and not every freedom is given up as a result of society.

__________________

There are actually people in my school who say "lol" during conversations.

I didn't read basically anything of what the poster of this thread said. The internet isn't going anywhere, so will it be bought by some company.


Unless you live in China. BLAM. BITCHEZ GOT FUCKED BY GOGGL3, WHEN THEY LOOK UP TIANANMEN SQU@R3 PICZ THEY GET TO SEE TOURIST$, INZT3@D 0F This.
http://www.historie-nu.dk/Tiananmen.jpg

It was on some some documentary I watched several months ago, I think CNN made it.

__________________

I think a little piece of me died just now...

__________________

tmfreak:

First - the reason I posted that info. is because it has to do with the first amendmant of the bill of rights/constitution, and how its being gutted to fit the elite of America, and their vision of a free society. The first amendment does apply to the topic of a global free internet, as it involves free speech, which also relates to the fact that many of the politicians in office today are malthusian, social darwinists, and straussian in their political thought, and really don't like the potential benefits of the net (as it limits their control). Also, in my third post in this thread, I said:


so I was adding to that post, as well as this one:


I think its a fairly relavant addition, especially if you read the article I posted with it. If it seems boring then ok, great, that really isn't my problem.

Second - If you read the article (I'll play nice and just asume you did), you'll see how the Straussian/Hobbesian 'social contract' fits with the above; that is ofcourse why I posted that article, and then quoted some paragraphs from that article (incase people didn't read it). The piece was demonstrating why Gingrich spouts the rhetoric he does/where he's coming from. He, and people like him such as Michael Chertoff (Secretary of Homland Security), have attacked free speech on the net repeatedly (some links referencing those attacks are in said article as well). I never said it was written in stone, I don't even believe in the idea of Hobbes' 'social contract', and I didn't say nor imply that 'every' freedom is given up as a result of entering into that contract. I was merely giving background to the article, by using what I've learned recently. Besides, giving up even one natural freedom to a single leader in order to create a civil society is not acceptable, at least not to me.

Too be honest, I did think there would be more genuine interest in this topic; my bad indeed.

__________________

Same here man...ive actually heard people go BRB instead of be right back...

__________________

Please tell me you kicked all those people in the mouth.

__________________

Pretty please?

Cause thats just fucking gay.

And to AchromaticChronicles.
I didn't say this isn't a good topic worth discussing ha. I'm just saying you're posting alot of paragraphed quotes that vaguely go towards your point, which until now seem to point pretty vaguely in any direction. And sorry if it seemed i was putting words in your mouth, that wasn't the purpose in saying what i said about social contract.

I used to be like you before. I know how you feel as stupid politicians like EXTREME left wingers piss me off more than they ever did before. And besides its becoming increasingly clear that you have almost anarchist views on liberty.

And in YOUR opinion define a "natural freedom"? What is and ISNT a natural freedom? In your opinion. Cause you're now touching into morality and philosophy, so i would most definately make use of logic.

__________________

Sorry what I meant was natural rights (as in supposed 'God given' natural rights were all born with) not natural freedoms, my mistake, but closely related; and I was talking about natural rights defined within the context of The Constitution or if you're Canadian like me, The Charter of Rights & Freedoms, they're fairly similar (I believe in ours we don't have a right to keep and bare arms garunteed to us, I could be wrong; thats something that bothers me a little with our charter if it isn't there). I don't feel I have anarchist-leaning views on liberty, but I guess I can see how you see that. Stuff like habeas corpus, right to free speech, peaceful assembly, freedom of coscience and religion, right to defend oneself, "right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure", the right to mobility, and right to privacy. etc

__________________

What makes these god given rights vice those that aren't? Just beacuse you have intutitions that they are so doesn't neccesarily make it so. For all you know just because of the period in this world's history could make you think that is the case. Thats why i was saying the use of logic can possibly prove your point. Although in some ways i agree with you, i DON"T agree that the internet is some sort of "god given right" Or even the freedom of the internet is something that is a RIGHT that we "deserve."

The internet is something you ALREADY pay for. You don't have the right to it. The internet providers have MUCH more rights to do whatever it is that they want to with it, because face the music, its a buisness. Through and through.

