I just had a scary thought about Goverment and 3D Printers.
I just had a scary thought about Goverment and 3D Printers.
With the ability to print gun parts. Print objects that compete with commercial offerings. Subverting IP laws. I think it wont be in a to distant future that the government would declare personal 3d printers as counterfeiting outfits and there for they will be declared illegal.
Our Government hates people who competes in a open and free market. Goverment also hates people who use their god given freedom, to use their rights too own guns and make parts for those guns by any means, including using 3d printers.
The corny corporate interests also hate anyone who competes with them. Ether in creative world or in the making and inventing of new and neat things. They Always are supporting new regulations to hamper these activities.
These two powers I almost 100% sure will get together and find ways to regulate or out right ban the use of 3d Printers by the normal everyday person. I think they will call it a counterfeiting technology and will be the way they will killed it. They don’t want another tech that opens things to the regular person, like the internet did for us.
Only way it will stay around in some form, is the black market. The same place were Warez, drugs and other things the government does not want you to have go to and hide. If we are lucky this will defy the powers that be like the printing press did. Even with government sanctions and regulations.
At left in the foreground, a printer removes a printed page from the press. The printer at right is inking the plate. In the background, compositors are using cast type. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
ACTA Secret: Obama Lord of the RIAA Copyright Trolls Movie Trailer Mike Mozart STEAL THIS VIDEO! (by JeepersMedia)
ACTA is being Created by the Nest of RIAA Copyright Trolls the USA President Obama Hand Picked for his Department of Justice!
SIGN the FREE RICHARD O’DWYER Online Petition! http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richar…
The RIAA hand Picked Copyright Trolls are Crafting and controlling these laws Worldwide and USA President Obama gave them ALL the Power and Money to Do it!
LINKS;
Obama Appoint the 5th RIAA Attorney
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
Obama: Stop Filling Administration with RIAA Insiders
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-stop-fill/
Obama Supports 150,000 fine per infringed work
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-sides-wit-2/
Obama Declares Proposed IP Treaty a “National Security Secret”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-declares
Obama Supports the RIAA Against Jammie Rasset Thomas
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10201831-38.html
Obama Proves He Is an RIAA Lapdog
http://ilikekillnerds.com/2011/01/obama-proves-he-is-an-riaa-lapdog/
Obama Supports $150,000 Per Infringed Work Wired
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-sides-wit-2/
Obama Keep Filling the DOJ with RIAA Attorneys
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-keep-fill/
Rand Paul Vows To Block Internet Censorship Bills
Image via Wikipedia
Rand Paul Vows To Block Internet Censorship Bills
Paul continued: “While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else’s problems.
“I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet,” Paul said.
SOPA: My Thoughts on IP and Government OverReach (by AlexMerced)
Alex Merced discusses SOPA and his concerns over recent government bills.
Suggested Reading
Stephen Kinsella - Against IP
The Chamber of Commerce is fighting to stop piracy online. The Senate’s PROTECT IP Act and the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act are huge parts of this fight, and thanks in large part to the Chamber’s support, the bills have gained support among politicians. Google doesn’t like this, so they’re thinking of leaving the organization. Yahoo didn’t like this, so they already left. The bills (pushed by obvious spam targets Rosetta Stone and Viagra-producing Pfizer) target advertising, the bread and butter of both companies’ bottom line, on so-called rogue sites. It could lead to tons of extra regulation that they aren’t usually used to. And let’s face it, any attempt at regulation of the Internet just doesn’t go over well with a lot of people. Is Google making the right move?
(via shortformblog)
Why is it good to do this?
Image via Wikipedia
People who complain about an overbearing goverment. Were it spies on you. Bails out banks and other interests the political elite like. Say the MIAA and RIAA and a prime examples.
Yet lot of these same people instead of supporting less goverment, less regulation. Want more goverment to fix the broken goverment.
I do not understand that. Why build more on a broken foundation? That would just lead to more collapse of our society. Would you build a house on a cracked foundation? I know I would not.
One example comes to mind of bad ideas in this area. I have been an opponent of Protect IP act and ACTA treaty along with some other smiler laws for a long time. A lot of people who are also against these stupid and liberty steeling laws. Also support Net Neutrality a regulation and liberty steeling law too.
Even if Net Neutrality was a good thing. Why is it a good thing to support a law that would be ran by the FCC. Who has had a long history of censorship? A long history of going beyond its stated mission. When our own goverment has given Federal agencies the right to create laws under the broad term of “Regulation”.
Like everything the goverment does. Laws like this, are ran were one size fits all. In the private world. Business and non-profits are able to customize what they are providing to the public. Government by its nature can’t do this, and wont do this. This Net Neutrality will be enforced has harshly on the big providers as it would be on the small town ISP. At least the big providers can eat some of these costs a law like this would have. The small town ISP would not. It would have to be bought out or die on the vine.
This one size fits all does not work for content. It is logical video is going to take up more resources then a jpeg image of your dog. There for it is going to cost more to do video. Its classic economics. Even a Austrian and a Keynesian economist can agree on this point. It is also assumed that a provider would base price on content. I do not think it is a forgone conclusion. The only place you see this happening to any degree is in the Cellphone market.
