| Author | Message | ||
     Phelan |
Anyone else hear about this? A lot of information in this forum here: http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t= 35798 http://dontcensorthenet.com/learn-more | ||
| Froggy |
Here is a good read from Tom's Hardware regarding it http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-hardware-sop a-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.h tml | ||
| Bluzm2 |
Sounds like the House delayed SOPA but the Senate version PIPA is still alive. We still need to let our reps know how stupid and BAD both of the proposals are. Here's an thread from Slash dot on the issue. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/16/1457237/hou se-kills-sopa | ||
| Froggy |
Funny thing, the "I Have a Dream" speech by Martin Luther King isn't public domain, so the video that Blake posted in another thread would indeed be a copyright violation under SOPA/PIPA and would be enough to have this site blacklisted. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/gr eat-martin-luther-king-copyright-conundrum/47460/ (Message edited by froggy on January 16, 2012) | ||
| Midknyte |
Blacklisted. Oh the irony. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
considering it is a WORLD wide web,... how does this do anything from all the piracy that is already occuring overseas ?..... smells of propoganda and access control | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Because it will only control the Inter-net, not the Outer-net.  | ||
| Xl1200r |
Everytime I read this bill, it seems clear to target only foreign websites which specialize in pirated content. I don't understand all of the hype... | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Here is a thought, Blake just can't post it directly, but he could post the link to get to the page where that info is.... the correct info, and the only place where that info should be.... not 100 cazillion other places where it may/could be altered.  Plus, if the MLK foundation then decided to charge people .05 cents to get to the site,... and those funds paid for some college educations,.. that would be good. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Copyright law is a mess (on both sides)... Let me rant a little here... When you steal my cow, you deprived me of property. You stole it. If I sell my cow, I don't have it anymore, it's your cow now. Its a clear, simple and obvious God given and physics based right. Copyright and patent law were created out of whole cloth to solve a specific problem. From a "physics" standpoint, content creators have one of two choices. They can truly own and control something they created... by not sharing it. If they want to share or sell it, then they can't control it. You can't put an idea in a box if you want to share it. That's the cold hard truth. The problem with this cold hard truth was that it precluded artists and idea creators from being compensated for their talent and their work. From the physics standpoint, that's just tough luck, sorry you were gifted in an area that is hard to monetize, but thank you for your art. It was thought (probably accurately, but maybe not) that if we as a society offered some completely fabricated protections for ideas that simplified monitization, that as a result of this we would get more ideas and creative works. So we created things like patent law and copyright law, that let idea creators have their cake and eat it too... they can share the idea, but limit how that idea can be used. But we granted them this right for a limited time and only for the purposes of getting more content created... that was the public good. We seem to have lost that understanding. Now we have Disney claiming 100 year rights to literary works. We have movie studios producing content, and companies like Netflix ready to widely distribute it, but the studios won't give it over to them because they want more control, but haven't offered a streaming service that is affordable or adopted by consumers (like Netflix). We should be yanking these rights (or threatening to yank them) every time an artist or studio is demonstrating a long term failure to meet the original goal of copyright law, which is wider accessibility and consumability. Piracy has moved in to fill the vacuum created... and while it's illegal, it mainly thrives where the social contract of the original law is failing to be met by copyright owners. That's not to say piracy isn't breaking the law (it is). But it's not quite accurate to call it theft either, as absent arbitrary restrictions that allow an idea creator to have their cake and eat it too, they couldn't monetize their ideas in the first place. It's simply not accurate to say piracy has deprived an artist of money that they would have otherwise gotten, as most consumers of pirated data only take it because it is free... were they forced to pay for it, they would look to something else. So it's a mess, with no clear answer, and the result is (as usual) bad legislation layered on top of other bad legislation... more duck tape in a futile attempt to try and keep water out of the basement. | ||
| Froggy |
It doesn't do much to stop piracy, it makes it criminal to link to sites that may or may not contain unauthorized copyrighted material. For example, The Pirate Bay is a site you can download pretty much anything you want from, but they don't host the content, they just link you to it. Your girlfriend made a video of her singing a Katy Perry song on Youtube, and you linked to it here? Both sites could easily be blacklisted in the US for that. Another problem is that if this bill passes, it will start a precedent that other countries will start adopting similar vague and overly powerful laws.