The internet has just started, you need to face that. Just like with everything else there is progression. If progression continues in the face of capitalism then that is the way it will go. I'm sorry but your notions of some sort of "free speech control" over hte internet by some political agenda is just completely unfounded and HIGHLY unlikely to even happen, and in fact makes no sense at all.

"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."

hello... THATS THE INTERNET. haha Like I just said, the internet isn't a "god given right for people to express their freewills on" i'm sorry, it may seem like that to you and MANY other people, but all in all its just a buisness.

Almost everything you've quoted is EXTREMELY overly sensationalized bullcrap that appeals to you and everyone elses intuitions on freedoms.
Thats the nature of how people pursuade the masses. Both sides play it. There are those who are easily suede by harsh words and stories of brimstone and fire and there are those who can actually see whats goin on. (and this obviously applies to a MUCH ... MUCH global scale than just the internet topic)

__________________

Ha, I'm on facebook too. But that news feed is dumb. I was on facebook when it was an exclusive college only website. Those were the good ol' days.

__________________

Since i've done more thinking about this topic, i'm going to officially shut down forever this "free internet" bs. (by the way this isn't JUST directed at AchromaticChronicles by anymean, this is to just about everyone that isn't already realizing this)

I'm going to break down just how much the internet is already "Regulated", "commercialized", and much more owned by people other than "us."

First of all lets get rid of any senes of it not being regulated. First of all everytime you want to use the internet you're using for a service that is bought and paid for maybe not by you, but by somebody else and you're using their internet gateway. So therefore YOU or somebody else SIGNED agreements upon payment of the service and bandwith to be used which is null and void if you or somebody else using your gateway decides to use the service in any way shape or form OTHER than the way THEY deem it to be used. Such as illegal matters and what not. (child porn, warez and so on)

2nd point of this. There is NO "free speech blah blah blah" on ANY site on the internet other than one that YOU host yourself with YOUR servers and a means to broadcast it to the internet, which nobody here or you could rarely find does. So. If you think because you're on some forum you can openly express your ideas and get away with it. Wrong. First of all if metal tabs wanted to they could ban me and my account and ip number in a heart beat if i did something that was outside of THEIR idea of what should and shouldn't be allowed at THEIR website which THEY paid for. Starting to make more sense where this is all going? What is the purpose of a forum moderator? To REGULATE.
Ok so what about a webspace that YOU pay for? Well even those have terms of agreements where you must abide by and conform to their ideas of what is and ISN"T acceptable to broadcast on the net. Why? Because they're the ones controlling the servers and the means to put it on the internet.

3rd point about regulation and this is almost a direct response to Deathcs's often anti-government control of things. First of all the government already regulates things that can and can't be on the internet. Computer crimes, child porn, illegal version of software, selling of individuals, and the list continues on and on and on. Every place that signs up for internet servers and access abides by their certain countries GOVERNMENTAL regulations. Period end of discussion. Which is exactly why American anti-trust laws don't touch swedish servers.

I think from those 3 points alone thats substational evidence to completely put this regulation debate to an end.

Actually for hte most part those 3 answered all 3 of the statements i presented above.

But i'll touch on ownership of the "internet" as a whole a little bit better.
Think of it as such. The internet is just as much of a service buisness as is say... get your car washed. If you don't like the carwash that you receive when you got to the local car wash you go somewhere else or don't get it at all. The very much is the same with the internet. If you don't like what your internet providers are giving you (bandwith service, REGULATIONS AND TERMS OF SERVICE) you move on to the next one that suits you OR you don't get it at all. Key words GET. Nowhere did i say you just receive internet. The providers dont' have to just allow you access to the internet. It is all bought and paid for much like a carwash. Without you paying for internet access the internet providers could not provide the service of internet, hence you would not have internet. This all boils down and back to the notion of "god given rights" as it pertains to internet access. You don't have any given rights to the internet any more than rights to having your car washed.

What i can't understand the most. Is why people continue to even complain and bitch about further legislation and decisions by companies who already own the internet? Sure at first i may have been a little at odds with it, but the more and more you think about it, the more you realize its a fucking buisness. period. Like i said earlier about progression.

