Politics

SOPA Copyright Bill Has the Potential to Forever Change the Internet!

Posted by Les Scammell on February 25, 2012
Posted in: Politics. Tagged: , , , , , .

If you’ve been in touch with the online world lately, then you must have seen the entire buzz created by the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) supporters and opponents fighting it over every social media networks available at their disposal. You can read about it on various fan pages on Facebook, or check the trending hash tags on Twitter. It’s everywhere! But there are other people who are totally disconnected with the online world and therefore have no idea what’s going on nowadays with all the SOPA drama. Many of them have no idea what the SOPA acronym even stands for. However, it is absolutely vital, that everyone has a clear understanding of this proposed bill and what the government is seeking to achieve with the implementation of this bill. It is vital that both sides of the story be considered rather than taking inspiration from the various campaigns all across social media. But one thing is surely for certain. This bill has the potential to forever change the way we use the internet and how we interact with each other through social media.

What is the Stop Online Piracy Bill?

This act was created to preserve and protect the intellectual property rights of those people who work so hard to make quality content for their businesses/customers so they can make their livelihoods. Even without this bill, any individual living in the United States can be suspected and put in prison on the basis of violating copyright laws but what about those who are in other countries and are therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. Even if they are charged, they cannot be put in prison because the law of the land does not work that way. This is where SOPA comes in.

How can the use of SOPA be manipulated?

Everyone, including the opponents agree on the good intentions of the proposed SOPA bill which is to protect the rights of content creators and stop others from copying copyrighted content to their advantage. But the trouble starts when any person or company can take to the courts to file a case against any website for violating the copyright laws. That site will essentially be banned by search engines and restricted to access without even a court hearing or a fair trial! Worst still, the burden of proof will be on alleged website to clear its name rather than the other way round. This scenario is just one of the many reasons that online giants like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn have all come forward to support the opponents of the SOPA act.

Current DMCA effects on social media sharing

Right now, copyright laws are enforced by the DMCA act, which is short for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This allows the copyright holder to make a complaint about a certain website which will then be required to remove the content. Let’s say you upload your favorite ‘The Simpsons’ episode on YouTube after recording it with your VHS player. The copyright of course is not yours, but belongs to the entertainment channel, Fox. YouTube will be required to take down your video and a warning will be sent to you. No problems all around. However, you can imagine what sort of problems YouTube can get in to if the SOPA act is put in to place. It will nearly be impossible for YouTube or even Google to keep track of the videos being uploaded and check it for copyrighted content.

Written by Frederick, guest blogger and marketing specialist, interested in economics, web software, registry mechanic and films.

Abbott Has More Whine Than The Barossa Valley

Posted by Les Scammell on February 7, 2011
Posted in: Politics. Tagged: , , , .

Tony Abbott, Australia’s wanna be prime minister. I am sure there is more whine coming out of him than there is coming out of the Barossa Valley. Not to worry, it seems the knives are out and the vultures in the wings are just waiting for their moment to pounce. We have already seen Joe Hockey come out and flatly accepts that Tony Abbott’s email to liberal supporters was wrong.

Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott

While I am accusing Tony Abbott of whining non-stop and being totally negative, it seems to be trending through the whole coalition. Everytime they open their mouths it is to utter negative opinions on everything the government does. The problem is, occasionally they are right, but with so much negativity coming out of the coalition, we are becoming deaf to it all.

Let’s look back – the insulation scheme did have problems – but the majority of people who had their homes insulated, did so with few if any problems. The school projects – 95% of those were completed without any problems at all. The 5% that Abbott concentrates on were not really government issues as such. The focus should have been on businesses that saw both of these programs as an open invitation to rip off taxpayers – it was these business owners who should be the target of Abbott’s anger – but then, they are coalition supporters.

Tony – we don’t want to listen to your whining all day about what the government is doing wrong. There are some things the government is doing right, and it’s time you admitted it. When the government is in the wrong, then we’ll listen to you. As it stands now, the general consensus is that you go back to pre-school and learn to stop whining.

Flood Levy – Good Idea – Bad Implementation

Posted by Les Scammell on January 31, 2011
Posted in: Politics. Tagged: , , .

I am going to declare my hand before proceeding – I am a labor supporter, always have been. When it comes to Julia Gillard, I am sitting on the fence at present. She has some very good attributes, but one very bad attribute – but then, she is a politician first. The one thing she wont do is listen to what others have to say, then make changes if their thoughts are logical.

