Don’t ask if it’s proper or right or whatever — it’s a done deal and now we (his parents) have to deal with the fact he is not an active participant of the Internet.
Since I’m using Google Apps, we got him a managed account in one of my domains. This will allow us to recover the account quickly if he ever gets his devices or his credentials compromised. This account qualifies as a full google account, which is both a plus and a minus. But mostly a plus.
A more immediate problem is how to get his device loaded with content. Since I’m in the US I get access to a lot of content for what is a very low price. He’s in Mexico and access to legal content is still very costly. I would very much like for him not to have to look for stuff on the torrents or cyberlockers.
I’ll figure something out. In the meantime, I’ve already hit a snag trying to get him access to music. I’ll just have to ignore the age requirement for a while…
Illegal File-Sharing Chips Away At North Korean Propaganda | TorrentFreak.
I’d like to see the equivalent of RIAA and the MPAA in South Korea go after North Korea for the widespread piracy of music, movies and TV shows.
Better yet, let’s have the the UN or the WTO enforce copyright and patent law. That’s all they seem to be good for these days.
This song was written, recorded, and mixed in the US.
The video for it was written, recorded, and published in the US.
Yet EMI Music does not want users in the US to see it.
This is how you end up with 8 billion dollar iPods.
I keep reading about entities in favor of SOPA/PIPA as “copyright proponents” when they are nothing of the sort. Once upon a time the term described entities — people, companies, governments, organizations — that valued a balance between the copyright and the public domains. That is if the term ever really did describe such an entity.
The term cannot be used to properly describe entities in favor of these laws. I think a more apt term to describe them would be “copyright extremists”, in that they will not brook any dissenting opinion on intellectual property law; they refuse to discuss anything else other than their views; they exclude agencies that might seek a more balanced conversation of law.
Their strong-arm tactics and insistent double-speak share more in common with entities that are globally recognized as intolerant of discussion like dictatorial governments, political parties, or religious organizations.
Copyright proponents want a world where creators have control of their works to benefit themselves and their families. To ensure this benefit balances against the need of future generations to benefit themselves. A world where this balance enriches all people in it.
Copyright extremists want nothing more than to benefit themselves for as long as they can, then to disallow the world to benefit itself. They would make themselves judge, jury and executioner regarding issues of intellectual property law, and tremble those who might disagree.
Half a century after the Summer of Love, itself the peak of a decade of revolutionary change, we are now again in the midst of changes brought about by the rise of the Internet. Copyright extremists themselves have obtained gain from this although they grudgingly admit it. People from all walks of life cherish and welcome these changes even if they sometimes are hard to comprehend.
The current revolution will continue regardless of the efforts spent by extremist entities of any class to stop it. This not only goes for intellectual property, but for all aspects of life itself.