I've been using hte internet probably a hell.... a HELL of alot longer than probably 99% of the people here and around. I've been using it since before 9.6k modems were out and there were like 3 service providers, all of which charged by the MINUTE. With my time with the internet i've seen how completely crude and unorganized the internet is. Its literally a big fucking mess seriously. I've talked to somebody somewhat on the "inside" of alot of this internet debacle and he compeltely supports what providers are attempting to do. They yields will be a more reliable internet, unbelievably FASTER internet, and just seriousl a much... MUCH better buy. You'll be able to get on different tiers of payment and see different sites vs. how much you pay, and you'll get bandwith as a result and so on. This kind of regulation will completely and totally cut out the junk and bullshit thats been sitting around and clogging up the internet for all these years.

There is alot more to this than meets the eye. I'm going to stop here as I have homework to do. But even though i wrote alot of this, there is way more than meets the eye on this and just about everything else out there. Dont' swallow everything you hear whole and do thinking about things on your own. READING UP ON THINGS and being influenced by articles and what not is NOT making up your own mind. Thats going along with other people. Break this shit down and connect the dots.

Don't be a sheep. And by being in the non incrowd is still being a sheep.(this is to everyone)

__________________

I'm just gonna say, I don't remember saying that the net was a 'god given right', I believe I said free speech was. The reason I put that in quotations is because I was trying to not favour any particular god or gods, I was trying to stay within a western view of natural rights, etc. I have never thought that the internet was a 'right' garunteed to me, anyone else, by god or anyone. I don't see how you got that out of what I said.

As for what constitutes those as god given rights as opposed to other ones that aren't, all I was trying to point out was that government does not give us our rights (they garuntee them, and try to uphold them) and they can't take them away, despite the legislation that may be passed; some other thing/being supposedly gives them to us, be it nature or a 'god' or whatever you or anyone else may believe does. To be honest I have always asumed that freedom of speech applied to everyone, everywhere at practically all times (obviously when your on the job, there are regulations or guidelines so that you/your boss can't say anything they want, ie sexual harassment), wether its on the net, in public, in school, etc, but if I am wrong, than that's my misunderstanding.

I realize the internet it is its infancy at this point in history, and I'm not unaware of 'progression' that's taking place, thats why I posted the article on the 'Internet 2' being much, much faster than the current one. I'm also aware I pay to use the internet. I don't think my views are unfounded, thats the reason I referenced all those articles, to give background into the dabate. Just because you think something is highly unlikely to ever happen, doesn't mean there isn't legitimate reason to scrutinize things like this, and doesn't mean that it can't happen at all, or at some point. Its not like I went around saying the sky is falling.

I knew that many people would view what I originally posted as 'overly sensationalized', thats why I said in my first post "Yes, I'd agree that the title is/sounds sensationalistic", I'm not blind to the fact people would have that view; that doesn't bother me. What I quoted was taken from several articles, and out of context, without the rest of the article(s), it certainly does seem over sensationalized.

There is no need to shut down the debate; despite that, I take your points with good stride. I completely understand what you mean (refering to your last post) and I don't have a problem with your opinion on the ownership/regulation of the net. I know the internet is regulated and commercialized heavily already. Refering to your second point, I agree that if a mod on a forum of a site that wasn't owned by you disagreed with something you said, or what you said/did violated the terms of use than yes, all the reprocussions apply; and I never said that wasn't the case, and I wasn't trying to imply I could go on any forum, say anything that comes to mind, and get away with it.

Despite not having any issues with you opinion, I want to be a little clearer on what I meant within the context of what you said more recently. As for what someone posts on their own webspace, yes there are terms of use and regulations as to whats acceptable to broadcast (I'll use the common example of child porn as something that would be unacceptable) which are set by an ISP as well as the government, but if you have a certain political leaning and express it on your site peacefully, they can't just shut you down (as it is now) for that reason alone, and thats what I meant about right to free speech. Its the reason Alex Jones' site hasn't been shut down, he has a right to say the things he says on his site (especially if he uses evidence while saying things to show more ligitimacy), no matter how 'radical' it is or if people think its 'conspiracy theory nonsense'. If I wanted to I could, right now, set up a website about, say, communism, and voice my opinions about it and reference articles and books on the topic, etc. and the ISP/government couldn't just shut down my site for the simple reason they disagree with what I've said, because the charter of rights and freedoms garuntees that I'll be able to voice my opinion with out being struck down by the state via, in this case, the ISP(as long as its with in the law, obviously) and also because I'm paying to use their service. If they had a problem with what I said, and it was legitimate and what I was doing was criminal(say if, while voicing radical views about communism, I am also using my site to sell pirated games and child porn, what a combo), then I would stop doing what I was doing and continue paying for their services or I would stop paying, shut my site down, and move on. If I was selling pirated software, sex slaves, child porn, anthrax, fine then, the government and providers can stop me, and probably should, despite the fact that I'm paying. But, one of the purposes for developing a second internet is to make you have to go to the government to ask for permission to set up a blog or website, especially if it voices political opinions which don't sit well with whatever the current administration upholds (say if your a 'radical' muslim and want to set up a site on the fundamentals of Islam). If they don't like it, it won't be allowed. Who gets to decide what type of site is allowed to be started and what type is not? That is one of the questions Keith Olbermann asked Johnathan Turley in one of those links. I'm not saying that the internet 2 will only be used like that, its certainly reasonable to believe that it won't be as bad as that, still that doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibilities.