If this type thing worked in the free market. Why did the internet world move away from charging based on the hour like what we had in the 90s? Were ISPs like AOL would give you 250 hours of service a month. People wanted more so providers went to a monthly flat rate. Like what we see now from most places in the USA.
Another issue I fear. a piling up on all these regulations. ISPs will start failing and dieing. Then some bright collectivist in the goverment or media will say, “Gee why don’t we have the goverment run the internet. After all the internet is to big to fail. The goverment can protect our free speech on the net”. Like what they are saying now with Net Neutrality.
That would not be good for anyone. Now the goverment would have complet control of a free speech zone. A place were they could regulate what can be said and done. Just think of the protests in the public parks happening now and how the law is cracking down on the protesters.
I already heard rumblings that the goverment wants any one who makes content for the internet, to have a broadcaster like license. Were that license would have all kinds of strings attached. On top of the extremely high costs a license like this would have.
As the classic saying goes. Two wrong do not make a right. You can not say one controlling law is better and should replace another controlling regulation.
PROTECT-IP Makes Its Way To the Floors of Congress
From Slashdot:
New submitter trunicated writes “Everyone on Slashdot seems to know about PROTECT-IP Act — how it will push responsibility for the contents of the internet onto the search engines that index it, how it will give even more power to the *IAA industries, and, worst of all, how it will provide the U.S. government with a kill switch they can use at their discretion. However, this write up may provide you with a bit more information and help you explain the issues to those that won’t be able to get around the poisoned DNS entries that this bill will allow.”
PROTECT IP Renamed To the E-PARASITE Act
If this bill comes into law. Not only will it censor sites here in the states. It will also try to do it to any feign site. All on the word of the Attorney General. This exuse that would be given. Your infernaging on someones intellectual property. You don’t even have to have proof ether.
What if the establishment did not like a peace a of news someone is reporting? Al they have to claim that person using their intellectual property. That site is now blacked to everyone in the USA. We are becoming like the internet in China.
Heck a company does not even have to complain. It can the goverment its self. Think of Eric Holder. I am sure he does not like all this reporting on Fast and Furious. He could claim that operation was copyrighted. There for no one has the right to say anything about it on the internet.
From Slashdot:
bs0d3 writes “The U.S. House has drafted their version of Protect IP today. They have renamed the bill to “the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act” or the E-PARASITE Act. The new house version of Protect IP is far worse than the Senate bill s.968 and it massively expands the sites that will be covered by the law. While the Senate bill limited its focus to sites that were “dedicated to infringing activities”, the house bill targets “foreign infringing sites” and “has only limited purpose or use other than infringement”. They’re also including an “inducement” claim, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be “inducing” infringement, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. The bill can be read here.”
- Protect IP Renamed E-PARASITES Act; Would Create The Great Firewall Of America (techdirt.com)
- House takes Senate’s bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse (arstechnica.com)
- New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites (yro.slashdot.org)
- Group: New Version of PROTECT IP May Target Legal Sites (pcworld.com)
- Michele Bachmann Comes Out Against PROTECT IP | Techdirt (mbcalyn.com)
- 8 Ways To Circumvent the PROTECT-IP Act (yro.slashdot.org)
- PROTECT IP Act called unconstitutional by bipartisan group of law professors (engadget.com)
- PROTECT IP Opponents Claim Upcoming House Version May Hurt Twitter, YouTube, Facebook (techcrunch.com)
- Security Consultants Warn About PROTECT-IP Act (politics.slashdot.org)
- What You Need To Know About the New Copyfight [Copyright] (gizmodo.com)
- DNS Heavyweights Raise Concern Over DNS Filtering (yro.slashdot.org)
- The Protect IP Act: Google’s Eric Schmidt squares off against RIAA and MPAA (engadget.com)
- Google loads up on IP again, buys 1,000 more patents from IBM (engadget.com)
New Version of PROTECT IP Bill May Target Legal Sites
Yup now the first party is responsible for the third party. Makes now you have to be your brothers keeper.
From Slashdot.org:
angry tapir writes “An upcoming version [PDF] of U.S. legislation designed to combat copyright infringement on the Web may include provisions that hold online services such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube legally responsible for infringing material posted by users, according to one group opposed to the bill. ‘If Demand Progress is correct about the House version of PROTECT IP, the bill would overturn parts of the 13-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protect websites and ISPs from copyright lawsuits for the infringing activity of their users.’”
Protect IP Act, Internet censorship?
Uploaded by TheAlyonaShow on Jul 8, 2011
A group of law professors have sent a letter to Congress, opposing the Protect IP Act saying that it not only amounts to internet censorship that is barred by the First amendment, but also aligns the US with oppressive regimes. One of these professors, Mark Lemley from Stanford Law School discusses.
Case Against Intellectual Property
Uploaded by AdamVsTheManRT on May 20, 2011
Adam explains how the very concept of “intellectual property” is a fiction, a scam. And it flies in the face of real property rights. But that won’t stop the government from imposing a twisted morality of stifling innovation on you to make you feel bad for copying things that big corporations don’t want you to copy. Well tough! Because the Internet is here to the rescue!
