200 odd?
When you think about the number of kids on Facebook, the number is amazingly low - what does that work out at as a percentage?
129 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Sep 2009
ISPs must be livid that people are being given more and more compelling reasons to sign up because of Google. Dammit, life was simpler and happier before that outerweb came along.
Perhaps the author of this article might be better writing for luddites_unregistered.co.uk instead?
"because ISPs can and do take some action to block child pornography"
ISPs provide a fig-leaf for government failures to take action internationally to have child pornography sites taken offline. It is entirely simple to get around these blocks, if one is sick enough to want to. It doesn't work, but nobody cares because its function is public relations, not to be effective.
Blocking would not work (and is seldom suggested) for copyright because it would be as ineffective for copyright as it is for child pornography. The difference is that nobody has any business or political interest in imposing entirely useless technology to protect copyright.
Because Google hasn't been able to overturn decades of entrenched "communist" censorship, you decide to have a sarcastic go at them because they are trying to stop Australia going in the same direction? Is that the best that you can do, when a western country is introducing the most widescale censorship mechanism ever introduced in a country that claims to be a democracy?? Really? Come on!
Under existing copyright legislation, this would be a device for unauthorised copying of the text. As the European Publishers' representative said in the European Parliament yesterday... "some books are meant to be audio books and others are not" - hence the need to get people to pay again for books they have already been paid for, if they use a device to read the book out loud.
The European Commission is proposing mandatory blocking across the EU (not reported in El Reg yet, for some reason). This proposal is in the draft Framework Decision on child exploitation.
A study on the legal and technical aspects of blocking was published recently (not reported in El Reg yet, for some reason)
http://www.aconite.com/blocking/study
"Are you saying that internet comments are not in fact a gibbon food-fight? It's verifiable fact."
Whether or not the analogy is correct and verifiable is one thing... that internet comments are actual, real conflicts involving members of that particular species and that these conflicts concern foot items... I think not.