Once again I know that I dont have a right to the net, but if I pay for the internet I expect to be able to, if I wish, make a website that voices certain opinions, or gives certain services (within reason as I said above) then I should be allowed to do that, even if it is an opinion that is at odds with what the governments views are. I'm paying, so allow me to do that, if they don't then I'll find an ISP that allows me to, just as you said. So far, from what I know, this is the case.

I see your point in the last paragraph. I wasn't trying to just tow the party line expressed by these articles, I just wanted to link some info from several different sources and open up debate. Yes, reading up on things and being influenced by articles is certainly not what making up your own mind is about, but it definetly helps to read and research such things further if you are compelled by the article(s), which can help you make up your mind. If no one reads shit, then how would we connect the dots? Via what the media feeds us? Who says I haven't 'broken this shit down' and connected the dots? I may have done it differently that you have, or have a differing opinion on the conclusion I've reached. There definetly is more than meets the eye, hence the reason I didn't just randomly post a couple of quotes without referencing articles, I tried to be thorough. Obviously theres more to the debate then just those articles, and they dont cover all sides of the debate, but I can't reference everything from everyside. I don't want to argue or act hostile, I just wanted to be a little clearer on what I meant/said.

I really, really don't feel like typing anymore and I too have some reading and h/w to get to. Hopefully I've cleared up what I meant. I respect the fact we dont necissarily agree on everything here, as this is a fairly far reaching topic, and there are bound to be differences in opinion.

__________________

Damn good post ma boy. Ok Good you past the basic test in my book haha.

Btw i knew what i was going to say was going to seem to completely... bahs what you have said and.. .trust me it wasn't written to be supposed to. It touched a few things you h ave said, but trust me it was more of a.. thats the last straw.. i'm going to writej about what alot of people have said.

And you're right about.... reading material... getting the picture then making decisions. Alot of people claim to do this and don't. They read onesided biased things and stick with it immediately, especially if they go INTO it reading what they want to read. If you get what i mean.

Oh by the way what i meant by shutting down the debate.. was just a joke haha. I Basically just meant i slam fucking dunked anybody who attempts to argue what i just argued against.

__________________

Longest post ever?

__________________

It was longer than mine.... nooooooooo!

__________________

Shut down the Internet?

I think every scene kid in the world would riot.

I have to assume they'd do nothing.

However, the death of the internet seriously underestimates the incredible ingenuity of nerds. They'll have a shadow internet up within hours if need be.

Selling of individuals? One way to look at it, eHarmony.com sells its individuals. A person pays hundreds of dollars to add a profile so others can browse through and find the one person they want.

__________________

That would be a good thing because they would all then kill each other. Thus, our work is done without having to do anything.

__________________

This is very true. Although its not with a malicious intent. that would be the major difference haha

__________________

It's always pretty malicious to rely on peoples' belief that there's one, perfect person for them out there, and that, if only they knew the right way of going about it, they could easily find that person. Not as malicious as some things, but it's a pretty shitty way to make money.

By the way, saying that a right doesn't exist because it doesn't extend into an impingement on the rights of others is a fallacy.

Maybe.....they do have these so-called vigorous surveys after surveys to make sure you're legit. Anyway, hahahha, bot hmy older bother and mum found some friends from their involvment with that website.

__________________

I suppose. I'm not exactly sure how they even remotely say that there is one and only one person for you. That just seems like a total pessimistic way of interpreting what they say. And i don't see how helping those who DON"T have those "skills or knowledge or even willpower" to find a compatable person is a "shitty way to make money." So what that they are capitalizing on this "issue" with people. If it gives people hope, then you know I could honestly careless. If you don't like their product/services they are providing then don't subscribe to it, and those who do will take it.