The flood levy is one very good example. The levy in principle is, in my opinion, a good idea. The implementation is not what we need however. Why I disagree with Tony Abbott and co is very simple – he want to cut extra from the budget rather than implement a levy. I don’t know if he is really being sincere in this respect – Howard introduced a levy of 0.2% to help pay for the gun buy back scheme – I think this flood levy is on a par with that.

Back to my original point about cutting into the budget further, the problem I have with this is that, being Australia, final costs are always a lot more than originally estimated. What is now $5.6 billion in costs will most likely be $8 billion or more come the final reckoning. If those figures do blow out, that is when we will need to trim more from the budget. Trim it all now, and there is no room to move when we need to.

I said the flood levy was a good idea, and in principle it is. However, It is probably a little too much, but more importantly, being done for the wrong reason. Australia is a land of drama – we have floods, tropical cyclones, wild bushfires and even the odd earthquake. We need a permanent national disaster fund and this should be funded across a number of levels. First, a permanent levy at around 0.2% or even 0.25%. I agree with the targeting of higher paying incomes although $50k seems a little low. I would suggest starting at around $75k-$80k with the second tier cutting in at $150k with that levy at 0.5%. businesses should not be exempt, however I think this is where highly profitable companies can afford to pay – perhaps a 2.5% levy on all businesses that record $100 million plus per year profits.

Funds in this national disaster fund would accumulate until needed and would only be used to pay for infrastructure rebuilding and repair. It could be managed by an independent board, funding infrastructure on 1:1:1 basis – $1 for every $1 spent by both the Federal Government and the State Governments.

This levy is, as I suggested, a good idea. However, it is flawed in its rationale and in its life span. Of course, I am not an economist or politician so I just think logically.

Australian Flood Recovery – Who Pays The Piper

Posted by Les Scammell on January 27, 2011
Posted in: Politics. Tagged: , , , , , .
Flood Destroyed Roads

That Used To Be A Road

With much of the east coast of Australia now heavily involved in the clean up following recent flooding, the question is now turning to who will foot the bill. It’s a thorny question that is bringing the best and worst out of many people. Insurance companies are ducking for cover and trying every strategy possible to avoid payouts, governments are crying poor, and the Australian population together with many from around the world have already dug deep to the tune of around $80 million. However, with a flood bill estimated to be close to $6 billion, the money has to come from somewhere.

The $80 million that has been raised should and will go to the victims of these floods. The $5-$6 billion that is being touted refers to the cost of rebuilding infrastructure – roads, bridges and rail rebuilding will chew up a lot of those funds. Australia as a nation relies on this infrastructure. In central Queensland, coal exports have been brought a virtual standstill with millions of dollars being lost everyday. Around the country, roads, bridges and rail are essential for transporting the fruit, vegetables, grains and meats from rural areas to centralized markets.

No longer an airstrip

Should we buy sea planes

Because we rely on this infrastructure for our food, we as a nation have to be responsible for the costs of restoring it. If that means a small increase in the Medicare levy – so be it. However, I would much prefer to see a small permanent levy introduced for disaster relief – if you like, a national disaster relief fund. This should be funded by residents, businesses, insurance companies and governments at all levels.

There is a lot of anger being expressed around the community because of the mis-information that is being spread in some sectors. There are many that believe that a Medicare levy would be used to help those who didn’t have insurance for example. This is not, or at least should not be the case. Any levy imposed must be restricted to infrastructure spending alone as would any funds accumulated in a national disaster relief fund.

Australia is a great country. We do however experience the best and worst of what mother nature has to offer. When droughts, floods and cyclones hit, they do it big time. We are lucky that earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are not a part of that list. Add to this the disasters we create with bush fires, occasional road and rail incidents, and you will find that we have a disaster of some description on a regular basis. We are I guess fortunate that we have never had a major air disaster let alone an air disaster over a heavily populated area. We are also fortunate that terrorism has not found its way onto our shores in the way it has in many other countries.

A .25% or .5% levy, while perhaps costing us $5 a week extra in taxes, is nothing compared to the increased costs in food if this infrastructure is never repaired. Better yet – I wonder if Gillard and Co are prepare to think long term and introduce a national disaster fund. It was one major recommendation that came out of the 1974 funds – but no one had the political vision to run with it. I wouldn’t hold my breath this time either.

What do you think? Would you support a national disaster relief fund? How much are you willing to pay – o.2% 0.15% 0.25%? After all, it is our country and it is our food supplies at risk!

Road and rail underwater

Road and Rail underwater