Topic: Possible SOPA-like Amendments / Union discussion

[Valthazar]

(Apologies if someone already made a topic about this, since it is about 2 months old).

The administration is interested in re-introducing aspects of the failed SOPA bill.  The Department of Commerce issued an Internet Policy Task Force report in July to Congress, encouraging them to modify the current Copyright Act to factor in the increasing prevalence of streaming as a means of viewing copyrighted content.  The proposals include making it a felony to reproduce or distribute at least 10 or more views with a total retail value of at least $2,500 (of the infringed copyrighted content).

Links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/unauthorized-streaming-felony_n_3720479.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/sopa-died-in-2012-but-obama-administration-wants-to-revive-part-of-it/

Report itself: (long and wordy)
http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf

Currently, this is considered a misdemeanor, and punishable by a fine or, rarely, a short stint in jail.  However, by making it a felony, someone could effectively face years of jail time for such an offense.  The report states that many users are using streaming as an alternative to access copyrighted content, and thus, they want to make streaming fall under the category of "public performance" of copyrighted material - the kind of crime that courts can punish with years of prison time.

Personally, I find this to be a very dangerous proposal, since it effectively permits the government to target individuals at will, if they utilize even a shred of copyrighted content.  For example, if someone else were making a similar thread on this topic, and linked to a YouTube video showing coverage on this issue, the government could come after that individual with felony charges if they wanted.  Obviously it would be impossible for the government to crack down on ALL instances of this, which only raises the question of whom they may choose to target.  Perhaps more importantly, if someone creates a video providing a very eye-opening, educational, but harshly critical commentary about the government, which just so happens to feature a small clip of a commercial or even just a McDonald's logo on a guy's shirt, the government would be entirely within their legal right to imprison that individual. 

I consider this recommendation to be a severe breach of our rights, and it is a shame this isn't receiving as much media coverage as the 2011 initiative.

[Scribbles]

Stories like these continue to make me question the effectiveness of democracies. I've been following several democratic countries, including America, for a few years now and all of them seem to end up favouring a small elite over the people they're actually meant to serve.

If this bill passes then you might as well call out America's government for what it is, a corporate attack dog.

More on topic, the article might be two months old but there's to be a public meeting on the 30th of October to discuss the current draft of the bill. At least, that's what I think this is: http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2013/13-27.jsp

[Valthazar]

Nice find on that link about the October 30th meeting - hopefully this gets more awareness in the mainstream by then.

[Vekseid]

Stories like these continue to make me question the effectiveness of democracies. I've been following several democratic countries, including America, for a few years now and all of them seem to end up favouring a small elite over the people they're actually meant to serve.

I don't think the US government could get away with bombing its own citizens again.

[Scribbles]

I don't think the US government could get away with bombing its own citizens again.

Again?

[Chris Brady]

Again?

And this is why I think they WILL be able to.

[Vekseid]

Again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

I've linked this battle so often i the forums I should probably put it in a sticky. Both for anti-union people and those claiming things have never been so bad as they are now.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

I've linked this battle so often i the forums I should probably put it in a sticky. Both for anti-union people and those claiming things have never been so bad as they are now.

We're getting there quickly enough. Private security, rampant roll back on union/labor protections, and a return to strong corporate interests over those of the individual citizen. While shooting folks 'a la' Blair Mountain hasn't happen, we are quickly stepping back towards that sort of attitude of company over individual. Just look at the heavy handed 'investigative' tactics of folks like Monsanto. I find myself wondering if a 'private security' firm moves forward to more physical assertions. IE.. shooting protestors.

[ShadowFox89]

While shooting folks 'a la' Blair Mountain hasn't happened.

 That we know of. And that has happened on US soil.

[Scribbles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

I've linked this battle so often i the forums I should probably put it in a sticky. Both for anti-union people and those claiming things have never been so bad as they are now.

Thanks Vekseid and sorry, I tried to search around for it but all I came up with were some bizarre conspiracy theories...

As an aside, I'm not anti-union and I don't believe things are at their worst...

And this is why I think they WILL be able to.

The Battle of Blair Mountain was before cellphones, the internet, media conglomerates, etc, so I doubt something like that would be taken as lightly as it was in the past...

[Callie Del Noire]

That we know of. And that has happened on US soil.

My inner cynic says it is only a matter of time. I see things like crowd dispersal weapons going too far within a few years. Rubber bullets can, and do, kill. All it will take is one dead protestor on TV. 

Last year the NYC police Maced folks at who weren't even part of the protests they were covering.

Check out 'Little Brother' and 'Homeland' by Corey Doctorow for what are likely 'safety measures' we'll see in the future. Sadly we've let fear guide policy since 9/11 and I don't see something like the practices in the books NOT happening.