No, it will directly control the entire internet.
It will affect both domestic and foreign websites, and given the RIAA/MPAAs past with being overzealous it will result in them having an easy kill button on ANY website that has anything remotely infringing. Sites that rely on user content, like blogs, Facebook, Reddit, Wikipedia, Badweb, would be forced to take a nanny-like censorship role in order to prevent the content from ever hitting their sites, despite them not being sites involved with piracy. This law is a mess, it is the equivalent to closing a highway because someone used it to deliver drugs, rather than dealing with the drug problem directly.
That would be great, except to the best of my knowledge (I didn't look hard) it doesn't appear to be any place on the MLK memorial site that has the video. Here is a good video that helps explain what they are trying to do, and how it will ultimately end up: http://vimeo.com/31100268 (Oh, I just linked to Viemo, if someone at the RIAA/MPAA finds something of there that may be copyright infringing, Badweb would be in trouble now too) | ||
| Xl1200r |
Reep, I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of Copyright and Patent law. If the intent was merely more accessibility, then why have those laws at all? If I'm a musician and am expected to be protected by these laws, I'd be a little chaffed if someone got a hold of a pre-release of my new album, started handing it out to free to who knows how many people and even ended up on some radio stations. I'd rather they bought it on iTunes instead. Same goes for a photographer - what's the point of copyright laws if the intent is to let everyone have it? That would be the same as if there were no copyright laws. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
This law is a mess, it is the equivalent to closing a highway because someone used it to deliver drugs, rather than dealing with the drug problem directly. If a criminal who is in pursuit by the police drives up on a freeway they usually close it off until the perps are caught. (or control it as best they can) The internet is a mess too. Isn't it? With these laws, some people will just have to re-learn how to use it, the new kids will have no problems. I am not worried at all.... As long as I can still play Battlefield 3,... and... I could care less if I am not allowed to voice or text chat while playing. | ||
| Reepicheep |
XL1200R... Think about it from a patent perspective rather than a music perspective. I think of how to build a new widget. It's an idea, I came up with it. I take it through the patent process. For the next 25 years, even though somebody else somewhere who never heard of me or my solution comes with a similar solution, and tries to use it, they can't. This isn't a law of nature or physics... its a fabricated abstraction. The laws of nature or physics say that if you don't want somebody else to use an idea, then don't ever share it, and pray they don't think of it on their own. That's the extent of natural law. Anything above and beyond that is a fabricated (but perhaps noble, and probably doomed) aspiration. Life, liberty, time, and property is something I either have or I don't, and that I can generally buy, rent or sell. The ability to force you to not use an idea that you either learned from me or came up with on your own is... a different thing. And a dubious and chilling concept from the start... so where, when, and how we try to do it ought to be REALLY limited and done with specific and measurable societal benefits. You can look at the text and reasoning for some of the "fair use rights" to get a taste of this.... (from wikipedia, much more there) It's a philosophical discussion for sure... but my position is that copyright is a luxury that should be provided to content controllers in exchange for net benefits to society as a whole... and the degree to which they benefit from those laws should be proportional to the societal benefit ends. Otherwise, they can't have their cake (control their idea) and eat it too (share that idea). A place where this shows up is in digital rights management over electronic content. I paid $1 for rights to play a song. But they gave it to me encrypted on a locked down platform. I played it a few times, and now the owner of that platform no longer supports the infrastructure necessary for me to play it. My device breaks, and suddenly, my ability to play that song (which I paid for) ends. It couldn't be clearer that they stole from me. It falls into the same category of a landlord making you sign a contract that says you can't sue them for their neglegance. The landlord can require that, but the courts will ignore it... as landlords aren't allowed to do that. The fact that a big corporation buried thousands of terms and conditions that carved something out should be the same. It wasn't an "indeterminate time bound license to play the song", I bought the song. Same as when they start putting arbitrary restrictions on how I can play it (like I can't play it when I am not at home, or something else silly). And while I am ranting, I'll opine that this is why Apple is being *so* freaking successful with their closed platform. They do a great job of saying "F-U" to content producers everywhere, at the same time they say "F-U" to consumers everywhere, but reached a balance that is ultimately pretty fair to both. For the moment anyway... Netflix is probably in a similar category... though not as much of a 900 lb gorilla as Apple... and clearly not as well run. (Disclaimer... I bought a stack of Netflix stock when it bottomed out after their "split the streaming" debacle... I still own the stock. I bought it because I thought the market over reacted... not because I didn't think Netflix was being stupid. This post is not intended to influence the market.  ) | ||
