Free Justin Bieber!

[7ronin]

I would be surprised if Bieber even knew that this was going on. It is probably his greedy parents, managers and lawyers running on autopilot.

 

[amadeus]

Bieber hit the nail on the head with Klobuchar, though. Of course, he should have extended his comments to nearly everyone else in Congress too.

 

[Arwon]

You mean with this: http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/jus...internet-she-should-be-put-away-in-cuffs.html ?

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

A friend of mine posted this on facebook. Honestly I assumed this story was brought about due to some wacky state senator in California or wherever trying to pass a bill that would send Justin Beiber to prison because the state senator guy did not enjoy his music.

 

[NickyJ]

Justin Bieber + prison= best thing for the world.

We have a winner!

 

[Winner]

We have a winner!

Someone mentioned my name?

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

Someone mentioned my name?

Spoiler :

Link to video.

WHY WOULD YOU EVER POST THAT WHEN YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO POST THIS


Link to video.

 

[holy king]

it's nice he's for free, but since i really wouldnt know what to do with a justin bieber i think i will pass on this.

 

[innonimatu]

In somewhat unrelated cases, there has been bars, clubs and restaurants sued for playing popular songs without a license.

You think this is an act of prohibiting political speech?

It's a desperate act, the whole "intellectual property" thing.

You think the internet sole function is to be only a online music store, video rental service, and other forms of entertainment?

I thing that many people would like that, but it cannot be done. All these copyright extension laws are unenforceable. Now they're trying what all politicians try when faced with the failure of their laws: terrorizing people into obeying by increasing the punishment and making an example of a handful of random people caught under the new laws.

The problem with this is that it backfires, hard: a law is nonenforceable if it prohibits something which the vast majority of people want to do, and there are not enough police officers and snitches to scare people into compliance. And electronic surveillance cannot replace humans for that, because it's not intimidating enough. People will break these draconian laws even knowing that their ISPs keep logs and their online activities are traceable, logs cannot inspire fear like a Stasi agent...
Thus the present strategy of making an example of some few random schmucks. But making an example of people for the application of draconian laws which the majority of the population breaks routinely... well, that makes a very bad impression. It's the kind of spectacle which easily causes a popular backlash and further undermines any respect for public authorities. It encourages rebellion, instead of quelling it. It's as dumb as, say, bringing back public executions of tax-evaders in the belief that everyone would then be scared into scrupulously paying their taxes!