Background[ edit ] The political and ideological background of the Internet censorship is considered to be one of Deng Xiaoping 's favorite sayings in the early s: Superseding the political ideologies of the Cultural Revolutionthe reform led China towards a market economy and opened up the economy for foreign investors. Nonetheless the Communist Party of China CPC has wished to protect its values and political ideas from "swatting flies" of other ideologies,  with a particular emphasis on suppressing movements that could potentially threaten the power of the CPC and the stability of the Chinese government.
There is one group of people not shocked by the record industry's policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution.
Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable. Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically. In place of corporate gatekeepers determining what can and can't be distributed, a much finer-grained filtering process would allow works to spread based on their merit alone.
We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before.
And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been. None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. For three centuries, the publishing industry has been working very hard to obscure copyright's true origins, and to promote the myth that it was invented by writers and artists.
Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help.
The reward for these efforts can be seen in the public's reaction to the file-sharing lawsuits. To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands.
The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them.
And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful.
Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England.
There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery.
The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: The introduction of copyright did not change this situation.
Prohibiting people from freely sharing information serves no one's interests but the publishers'. Although the industry would like us to believe that prohibiting sharing is somehow related to enabling artists to make a living, their claim does not stand up to even mild scrutiny.
For the vast majority of artists, copyright brings no economic benefits. Not coincidentally, these stars are who the industry always holds up as examples of the benefits of copyright.
But to treat this small group as representative would be to confuse marketing with reality. Most artists' lives look nothing like theirs, and never will, under the current spoils system.
That is why the stereotype of the impoverished artist remains alive and well after three hundred years. The publishing industry's campaign to preserve copyright is waged out of pure self-interest, but it forces on us a clear choice.
The first copyright law was a censorship law. It was not about protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce new works. Authors' rights were in little danger in sixteenth-century England, and the recent arrival of the printing press the world's first copying machine was if anything energizing to writers.
So energizing, in fact, that the English government grew concerned about too many works being produced, not too few.The $1, handset, which was released just a year ago, 'may experience touch issues due to a component failure' Apple says.
It comes just weeks after Apple admitted it could start throttling the handsets if their batteries degrade. Mar 02, · Beijing is pushing past its digital borders to influence and control what people say online, as it enjoys growing sway in the technology world. Government control of the internet would allow the government to determine what content users may access.
Any blocking or prohibiting of accessing sites is arguably censorship. Also, since the internet is not a government entity nor essential to the core function of the government, the government has not right to take control of the internet. How countries like China and Russia are able to control the internet.
It makes censorship, surveillance, and internet shutdowns much more difficult. It makes the internet ecosystem more. The FCC’s repeal of net neutrality officially kicked in on June tranceformingnlp.com Internet as we know it won’t end overnight.
But with each second that passes until net neutrality is restored, it will be slowly dying as Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast raise prices, prioritize data, and eliminate competition.
People are angry. The EPA’s decision conflicts with a March report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that found that glyphosate “probably” contributes to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans and classified it as a ‘Group 2A’ carcinogen.