[Oniya]

Last year the NYC police Maced folks at who weren't even part of the protests they were covering.

And there was the campus officer who pepper-sprayed students at a sit-in.  It got turned into a meme for a while.

[Retribution]

Unions.....I pay fair share to mine but am not a member. They do some good work including mine, but here is the rub. When I see the union break out all their guns, flex their muscle, go to bat big time for someone it is often times quite honestly someone who should be fired. In my work place and others I have seen by and large the hard core union backers I have seen are well to put it mildly incompetent. Not saying unions do not serve a purpose, they did some great things in my work place last round of negotiations. We were near strike and I was going to go out with them even if I am just a fair share payer, but do they have to so whole heartedly back those who have done things or failed to produce to the point that they really should be loosing their jobs?

[Callie Del Noire]

Unions.....I pay fair share to mine but am not a member. They do some good work including mine, but here is the rub. When I see the union break out all their guns, flex their muscle, go to bat big time for someone it is often times quite honestly someone who should be fired. In my work place and others I have seen by and large the hard core union backers I have seen are well to put it mildly incompetent. Not saying unions do not serve a purpose, they did some great things in my work place last round of negotiations. We were near strike and I was going to go out with them even if I am just a fair share payer, but do they have to so whole heartedly back those who have done things or failed to produce to the point that they really should be loosing their jobs?

You know that agency called OSHA? A lot of the rules, regulations and enforcement clauses they practice now came out of Union dissent. Can unions be incompetent and corrupt? Yeah. They can and have been. They also provide a voice for the worker. One worker, or a dozen, is easy to ignore. But a good union makes sure things like safety practices are maintained rather than 'a little less means more profit for us'.

I knew something like 8 guys my grandfather's age growing up who were missing fingers because at the time it was 'cost effective' for the textile mills to simply replace  worker than spend an additional 50 dollars a machine to make it safer. Without a voice for the worker, what is there to say 'sometimes the bottom line isn't the final consideration.'.

There has to be a counterpoint against the fiscal absolutes of the business, because let's be honest.. profit will always be more important than the conditions the worker has without a consequence to bring it into balance.

[Retribution]

You know that agency called OSHA? A lot of the rules, regulations and enforcement clauses they practice now came out of Union dissent. Can unions be incompetent and corrupt? Yeah. They can and have been. They also provide a voice for the worker. One worker, or a dozen, is easy to ignore. But a good union makes sure things like safety practices are maintained rather than 'a little less means more profit for us'.

I knew something like 8 guys my grandfather's age growing up who were missing fingers because at the time it was 'cost effective' for the textile mills to simply replace  worker than spend an additional 50 dollars a machine to make it safer. Without a voice for the worker, what is there to say 'sometimes the bottom line isn't the final consideration.'.

There has to be a counterpoint against the fiscal absolutes of the business, because let's be honest.. profit will always be more important than the conditions the worker has without a consequence to bring it into balance.

I am not denying any of that, but what I am saying is do they have to go all in for the dead weight? To put it bluntly it chaps my ass.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am not denying any of that, but what I am saying is do they have to go all in for the dead weight? To put it bluntly it chaps my ass.

I'd still have my job if I had a union rep on site. I was told that by one of the six former chiefs who voted against it before I arrived on site. I, along with every single tech hired in under a year, were let go when Lockheed took over the contract. For one 'excuse' or another. I'm not 'useless' weight. I was a guy who hadn't had a civilian job in a decade and half and those were pizza delivery, convenience store clerks and such. I wasn't aware of a 'right to work state' or that when I got my second offer letter that I only got part. That I should have KNOW there was a second part that covered a SECOND urinalysis test (despite having had one a mere 3 weeks before under the original hiring group) within 3 working days of signing the paperwork.

A union rep would have appraised me of that. Instead I was on my own. And Lockheed blacklisted me for a decade on that contract.

[Retribution]

Dude I am not saying what happened to you is right or that unions do not serve purposes when it comes to such things. But while we are exchanging horror stories:

I know a fellow professionally who got caught not once but twice falsifying expense reports to pad his own pocket. He also happened to be the union steward. After he was fired for well let's be honest embezzlement, the union spared no expense and spent nearly a year in court. He got his job back, plus back pay, plus interest.

What I am saying is when I see things like this it leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth.

[meikle]

Dude I am not saying what happened to you is right or that unions do not serve purposes when it comes to such things. But while we are exchanging horror stories:

I know a fellow professionally who got caught not once but twice falsifying expense reports to pad his own pocket. He also happened to be the union steward. After he was fired for well let's be honest embezzlement, the union spared no expense and spent nearly a year in court. He got his job back, plus back pay, plus interest.