| Xl1200r |
Reep - you are ignoring that there is money involved in all of this. In your example, party B would simply need to buy the rights from party A. End of story. Patent laws need to exist to protect ideas and those who come up with them. Take any product you've ever used - the price you paid for it includes a lot of things, including a percentage to cover the R&D which was needed to develop that product. If there were no patent laws, Joe Schmoe would be able to build exact duplicates of that product and charge less because there's no R&D he's paying for. Let's go back to music - the price of a song or album has to cover a lot of things - obviously record companies can be big machines and there are lots of salaries to pay, but also production costs, royalties to the artists, etc. It's why a CD costs $15. Without copyright laws, nothing is to stop anyone from buying one copy of that CD for $15, bypassing all of the expenses it took to make that album, and sell it for $3. A blank CD costs, what, 1 cent? I understand where you're coming from with the locked down content... not sure it's as bad as you say, though. I don't buy much music with things like Pandora and AOL radio out there, but the AAC format I have from iTunes purchases sounds better to my ears, so I don't feel like I'm losing. You're also free to burn that music to a CD is plain-old audio format, so you don't lose it. | ||
| Thumper74 |
This, like many things (laws) smells of incrementialism. We give them an inch, they take a mile. It's for our safety of course. I'll be calling... | ||
| Froggy |
Except thats not how its going to work. The highway will be closed off to the public, but the drug dealers will still be on it doing their thing, and you can't get to work now.
You don't seem to have a grasp of how this will affect your usage.
Oh the old I don't care as long as doesn't affect me. "I don't need a gun, make them illegal" "I'm not gay, lets make being gay illegal" "I've never driven a car, lets make cars illegal". This will effect you, you just aren't aware how yet. There is nothing to stop the BF3 servers from being affected by this. Also, you aren't using the chat features? You wouldn't make it into any half decent clan, teamwork elements are what makes BF3 better than that rehashed COD crap. These bills aren't going to stop piracy, all they will do is force censorship. Under current laws, if there is copyright infringing material on a website, you file a DMCA takedown request, and the host takes the video/picture/file off. It isn't perfect due to jurisdictions and other legal complications, but it works. Even though it isn't as powerful as SOPA/PIPA, it is already heavily abused ( https://www.eff.org/takedowns ) Under SOPA/PIPA, entire domains will be censored rather than focusing on removing problematic content. The entertainment industry will abuse it like they have with DCMA and other legal outlets they have at their disposal. I have also have been reading talk how this will affect new startups. Expensive legal counsel will be needed for compliance, and spend time and money on software to censor content. It quite frankly is stupid to add more regulation to one of the few growing sectors in the US. Last thing we need in this economy is to push businesses offshore. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Legislate it, criminalize it control it and..... The Chinese will still play by any rules they want , and billy the 7 yo is now a criminal for downloading and sharing Video Killed the Radio Star on his Facebook Page. Yes Komrade - we control all the information, and it will only be distributed through approved sources, by valid licenses, to approved entities, ... and of course for our protection, all of your downloads / shares will be catalogued, monitored, reported, tallied, and taxed. (control the information, the entertainment, you control the sheep - the other 10% are easily rounded up and exterminated) Uncle Joe would be proud. Bulgakov is churning in his grave somewhere Welcome to the new MassoLit. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I didn't need the internet before it was here and I wouldn't cry if it disappeared. People will have to learn how NOT to steal since they have become so complacent with it, Or just refresh themselves on what stealing really means. | ||
| Froggy |
Thats great for you, but for some like me, my livelihood depends on it.