Theres alot of science thats being pushed by that website in the field of psychology that hasn't been tapped befo which is also worth noting, but thats another topic all together.



I'm not tracking on what exactly you're refering to.

__________________

Yeah I kinda asumed thats what it was, thanks for clarification anyway.

__________________

They not only remotely say it, they literally say it. Then they present couples who say it. They even tell you not to bother with their site if you're not looking for a relationship of this type. It might be cynical of me to say they're claiming to sell you love, but they are asking for your money in exchange for the (they say highly likely) possibility of finding the one person who's right for you, so I don't really have to stretch the site much with my mind.

And my point is that everybody has the 'skills or knowledge' (whatever those may be) to go out and find somebody. It's people that tell them they have to pay money to acquire those skills or that knowledge that make them believe that a) they actually exist in some specific form, and b) they don't have them. If what it takes for somebody to be comfortable and confident is to pay a high rate to some site to be told what type of person he is and given a group of people he should be interested in to communicate with by email, then I suppose the site serves a purpose. But how much better would it be to make them realize that they don't need that stupid crutch? Or how much better to be honest about the fact that even people who've been scientifically determined to be compatible at some point in time often won't stay that way as (if) they change in different ways over a period of time, knowing the people who believe the most in one-true-loves are most devastated when they don't work out? I still stand by my statement.

You're absolutely right it would be better and more economic for them, but regardless of that its arbitrary (in myopinion) to argue and get all fluffy over people (a SHIT LOAD of people) getting over their insecurities and being confident and so on. Because lets face it, that'll never ever happen, at least in our life times and my lifes past ours.

And you're right about those who are most devistated generally believe in "one true love."

But this is my problem with your entire argument. Nowhere ever does it say or has said "You find the ONE true love" on the site anywhere. If you can find it I'll be pretty surprised. I've looking at the site, and i've also have never heard it on the commercials. The only thing is goes and says is finding compatiable matches. MATCHES. Which means plural.

It would appear you are literally making up what they say, or interpreting "compatible matches" however you see fit. As i see it eharmony is just another tool possible to meet people, sure some could use it as a crutch and its possible MANY do.

In light of that how do you suppose it would be possible to "change peoples ways" as it would relate to confidence with dating and so on especially of older people? But then again its not even just about confidence as much as finding single people. Say you are 30 or 40 years old and you happen to be single. To be honest I can not personally think of that many "older" single people. And say you are at work (a common place to find other people) how many singles could there possibly be at that age at your work? 1, maybe 2? That pretty much limits it down.

__________________

+1 man

I can agree with you on the site does some serve purpose for the middle aged on up in our society. I mean it can be implied they say you will find love on their site by the commercials and stuff, but they never truly come out and say it. However when things imply other things then that can be interpreted by the interpreter as something different. So by being a member of society then we are the interpreters therefore our personal opinions are what makes up that interpretation.

As for them being economically better off then not having the site, maybe thats being real bias on other things that could help them out emotionally.

__________________

Reading is lame. So I agree, with everyone; and stab you all with chicken wings. ((and fire))


GMO, I heart you guyz!!1

__________________

Not as lame as forcing yourself to be an idiot by believing that.

__________________

Exactly.

__________________

probably not, but I don't believe in reading. it's lame. like you. jump into a pit of flaming midgets please.... and die.

__________________

Anyone who cares what this guy thinks, quote that and say "+1" within the next three days.

__________________

^ i say he last a week or two maybe...

__________________

Yes, i agree that guy probably won't last more than a week. She's lacking in the penis region.

__________________

If you decided to MOTHERFUCKING USE YOUR EYES AND READ you would see that I have been a member here since June of 2006. It has been more than one week since then. You joined today. You have also just insulted your mind, your parents' genetics, and your small penis. Apparently you think simple math and logic is lame as well. Don't take this as a sign to leave this forum. We have all built up a tolerance to overtly intellegent motherfuckers such as yourself.

__________________

HAHA.

no, see... I was agreeing with you, it's called cleverness... and if YOU'LL decide to read...... It simply implies that I'm a female. See.... lacking in the penis area and she. I had no intents to insult you...