What I am saying is when I see things like this it leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth.

that's the union's job, though.  that is what that guy paid his dues for.  if the union didn't go to bat for him, other union employees would see that the union is willing to take their money but is not willing to spend that money back in toward protecting its workers.  everyone pays in, everyone gets the benefit of having paid in (ideally, at least.)

it's like when we talk about the legal system, and how nobody really wants to protect serial puppy kickers, but we have to, because if we don't, where do we draw the line?  just like people pay taxes knowing that, for example, if they're ever accused of the crime they will receive legal counsel & a representative, even if their crime is kicking a series of puppies, so too do people pay their union dues expecting that, should they need union support, even if its support in the case of "did you steal money", the union will try to provide support.  i'm not sure what to conclude from the fact that the union was able to make a better case before a court than the company except that maybe a) the union cared more than the company did about this guy's position (ie, the company was not willing to expend the necessary resources to remove him, and the embezzlement was not a significant hit to their bottom line) or b) the union did a better job of proving before the court that the guy didn't actually do anything wrong than the company did proving that he was an embezzler.

[Callie Del Noire]

that's the union's job, though.  that is what that guy paid his dues for.  if the union didn't go to bat for him, other union employees would see that the union is willing to take their money but is not willing to spend that money back in toward protecting its workers.  everyone pays in, everyone gets the benefit of having paid in (ideally, at least.)

it's like when we talk about the legal system, and how nobody really wants to protect serial puppy kickers, but we have to, because if we don't, where do we draw the line?  just like people pay taxes knowing that, for example, if they're ever accused of the crime they will receive legal counsel & a representative, even if their crime is kicking a series of puppies, so too do people pay their union dues expecting that, should they need union support, even if its support in the case of "did you steal money", the union will try to provide support.  i'm not sure what to conclude from the fact that the union was able to make a better case before a court than the company except that maybe a) the union cared more than the company did about this guy's position (ie, the company was not willing to expend the necessary resources to remove him, and the embezzlement was not a significant hit to their bottom line) or b) the union did a better job of proving before the court that the guy didn't actually do anything wrong than the company did proving that he was an embezzler.

Just like a Public Defender/Defense Attorney can't choose to NOT do their best in their client's interests. It's an all or nothing event. Do the union leaders like it? Nope. I'm sure they wished they could drop him off a cliff by the end of it. BUT if I had a union rep protecting my interests I would be solvent, most likely able to move to a better job and not getting dead air when talking to half the defense contractors in the state.

[meikle]

Just like a Public Defender/Defense Attorney can't choose to NOT do their best in their client's interests. It's an all or nothing event. Do the union leaders like it? Nope. I'm sure they wished they could drop him off a cliff by the end of it. BUT if I had a union rep protecting my interests I would be solvent, most likely able to move to a better job and not getting dead air when talking to half the defense contractors in the state.

Yeah, exactly.  By joining a union, this guy paid for them to protect him if he got in trouble with his employer.  If they decided "No, this guy's not worth it," probably they're looking at a breach of contract.  You can't charge someone for a service and then just decide not to provide that service.

Despite the fact that these things happen, I am very pro-union, just like I am very pro-government even when my government provides public defenders for puppy kickers -- because these sorts of protections aren't in place in to protect the puppy kickers or embezzlers, they're in place to protect the accused puppy kickers who nobody can prove kicked puppies, and they're in place to protect accused embezzlers against people who try to fire them but then can't prove to the court that they actually did anything worth losing their job over.

[Retribution]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just find that sort of reasoning plain flawed on more levels than I can articulate.

[TheGlyphstone]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just find that sort of reasoning plain flawed on more levels than I can articulate.

It's just a more articulate and union/job-specific of the criminal law aphorism Blackstone's Formulation, or in popularly known terms, the saying 'better to let ten guilty men go free than to let one innocent be unjustly punished'. Or in this particular hypothetical case, better to let 10 guilty-as-sin embezzlers keep their job than to let one innocent bookkeeper whose employer doesn't like him get fired for no reason/framed charges. Rephrase as necessary for the unionized profession of your choice.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's just a more articulate and union/job-specific of the criminal law aphorism Blackstone's Formulation, or in popularly known terms, the saying 'better to let ten guilty men go free than to let one innocent be unjustly punished'. Or in this particular hypothetical case, better to let 10 guilty-as-sin embezzlers keep their job than to let one innocent bookkeeper whose employer doesn't like him get fired for no reason/framed charges. Rephrase as necessary for the unionized profession of your choice.

It is a shame that that formulation is rapidly diminishing in today's post 9/11 world.

[meikle]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just find that sort of reasoning plain flawed on more levels than I can articulate.

You can disagree all you want, but understand that by opposing the act of defending the accused, you are supporting unmitigated tyranny.

[gaggedLouise]

You can disagree all you want, but understand that by opposing the act of defending the accused, you are supporting unmitigated tyranny.

+3