You don't seem to understand this has nothing to do with stealing. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
How is copyright infringement not stealing? | ||
| Froggy |
The same way that a video of your friends playing Guitar Hero isn't stealing. | ||
| 86129squids |
Interesting piece of news today... http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145319211/in-protest -of-anti-piracy-bill-wikipedia-to-go-dark | ||
| Phelan |
Put it this way. If you record your kid doing something funny, post it on YouTube, and the TV in the background has a show on, the owner of that show can have YouTube blocked, sue them, and you for unauthorized use of their show. Sound fair? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
WOW... unprecidented?? Really?? Blackout? Save the jobs and the money,.. the speech is free, you can still talk you just can't text. If I had any friends that played guitar hero... well.. they probably wouldn't be my friends anymore. I will say that there is there is an argument for every argument. I thought the music in Guitar Hero was crap music... I mean ...not the original, just licenced music? | ||
| Reepicheep |
XL, I'm not disputing that it's expensive to create and distribute content. And personally, I try and avoid piracy wherever I can. You are interpreting what I am saying as me being one of those "everything ought to be free" yahoos. I'm not one of them. What I am saying is that the whole idea of "I am going to create something, then share it with you, but only on specific terms that not only apply to you, but apply to people not at all party to our transaction" is a completely fabricated set of laws, enacted for a specific societal good. That specific societal good is the goal of better access and wider distribution for more people... because with these arbitrary intellectual property laws, people are freeer to safely distribute their content, and incentivised to create more content. I am of the position that it's a pretty fair deal, when both sides are being upheld. But when studios start using copyright law to prevent me from media shifting to the player of my choice, or to try and drive the streaming media provider of my choice out of business so they can gouge me later, or forcing me to buy "bundles" in order to get channels, then it may be time to revisit their special protections. Or for that matter, in a ubiquitous digital age, maybe its time to revisit them completely. When the original book copyright laws were written, it was what, 25 years before something became public domain? Now, maybe the monitization cycle should be cut down to 10 years... technology has made it more efficient then ever. So in summary, I'm not saying copyright law is wrong... I'm saying that it is a kludge, and if its not meeting its original goals, it ought to be re-kludged. And I don't think draconion clobbering of privacy and liberty are an appropriate part of what is ultimately a kludge... throwing out freedom to protect copyright is tossing out the baby with the bathwater. But like I say, I buy nearly all my content, and if I think something is too expensive, i live without it. | ||
| Phelan |
Also, as mentioned on Ron Paul's page linked above, is that most pirating sites will still be available via IP address, rather than domain name, and that some people have browsers installed that run off IPs instead of domain names, so for people intent on pirating, it still won't stop them. It'll be like saying its illegal to drive off-road around a road block, set one up, yet leave the grass unattended. Those intent on breaking the law flat don't care. For the most part only the innocent are affected. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Reep, I was misinterpreting. I agree with your last post. Copyrights last substantially longer than 25 years. They remain private for the life of the author plus 70 years in the U.S. (there are other exceptions but not many). This was expanded from 50 years after death in the late 90's. As a person to creates creative material, I'd rather not see the term length be shortened. (Message edited by xl1200r on January 17, 2012) | ||
| Hootowl |
"is that most pirating sites will still be available via IP address" All piracy sites will be available by IP address. As is the rest of the Internet. DNS is just a phone book. If you know the number, you can go there. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Is it that difficult to identify an IP address and/or trace it? If it is that difficult, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done does it? Or even attempted? Maybe the next generation of internet users will not take it for granted and will appreciate others works the way they were intended to be appreciated. The Internet is going to rehab. |