<23 man you're super awesum guyzzz! So clever and witty.

__________________

Huh......well that explains all the <3's. That also takes away form my insult. I was really hoping that would win me the pwnage of the year.

However, now that you have revealed that you are indeed female, everyone will be clamoring for pictures of your tits and your.......well........I'll let bassbehemoth tell you what he wants to see. He has a special word for it, ha. Don't take this as an insult, but a warning.

__________________

interesting

Play fair... just because I'm female doesn't mean I want treated like a slut. ((I am taken y'know)) signature bottom right<3

IM me sometime. stolenxromantics [aim]

__________________

LOL, I never insinuated you were a slut to begin with. I am just saying that once word gets out there is a female on the forum, she gets hounded for a few days with a bunch of ugly metalheads looking for pics.

__________________

This is of the utmost truth. I can count on one hand how many females there are in this forum.

__________________

haha. I was just putting that out there for the others to see.

I'll post a fully clothed picture of me on my profile.

and as far as I'm concerned your insult would've crushed me if I was male, so it was pwnage material. ((I forgot to say that.)) Of course it's hard to get one over on me. I'm amazingly clever.

but keep it on the hush that I'm a female, eh? I like owning people. It are the fun.

Ever heard of psychosticK?

__________________

Lets see you have only mentioned it 3 or 4 times in your stellar 11 posts.

Someone tell this Cradle of Filth loving moron I am the Queen attention whore of this board.

Oh lord somehow i knew this post would fucking resurrect bia... nooooooooo.

__________________

LOL, thats golden right there.

__________________

OMGz...

: jealous :

attention whore, eh? I'd surely brag about that one. i get enough attention around here as in... where I am. and I don't have to beg for it. and as for your petty name calling:

I may be a moron. but there is one thing I am not... and that sir, is a moron.

<33 Chaio.

i heart you. bia. you're my new BFF. Hi5

__________________

oh lord this was justalmost to fucking hilarious not to post. So me and xgraf are in the chat room rigrht. And i mention the new girl. And this is what he has to say.......


Not even xgraf can resist the MT sausagefest urges

__________________

LOLzerZ

LOLzerZ am I?

great comeback.

Helmet anyone?

__________________

SHOW US YOUR PISS FLAPS!!!



Welcome to the Metal Tabs. Please remove your pants.

__________________

Lol, I knew it wouldn't take BB very long.

__________________

__________________

Sorry didn't know you were a chick .

__________________

All right now children, take that shit to the RTT or tit thread.

__________________

Hey now, tmfreak brought it in here from the RTT.

__________________

Get on topic or I'll close the thread.

__________________

Nooooooooo i'm waiting for pst's reply to my argument about eharmony on the end of page 3!!!

__________________

I thought I would add another article that came out recently on the same topic of internet freedom/freedom of speech, check it out:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...6mccainbill.htm


Just as someone already pointed out here (I think I may have at one point as well), government officials will push the 'sexual predation' aspect of the internet in order to supress certain view points, even when nothing offensive is really going on. And with a bill with the name "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act", who could vote against that? Who would even bother reading what is contained in the bill, it must be to protect the children right?

"McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act," encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities."

"Comment boards for specific articles are extremely popular and also notoriously hard to moderate. Popular articles often receive comments that run into the thousands over the course of time. In many cases, individuals hostile to the writer's argument deliberately leave obscene comments and images simply to sully the reputation of the website owners. Therefore under the terms of this bill, right-wing extremists from a website like Free Republic could effectively terminate a liberal leaning website like Raw Story by the act of posting a single photograph of a naked child. This precedent could be the kiss of death for blogs as we know them and its reverberations would negatively impact the entire Internet."

"In reality, sexual predators have always confined their grooming to live chat rooms, or in the case of Republican pervert Mark Foley, instant messaging and PDA's. Pedophiles are never going to leave a record of their sordid advances on message boards because in most cases, their IP address and location can be obtained immediately from the server log. And as reported by C Net, "Studies by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show the online sexual solicitation of minors has dropped in the past five years, despite the growth of social-networking services."

"This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," warns Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco."

I found it interesting. In speaking of the net, did anyone else here Larry King admit he's never used the internet to Rosanne on his show? It was fairly recent, and very simlar to Ted Stevens' take on what the internet was, which is rediculous ofcourse.

__________________